HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-18-2002 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
July 18, 2002
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:03 p.m., Thursday, July
18, 2002, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Colclough, Shepard, Beard, Cheek,
William and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hon. Kuhlke, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also Present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena Bonner,
Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by the Rev. Sam Davis.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
The Clerk: Rev. Davis, on behalf of the Augusta Commission, we would like to
thank you for coming in today to invoke the spirit of God upon our session today and we
honor you as Chaplain of the Day. Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, under recognitions.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. As a matter of business, Mr. Kuhlke will not be attending
today’s meeting.
RECOGNITION:
Congratulations! to Commissioner Lee Beard for his election to the Georgia
Municipal Association’s Board of Directors and as third Vice-President of GMA
District Seven.
The Clerk: We would like to offer congratulations to Commissioner Lee Beard
for his election to the Georgia Municipal Association Board of Directors and as well as
the Third Vice President of the Georgia Municipal Association District Seven.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Delegations.
The Clerk:
DELEGATION:
Friends of the Augusta Library
1
Ms. Martha Bertrand, President
RE: Budget request for ARC Libraries
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Bertrand? There you are. Come up to the podium, please, and
speak into the microphone so we can all hear you. Welcome to the chamber.
Ms. Bertrand: Thank you very much. As she said, my name is Martha Bertrand,
and I am the president of the Friends of the Augusta Library, and I and a good number of
other Friends are here this afternoon to talk about library funding. I’ve given your Clerk
a letter which contains a chart that shows comparisons per capita spending for libraries in
several Georgia counties, and I believe you have just received a copy of that. This chart
shows that per capita spending on libraries in Richmond County is well below that of
comparably-sized counties such as Chatham, Muscogee and Bibb. Moreover, we are
appropriating less per capita than many smaller counties such as Grady, Floyd, Screven,
Jenkins. Libraries in these counties reflect a commitment by county government to
ensuring that their citizens benefit from a lifetime learning opportunity which good
libraries offer. Our sister cities of Macon, Savannah and Columbus, in addition to regular
per capita spending that far exceeds Richmond County, all allocated several hundred
thousand dollars every year specifically earmarked for books and materials. Richmond
County not only spends a paltry $8.72 per capita, but no additional funds are allocated for
books and materials. So what does this mean to the citizens of Richmond County? It
means they can count on getting the information -- they cannot count on getting the
information they need or find the books they want to read because the books on the
shelves are either old and out of date or the library has not been able to purchase enough
copies of a popular book to meet the demand of a city the size of Augusta. As a matter of
fact, a large percentage of the books on the shelves of our libraries are so out of date they
should be pulled and put in the recycle bin. Out of date books give bad, out of date
information, sometimes dangerous information. This is particularly true in the case of
books with medical or health subjects. Let’s talk about the children for a moment. The
shelves in our children’s sections are filled with dingy, worn books. The children in
Richmond County need to be encouraged to read. Reading habits start very early.
People and children who start to read and look at books at an early age become early
readers. Early readers become lifetime learners, and lifetime learners become lifetime
achievers. Kids, like adults, like all of us, very generally judge a book by its cover.
There are all too few books on the shelves of our Richmond County libraries that are
going to entice a young, reluctant reader to pick up a book and read. And I’m not just
talking about recreational reading, as important as that is. Our libraries are ill equipped
to assist kids who need a little extra help with their schoolwork. A mother recently came
into the main library on Greene Street and said that her 12-year-old daughter was having
trouble with fractions. Now I think some of us can identify with that. The definitive
book designed to help kids having math problems was checked out of the library. They
only have one copy of that book at the main library. So the librarian called around to the
other four branches and each of them have one copy of that book and each of those books
were checked out. That mother went away from the library empty handed. Now maybe
she had the $35 or so to go out and purchase that book. I would think that likely she did
not, and that she needed that money for something else. This happens all too often in our
2
libraries. Children of lower and moderate income families are not able to get the help
that they need, the supplemental help that they need for their schoolwork from our
libraries, and they fall farther and farther behind in school, and that is a tragedy. Finally,
Augusta’s ability to attract new businesses is hampered by the state of our libraries. A
week or so ago, a man came into the Maxwell Branch library down on Lumpkin Road
and he said he was from out of town and he was thinking about starting a new business in
south Augusta. But before he made up his mind about doing that, he wanted to get some
information about the area. Specifically, he wanted the Augusta Business Directory.
Unfortunately, Maxwell Branch’s copy of that directory is a 1994 edition. He spent a
little while there, he came up to the librarian and he said I’m sorry, the information
you’ve given me is just too old to be of any help to me. So the librarian gave him
directions and sent him off to Main, where maybe there was some more up-to-date
information. Now I don’t know if he ever got to the Main library. For all I know, he
went driving on across the bridge to South Carolina, up to Columbia, up to their excellent
library, found out about businesses in that area, and now we have a new business going
up in South Carolina instead of south Augusta. And a postscript for those of you who
may think books and libraries are a thing of the past: during the past ten years, along
with growth and use of the internet, the number of books published in the United States
increased. There are three times as many books being published today as were published
ten years ago. Not only that, the number of books sold has gone up by a quarter of a
billion copies in the last seven years. Books are not things of the past. You can’t curl up
at night with a good computer. The state of Richmond County libraries is really -- I’m
sorry -- a disgrace and an embarrassment, and that’s not really the fault of the staff. We
have a real good staff. I put them up against any staff in this country. And the library
administration. But they can’t do the job they want to do and that the citizens of Augusta
want them to do if they can barely pay the light bill. This is an issue that unites all
Augustans. We all need libraries. Augusta cannot hope to become a first class city with a
library system of a third world nation. I urge you to take immediate steps to remedy this
situation. I also understand that Sheila Allen from the Board of Trustees is here and
would like to say a little something. Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: While Ms. Allen is preparing to speak, I think there are a number of
people here in support of this. Could we just get you to raise your hand so we can get a
count and put in the record of this, that you’re here in support of the library? Got them in
the hall, too, Mr. Wall. If you’ll go ahead while he finishes the count. Thank you.
Ms. Allen: Good afternoon again. I come before you as a trustee on the Board of
Directors of the Library, and I’m not going to go into the statistics because Martha has
already given them to you. But what I will do is just give you a quick walk through the
life of a person living in the city of Augusta. I come before you as an educator. I’m a
former adult literacy administrator for the Richmond County School System and Augusta
Tech and am currently teaching adult literacy. Many of our students come to us with
poor educational background, needed to beef those skills up so that they can go to work
in business and industry. I also work with business and industry in setting up workplace
3
literacy programs, getting them to have their employees go back to school. One of the
resources we use in this community is the public library, and I will say to you that many
of the resources that Martha mentioned are very, very out of date and antiquated. To
send an individual to a public library to study for the GED, they may find exactly one
copy of a GED manual in each library in this city. There is a huge demand for the use of
those materials. But they can’t be provided because funding is not available. Me, as a
private citizen, I love to go to the library to get material to read at night. I’m a voracious
reader. But I can’t find some of the things that I like to read in the library because they’re
not available. I am asking you to consider this: we are the second-largest metropolitan
area in the state of Georgia. We provide exactly this many dollars to acquiring material
for our library. Do you think that’s wonderful, fair, or even just to the citizens we
represent? Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We have some Commissioners who would like to speak,
and I’ll give them the floor in just a moment. But let me say thank you very much for
coming today and bringing your message directly to us. We are in the process now of
putting together our budget for next year and I trust this is one issue that will be given
some consideration, serious consideration, and I appreciate you supplying us with these
numbers showing Augusta Richmond County in relation to other counties and cities in
Georgia because truly our ranking on this list is shocking for a community as progressive
as we want to be here. And certainly as far as the Mayor is concerned, we’ll take a
serious look at this as we go through the budget deliberations. Mr. Shepard and then Mr.
Cheek.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ve served on the Library Board as the
Commission’s liaison for I think all of the tenure of my Commission status. And I
wanted to say that I think one frustration that we encountered early on, and the Attorney
can correct me if I’m wrong, is that the SPLOST cannot be used for books and materials
under current statutory law. And I think one of the glaring reforms that needs to be made
in the State SLPOST process is that we be able to purchase books and other media for the
library through the SPLOST process. And what this all comes down to is a funding
source. One funding source that the public allows this body has historically been the
SPLOST. We were able to pass the SPLOST when we were not able to pass the general
obligation bond a few ago, because the leadership of the community was solidly behind
SPLOST. And I lapse into acronyms, and I apologize to you for that. That’s the Special
Purpose Local Option Sales Tax. I think if the appropriate Legislative amendment could
be passed through the Legislature to allow us to include within the menu of the Special
Purpose Local Option Sales Tax books and media for our library, you would see that we
would have additional revenues that we could bring to bear critically to the material
situation. So I would encourage you to encourage our candidates for the Legislature to
take a position on amending the SPLOST in favor of us being able to use some of
SPLOST material not only for building and vehicles, but for media and particular books
which we have not historically had the opportunity to do. I also would ask that you
encourage our partners at the Board of Education to get with us and fund some of the
4
library and also we’ve learned about, I think at the Board level and at a recent meeting
that some of the Commissioners and I attended this past week at the National
Organization of Counties, some funding that might be available through the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation, which is specifically directed at libraries. So we are always
hunting for a funding source up here. There are competing funding sources and
competing needs, all of which are good and one of which is the library, and I just want to
pledge to you that I’ll continue to work in behalf of finding that difficult solution to a
funding problem, and I would here again ask you to support an amendment, support those
who would support an amendment to the current SPLOST structure. Thanks.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Cheek: I don’t believe there is very much I can add to what Commissioner
Shepard has said in that your requests and concerns have not fallen on deaf ears. As you
will well remember, not over a year ago we had a very difficult battle to become partners
with the library in the construction of the new Diamond Lakes Community Center
Library project. At a time when you have highlighted once again that we cannot afford
books for our shelves, we had to fight against forces that wanted to build a smaller library
with higher operating costs. I’m happy to tell you this Commission decided that we will
build joint facilities which makes us partners forever that will cost less to operate
collectively and less to build collectively. We don’t currently have budgeted money right
now for the library, but we’re working in that direction. As we try to get a better grip on
the operating efficiencies within this government and making it more streamlined,
making it more cost effective to operate, more money will be coming to these services,
one of which is the library, that provide an invaluable service to the people. A resource
that we must have, to build the strength not only of our children but to provide leisure
space for our adults, resources that they don’t normally have. We will continue to work
in that direction. Commissioner Shepard did hit on something that I think is really a
tragedy in this city, is that we have universities within this city, we have Fort Gordon,
Savannah River, many other resources that could be brought to bear as partners to bring
more books and more media, more computers, and more materials into our libraries for
access from our public. The only thing that is missing is the will to bring all of those
bodies together to make it happen. And speaking for this Commissioner, and I’m sure for
several others up here, we will be working to make that partnership grow, the one we
have formed now with the library, to where one day we will have the best library system
in the state and in the southeast, not one that has done more with less for so long and
they’re only able to keep their head above water. And thank God for the staff we have,
cause they’ve done a tremendous job. But we’re working in that direction and your
requests have not fallen on deaf ears.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, let me say this. I think it’s good that we deal
with the physical plants, our libraries in terms of improvements of buildings and building
a new library and doing those things. However, that does us no good if the facilities are
there and their containment of materials and reference items are not there. We basically
5
solve half of the problem. My colleague, though several of us are speaking, made
mention of us being at the National Association of Counties and he was very -- and I say
this to the Friends of the Library -- the representative from the City who represents the
Board was very studious in making sure that that was the first session that he was going
to attend while we were there in terms of trying to search for other funds to do it. But I
also applaud you in coming. But I think there is something else you need to do. You are
here today, but don’t give us on the fact that what may not be there in funding as we
speak -- we’re coming into a new budget year. That old saying, the squeaky wheel gets
the oil -- and I think it’s a good timing piece to be here now, but also to be back later.
We’ve got a lot of things to discuss in a budget and I’ve been one of those that have
hammered on, and Steve as our Finance Chairman in terms of wanting to do this early
this year, and of being able to get those things which are necessities. We’ve got to deal
with libraries. We’ve got the components of health care that falls on local government.
Those things which are essential. At the same time, while I look at the contribution
which totals a zero and also being confined in a capacity that while yes, we are the
second-largest metro area, but also, we also have the smallest and lowest tax base of any
metro county in the state of Georgia. While most of the major counties are somewhere
st
ranked between one and 15, we rank in triple figures probably 120 or 121. So therefore,
as Commissioner Shepard has alluded to, we have to deal with out of a special packaging
of money. What I would also encourage in terms of not only lobbying us early, coming
back, staying on the case, lobbying us, but also in terms of looking at not only just an
amendment to sales tax, but we consolidated supposedly for a reason, and that was to be
able to do things more efficiently. One of the things that I think we’re going to have to
do in dealing with sales tax is we have to take advantage of the law while it’s only three
counties in Georgia. We stand a much better chance, and we endorsed that proposal from
this group, I was one of those that helped to push it, in terms of sending it to our local
delegation that we must deal with special amendments to sales tax which affect
consolidated governments only. It’s not but three, and in the Legislature, when you’ve
got 159 counties that it doesn’t have to affect folk from the other 156, it’s a lot easier to
politic to get them to support something that they are not going to have to face when they
get back home. That’s the reality of politics. That will give us an opportunity to be able
to put that on the agenda of dealing with those funds that we can then use out of the
capacity. So I urge you not only to continue to lobby us, and what we may be able to
deal with with existing monies as we come into hopefully early this fall, gentlemen, of
dealing with the budget session, but of also what we need to do, and it may take even two
years to get this passed in the Legislature, but we’ve got to seriously start somewhere and
it has to deal with consolidated governments. It’s much easier to get it passed for three.
We may possibly even take on two, but at the most there will only be a handful of
consolidated governments in Georgia, probably for the next three or four years at best.
I’d much rather spend that time lobbying three or four than we would 159. So on a two-
fold effect, I think it can help us with what we can do here. But don’t give up the
argument and the fight with us. Come back and see us. Be present during those hearings.
Be vigilant. Call. Write the letter. Let this be your first time but not your last time,
because there is so much that has to be done in that lobbying process, and while nobody
wants to deal with even addressing the fact that what we’re going to deal with, with
property taxes, it’s going to have to be done, it’s going to have to come within the
6
flexibility in the long run of what we can deal with with that sales tax as it relates to
consolidated governments and I think in the short run we may have to try and do some
special things to help the library, even in this coming budget year. But stay with us and
also stay on us. And I thank you for coming.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Anything further? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, not much more I can say other than
Commissioner Mays, but I do want to say that those things did come up about doing
some things for, with our SPLOST money. We had an agenda we sent to the State to
change some things. None of those things got addressed. None of those things came
back to us. We did have a list that we sit down and talk about here as Commissioners.
We did forward that to our lady in Atlanta to talk to our representative to try and change
some of those things that we can use that monies for. But again, Commissioner Mays has
said it. You need to now just stay on us as Commissioners, you need to be present, you
need to be aware of what’s going on. Budget season is a rough time. We get down to the
wire. But you need to be at the wire when we get there as well. And I particularly want
to encourage you to not give up here but just keep the fight.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Anything further? Thank y’all very much for coming.
It’s real important that you were here today and we hear you loud and clear. Thank you.
Y’all are certainly welcome to stay for the remainder of the meeting if you’d like to, or
we’ll give you a moment to slip out. As we do this, the Chair will recognize Mr. Tommy
Boyles for the purpose of an introduction.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. Today it’s again a privilege for
me to have a guest sitting behind me. This is Mr. Nate Benedict. Nate is a teacher at
Monte Sano Elementary School. He teaches the fourth grade. He wanted to sit in on
two Commission meetings. He sat in on the committee meetings we had two weeks ago,
a week ago. And he’s studying as a specialist in educational leadership at Augusta State
University. So we’re glad to have him here and we’re glad that all of you turned out to
see him today.
(Laughter)
Mr. Boyles: Some of you may know his father if you’ve been to Augusta State
University, Dr. Jim Benedict who teaches math up there, and some of us had some
courses under him. But would you please welcome, if you don’t mind, Mr. Nate
Benedict.
(A round of applause is given.)
7
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Boyles. Madame Clerk, we have a number of people
here with respect to item number 47. So if we could move forward with that, we can
dispense with that and then allow them to depart the Chamber.
The Clerk:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION:
47. Consider appeals request of the Greek Orthodox Church of the Holy Trinity
regarding the Historical Preservation denial of their request for a Certificate of
Appropriateness relative to the re-roofing of their Church located on the corner of
th
10 and Telfair Street.
Mr. Mayor: Is someone here from the HPC? Mr. Pittman? Or Mr. Patty? Are
you involved in this? Can you tell us what’s going on? And then we’ll hear from the
Church.
Mr. Patty: I think the Church member can tell you better than I can, but in a
nutshell the Church is doing some renovations. They’ve had some problems with the
roofing system and the cupolas that are being restored and their request to the Historic
Preservation Commission was to replace the cupolas with cupolas of similar material.
They’ve got slate roof that’s -- I don’t know the age but it’s been on there a long time and
it’s damaged, it’s leaking, it’s causing failure within the building, plaster failure and other
problems. The slate roof cannot be repaired. It would have to replaced. Their request to
the Commission was to replace it with an architectural shingle roof and there is a
precedent for that on other churches, although it pre-dates the Historic Preservation
Ordinance. And their request was to be able to do and they cited economic reasons,
maintenance reasons, and that request was denied.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Was there a reason given for denying it, Mr. Patty? A
specific reason?
Mr. Patty: There are no guidelines in effect for the downtown area, but there are
historic guidelines being written right now under a grant we have. And the other historic
guidelines that I think the Historic Preservation -- this in general -- feel that, you know,
this type restoration needs to be made with the original material. And that was the basis
of disapproval.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you, Mr. Patty. Mr. Ballas, you’re here
representing the Church?
Mr. Ballas: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Give us your name and address for the record and then please go
ahead.
8
Mr. Ballas: Thank you. My name is Charles Nicholas Ballas. I do represent our
Church. I was past president and I’ve also been on the construction for our Church. We
find it very difficult to understand why the Historic Society is turning us down. The
Lutheran Church, which is on the 800 block, had a roof on it that was put on with
architectural shingles, the same ones that we want to use, and they’ve done a beautiful
job on it, they’ve enhanced that church, and we feel that the architectural shingles will
also enhance our Church. We’ve had nothing but problems with the slate roof. We’ve
had to replace the cupolas on both sides and I’m very proud of them. They were put up
yesterday and they really look beautiful. And on a black background they are going to be
magnificent. And we honestly want the Commission to please allow us to put the
architectural shingles up because they’re going to do our Church a whole lot of good.
And we’re just a small community. We are only 150 people. We make a lot of noise
because we’re small, but we do like to be heard, and we do want to keep these up for our
Church. We’re also putting in a handicapped ramp and we’ve got landscaping going on
in front of our Church. We’re not doing anything to detract or to make anybody say, gee,
look at this place sitting in the middle of a Historical Society. And another thing is with
the slate roof that we have on there now, nobody wants to work on it. There are only two
people in this town, from what I understand, that actually will get up on a slate roof and
work on it. For us to replace it in the form of a slate roof, the dollars are much more than
we can afford to do. But what we’re looking for more than anything else is to beautify it,
and this architectural shingle that we’ve had chosen for us will do that for us. And I hope
the Commission here will vote in our favor and that’s all I can say, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Ballas, let me ask you a question. Is there a difference in cost,
and would that difference in cost, is that in your construction budget?
Mr. Ballas: There is a tremendous amount of difference in cost. There is a big
amount. This slate roof has been up here for approximately 35 years. And prior to that,
if my memory serves me correctly, they [inaudible] Historical Society, it had a tin roof on
it. Now I know we don’t want to put a tin roof on our church, it’s too beautiful. We tried
the slate roof and it hasn’t worked out very well for us. So hopefully this new, this new
architectural shingle that they have will really enhance the beauty of our church.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners have any questions? Comments? What’s your
pleasure? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I guess two questions. One is there is precedent, it sounded like from
what you said, for using the architectural shingles on other churches of similar or older
ages in the city?
Mr. Ballas: The Lutheran Church just recently had architectural shingles put on
their church.
Mr. Cheek: And I know you’re interested in maintaining the aesthetics and
keeping it as beautiful as possible.
9
Mr. Ballas: Absolutely.
Mr. Cheek: And myself, I’d much rather see a functioning church rather than a
building that is in need of a repair of a costly roof and the cost has driven everybody to
another location. What do we need in the form of a motion to allow this to occur?
Mr. Mayor: Do we need to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness?
Mr. Wall: Right.
Mr. Mayor: We need a motion to grant the Certificate of Appropriateness.
Mr. Cheek: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion on the motion? All in favor of that
motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Ballas: Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Ballas: And this year, because you’re doing this for us, we may give you an
extra special Greek Festival.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Y’all are certain welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting if you’d
like to, too. While they’re leaving the Chamber, let me take a moment to make an
introduction. I see our new Acting President of the Metro Augusta Chamber of
Commerce is with us today as a visitor. Mr. Presnell, we’d like to congratulate you on
your appointment and welcome to you to the Commission meeting today. Thank you for
joining us.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just a quick comment. I truly believe with all my heart you are the
right man in the right place at the right time. Take us forward.
(A round of applause is given.)
10
Mr. Mayor: We have a number of people here also for item number 46, so
Madame Clerk, if we could move forward to that, please.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY:
46. Consider award Ambulance Contract for 2003 to Rural Metro Ambulance
Service. (No recommendation from Public Safety Committee July 8, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, are you going to speak to this?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, you have before
you this evening two proposals for ambulance service beginning January of 2003. A
Technical Services Committee was appointed by a subcommittee of the Public Safety
Committee to study our ambulance situation. Their mission was to contract for
ambulance service, based on specific performance-based standards for transporting
patients and for providing patient care during transport. During this process, after we
structured and put on the street an RFP, there were about 20 ambulance services that were
interested. However, only two responded to the invitation for proposals. The Committee
reviewed written and oral presentations, and the Committee consisted of staff and
members of the emergency medical community. The RFP itself was based on a model
that was constructed of Augusta dispatching ambulances and providing for a minimum of
six ambulance trucks within the Augusta area. The proposers were asked to at least meet
the minimum, but they were free to develop their own proposals based on the fact that
they would meet those performance-based standards. So we were looking for compliance
with respect to responses within specific areas of Augusta. We were looking for the
quality of personnel that would be staffing 24 hours bases, those particular ambulance
companies, as well as other patient care standards that were laid out in the RFP. After the
Technical Committee reviewed the two proposals, both the written and the oral, it was
their opinion unanimously and unquestionably, that Rural Metro should be the one that
the Commission awards the ambulance service contract to. And therefore, that
recommendation is made. Staff is available, and we will answer all questions that the
Commission may have.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. George, one of the questions I had in
regards to the RFP: my understanding is that the RFP stated that after the initial bid we
would come back for a final bad, after the bids were opened, that we’d come back for a
final bid and see what that would be. And did we bypass that? Did I misread the RFP?
Mr. Kolb: I think you might have misread the RFP. What we did is we reviewed
proposals, and based on qualifications and their comparison, we made a selection. At
that point, sealed bids which contained the actual dollar amount of the bids were opened.
Now there may be some provisions in a contract that a minor that would have non-
monetary impact on the service that is provided, based on what model is finally selected,
11
but other than that, there would be no rebidding or renegotiation of price of anything of
that nature.
Mr. Bridges: And you’re saying that wasn’t in the RFP?
Mr. Kolb: Is Ms. Sams or Mr. Wasson here?
Mr. Bridges: Geri, do you know what I may be alluding to? I mean I don’t have
a copy of the RFP but I thought I saw that in there that after the initial bid, that we would
get an opportunity for a final -- like a final offer.
Ms. Sams: On page 6, is that what you’re referencing, Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: I don’t remember, Geri. I don’t have a copy of it and I read it at one
point.
Ms. Sams: Okay, on page 6 of the proposal, may I read it?
Mr. Bridges: Sure.
Ms. Sams: Discussions with the officer and technical revision of the proposal
may occur. Discussion may be conducted with the responsible officer who submit
proposal for the proposed clarification and to be assured full understanding of and
conformance to solicitation requirements. Officer shall be accorded fair and equal
treatment with respect to any opportunity for discussion and revision of proposals and
such revisions may be permitted after submission and before award for obtaining the best
and final offers. In conclusion, in conducting discussion that shall be no disclosure
information derived from proposals submitted by competing officers.
Mr. Bridges: I’m not sure if that was it or not. But go ahead to the other
questions, Mr. Mayor. I may be the only one stuck on that.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As Public Safety Chairman, this same
question as Commissioner Bridges came up in Public Safety, and we had the document
brought forward so we can look at it. And it is on page 6 where the final offer is
supposed to be brought back. George, I think I asked that question then, but my question
now is when will that be done if we award a bid to anybody now? When will that be
done if we had not be done already?
Mr. Kolb: Well, as far as -- I’m not sure that that provision is in there and it’s
being interpreted correctly. We have the final proposals, subject to negotiating a
contract, which the contracts will come back to you at a later date.
12
Mr. Williams: Okay. Well, maybe I need to address something else. Let me, is
someone from Gold Cross here? Let me, let me, let me ask a couple of questions from
them cause from what I got a copy of the proposal, the RFP, specifically looking at page
6, I was under the impression that that was what we would do, the offer would come
back. And my question, the reason the question came up was because of the amount
different in the services. It was a great difference in the service. Who is here from Gold
Cross? Mr. Snider? If you will --
Mr. Mayor: Sir, if you’ll come forward and give us your name and address for
the record, and then Mr. Williams may proceed.
Mr. Snider: Tom Snider, 3835 Evans-to-Locks Road. I’m with Gold Cross EMS
and Mr. Williams, to answer your question, the item that we looked at was Item H on
page 6 of the RFP, which is final negotiations and letting the contract. The Committee
will write the technical proposals, open, consider pricing proposals submitted by each
offer and request final and best offer from the top ranked three firms if available.
Mr. Williams: And that’s what I saw in the proposal as well, the top ranking
three. And we only have two. And we keep talking about a process of doing things right,
so the two final, the two top contenders here. Did you bid? How was your bid
structured, Mr. Snider? I mean, what I’m getting at, why the difference in the two and
what I proposed was that the amount was so great and I need to know why was the
amount so great?
Mr. Snider: If I could -- would it be appropriate to pass out a handout?
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Mr. Snider: When we had a pre-bid conference with -- I’m not sure of the date
but I think it was four companies represented. Various questions were asked, and one
question was asked about dispatching, and would the vendor be required to provide
dispatching. And at the time I think the answer was they felt like the county would do
the 911 dispatching, but that never was clear. And so when we figured our bid, the part
of our bid was $432,000, we put in there for dispatching because reading the bid
document and the comments that we had, we were unsure as to how the county wanted
that bid. We bid top of the line, $432,000 for dispatching. Since that time, and in the
[inaudible] presentations I was told the county definitely was going to do their own 911
dispatching, with the 911 Center, and basically if that’s the case, what we have done or
what we were willing to do is go back out the $432,000 for dispatching, which would
change that cost to $768,000 annually.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Kolb, can I finish?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, let Mr. Williams finish.
13
Mr. Williams: Okay, Mr. Snider, so if your bid was backed out $432,000 and that
means that your bid is more competitive then because of the dispatch; is that right?
Mr. Snider: Yes, sir. That’s where -- the county was paying $36,000 a month for
dispatching, I believe January, February and March. And that’s where we took the figure
and ran that out 12 months and that’s where the $432,000 came from. If that’s not a
requirement of the bid, then backing that out of our original bid.
Mr. Williams: Okay. And my next question is, Mr. Snider, what other offers did
you have in your contract, and I don’t have either one of the contracts here in front of me
right now. I’m just looking at this you just passed out. But what, what, what was the
other offers that you had in? I’m looking at the additional loan of two ambulances to go
to south Augusta. Was that in your proposal? Was that something you come up today or
was that in your proposal in the beginning?
Mr. Snider: No, sir, that was in our proposal that we would loan two fully-
equipped ambulances to the Augusta Fire Department to use in south Augusta. At one
time in the past I think we talked about maybe putting those vehicles, maybe one in
McBean, one in Blythe, that could be manned by the firemen. So that was in our
proposal and still in our proposal.
Mr. Williams: I think what I’m trying to get at, we got police protection and fire
protection in that area. We would never be able to provide good ambulance service in
Augusta, the inner city, then in the outer city. There is no way we can do that unless we
do it with the fire service and using those designated stations out there. And people in
south Augusta, I mean if you’ve got a heart attack, if you got a victim, somebody you
need, if it ain’t but once a year, that time is just as critical if you need it 20 times in the
inner city. But also on this sheet that you just passed out was the use of the -- is that three
helicopters? Was that in your proposal as well?
Mr. Snider: Yes, sir. We have three helicopters. We have two manned
helicopters and one backup helicopter.
Mr. Mayor: Are they all here in Augusta?
Mr. Snider: Yes, sir. We have one stationed on top of the Medical College of
Georgia Children’s Center, one stationed at Doctors Hospital. And those helicopters
have been available for two years. They’ve never been used in Richmond County. But
we certainly would like for them to be used in the outlying areas such as Blythe, McBean,
below Hephzibah. They can make the difference between life and death.
Mr. Williams: One other question, Mr. Snider, is that as Public Safety Chairman
and as a Commissioner, I’m very, very much interested in trying to work something
where our own Fire Department would handle ambulance service. What if your company
got this bid and we needed to go to the Fire Department to do these services?
14
Mr. Snider: What we have proposed and I’ll just give you my feelings, and of
course the feelings of Gold Cross EMS. I spent 25 years at the University Hospital
Ambulance Service. And that’s basically a public type ambulance service, as you know,
at the hospital. I firmly believe that the Augusta Fire Department is the agency that needs
to handle ambulance service in Richmond County in order to provide the best care and
the shortest response times. Now we are willing to work with the Fire Department. If we
receive this bid and three months from now the Commission so wishes that the Fire
Department start into the ambulance service, every time an ambulance is put on to the fire
service, we would reduce our bid by the amount for that service. So if the County wanted
to take it over within 12 months, we would work with them and back out of that contract,
or a year-and-a-half or whatever. But I firmly believe that’s the way to go to provide the
best emergency care for all the citizens.
Mr. Williams: Was there a mention or was there in that process, Mr. Snider,
we’re talking about a bond situation?
Mr. Snider: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Are your company willing to put up a bond for ambulance
service? We got a situation here with our garbage situation and that bond really stepped
in and helped us out a great deal. And if any services -- are you willing to do that as
well?
Mr. Snider: Yes, sir. We have a letter in our bid from our -- I’m not sure if it’s a
Sheriff’s agent or the bonding company stating that we qualify and we are eligible to get
that bond and be more than happy to make that available from day one.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I want to make a motion here but maybe some other
Commissioner have something they want to say. I see Commissioner Colclough’s hand
up.
Mr. Mayor: There are some people who would like to speak and the Chair has
some questions. And I think we ought to hear from Rural Metro, too, in all fairness, to
respond to these same issues. Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I am aware of or I
became aware that Gold Cross had alleged that they had $450,000 in their bid for
ambulance services because they were not aware that Augusta was going to do the
dispatching. However, in reading their proposal, on page 4 of their proposal they talk
specifically about providing dispatching services for ambulances and they inquire or they
talk about in their proposal that if Augusta wanted them to provide dispatching that they
would do it at no additional cost to Augusta. Now that is clearly in their proposal. So
I’m just curious as to where the $450,000 is coming from. However, even if we took into
consideration the $450,000 that they would take away from their bid, when we’re
comparing apples and apples in terms of six ambulances as compared to eight
15
ambulances, the cost that Rural Metro is offering is still cheaper for those types of
ambulances than Gold Cross. $680,000 as compared to $745,000 for the six ambulances.
$760,000 for eight ambulances as compared to $1.14 million for Gold Cross. In addition,
I wanted to remind the Commission that the helicopter service is available to any
ambulance service that needs it in the area that is qualified, and certainly Rural Metro is
qualified and they have used the helicopter service in the past. However, there is a policy
that is established by the Medical College that the helicopter service would not be used in
normal circumstances within a 15-mile radius of the hospital. Now that 15 miles
encompasses the majority of Augusta. The last point I’d like to make is I would not
recommend that Augusta government do its own transporting. It is very, very costly.
We’d have to hire additional personnel, and the liability issues, the equipment that we’d
have to beef it up with would make it very cost ineffective. And let me also mention that
cities in this country are getting away from the government providing ambulance
services. They’re going more and more to private ambulances because of that very issue,
that it is too costly to provide that service. And Augusta would certainly be no exception.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Kolb just brought up another question. I’d like to ask
someone from Rural Metro to come because he just brought up an issue that I’d like to
get an answer to.
Mr. Mayor: Who is representing Rural Metro today? All right, if you’ll come up
and give us your name and address for the record.
Mr. Doss: Ernie Doss, 2717 Double Branches Road, Lincolnton, Georgia.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Doss, the Administration brought up an issue just now and as
Public Safety Chairman I was not on this committee and I only heard in Committee what
all the rest of the Commission heard. But I know last year when we extended this
contract, can you tell my why last year that Rural Metro wanted a million dollars for the
extension plus $36,000 or whatever the amount was for the dispatch? Why is that so
much cheaper now than it was then? I mean are things going the other way? Are they
going backwards? I always thought the increase came in.
Mr. Doss: The City at that time had a different standard than was in the RFP, so
the pricing is totally based on the standards, the requirements that are based in the RFP.
What the City is looking for as far as response time performance. And what we believe,
the resources that are necessary to make those particular response times.
Mr. Williams: Well, I wasn’t in those negotiations, like I said, but can you tell me
what’s been taken out, what’s the difference, we you are not providing now that we were
asking for before? What? Will you not have as many ambulance? Will you not have a
time frame? Tell me what was taken out to give you -- I mean for the extension was a
16
million dollars plus $36,000 for dispatch. So I’m, I hear what you said but what, what
was taken out?
Mr. Doss: Commissioner, it would be almost impossible. I do not remember the
standards that we were looking at at that time and how we were preparing our pro formas
to meet those standards.
Mr. Williams: I understand you may not give me details, but there ought to be at
least three things you can mention that we won’t be, you know, that we’re not requiring
now. I mean that was a lot of money, you know, a big difference.
Mr. Doss: I’m sorry, one of the things that is different in this RFP that is different
from the models, the other models, is you changed the response time standards. There
are -- the City has a different set of response time standards. The City now is a single
[inaudible] zone today. January 1 the City is looking at changing to three different
response time zones. Each of those response time zones has their own different response
time. When we looked at a model of how to do that, and how best we can get that, we
were looking at those standards. We’re also looking at how much more of our non-911
resource we could commit to these resources to help the City reduce its subsidy.
Additionally, our work force has done a tremendous job of capturing demographic
information to allow us to have better collections. That also has -- our ability to collect
more from users helps us reduce the amount of subsidy that the City has to pay to provide
those services. Cause it is a user-based service.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, if I can help clarify.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Kolb, let me finish.
Mr. Mayor: He’s trying to clarify something. Let him do that, Mr. Williams, and
then we’ll come back to you.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Kolb: You asked about the million dollars. I was going to try to explain that
to you.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Kolb: Originally it was $600,000 for ambulance services for a year. Plus the
dispatching, which was about $38,000 per month. That totaled up to a million dollars.
The Commission approved the Augusta 911 Center taking over the dispatching function,
and at that point, March 1 I believe is when it happened, or April 1, the $38,000 was
taken away. So that is what brought the cost down to $600,000 annually.
Mr. Williams: But the extension, what I was speaking of, when we met several
times and I was on that committee with several Commissioners and the extension for an
17
extended period of time -- I don’t remember the time frame, Commissioner Mays or
somebody else may.
Mr. Kolb: One year.
Mr. Williams: For one year. But that one year was a million dollars.
Mr. Kolb: That’s correct. It was.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Plus.
Mr. Kolb: No.
Mr. Williams: Is that --
Mr. Kolb: No. It was $600,00 plus the cost of dispatching, which put it above a
million dollars a year.
Mr. Williams: So the $600,000 plus the $38,000? And the $38,000 was backed
out after 911 was doing that at the Center? Is that what you’re saying?
Mr. Kolb: That is correct.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I have a question for Mr. Snider. Mr. Snider, during the bid
process, during the negotiation process, was it not clear that who would do the
dispatching? EMS dispatching?
Mr. Snider: No, sir, it was not clear to us in the pre-bid conference. It was stated
that they felt like that Augusta would do the 911 dispatching, but it was not definite and
clear to us. When I read through the bid document, there were some items in there about
putting -- that we would do -- that Augusta would do 911, then the vendor would do the
emergency seven digit, and so it was not clear, and therefore we put in our document that
we would do the dispatching for the $432,000 and going back to the fact we would have a
final and best offer opportunity if Augusta said, which they did in the old presentations,
that they would do the dispatching, then that’s what we backed out.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Colclough: Hold on, I’m not finished. Mr. Kolb, you mentioned that
Medical College had a policy that helicopters will not be used within a 15-mile radius, so
we are going to sit here and follow a policy when someone is in Blythe, Georgia or
Hephzibah, Georgia, is suffering a heart attack or an aneurysm and follow policy that if
18
the helicopter can get that person to the hospital quicker than an ambulance, we will not
use the helicopter?
Mr. Kolb: Commissioner Colclough, what I said is that under normal
circumstances. You have to understand --
Mr. Colclough: No, wait, wait, wait. I’m asking a question. I’m not saying
normal or abnormal. I’m saying if we have a citizen out in Blythe, Georgia or
Hephzibah, Georgia who suffers a heart attack or an aneurysm and can get that person to
the hospital in time to save that person’s life, we’re going to follow a policy and send an
ambulance?
Mr. Kolb: It would be at the discretion of the ambulance on the scene. They
make the decision at that point in time.
Mr. Colclough: Excuse me.
Mr. Kolb: What I said under normal circumstance that probably would not be
necessary. By the time you warm up the helicopter, get people to fly it, get to the scene,
get back to the hospital, you can have driven the 15 miles both in terms of response, as
well as in terms in getting back to the hospital.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Snider, do your people -- do your folks have people on
standby?
Mr. Snider: Could I address that?
Mr. Colclough: Just answer.
Mr. Snider: Yes, sir, we have, we have a pilot and a physician and a medic or
nurse on duty 24 hours, 7 days a week.
Mr. Colclough: 24/7?
Mr. Snider: Yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: So that means that you can get a helicopter from here to
Hephzibah in what length of time on a call?
Mr. Snider: Normally what we would do if a call came in of a heart attack say in
Blythe, as the ambulance went enroute to Blythe, the nurse and physician and pilot would
be notified. They would go to the aircraft. Once they were told they were needed, they
would crank the aircraft, which would be a five minute warm-up time, and the flight to
Blythe would be six minutes. So in 11 minutes they would be on the scene.
19
Mr. Colclough: It takes more than 15 minutes to get from my house to University
Hospital when I was having an emergency, by ambulance. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Snider, do I understand, though, that you have never
sent the helicopter to retrieve anybody with a heart attack or hangnail or anything in
Richmond County; is that not correct?
Mr. Snider: That was correct.
Mr. Mayor: You made that statement; you’ve never been dispatched for a call in
Richmond County?
th
Mr. Snider: July 4 was the first call we were dispatched to, as Dyess Parkway,
and I believe Powell Road. But the two years we’ve been in service, we have never had a
request for the helicopter anywhere in Richmond County but we do fly to Emanuel
County, Jefferson County, McDuffie and the other surrounding counties.
Mr. Mayor: Let me ask you a couple of questions. With respect to the cost of
dispatch, was that the cost that you factored, that you say you factored into your
proposal? Because you’ve said that you based your number you’ve just given us today
on what we’re spending for dispatch.
Mr. Snider: Right. What you were paying -- the $36,000.
Mr. Mayor: Well, what was the number that you used when you prepared your
original proposal then?
Mr. Snider: That was the number that we used. That was in our $1.19 million --
right at $2 million.
Mr. Mayor: $1.94.
Mr. Snider: Right.
Mr. Mayor: But Mr. Kolb says that your bid document says that that would be an
add-on to what you submitted for your proposal. Is that not correct, Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Well, if I could read it. It will answer a lot of questions. This is Gold
Cross’ proposal that was submitted in response to the bid. Located on page 4. It is the
understanding of Gold Cross EMS that the Augusta 911 Center and its employees will
continue to dispatch all 911 ambulance requests. Gold Cross EMS currently operates a
dispatch center located in Augusta at 1109 Medical Center Drive; this site currently
dispatches our ambulances in Richmond County, Columbia, South Carolina. Current
staffing has one call taker and one primary system status control. We also operate from
the Columbia County 911 Center. This is the primary dedicated dispatch site for all
Columbia County, Georgia ambulances. As an option, Gold Cross EMS would prefer to
20
use our Medical Center Drive location as the primary dispatch point for all 911 EMS
calls in Richmond County, Georgia. And then it goes on to talk about with the optional
request that they be the primary dispatcher, this service would be provided at no
additional cost to Augusta.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: All right. It -- now -- just a minute, Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams has
complained in this Chamber and in committee on a number of occasions about response
time with Rural Metro. Yet Rural Metro scored higher than Gold Cross in the ratings for
response time. Mr. Williams, you’ve also complained about customer service. I think
Mr. Mays has had some comments over time about that, too. Customer service on the
part of Rural Metro. Yet Gold Cross scored the lowest on customer service in the rating
for their proposal. When you look at the proposal review, Rural Metro scored higher in
seven out of the eight categories. And when you look at the rating sheet, Rural Metro
scored 10 out of 13. Gold Cross had 2. And there was a tie for 1. And then when you
look at the dollar value that’s applied to the contract that’s submitted, Rural Metro is
cheaper. It’s cheaper, even when Mr. Snider comes in and discounts it today, Rural
Metro is still cheaper. So it’s obvious from looking at the data we have in front of us
here today that Rural Metro is the best bid and it is the most cost effective bid.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Again, I don’t know who did the grading.
I say again as Public Safety Chairman I was not included on any of those conversations
or any of those gradings. I didn’t even find out anything until we came to Committee
with it. But when we did our Finance, our Finance Chairman was in on our Finance
[inaudible] and the process and I think every other department. That’s not either here or
there. What you said earlier about the ambulance not being used, I’d rather have one and
not need one than the need one and don’t have one. I mean I hope it’s never used. I hope
the ambulance sit there and the wings for a long -- I mean the helicopter sit and the wings
fall off before we use it. But if you need one, it ought to be there. Mr. Kolb mentioned
about the dispatch area. They can go to South Africa and dispatch them as long as they
get there when they supposed to get there. Where they are located at don’t mean a hill of
beans to me. I’m trying to get the best service for the people in south Richmond County
now. West Richmond County, the inner city ain’t got no problems cause we’re relatively
close to the hospitals. But when you look at those people on the other side of Tobacco
Road out there, those people going be in trouble when, when, when a emergency arrive,
and anytime in emergency it always seems to be worse than it is. And when it takes you
11 minutes, it going to see like 22 on ordinary. All I’m looking at is what’s going to be
better for the City of Augusta and for the citizens of Richmond County. We’ve got
police that patrol that area. They ride up and down those streets. We got fire stations
that’s located on corners of those residences and we talking about building more. We
need to provide the same type service when it comes to ambulance. Now you may not
21
need a ambulance out there ever again. But if you need one, it ought to be sitting
somewhere where he can get to you or I if we need that. And that, that’s what I’m
proposing here now. As Public Safety Chairman I say again I think -- well, in fact I
know. I’m going to make a motion, if I can get a second, that we award this contract to
Gold Cross for the ambulance service for Augusta Richmond County in the year 2003 in
January 1.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Colclough: I’ll second.
Mr. Mayor: There is a second. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First, Jim, I’d like to get back to this
wording. It does look like it could be construed as a matter of being able to make two
offers. I understand now it actually comes from our ordinance, and I think directly from
our ordinance, and I think we need to change the wording if that’s the case. But can you
tell us what this phrase here means in regards to request final and best offers from the top
three ranked firms if available? And I’d still like the floor afterwards, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Wall: The language that has been quoted to us comes directly from the
Augusta Richmond County Code. And the process has been where we seek RFP’s, those
bids would come in, they would be evaluated, and the prices would be evaluated. In the
event that the pricing was above the budget amount or beyond what, the lowest price,
then at that point the opportunity is there to negotiate with the top three firms to try to get
something that can be accepted so that you don’t have to go back out and rebid the
process. That’s the intent of this provision. Obviously they are construing the language
differently, but that was not the intent and it comes directly from the Purchasing Code
and it was not, it was never the intent that we would open the pricing and then start
negotiating with the top three and see who we could battle down to the lowest price.
Mr. Bridges: And that’s been our practice in the past when we’ve utilized this?
Mr. Wall: Correct. Correct.
Mr. Bridges:
Okay. Once again, I think we probably need to work on some
wording there, and I’m serious about it, I think we need to move along with it. Mr.
Mayor, also I note that when Gold Cross brings the $432,000 off for the dispatch, they
are still $8,000 above Rural Metro as far as low bid, so Rural Metro is still the low bid in
that regard. I don’t think at this point, given the I guess confusion over the wording that
we can go out again and do this all over again because they know each other’s bid now.
And if we’ve given Gold Cross the opportunity to lower their bid by $432,000, based on
this language as it was construed, then we need to do the same for Rural Metro, which
they have not done that, they don’t need to do that, they’re low bid anyway. In regards to
22
some of the other issues that have been raised, particularly in regards to the helicopter, as
I understand the 15 mile limit from the hospital, McBean and Blythe and probably
Hephzibah, too, would still be outside of that limit, so there would be no problem with
the 15 mile limit. I think the 15 mile limit is 14 miles is somewhere around where
Highway 88 comes into Highway 25, so I think that wouldn’t be a problem. And also I
talked with Mr. Snider some about the helicopter, and it’s not -- after talking with Tom,
it’s not a big concern with me. The helicopter is not that big of an issue with me. If
you’ve got to warm it up for five minutes, you’ve got your flight time, and then you’ve
got to find a place to land, you’ve got to transport the person to the location that the
helicopter can land in the field, you’ve got the wires and trees and those types of things to
be concerned about, plus my understanding is in an ambulance you’ve got more
equipment and you’re able to work on the person on the way back to the hospital,
whereas with the helicopter that, that’s not necessarily something that you can do. I’ve
had, you know, conversations with some of the employees at Rural Metro. I know at one
time a couple of years ago there was a low morale there. The morale seems to be much
better. Some of the employees tell me they’re concerned if they lose this contract that
they’ll have to go to work for Gold Cross at less pay. I’m hearing $2 -- I’m hearing $10
compared to around $8. And you know, I certainly can understand their concern there.
But we did have a committee to look at this, we had them analyze it, we had them take
the bids, do the interviews. Even with the changes for Gold Cross, Rural Metro is still
the low bid. And I think we’ve got to have somebody to serve this county. I think we’ve
got to take care of it. I think we’ve got to have an ambulance service to do and I agree
that it should be private. I’m concerned about any taking over by the government of
ambulance service. I’m concerned about the liability and what we might be involved
I willmake the motion that we avoid the
with there. So Mr. Mayor, given those things,
-- award the bid per the Committee’s recommendation to Rural Metro.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I’ll second that for discussion.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Listen, I chair this committee. How about holding it down? We can
take a substitute motion, and Mr. Bridges made one. Is there a second?
Mr. Boyles: I’ll second that for the purposes of discussion.
Mr. Mayor: All right. There is a second to that motion.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, clarification, please, sir?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, first of all, we paying our Fire Department, our fire
service men to get EMS training and to be able to do. We running fire trucks and police
23
cars and ambulance now as first responders. That’s something I think that this
government need to look forward to doing even more of. We having people to come on
now, they got to pass those training in order to be assistant. Had it not been for our Fire
Department, had it not been for what we got now, regardless of the criticism that’s been
floating around this town, had it not been for those people doing the job that they do now,
we have a lot of people out there that, that’s in pain and hurt. But because they are doing
a good job and because we [inaudible] to them, that’s something that we really need to
look at. Commissioner Bridges talked about the price difference. When you factor in,
and I hope we never need the helicopter and not that it would go out and do the things
that ambulance can do, that’s transportation, that’s bringing forth, back and forth, that’s
not doing the actual service work. But to get somebody back here is what we need to do.
When we look at the two ambulance that Gold Cross is proposing to put in south Augusta
to be manned just in case and three helicopters, I think we really getting more than what
we pay for here. Now if you just going to look at just the basic, then yeah, I agree. Price
is price. But when you look at the two ambulance that they talking about putting in south
Augusta and fully equipped in case -- we may not need it ever in life. Hopefully we
don’t. But they’ll bee there. Plus the three helicopters. How in the world can we say
that that’s a cheaper price? Now I may not know much, but I can figure that much. And
I don’t understand how we can sit here and not see that. The last point, Mr. Mayor.
Rural Metro, if I’m not mistaken, we had some problems and I hope they get those
problems worked out. But we had some problems a year or so ago where we had them
on probation, did we not? Jim, help me out, cause everybody else done got quiet here.
Can [inaudible]? That’s all right, Jim. I, I, I --
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: Well, that’s the same thing. I understand that. That’s all I got,
Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard and then Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, we really get going on this. The first think I wanted to
know, and I think we just heard a ruling from our Attorney on this, and I think the
interpretation has been given there. At first I was kind of and am still possibly, but prior
to the motions on the floor, I was willing to kind of go along with looking at this again,
because it has been quite confusing here this afternoon with all of the different things that
we have come up with and the support that each of these businesses have had. I think the
point would be now if we’re going to vote on this as it’s listed here and if we are going to
vote that way, I think it’s going to be hard for anybody to sit here with that much
difference in price to go with, with Gold Cross. I mean I’m for one, it would be
impossible for me to vote that way today, with Gold Cross. I think they have excellent
services and I think they will provide excellent services. If we are going to look at the
back-out and that has not been brought forth, are we going to allow them to back out the
services that they’ve suggested that they could back out? That has not been cleared. And
that need to be cleared in the motions that have been on the floor. I think the other thing
that we could possibly look into is the contractual services. In this I mean when we do
24
the contract, when Jim write up the contract there with them, I think that we have to have
certain stipulations in there wherein some of us are doubting that they, the respond time is
where it should be, and there are other things that are suspect in this, from what I’m
hearing on the floor. I think that would have to be inclusive in all of this if, if, if we’re
going to go with Rural Metro here. I think it’s necessary that we incorporate all of this
into that. But it does put us in a predicament here with the things that have been alleged
today, and really I personally feel that we need to take another look at that. But since
both motions, and not to that effect, then we would have to deal with what we have here.
But I think there is a lot of flaws in what we have here today and we are going to have to
kind of get those into the contract, provided Rural Metro is awarded this today.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, my [inaudible], if I can --
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard has the floor.
Mr. Williams: I, I, I --
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Williams. I know you’re Public Safety Chairman
and I’m sure you’ll get to speak again. Mr. Snider, Mr. Doss, did you folks receive from
us as the City something like an invitation to bid or solicitation for bids? Did you receive
some contact that we were interested in a new ambulance provider?
Mr. Snider: Yes.
Mr. Doss: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: Okay, you did? So do we call it an invitation to bid or do you
remember what we called it? Whatever, it doesn’t matter. Well, tell me, did we not state
in there, George or Geri or Jim or whoever from the City, what the facts were that we
were interested in? I mean, you know, for example, the population that was going to be
served, the requested response times, and in particular who was going to provide the
dispatching? I mean you read what came from Gold Cross’ response, George, but what
was our representation to the bidders? Do y’all have that handy?
Mr. Kolb: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: Can we have that for the record, please? I mean didn’t we say who
was going to provide the dispatching? Or did we not?
Mr. Kolb: Not only did we say in the written document, but we also had a pre-
bidders conference before the bids were taken. And the question was specifically asked,
and Jim can read the question and the answer, that made it very clear that we were going
to do the dispatching, that that was in the model that was in the RFP. And while I’m
talking, also in the RFP, in terms of Commissioner Beard’s point about holding
25
accountability for performance, we have included and it will be included in the final
contract penalties for violation of response times. Going to various, on various runs. So
there are penalties built in because we are asking them to enter into a performance-based
contract.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, if I could.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: I think President Reagan said trust, but verify when we were talking
about nuclear weapons. I think lawyers say trust, but show me the documents. So I again
renew my request. What did the document say? Either hand it to me or read it into the
record, one or the other. What did we show them in writing, Mr. Administrator, Mr.
Lawyer?
Mr. Wall: All right. There was a -- following the release of the RFP, there were
questions and answers from the pre-bid conference that was held on April 19, 2002. And
this was faxed to a number of companies, including Rural Metro and Gold Cross EMS.
And there were two questions that addressed the issue. Question No. 14 is who will be
dispatching 911 ambulances, Augusta 911 or the provider? And then B, is the intention
of Augusta that the provider function as a secondary public safety answer [inaudible]; if
so, are there any system hardware, software equipment requirements? The answer is or
was given: it is the intent of the Augusta Richmond County Commission at this time that
Augusta dispatch ambulances. Issues regarding secondary [inaudible] will be addressed
under a separate issue. Then subsequently there was a second question under the
additional questions. Question No. 1: who will dispatch? Answer, assume 911, Augusta
911.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: Excuse me. Jim, I hear the question but what were our
representations? I mean I, I, I differ, I distinguish between the question and a statement
of our fact. I mean [inaudible] get it.
Mr. Wall: The answer was Assume Augusta 911.
Mr. Shepard: That’s assuming. For planning. Thank you.
Mr. Kolb: If I could also read from the RFP itself. Control center operations.
The Augusta 911 Center is the primary 911 Public Safety answering point for Richmond
County. Established in 1999 by an act of the Augusta Richmond County Commission
provides police, fire, and EMS dispatching services. Augusta 911 is responsible for all
911 emergency medical dispatch call taking functions and the dispatch of all ambulance
providers and all first response agencies.
26
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Anybody? Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles and then Mr. Mays.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Irregardless of either company,
irregardless of either company, I thought I heard a while ago someone make a statement
that our standards have been lowered in this contract compared to what they were in the
year 2002? Did I hear that from someone?
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Boyles: In this meeting. A few moments ago. Someone mentioned that our
total standards, and I think that was because one bid was low was because the standards
have been lowered and that’s what concerns me. Are we lowering our standards?
Irregardless of either company. I’m not talking companies. I’m talking emergency
standards now.
Mr. Wall: Well, I heard the question and I heard the answer that was given and I
think it did convey that impression. I think it does need some clarification because that
was not the intent of the committee. Prior to this RFP, you have one county-wide
standard. There were no performance criteria. There was no penalty if the ambulance
company did not meet that standard.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Wall, for my mind, would you just explain standard to me?
Mr. Wall: Response time. Hw long it took from the time the call came in to the
911 Center until --
Mr. Boyles: Measurable standard?
Mr. Wall: That’s a measurable standard. Until the ambulance was on scene. And
it had to be an ambulance. I mean it could not be, you know, some race car. The don’t
call it race car. What’s the name for it? Chase car.
Mr. Speaker: Fly car.
Mr. Wall: Fly car. Fly car. It could not be a fly car. It had to be measured from
the time that the ambulance got on scene. So what we did as part of this RFP process was
go through and define areas of the county and provided response time for them to meet.
And that criteria was set forth in the RFP and it was done with the medical professionals
who were a part of that committee. Not something that, you know, staff who didn’t deal
with medical emergencies dreamed up. This is something that they came up with in the
standards. So whereas prior to or under the existing contract, I mean if it takes 30
minutes to pick someone up in Hephzibah or Blythe or whatever, there is no penalty in
27
the contract for the failure to do that. And that’s my best explanation. I mean Phil
Wasson or someone else perhaps might be able to give us more detail on that.
Mr. Boyles: So this does not, does not lower anything?
Mr. Wall: It is intended to greatly improve, and particularly in south Richmond
County because you now have a measurable standard that they have to meet.
Mr. Boyles: One final question. Did Legal sit in on the RFP hearing? Or the
special committee?
Mr. Wall: I sat through the process of developing the RFP, yes, I participated in
that. I did not participate in the actual interview process myself. Mr. Heywood sat in on
that.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Heywood is the lawyer?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir. I couldn’t be there the entire time. And I didn’t feel like it
was appropriate for me to sit through half of it and not sit through all of it.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Mays and then Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Mays: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And you mentioned a minute ago that I had
had concerns in reference to where this whole thing was going with ambulance service
for the City. And I guess as any old ambulance driver, you’d want concerns about it.
You’d have in terms of about what happens with the future in reference to to this subject
as well, I think personally we are blessed to have competing business factions to be here
locally and to even be at this point. This has personally got it the point of where I wanted
to see it get all along. In spite of what some things that have been written in some
quarters in reference to myself and to my family that were absolutely -- now Mr. Mayor,
I’d be remiss if I did not say that, to a point of where I think some things that were taken
totally out of context, not by either one of the companies, but quite frankly, by daily
editorial page of the daily newspaper which was outright damn lie. And when you go to
the low standards of resurrecting somebody’s mother who is dead and to tell a lie about
it, with no facts about it, never apologized, then I do take personal offense to it. But I’ve
learned a long time ago to separate how I conduct my business as far as City government
is concerned, as to how I deal with what’s personal. I take somewhat of a Tony Brown
attitude that it’s not important about what names you may be called, but what’s more
important is what name do you answer to. I know who I am and I know whose I am and
that’s what’s most important. I’ve learned to separate that a long time ago. So to base
this on a fairness of what we’re doing. I’m glad to see us get to this point, because
competition makes this a better process and a better product. I know both of the persons
standing here before this microphone today. Quite frankly, probably personally wish
they was in business and still together. That’s not the case. Two competing firms are out
28
here that are proposing service this year and I think we have to make a decision. I agree
with Commissioner Beard. It’s hard, when you go through a process that unless you are
going to back everything out and start all over again, then you have to deal with what’s
on the table. I think both of them will reply to that. I looked through the proposal. I’ve
read through both of their proposals. I’ve sat in on part of the presentations they made
and made sure I wasn’t there when they opened any numbers, but I think that the
committee did a very good job in terms of the type questions they asked in terms of
trying to be fair in both categories of where it went. I think, though, that the real question
we have before us in Mr. Bridges’ motion, though, is to clarify what will be done within
the contractual stages of where we go from this point. Now it’s my understanding, Mr.
Mayor, I may deviate just a little bit but I need to ask a question or two, primarily of the
Attorney and Administrator that I want to be answered. But it’s my understanding from
the committee’s action per se that the contract that the bid recipient winner that would be
awarded to go to negotiations would be brought back to this Commission in order to be
voted on. Am I correct?
Mr. Wall: You are correct.
Mr. Mays: Okay. I think in that process, and if the motion includes that to be
done, I think that’s where within the standards, and I think to get us to a point of where
you have performance standards regardless of who does this, I think those things are
good and they are professionally put in, regardless of who has [inaudible]. My main
concern of where we go with the contract deals with two to three areas. And I would say
this regardless of where it’s going. I think you’ve got a situation, and I agree with Lee,
it’s hard to back out of the deal with bid items when you’re getting into $300,000 to
$400,000 at a time. You just can’t. But I do think, though, that in the confines of the
contract, what got us into bringing this to a competitive stage in the very beginning, and
as you remember, Mr. Mayor, when we tried to get out for RFP’s very early and we went
through this process that put us into a semi-subsidized position for a few months, this was
only prolonging a situation, as I stated, that we needed to get some stability in the
contract, allowing one firm to be able to work through this process, to know what was
going to be provided the citizens, and at the same time, to know from a work standpoint
where people were going to go to work, who they were going to work for, and that. I
think we’ve gotten to that. But I think two things need to be clear. And they need to be
spelled out when you deal with the contract. Now you’ve got performance standards that
will be placed in there. I think you’ve got to seriously deal with money standards.
Because if we’re going to operate on the premise that we are going to hold to what
numbers are in a bid, when we open the bid, regardless of who wins the bid, that if you
hold to what’s there, and what’s on paper, then I think you have to hold equally to the
fact for the contract that is drawn, Mr. Wall, that whatever numbers are agreed on in the
contract, that we stay with those numbers. And I say that because I don’t think we can
get into a point of backing up once we set numbers for this community. Now there may
be, God forbid, some unforeseen circumstance that we cannot imagine. That throws out a
lot of the rules out the window. But to a point on normal standards, if it’s agreed to,
numbers in a contract, I think those contractual numbers must be adhered to. We cannot
get into business of what’s going to take one company or the other one through the rest of
29
the year and go back, gentlemen, and add on to do this. Now I bring that up to say I
won’t get into I told you so faction, but I’m the same little fellow -- I was a little dense
then, had a little more hair, but I said when we started this whole thing you cannot put a
price on a life, nor could you deal with the medical services. I knew when we started
several years ago, the numbers we put in, quite frankly, Houdini could not have worked
for them and lived through them and got through and made it in a deliverable fashion
unless we backed up and changed the numbers and put in a subsidy with it. What did we
end up doing? We ended up subsidizing. Now, hopefully, we get into a contract
whereby the subsidy will be adhered to with what’s in the contract. The second thing that
I think must be done in the contract, I think, Mr. Mayor, is that we’ve said and the
Administrator just said about the importance of private business. If we’re going to
separate government out of private business, then the contracts should also preclude the
government from being in any one of these folks’ private business other than one. If the
contract is given to Rural Metro because of the numbers that are in there and the final bid
process then we ought to be out of that business, other than the 911 business that they’re
in with us. There should not be any provisions drawn up in a contract to whereby we
provide any assistance that in terms puts any competitor out of business. And that
shouldn’t be by assumption. I agree with my colleague, Mr. Shepard. That’s my unpaid
lawyer. That ought to be written in there and it ought to say that, it ought to spell it out.
And it ought to say that if we give it to one, we should not be in the business of trying to
go back and say a company does our 911 business. And therefore we want you to send
this particular company the private business because they need the help financially in
order to do it. Now that ought to be in that contract and I’m saying this to both of them.
I’m going to vote, Ulmer, for your motion that’s out there. But if that contract comes
back and those provisions are not in there, because this was attempted to be done -- no
fault to the companies -- but it was floated around in the very beginning almost a year-
and-a-half ago that we get into this business, and that’s why I was so adamant about us
being out of it, only to the point of dealing with the 911 message. We should not be in
either one y’all’s business, in the solicitation business of the government. Whether it’s
you or whether it’s you. That ain’t our business. And we ought not attempt to be in it.
And I think that contract ought to spell that out very clearly. And if it doesn’t say that in
it, I’m not going to vote for any contract. And I think, Jim, you know where I stand on
that. Cause number one, I think it’s against Georgia law to do it. And I think this is
against the law to do it, it ought to be in the contract that we can’t do it, and that ought to
be spelled out. So I think that’s where the crux of it is and I can vote for that motion to
deal with that and I think that’s the key, what goes into the contract and what comes
back, Mr. Mayor, to this Commission.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a couple of questions I want to ask
because things really have gotten confusing as far as in the beginning talking about the
final bid and whether we supposed to come back and also it’s just been confusing of
whether one service is allowed to back out the amount of the emergency services. Are
we voting, will we be voting on the figures that we have as far as Gold Cross had the
figure of $1,194,096?
30
Mr. Mayor: I think, Mr. Hankerson, you’re going to be voting on the bids that
were presented at the bid opening; is that not correct, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Hankerson: The reason I asked is because Mr. Beard mentioned something
about that, whether we are allowing them to back out or back out on these figures. So it’s
so confusing that I hear a lot of things that are being presented to me right now, paper,
paper from here and paper from there, that we should have done in committee meeting,
so we all would have been very clear of what we are doing and what we expect. This was
not -- I mean we are here trying to do some things now at the last minute that should have
been done in committee meetings where we can really get together and ask some
questions. I never abstained, I don’t think, since I’ve been here, six, seven months, but
it’s very, very confusing to me to give either one of these good companies, you know, my
support. And it’s so confusing. No one has addressed today what would happen to these
employees. In the past we’ve discussed contracts and over the garbage service and we all
was concerned about the employees. But we have employees sitting here that don’t know
whether they have a job tomorrow. And I’m very concerned about that. I’m very
concerned that it was brought up about the difference in the pay. How many employees
are involved? How many employees are in Gold Cross? How many employees are in
Rural Metro?
Mr. Doss: We have approximately 197 employees in our total operation.
Mr. Snider: We have approximately 120.
Mr. Hankerson: So my question is that if this contract was awarded to Gold
Cross, the change, what would happen to these employees or would we have adequate
amount of service to still maintain the same response time if we didn’t have the
employees or where the employees going to come from? It takes [inaudible] in order to
operate the Augusta Richmond County, it takes a number of employees. Would that be
provided through Gold Cross? What would happen to these employees?
Mr. Snider: If Gold Cross receives the bid, then we would offer employment to
any of the Rural Metro employees that elected to come on.
Mr. Hankerson: Do you have an idea of how many job openings that will be?
And would the pay levels change?
Mr. Snider: Well, the pay level is a little misleading in that the hourly rate may
be a little different, but when you factor in overtime and various hourly shifts they are
going to really be sort of in line. I can’t say exactly, but probably need 50+ employees.
And that’s just a rough estimate.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay.
31
Mr. Mayor: Do I understand that if Gold Cross gets the bid then the employees of
Rural Metro will be at risk? If Rural Metro gets the bid, it’s not going to affect the
employment at Gold Cross at all because you don’t have the contract now; is that correct?
Mr. Snider: I would think so. I would think you’re right.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Beard asked to be recognized.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to call for the question, but I would just like to
make a statement before that, and for the maker of the motion, Commissioner Bridges, I
wonder if he will accept that those contractual restraints that were mentioned by
Commissioner Mays be included and that the contract be brought back to this body
before any acceptance of that, and I’m doing that for the record person.
Mr. Bridges: I’d be happy to accept that if the seconder of the motion would
agree to it.
Mr. Boyles: Be happy to.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to that? All right. The motion will stand amended
then, Madame Clerk. The question has been called by Mr. Beard on the substitute motion
from Mr. Bridges to award the contract to Rural Metro.
Mr. Cheek: Can we have the motion reread, please, before we vote?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. We sure may. Madame Clerk, if you’ll read that, please.
The Clerk: The motion was to award the ambulance contract for 2003 to Rural
Metro ambulance service contingent upon the contract being brought back to the
Commission for approval and acceptance of the contractual stipulations as stated by Mr.
Mays regarding performance standards and soliciting private calls regarding ambulance
calls.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
The Clerk: And they locked into the price [inaudible]. Is that what you said, for
the eight ambulances, Mr. Mays? I don’t remember. [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: That will be hashed out when they bring the contract.
The Clerk: Hashed out.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All in favor the motion, the substitute motion, please vote
aye.
32
Mr. Williams: Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: Yes, sir?
Mr. Williams: I need to change my vote. I thought I voted no, but I voted yes. I
certainly need to change my vote.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: I thought, Mr. Williams, we had an epiphany down there.
(Laughter)
Mr. Williams: You had to have thought.
The Clerk: Okay, Mr. Williams, I cleared the board.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Williams vote No.
Motion carries 7-2.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, when do you anticipate the contract will be brought back
before us?
Mr. Kolb: As quickly as the County Attorney and Rural Metro can get together.
Mr. Mayor: Probably next month?
Mr. Kolb: [inaudible]
Mr. Boyles: Would I be in order to request a short recess?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. The Chair will declare a five minute recess.
(Recess)
The Clerk: There is an item on the agenda for deletion.
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
1. Approve authorizing the Internal Auditor to send a letter to area banks
asking them to identify all City accounts bearing City identification numbers.
(Requested by Commissioner Hankerson)
33
2. Motion to authorize conveyance of 948 Spruce Street to Richmond County
Land Bank Authority for its tax value (approximately $3200).
3. Approve receiving as information the FY 2001 Audited Financial Statements.
4. Approve recommendation to readopt the Car Allowance Policy of April 15,
1997. (Requested by the Administrator)
The Clerk: Item 4 was placed on the agenda in error. The Administrator
asked that this item be place on the August 6 agenda, and through oversight in the
Clerk’s Office it was placed on this agenda, and we ask that that not be considered.
And also to delete Item 44, the appointment of Marshal Steve Smith to the
Community Mental Health Board. They asked that that be delayed.
Mr. Mayor: Did you say item number 1 on the consent agenda was deleted?
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to any of these additions or deletions from the
agenda? Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Item 30. Oh, no, I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor: No objection heard.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, you said item number 4 is not being considered; is that
right?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
The Clerk: That should be off.
Mr. Mayor: Should not be on the list at all.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: So items 1, 2 and 3 will be added. And item number 4 and 44 will be
deleted.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All right, ladies and gentlemen, we’ll head to the consent agenda.
Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure with respect to the consent agenda?
Mr. Cheek: Move to approve the consent agenda, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
34
Mr. Mayor: Second? We have a second. Would you pull any items?
Mr. Beard: 30.
Mr. Mayor: All right, number 30 for Mr. Beard.
Mr. Boyles: Item 21, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: 21 for Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Williams: 25 and 26, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: 25 and 26 for Mr. Williams. Any others?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, can we add item 2 from the addendum agenda to
the consent agenda?
Mr. Mayor: We can if you would like to amend the motion to include item
number 2 to the addendum agenda.
Mr. Cheek: That’s correct, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to that?
The Clerk: You said item 2 and 3?
Mr. Cheek: Let’s do 2 and 3.
Mr. Mayor: 2 and 3.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I need some clarification on item 17.
Mr. Mayor: 17, okay. So far we have pulled items numbers 17, 21, 25, 26, and
30. Any other items?
PLANNING:
1. Z-02-83 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Patrick Barnwell requesting a
Special Exception for the purpose of establishing an auto paint shop in a B-2
(General Business) zone, per Section 22-2 the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 2960 Old Tobacco Road
and contains .92 acres. (Tax Map 128 Parcel 8.1) DISTRICT 4
2. Z-02-84 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Toole Engineers, on behalf of Beulah
Grove Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of expanding
an existing church including day care services etc., per Section 26-1 (a) of the
35
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 1603, 1607, 1615 and 1617 Hunter Street and 1436, 1438 and
1440 Poplar Street containing approximately 2.2 acres and is part of Beulah Grove
Baptist Church which is located at 1434 Poplar Street. (Tax Map 58-2 Parcels 124,
125, 126, 128, 129, 120, 131, 132.01) DISTRICT 2
3. Z-02-85 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Jane S. Loren requesting a change of
zoning from Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone A (Agriculture) affecting
property located at 1977 Powell Road and contains approximately 0.5 acres. . (Tax
Map 65 Parcel 64) DISTRICT 3
4. Deleted from the consent agenda.
5. Z-02-87 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Nick Dickinson, Jr., on behalf of
Walter L. Shepeard Community Blood Center, requesting a change of zone from
Zone R-2 (Two-family Residential) to Zone P-1 (Professional) affecting property
located at 1325 and 1321 Emmett Street and 1336 Druid Park Avenue and
containing .68 acres. (Tax Map 45-4 Parcel 122 and part of Parcel 125.01)
DISTRICT 5
6. Z-02-89 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Joseph Cadle, on behalf of Frances
Cadle Normand requesting a change of zone from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone
R-1B (One-family Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property
located at 1607 Barton Chapel Road and containing .37 acres. (Tax Map 53 Parcel
57.1) DISTRICT 3
7. Z-02-91 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the stipulation that the property can only be
developed for residential or professional uses; a petition by ATC Development
Corp., on behalf of the estate of Vixie T. Heubel, requesting a change of zone from
Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting
property located at 1051 Bertram Road and containing 3.5 acres. (Tax Map 12
Parcel 26.2) DISTRICT 7
8. Z-02-92- A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Frank K. Song requesting a change
of zone from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) and B-1 (Neighborhood Business)
to B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 3251 Deans Bridge Rd. (Tax
Map 96 Parcel 8) DISTRICT 5
9. Z-02-93 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Celaine Huff, on behalf of FJC, LLC,
requesting a change of zone from Zone R-1B (One-family Residential) and Zone B-2
(General Business) to Zone LI (Light Industry) affecting property located at 1514
Crescent Drive and containing .63 acres. (Tax Map 41 Parcel 53) DISTRICT 3
10. FINAL PLAT – SUMMERFIELD, PHASE TWO – S-631-II – A request for
concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve
a petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of ATC Development Corp.,
requesting final plat approval for Summerfield, Phase Two. This development
36
contains 18 lots and is located on Summer Valley Way, adjacent to Summerfield,
Phase One.
11. FINAL PLAT – ST. MARKS TOWNHOMES, PHASE 2, SECTION 1 – S-
633 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf ATC
Development Corp., requesting final plat approval for St. Marks Townhomes, Phase
2, Section 1. This development contains 33 lots and is located on West Wheeler
Road, south of Calypso Drive.)
PUBLIC SERVICES:
12. Motion to approve the purchase of two (2) multi-unit play systems for
McBean Park and Brookfield Park, referring to bid item #01-112 as approved by
the Augusta Commission on October 4, 2001, from Hasley Recreation and Design in
the amount of $60,000. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 8, 2002)
13. Motion to approve the authorization of Fire Department SPLOST Phase IV
funds in the amount of $76,278.16 to the Department of Recreation and Parks as
credit for expenses at McBean Park. (Approved by Public Services Committee July
8, 2002)
14. Motion to accept Georgia Department of Natural Resources - Environmental
Protection Division - Grant in the amount of $62,597.20 for the purpose of funding
the Scrap Tire/Solid Waste & Education Program. (Approved by Public Services
Committee July 8, 2002)
15. Motion to approve a request by Sung Chol Song to transfer the retail
package Liquor, Beer & Wine license used in connection with Frank’s Package
Shop located at 3251 Deans Bridge Rd. to a new store being built at this address.
District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 8, 2002)
16. Motion to approve a request by Hud McTeer for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with McTeer Food & Fuel located at 1237
Gordon Hwy. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
July 8, 2002)
17. Motion to approve a request by Chin S. Pak for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Sunset Mini Mart located at 2925 Peach
Orchard Rd. District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
July 8, 2002)
18. Motion to approve Augusta Regional Airport to enter into a retainer
agreement with The LPA Group. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 8,
2002)
19. Motion to approve the amended lease agreement between the City of
Augusta and the Augusta Arsenal Soccer Club for the mutual installation of field
lighting for two fields at the Augusta Soccer Park. (Approved by Public Services
Committee July 8, 2002)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
20. Deleted from the consent agenda.
21. Deleted from the consent agenda
37
22. Motion to approve retirement of John Bennett under the 1977 Pension Plan.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee July 8, 2002)
23. Motion to approve retirement of Vera Jones under the 1977 Pension Plan.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee July 8, 2002
PUBLIC SAFETY:
24. Motion to approve Mutual Aid agreement between the Augusta Fire
Department and the Augusta Regional Airport Fire Department. (Approved by
Public Safety Committee July 8, 2002)
24A. Motion to approve Maintenance Renewal Agreements with TeamIA for the
Clerk of Court Real Estate and License & Inspection software application.
FINANCE COMMITTEE:
25. Deleted from the consent agenda.
26. Deleted from the consent agenda.
27. Motion to approve the refund to Thaddeus T. Meyers of 2000 taxes paid in
error in the amount of $278.34 on Map 58-1, Parcel 123. (Approved by Finance
Committee July 8, 2002)
28. Motion to deny request from Merle A. Goddard McFadden regarding refund
of property taxes for the year 1998. (Approved by Finance Committee July 8, 2002)
29. Motion to approve Georgia Department of Community Affairs’ list of Fiscal
year 2003 Pass-Through Local Assistance Grant Awards for Augusta-Richmond
County. (Approved by Finance Committee July 8, 2002)
30. Deleted from the consent agenda.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
31. Motion to approve an Option for Right of Way between T. Davis Family
Properties, LLC, as owner, and Augusta, Georgia, for the following property for the
purchase price of $104,771.00: 10,181 square feet, more or less, of right-of-way and
3,525 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee July 8, 2002)
32. Motion to approve award of contract to Blair Construction in the amount of
$398,846.79 for construction of the Sherwood Drive Sanitary Sewer. (Funded by
Account Number 509043402-5425210/8015003-545210) (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee July 8, 2002)
33. Motion to approve Greenspace Grant application for additional FY 02
funding. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 8, 2002)
34. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 86-3, Parcel 131,
which is owned by James Turner, for a right-of-way in connection with the
Bungalow Road Improvement Project, more particularly described as 736.53 square
feet, more or less, of right of way and 749.99 square feet, more or less, of temporary
construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 8, 2002)
35. Motion to authorize condemnation of the following property in connection
with the Morgan Road Improvement Project: 400 square feet, more or less of
permanent slope easement and 800 square feet, more or less, of temporary
construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 8, 2002)
38
36. Motion to approve request by Mr. Albert Abbott regarding reimbursement
of a street light charge for property he owns on Deans Bridge Road. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee July 8, 2002)
37. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 118, Parcel 29,
which is owned by Nan L. Mears, in connection with Morgan Road Improvement
Project, more particularly described as 1,839 square feet, more or less, of temporary
construction easement, plus one flowering crabapple tree. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee July 8, 2002)
38. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 12, Parcel 84,
which is owned by Ming F. Lin and Sundy F. Lin, for an easement in connection
with the Sherwood Sanitary Sewer Project, more particularly described as 1,650
square feet, more or less, of permanent utility easement and 2,504 square feet, more
or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee July 8, 2002)
39. Motion to award bid (Bid Item Number 02-093) for reworking the aerators
at Groundwater Treatment Plant #1 to the lowest responsive bidder, Deloach
Industries, in the amount of $33,950.00. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee July 8, 2002)
40. Motion to approve funding in the amount of $563,283.71 and execution of the
Contract Item Agreement for work to be performed on the water main relocation
on the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) Deans Bridge Road
Intersection Improvement Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
July 8, 2002)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
41. Motion to approve minutes of the July 3, 2002 minutes of the regular meeting
of the Commission.
Addendum Item 2. Motion to authorize conveyance of 948 Spruce Street to
Richmond County Land Bank Authority for its tax value (approximately $3200).
Addendum Item 3. Approve receiving as information the FY 2001 Audited
Financial Statements.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve the consent agenda. Madame Clerk,
do you need to read out any zoning petition or alcohol petitions before we vote on them?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Under the Planning portion of the agenda, the consent
agenda, if there are any objections to the planning petitions, would you please
signify your objection by raising your hand?
PLANNING:
1. Z-02-83 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Patrick Barnwell requesting a
Special Exception for the purpose of establishing an auto paint shop in a B-2
(General Business) zone, per Section 22-2 the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
39
Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 2960 Old Tobacco Road
and contains .92 acres. (Tax Map 128 Parcel 8.1) DISTRICT 4
2. Z-02-84 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Toole Engineers, on behalf of Beulah
Grove Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of expanding
an existing church including day care services etc., per Section 26-1 (a) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 1603, 1607, 1615 and 1617 Hunter Street and 1436, 1438 and
1440 Poplar Street containing approximately 2.2 acres and is part of Beulah Grove
Baptist Church which is located at 1434 Poplar Street. (Tax Map 58-2 Parcels 124,
125, 126, 128, 129, 120, 131, 132.01) DISTRICT 2
3. Z-02-85 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Jane S. Loren requesting a change of
zoning from Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone A (Agriculture) affecting
property located at 1977 Powell Road and contains approximately 0.5 acres. . (Tax
Map 65 Parcel 64) DISTRICT 3
4. Z-02-86 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Eugene Curry requesting a change of
zone from Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood
Business) affecting property located at 1219 Twelfth Street and containing .23 acres.
(Tax map 46-4 Parcel 734) DISTRICT 2
5. Z-02-87 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Nick Dickinson, Jr., on behalf of
Walter L. Shepeard Community Blood Center, requesting a change of zone from
Zone R-2 (Two-family Residential) to Zone P-1 (Professional) affecting property
located at 1325 and 1321 Emmett Street and 1336 Druid Park Avenue and
containing .68 acres. (Tax Map 45-4 Parcel 122 and part of Parcel 125.01)
DISTRICT 5
6. Z-02-89 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Joseph Cadle, on behalf of Frances
Cadle Normand requesting a change of zone from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone
R-1B (One-family Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property
located at 1607 Barton Chapel Road and containing .37 acres. (Tax Map 53 Parcel
57.1) DISTRICT 3
7. Z-02-91 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the stipulation that the property can only be
developed for residential or professional uses; a petition by ATC Development
Corp., on behalf of the estate of Vixie T. Heubel, requesting a change of zone from
Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting
property located at 1051 Bertram Road and containing 3.5 acres. (Tax Map 12
Parcel 26.2) DISTRICT 7
8. Z-02-92- A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Frank K. Song requesting a change
of zone from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) and B-1 (Neighborhood Business)
to B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 3251 Deans Bridge Rd. (Tax
Map 96 Parcel 8) DISTRICT 5
40
9. Z-02-93 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Celaine Huff, on behalf of FJC, LLC,
requesting a change of zone from Zone R-1B (One-family Residential) and Zone B-2
(General Business) to Zone LI (Light Industry) affecting property located at 1514
Crescent Drive and containing .63 acres. (Tax Map 41 Parcel 53) DISTRICT 3
The Clerk: Are there any objections to those Planning petitions?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I asked to pull 17, but I was mistaken with that. I got the
clarification. I’d like to get the clarification on, I think it’s number 4.
Mr. Mayor: Pull number 4?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. In lieu of 17, please.
Mr. Mayor: In lieu of 17?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead and take it up now.
Mr. Williams: It was added in with the consent.
The Clerk: Our alcohol petitions:
15. Motion to approve a request by Sung Chol Song to transfer the retail
package Liquor, Beer & Wine license used in connection with Frank’s Package
Shop located at 3251 Deans Bridge Rd. to a new store being built at this address.
District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 8, 2002)
16. Motion to approve a request by Hud McTeer for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with McTeer Food & Fuel located at 1237
Gordon Hwy. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
July 8, 2002)
17. Motion to approve a request by Chin S. Pak for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Sunset Mini Mart located at 2925 Peach
Orchard Rd. District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
July 8, 2002)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions?
Mr. Mayor: None are indicated. So we’ll move ahead with the vote now on the
consent agenda.
41
Mr. Mays: Was number 20 pulled?
Mr. Mayor: 20? No, sir. You like it pulled?
Mr. Mays: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Pull number 20. The items we have pulled, again, are 4, 20, 21, 25,
26 and 30. All in favor of the consent agenda minus those items please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0. [Items 1-3, 5-19, 22-24A, 27-29, 31-41, Addendum Items 2 and
3]
The Clerk:
4. Z-02-86 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Eugene Curry requesting a change of
zone from Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood
Business) affecting property located at 1219 Twelfth Street and containing .23 acres
(Tax map 46-4 Parcel 734) DISTRICT 2
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty: This gentleman operates, currently operates a store in the same block,
th
which is the block of 12 Street just south of Laney-Walker. It’s a small frame building.
And he wants to move up the block about three properties into a brick front, storefront
that’s been operated as a barber shop in the past. But apparently this barber shop was
never zoned because the current zoning is residential and he, in order to move in there,
since it’s been over two years since it was operated as a barber shop, he would have to
have the property rezoned and that’s what he’s asking for.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. That’s what I needed to know, you know,
what transpired as far as the location and what they was doing there.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to make a motion?
Mr. Williams: Yes. I make a motion we approve it, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
42
The Clerk: Item 20?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk:
20. Motion to authorize the Public Works and Engineering Department to hire
the Assistant County Engineer at a salary of $55,000 and to provide relocation costs
in an amount not to exceed $1,000. These costs reflect position requirements and
competitive Compensation for similar job levels. (Approved by Administrative
Services Committee July 8, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I heard, I sat in during the committee’s hearing of this and
I don’t really have a -- it was explained why it was done, the committee went through it.
But I was just wondering whether, Mr. Kolb or Mr. Wall, whether any, any policy is
going to be established on this for future guidelines in order to deal with how this is
going to come up. Because that was a question of Commissioners that it would give
different department heads some leeway into knowing what would happen. I know what
we’ve done in the case of department heads where this has been there, but I think
probably in terms of trying to land and be able to get somebody in, and I don’t have a
problem with where this item is going, but I think at some point it needs to be a direct
line into what’s there or either a different level of compensation or some type of other
[inaudible] to do it, and that’s what I was wondering, if the Administrator had any
thoughts on this as to where this was going to go. Because, you know, it could be a
rdthth
situation as to where you could get the 3, the 4, the 5 person in line in the department
and this could be common practice as to how you deal with it. And I’m satisfied with the
explanation that was given in this particular committee, even though I didn’t have a vote
over there, but I’m just wondering whether something is going to be dealt with in the
future in terms of laying this out in order to do it, because it would help both the
committee, the Commission, and department heads [inaudible].
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, if I can respond. In short, the answer to your question is
yes, we will be bringing back a policy. However, it will probably be part of a
comprehensive policy on personnel and classification system.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Mays: The only thing I was going to say, I think it needs to be -- it can be a
part of anything, but it needs to be clearly defined if it’s going to be a situation in terms
of how you deal with a dispensing of money. Because, you know, you get into all these
things about what’s an accounting practice of it, what’s to be given back, all these other
questions that pop up, and I’m just saying to a point that, that the people in recruiting,
whether, you know, if they’re going outside of the local market of where they are to land
43
a person, then they need to have some leeway as to what they promise, and I think that
there needs to be some type of stand-alone policy in terms of -- that’s just my personal
thought on it. What y’all mix it with, that’s a different story. But it needs to be
something that’s clear cut in terms of that level of money or some type of program to
where help somebody get in, then they owe it back. But y’all need to really seriously
deal with that to a point before they start stacking up on you. That’s just my only, old
man’s observance there.
Mr. Kolb: And it will be.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Also like Commissioner Mays said, in
committee we talked about this, and I’ve got a problem with when you going to
reimburse or when you going to give relocation monies or whatever you might call it,
why is it, if it costs somebody to move from California or Waynesboro, if you’re an
Administrator or if you’re Finance Director or if you a clerk, it costs you the same to
move as it costs anybody else. Why is it this one price and everybody else gets ten times
that? I mean when I say ten times that, I mean more than that. I’ve got a problem if you
going to use moving expenses, we’re moving people, we’re not herding cows or
anything, so if a person got to move from one relocation to another and we going to give
this, we ought, it ought to be uniform. I agree with what Mr. Mays said, we ought to
have something that says this is what the moving expense would be. I can remember
several different instances where we, we, we did moving expenses and it was move than
$1,000 but now we -- I don’t understand that. So I guess that, that, that, that’s my
question and I guess when the Administrator comes back with something, it will be
designated as to how we going to do this, because if Tommy Boyles moving to
Waynesboro, then I move, I don’t -- Tommy shouldn’t -- I mean he may have a bigger
house. I don’t know where you live, Tommy, I’m in the ghetto over there, but I got just
as much stuff to move. And I need to move my stuff as well. And I just think if we
going to do this, let’s do the same thing. Jim, go back to that ball you never brought back
now, we need to play with the same ball all the time. And that’s all I’m saying.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have -- does anybody want to make a motion?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I’d just like to comment to this because I did mention this in
committee meeting, serving on Administrative Services Committee. I’m more concerned
about making very clear who we are going to give these extra compensations or -- well, I
guess I should say moving expense and so forth, too. We’re down to an Assistant level
now and before I think it was department heads. I just want to make -- I want to have,
see a clear policy on who will be getting these. And my question also is in asking for this
today, this $1,000 in the moving expense, how does this affect the person? Is this
44
something that will prevent the person from coming or this is a tool that was needed, a
compensation that was needed in order for this person to come, for the moving expense,
Mr. Administrator, or just was something that would start a system that we ought to be
giving it to Assistants? Is this needed?
Mr. Kolb: I will defer this question to Mr. Michael Greene.
Mr. Mayor: Michael.
Mr. Greene: Commissioner Hankerson, the $1,000 figure came from the
[inaudible]. When the position was advertised, the minimum and maximum of the range
-- the range is supposed -- that’s what’s supposed to [inaudible] dollar amount. There
were three people who responded that met all the qualifications. Interviews were set up.
Prior to the interviews, one person accepted another job. The other two came here for
interviews. This individual scored the highest. His salary request, the $55,000 salary he
had asked for, that was the lowest request. The $1,000, that was his request. He had
asked for $1,000. That’s where the figure came from. He had asked for assistance in
relocating to Augusta. So we didn’t arbitrarily just pull out $1,000 and say well, we’re
going to give you $1,000. That was in part of talking with the individual after the
selection was made, prior to it coming before the Commission with a request to employ
this person. It came before the Commission because it’s 10% above the entry? Yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. So I can understand that. So this is -- I mean it’s more of
a compensation negotiation?
Mr. Greene: That’s correct. Assist them in moving, relocating to Augusta.
Mr. Hankerson: Was the other employees offered that? Or they wasn’t because
they didn’t ask?
Mr. Greene: The request for salary was higher for the other individual. From the
other individual that was interviewed. They had requested a higher salary for them to
even come here, consider coming here.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. Well, I still say that, and I think I heard the Administrator
say he’s working on a policy for this and I mentioned in the Administrative Services
Committee meeting that I’m not going to support any other additions to salaries and so
forth until we get a clear policy on who is supposed to be receiving moving expense, car
allowances or whatever. It should be a clear-cut policy that will be established in the
year 2002, so I don’t want to later on have to go back and pull up no minutes and say it
was done and it wasn’t done. I want to know and I want to see it in writing cause I’m
going to base my, my decisions on what I see, what is written. And that’s my comment
on that. I hope that we get to that point so we won’t keep just shifting back and forth on
this person gets this, the next person is offered something. But whatever tool is needed,
you know, for the negotiation of hiring employees, that they will be plainly stated and the
45
Administrator can use that, what’s there, and not come back to us on something else that
could be confusing and unfair to other employees.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Hankerson. Do we have a motion on this item?
Item number 20.
Mr. Bridges: A motion to approve.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve and second. Further discussion? All in favor,
please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next item is number 21, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
21. Motion to approve Augusta-Richmond County Organizational Chart.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee July 8, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I sat in the Administrative Services
Committee but I would like to have a little more clarification. I’m not a member of that
committee but I would like to have a little bit more clarification on the intent of that that
Mr. Hornsby was in, I think, in that meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hornsby, if you can respond.
Mr. Hornsby: Certainly. The intent of it is in order to try to streamline and
further put some tweaks, if you will, to the organizational structure since consolidation.
This is basically the first full review and it’s the first for this administration in trying to
put the tweaks to it. In that thing, what we saw when we looked at it, we saw that there
were basically three areas that are somewhat different. Also, the other item that we put
in, that was the item of the portfolio. And what departments report to what portfolio. But
the three basic changes, I guess, or changes that would amount to anything would be
those three initial changes as we indicated in the agenda item itself. That was on Public
Works where the Print Shop was being moved basically from under Facilities
Maintenance under Purchasing. The other one, the other larger item was the matter that,
the relationship between Human Resources and Finance, and the idea there is that Risk
Management is a little more financial than Human Resources. But the compromise was
that those items that are personal in nature, the personal business of employees, should
stay in Human Resources. The rest of the function would go up under Finance. And I
might say to that end that we met with both Ms. Pelaez and Mr. Persaud. And we have
46
an agreement on how we think we can work it out. That’s the only one, really that
[inaudible]. The other item that we had was the matter of Trees and Landscape. At
consolidation time, Trees and Landscape was a single department. The old city Trees and
Landscape Department. What we have proposed in this agenda item is that we place
Trees and Landscape up under Public Works. That individual would go over as Assistant
Director of Public Works and work from there. Also, we tried to make it a little easy in
that chart. You can see those that are constitutional, those departments that are
constitutional, those departments that are [inaudible], they would be up under and work.
If that answers your question.
Mr. Boyles: Well, my concern is, and I guess I reached this concern after I talked
with Mr. Kolb one night. We were down here for a public hearing. We were talking
about Risk Management because we probably have a shortage of personnel there. The
positions that we probably ought to allocate to that. And that may have handicapped us a
little bit in getting some things done. But if you move it under Finance, what does it do?
I think there are three employees that would be moved under Human Resources, and
that’s just a department that I’m concerned about because of my talking with Mr. Kolb,
and what may can happen there. I’m not quite sure of the advantage to the government or
to the efficiency of this government if we kind of break up our Risk Management
Department. Because it’s so important, I think, to our overall citizenry.
Mr. Hornsby: I might want to defer to Mr. Kolb on the matter of being Risk
Management more of a financial -- would be concerned with finances. I think that’s the
idea. That Risk Management has to do with money and therefore it’s financial in nature
[inaudible]. Now to our credit, Mr. Persaud has had -- Risk Management was under his
direction in his former life. But -- and what we’re talking about now is -- I can’t tell you
about people, but we’re talking about loss control and training and safety officer positions
perhaps changing. But again, like I said, we talked earlier and it’s our consideration that
-- that’s the three of us, we discussed that basically all of them will be up under Finance,
but eventually and as things go, because this was the hardest one, required more thinking
than the other departments to make a change in, to get over from Risk Management to
splitting those duties out. [inaudible] shift a whole department, that’s it, it could work,
and it’s been working.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, if I may?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Kolb: Commissioner Boyles asked a very good question. However, how I
can respond to that is Risk Management is really the protection of the City’s assets, and
when we talk about self insurance or liability, property maintenance, etc., those are
financially-related decisions that do not impact on Human Resources. There are some
Human Resource issues that are affected in Risk Management, but those functions will
continue to be carried out by the Human Resources Department in conjunction with Risk
Management. But it is my opinion in the organizational structure that when we start
47
talking about preserving and protecting the financial assets of the organization, that it is
more appropriately placed under the Finance Department rather than Human Resources.
Mr. Boyles: Let me ask, too, then where would the Director stay?
Mr. Kolb: The Director will report directly to the Finance Director.
Mr. Boyles: And then the other folks would move out into the Human Resources
Department?
Mr. Kolb: No. They will be moved under the Finance Department in the division
of Risk Management.
Mr. Hornsby: In other words, Risk Management becomes a division of Finance.
Mr. Boyles: The whole department moves under Finance?
Mr. Kolb: That is correct.
Mr. Hornsby: [inaudible]
Mr. Kolb: Just like Payroll now is under Finance and they work with Human
Resources, the same arrangement will be with Risk Management. We’re just, in effect
we’re pretty much just changing the reporting relationship.
Mr. Boyles: Okay. I probably had to call upon this department more since I’ve
been on the Commission than any other, so I think that’s just an interest that I might have
[inaudible] judgment.
Mr. Kolb: And that can continue.
Mr. Boyles: I didn’t micromanage. I called properly through Augusta Cares.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further, Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: No, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate it.
Mr. Mayor: I was not at the committee meeting, but there are a couple of issues
with the Mayor’s Office. I just wanted to ask these questions. According to the chart on
page 2 in the backup, the Equal Opportunity Office is now under the Mayor. I don’t
think that’s the way that thing it set up. It’s supposed to be under the Mayor and
Commission. Isn’t that correct?
Mr. Hornsby: Should be Mayor and Commission.
48
Mr. Mayor: Well, it’s just got it under Mayor, as a division of the Mayor’s
Office.
Mr. Kolb: The reason being in most cases the Commission charges you with
supervising those employees.
Mr. Mayor: I don’t think that’s been the case. That’s, that’s not the case.
Mr. Kolb: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: That employee is supervised by 11 supervisors. And likewise, there
is a Municipal Court Division here in the Mayor’s Office. I don’t quite understand what
that is, either.
Mr. Kolb: I think we probably have made an error.
Mr. Mayor: I think so.
Mr. Hornsby: No, no, no, no, I think, Jim, I think you can explain it. I think we
have to have a Municipal Court, if I’m not mistaken.
Mr. Wall: The charter has a provision that there has to be municipal [inaudible]
but it does not fall under the Mayor’s Office.
Mr. Hornsby: I didn’t know where to put it.
Mr. Wall: Okay. I understand. On page 1, directly across from the Mayor’s
Office, you have the Municipal Court directly under the Mayor and Commission. You
also have the Equal Employment Office directly under the Mayor and Commission
[inaudible], etc.
Mr. Mayor: You’ve got conflicting charts here.
Mr. Wall: Yes, the Emergency Management is shown on the organizational chart
as being under the Mayor and Commission.
Mr. Mayor: But by statute, he’s under the Mayor.
Mr. Wall: By statute it’s under the Mayor. So I think page 1 needs to be revised.
Mr. Mayor: Right. I would ask that when this is approved that we delete the
Municipal Court function and the Equal Opportunity Office function from the Mayor’s
Office and put it where it properly goes so those are managed correctly.
Mr. Wall: Emergency Management should come out form under the Mayor and
Commission on page 1.
49
Mr. Kolb: So noted. We’ll make those corrects.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I’m going to go back to Risk Management again and the Safety
Officer’s position being put in Finance. I just, I’ve got 25 years of experience with that
being a function of Human Resources and it being pro-active rather than pay the bill after
the injury. Is this going to in any conflict with our change in safety philosophy?
Mr. Kolb: No, it will not. In fact, I’m hoping that it will enhance it. In municipal
organizations, I am used to Risk Management, along with the safety function, being
under the Finance Department, rather than Human Resources. Traditionally, Human
Resource departments are understaffed in the municipal organization in their scope of
responsibility as it relates to grievance processing and other issues related to the
employees is much greater, because of the public nature of it. In terms of Risk
Management under Financial responsibility, as I said earlier, we have self insurance for
many of our programs, including workers’ comp, high levels of deductions for our
building, etc., and those decisions are really best made in Finance as they are better able
to control and monitor claims and take a financial look at them, rather than from a
Human Resources perspective.
Mr. Cheek: My concern still remains the current safety program is one more --
being reactive instead of pro-active. Here again, I would like to see us get more into
preventing injuries than paying for them after they occur. That’s my only concern about
it being in here, is that change in that particular philosophy. The significant amount of
savings to be had, not to mention the reduction in pain and suffering to our employees by
improving our safety reason is something that’s paramount to this Commissioner.
Mr. Kolb: And I agree with you. I share your concern, your philosophy on that.
When you’re talking about saving costs and looking at premiums and claims, etc., that is
a financial piece. It is part of collecting the data so that we can measure our
improvements in that area. So I think that the Finance Department is much better, is
more capable of performing that task than would be Human Resources.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you. No further questions.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, those things that you
mentioned in your office, plus what Commissioner Cheek had mentioned, I’m a little bit
confused. All those things come at our steps eventually as Commissioners and I think
maybe we may need to get with the Administrator and go through this before we vote on
-- I mean we’re agreeing and disagreeing and agree to disagree up here, but I’m really
confused. I really don’t know what I be voting for if I voted with this structure. I had a
copy of this and I looked at it, but it, it, it’s conflicting now with the government structure
50
and the way we’re set and I agree the Administrator may need to make some changes, but
I’d like to know what those changes is going be before I, before I vote. So I mean I don’t
know about anybody else, but I think we need a little more time and we need to sit down
and talk about this and get among ourselves so we know exactly where we are and what
we’re doing before we do anything?
Mr. Mayor: You want to make a motion to send it back to committee?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I make that motion if I can get a second.
Mr. Boyles: I second that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, motion and second to send it back to committee. Any further
discussion? All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, when it comes back to committee, can we have the
adjustments made in it that we discussed here?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, if you’ll include the changes we talked about today when
it goes back to committee.
Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: We have a request from the Mayor Pro Tem, who has to leave for
another meeting, to move ahead and take up item number 30. Madame Clerk, if you’d
read that, please.
The Clerk:
30. Motion to authorize Augusta’s membership in the Unified Development
Authority. (Approved by Finance Committee July 8, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, you asked this be pulled.
Mr. Beard: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. The item, I don’t have a great deal of
problem with this, but it’s been brought to my attention that a couple of people are
interested and I would be myself in just learning a little bit more about what we are
involved and the involvement here. And since that has been reflected here, I’m going to
make a motion that we deny this authorization at this time in this membership and
possibly it could be taken up at a later time, but at the [inaudible] time here, we deny this
until we have had further study on that.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
51
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second to deny this item. Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I would not recommend that
you would just outright deny it. If there are questions, I would be more than happy to
answer. There is no cost, nor any risk in joining the Regional Development Authority.
Basically, what it is, it provides another economic development tool that Augusta can use
in attracting and retaining businesses in this area. I understand that there may be some
concern as to what this really means, but I’m willing to answer the question, whatever
that is, because I have found absolutely zero risk in joining this association or this
authority and actually we have everything to gain by doing so. We are on the verge of
potentially attracting some very large businesses to Augusta, and to have this economic
development tool in our portfolio would give us a greater advantage and become more
competitive when trying to talk with perspective businesses.
Mr. Beard: I’m not solely objecting to this, and all I’m asking is that it be held up
until we can review it a little bit more. And I would be willing to send it back to Finance
Committee so it could be looked at again. That would be the alternative of this, but I
don’t see the desire, need that we must do this today. So this is all I’m asking for, and it
seems like a simple little request to ask of that.
Mr. Kolb: Well, the word deny someone, you know, perked up my ears.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I’ll put Mr. Beard’s second motion in the form of
a substitute motion. Let’s send it back to Finance Committee and have a little more
discussion about it there.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Further discussion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes. Mr. Mayor, sometimes during the course of discussion or the
lack of it, we maybe can miss a lot of things. I think not only probably would we like to
learn more about it and I think it’s good that it’s going back, but I think in going back it
doesn’t need to just be discussed by us. And I’m glad to see the, the, my old friend, the
visibility of our new Chamber President in, in, in the audience today. So concerned, of
course the young lady next to you represents the Chamber real well and comes a lot. But
I say that in terms of arms that work with the government. That’s the Chamber today.
But in terms of the Downtown Development Authority and the Economic Development
Authority, we, we’ve got other arms that I know are concerned about this issue, and in
fact, under the leadership of two different chairpersons. And I think the Development
Authority has, has spoken on this particular issue more than once, and I think not only do
we need to deal with digesting it, that it would be a good idea, whether it’s in the form of
a workshop or in some fashion if the Administrator, before bringing this back to us,
would discuss with all the players that are involved. The Chamber, the Development
52
Authority, and this Commission, because what he may sell to us, if they’re working on
something that’s in conflict, then that’s, that’s why some thing in Augusta, to a point, just
don’t get off the ground. And I use that old Carrie Mays philosophy, you know, it’s
much better to plan with folk than it is planning for folk. Now, we, we, we’ve worked
with them very good in terms of settling a matter between Main Street and Downtown
Development just recently. That was a good thing. Three entities came together. This
Commission and those other two in settling a problem. But I think if we’ve got an
agency that we, we put people on, that work with -- our own Mr. Kuhlke represents us on
that body -- that if we’re fixing to vote on something, the best thing we could be doing is
sending it back because obviously there are some players involved in other entities. It
may be when you bring everybody to the table that they all agree. But if I’m hearing to a
point that under the last two folk they’ve rejected it -- maybe the reason might be wrong,
but at least let’s hear them. And I think you only do that by putting the same folk
representing the entities in the same room at the same time and you talk about it and then
you come out with a united effort. That’s just my feeling on it, and I think in going back
it needs to not only be digested by us, but it needs to be digested by other folk who
represent us in many areas in terms of both business and finance and trying to do things
for the community. I don’t think it’s a thing of say, turning our nose down at any other
surrounding communities, but I think to get it out here in the first place without checking
with our own entities that we work with is what gets us into these lack of communication
deals in the very first place.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I have had an opportunity of
talking to all of the other economic development entities that our in Augusta, including
the Chamber, about this. The only one that had opposition to it was the Richmond
County Development Authority. And I did have a very and long, detailed conversation
with those entities asking for specific examples of the risks that they felt that we were
taking. I investigated all of those risks and found that they are acceptable. In fact, I don’t
believe that there are risks in terms of the Development Authority. There is no charge, no
annual fee, we have a vote on the Authority, one just like any -- or two, two votes, just
like any other county. Nothing can be imposed upon Augusta against its will. Augusta
has to agree to participate in any project. And on the other side of that coin, there was
additional financial incentives for Augusta to be a part of this organization. So I see
absolutely no down side. I have not been confronted with any issue that involves the
Unified Development Authority that would make me think that we are taking a risk by
joining it, but just the opposite -- that there are positive benefits for us to become a
member.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’m not really looking for a dog fight or World War III
today, and particularly with the Administrator. He has made my point for me. He
clearly said what he does not see and what he envisions and he has talked, the point being
that when you put everybody in the room together -- now if I’m getting calls from the
53
standpoint of at least one of those other agencies -- and you mentioned that. I represent a
District that goes from the river all the way to Tobacco Road, and a lot of entities that
that group is working on, particularly when other areas have turned their backs totally on
folk that I represent, that are bringing relief to blighted areas and are helping us to create
a renaissance and to do those things by the monies that they provide. Now I do have that
listening ear to deal with them. I’m not saying that there are any risks. It may even be a
good thing. But to a point being is that if you’ve got an agency who objects in the very
first place, then that means that rather than us being out here, even engaging in the
conversation, is why we need to be in the same room at the same time in the very first
place. And I have said that to them, just as I’m saying that to you. But I’m saying to a
point that when you have these types of confrontations, I’m still saying that you’re
missing the point. That if you put those folk together and if you take a Commissioner,
too -- it doesn’t have to be the whole body -- and take their representation, put it in a
room, sell the package, and say this is why I want to do it. And then that’s how you get it
done, and you don’t have these type of confrontations. But I just can’t to a point ignore it
when I have business people who make that call. You’re telling me, you know, what
happens there because I’ll probably get calls tonight when some folk from some other
counties that this report -- when they hear and say why don’t y’all want to be in operation
with us? You know, some things just need to be worked out before they get out here to a
point on this floor to where you are dealing with agencies that are trying to do things so
that everybody is selling off the page. And I think then it gives us the opportunity that if
you, particularly that represented us most of the time in those cases, Mr. Kolb, are selling
that package and you sell it to us, then we know what to say when those folk call to say,
hey, we’re thoroughly behind our person because this is why, this is what’s been done.
But if we’re saying, you know, separate rooms, different studios, we’ll never make a
song. It’s just the fact that everybody’s got a tune. But it doesn’t mean that it’s
harmonious. So that’s the only point that I’m trying to make.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mays, if we send it back to Finance Committee, I could
amend my motion to have the Clerk notify the other entities and we’ll converse
together about it.
Would that not address it?
Mr. Mays: Actually [inaudible] my unpaid attorney. [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: With the consent of the body I’ll so amend my motion.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to that? None heard. I would just encourage that we
move along with this post haste because what we have on the table here is a $500 per new
job tax credit that a prospective business can get. And right now this community is
talking to a truck part manufacturing company which could bring 1,000 jobs here. That’s
a half million dollars in an incentive that we cannot take advantage of unless we do this.
So I would just ask that if the body could please expedite this and let’s move it along as
54
quickly as we can, consistent with the desire to bring the other organizations into the
discussions.
Mr. Mays: I ask, Mr. Mayor, then, if part of the body that’s turned that down
twice, we got a Commissioner that represents us on there and they’ve done that in that
manner, then why would there -- is there something in it that we’re not seeing that they
are seeing or is there some ulterior motive in it to do that? I mean what you’ve said is
fine, and that’s good, and on the surface that sounds, you know, I see where you’re
coming from with it. But to a point if you’ve got a body where we’ve got people from all
areas of this community in business factions that represent, including our own
Commissioner who sits over there, and if they have been against this on two occasions, I
think when you had Mr. Osborne along with Mr. Walker to a point of why there is an
objection, I just think that if Steve’s motion solves it best, then let’s get everybody in
there and then find out why.
Mr. Mayor: Absolutely.
Mr. Mays: Okay. Have no problem with that.
Mr. Mayor: You say last time I talked to Mr. Osborne, he was in favor of it, so --
but everybody will have a chance to talk about it under the motion that’s on the floor. So
let’s move along. And I’m just saying let’s not delay the discussions. Let’s keep the
thing moving.
Mr. Mays: No, I’m not saying that, either, but to a point -- and when I said that
about him personally, I meant under the administration there. When you’ve had two
different forms of leadership that has been voted on on two different occasions.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Williams: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. Any further debate? All in favor,
please vote aye.
(Mr. Colclough leaves the meeting before the vote is taken)
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: That will take us back to item number 25, Madame Clerk.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, we can take 25 and 26 together, if you want to. I just
need some clarification.
55
Mr. Mayor: We certainly can do that. 25 and 26. You want to read the captions,
please, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: And then we’ll --
The Clerk:
25. Motion to approve the acquisition of one (1) Mechanical Sweeper for The
Public Works Department-Maintenance Division from Tractor and Equipment
Company of Augusta, Georgia for $105,009.00 (Lowest bid offer on Bid 02-108).
(Approved by Finance Committee July 8, 2002)
26. Motion to approve the acquisition of two (2) Articulated Boom Mowers for
the Public Works Department-Maintenance Division from Adams Equipment
Company of White Plains, Georgia for $95,564.00 (Lowest Bid offer on Bid 02-109).
(Approved by Finance Committee July 8, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Item 25 I was concerned about the
sweeper that I hadn’t seen in a long time in Augusta Richmond County and I’m not
saying we don’t need one, but my first question is are we replacing a sweeper now or
how long have we been without a sweeper and why hasn’t it been sweeping?
Mr. Speaker: This is to replace a ’95 model Urban for inner-city type sweeper.
There are four available. They are sweeping. The one that we’re replacing is in the shop
now. It has only a 60% reliability factor right now and it shows all kinds of signs of just
wearing right out. They are sweeping, sir. I see them out every morning.
Mr. Williams: Well, what side of town are you on when you see them?
Mr. Speaker: Well, I see them leave the shop. Let me just say this. I see them
fill up at the hydrant and then I see them take off on their way, and every now and then I
bump into one.
Mr. Williams: Okay, I got some folks in District 2 hadn’t seen a sweeper
probably in 20 years and there are streets out there that need to be swept. I’m just
concerned about whether we replacing anything and where will we be using those
sweepers. And if that’s a new machine, once that machine gets here -- I’m going to vote
for the motion but I think we need to kind of use it all around and not just one area. Now
you did mention downtown. You say we have how many? Four of these?
Mr. Speaker: This type.
Mr. Williams: This type?
56
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: You got three [inaudible]?
Mr. Speaker: One thing I did, one thing I did learn after the meeting, because in
order to effectively use any street sweeper, and basically there are two types. One is for
inner-city that you buy which you need a lot of dexterity with how you can move it
around and so forth. Then there is another which we said was used, we would use in the
suburban areas. But all sweepers require basically a curb.
Mr. Williams: Okay. And I can agree with that. I can identify with that. But on
some of them curbing that we got in the inner city, on the other side of Laney Walker,
th
down there 12 Street we talked about, in that area, we, we got four of these sweepers
and we fixing to purchase a new one. I’m going to vote for the new one. Are we
planning to use them all over this city or are we just basically --
Mr. Speaker: Sir, I have to defer that to the Public Works operations.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Well, I’ll take it up with them, then. I’m going to support
your motion, I just wanted to know if we were replacing any [inaudible].
Mr. Speaker: All of these would be replacement. In order to get one new, you
have to give one up old. The one you give up old is either not working or it’s really in
bad shape.
Mr. Williams: And the same thing with 26; is that right?
Mr. Speaker: That’s correct, sir.
Mr. Williams: We’re giving up some?
Mr. Speaker: They’re all replacements. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: All replacements? Okay. That’s all I wanted to know, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll go to Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Shepard.
th
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’ll be very brief. Just from the citizens of the 6
District, too, do in fact have curbing in their neighborhoods, we would like to see a street
sweeper out in our neighborhoods occasionally, too.
Mr. Shepard: I move to approve.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
57
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve items 25 and 26. Been seconded. Further
discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: That should take us to item number 42, Madame Clerk, if I’ve not
lost count.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
42. Consider reconsideration of previous request to rewrite, reclassify and
realign positions in GIS mapping section to reflect changes in nature of job brought
about by updated technology and computer assisted mass appraisal (CAMA)
system. (No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee July 8, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Whose item is this?
Mr. Speaker: It’s mine, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Get the Clerk to pass those out and then we’ll start the
presentation.
Mr. Reece: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, appreciate you letting me
come before you about this matter. I know you’ve got a lot on your plate and I’ve been
told I’m one of several that has this discrepancy. But I just thought I’d bring it to you so
we could get a vote on it. I have four or five clerks in my office in one section, and I
have two vacancies in that particular section. I have difference in salaries. I passed out --
we’ll start with the one, we’ll take both --
Mr. Mayor: When you say both of them, you mean item 43 also?
Mr. Reece: 42 and 43.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
43. Consider reconsideration of previous request to upgrade Records Clerk II,
S/G 38 to Records Clerk II, S/G 40; upgrade Records Clerk I, S/G 39 Clerk I S/G
41; upgrade Account Clerk II, S/G 39 to Accounting Clerk II, S/G 40; upgrade
Accounting Clerk I, S/G 40 to Accounting Clerk I, S/G 41. (No recommendation
from Administrative Services Committee July 8, 2002)
Mr. Reece: 42 is the GIS, and that’s the second sheet that you have before you.
I’ve listed the people, the parties there for the three draftsmen. These positions used to be
drafts people. Draftspersons. They ink maps using Leroy sets and stuff of that nature.
58
Due to technology, we’ve gone into GIS mapping. We use IT and it requires a lot more
sophisticating, sophistication, and we’ve got new PC’s and the people are being trained
by IT to put in this new Art View system so we can better serve our taxpayers. The three
positions there that you see at the top, that is based on the salary schedules that y’all
approved to be effective August of this year with the pay grades and longevity, extended
out to the right hand side. As you can see, with the asterisks, those are above the new
entry-levels. What I’m requesting for these [inaudible] below, the person at the top is the
lead draftsperson, GIS mapper. The second person is basically the same with efficiency,
and the third person is the one that’s only been in the position about a year-and-a-half.
I’ve asked to be able to have grades I, II, and III, and I’m requesting two of those be at II
and one at III. The III would be the person who has been on the shortest period of time.
Currently the person with the longevity in that department is making the mid range. If
you would look up at the top. Putting it this way, it puts the person who is the lead
draftsperson in there a GIS Specialist would be at the top and then the second person
under her. And then the third lady would be in the GIS position III. And as they go
along, in the request that I’ve gone through with HR, after another 12 months of tenure,
we would have the position there, we would come back and if that person has performed
under the standards we set, then we could come back and request that person be elevated
up. In any event, if these positions become available, vacant, we would have that option
of hiring someone out of a technical school that has GIS capabilities at a high grade or
start at a lower grade for someone who had to be trained. The second grouping, of the
clerks, as you can see [inaudible] set out, and that’s on the front page. And presently I
have two new clerks that I’ve hired, and I have two vacancies. Out of the two clerks I
just hired and the two vacancies, I have three different salary schedules for three different
job descriptions that are brought about by different administrations. What I’m asking is
to equalize those job descriptions. The same capability. And I’ve worked with HR on
that, that we would put them, after being in place for 12 months probation plus 12 months
in the position, then we would [inaudible] Clerk II up to Clerk I. Also, our clerks are not
like normal clerks in your organization. The job descriptions require them to go to school
and be certified by the Department of Revenue, State of Georgia, because we deal with
your digest. We spend approximately $1,000 on each clerk. I’ve lost two clerks for
better paying positions, just more money. We have spent money to go out and to educate
them, get them certified in their position, and then we lose them. I believe by equalizing
this, the current schedules here, we would have a better quality of employee, and I know
it would help the morale in my organization, and I ask that you give me a favorable
report. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: I’d like to ask a couple of questions before we open it up for
discussion.
Mr. Reece: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mayor: Number one, I’d like to ask Human Resources, do you concur in this,
Brenda? What’s your recommendation with respect to this? Sonny mentioned that y’all
worked on this.
59
Ms. Pelaez: We had worked on it, he is correct in that, Mr. Mayor and members
of the Commission. The answer in part is yes and no I concur. Yes, I concur that the
changes need to be made. No, I don’t concur that they need to be made at this point in
time. I kind of feel in the interest of fairness they should be made in conjunction with all
the other reclassifications.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Sonny, let me ask you this. I received a copy of a letter
from you to the Revenue Department concerning our digest. You wanted an extension to
th
I believe September 15 for our digest. And then I received a second letter from you to
th
the Revenue Department asking for an extension to October 15 for our digest. Is that
correct?
Mr. Reece: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: Are these positions directly related to the completion of our digest?
We can’t keep pushing that thing back indefinitely. We need to get the taxes collected.
Mr. Reece: Every position in my office is required to get the digest out. And as
we speak now, they are working on that.
Mr. Mayor: Is this impacting the completion of the digest?
Mr. Reece: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Sonny, I go back to committee and I told you the same thing I tell
you now. Every department head in this government can come and make the same
argument that you’re making now. And I’m in support 100%. We talked about that but
we’ve got to stay with what we’re doing. You know we got to treat everybody with that
same ball that Jim won’t bring. And if, if, if, if that study comes back and those people
who say they need it -- the Mayor mentioned earlier about -- I think Mr. Mayor
mentioned about the tax base, maybe someone else, maybe when the library people was
here, that our tax base is the lowest in, in probably the state. We don’t have the funds
right now. I mean we don’t have the money. We trying to do some things and I see some
changes in this government. But at this time I can’t support doing something for your
group who is very important. I mean I think every part of this government is important.
But until we get that study back, I can’t do anything until we get that study back and put
all the apples in the same barrel and let’s take them out then and do what we can.
Hopefully that will be very, very soon and that come back, I think August is the time for
the raise to come about, and we be able to do some things with those grades. But I just
think every department could make that same argument you making, and I think you
ought to be commended for standing up for your people. But --
Mr. Reece: Thank you, Mr. Williams. And I’m still going to stand here, if I may.
60
Mr. Williams: I understand.
Mr. Reece: I appreciate your forthrightness about this. I beg to disagree with you
a little bit. When you have four people with four different job descriptions all doing the
same job, and I’m trying to put those in the same position so that they would all be
making the same amount of money, and it would be beneficial, I think, to the
organization.
Mr. Williams: Well, and, and, and I’m glad you want to do it because I agree
with what you’re saying. You’re talking about four different administrations. That’s
what we do. We react to some things then later on down the road we got to do something
else. And if we react to it now and the pay grade come about, and then we going to be in
the same position we’re in, we’ve been in for the last four administrations. But I mean, I
just think we, we need to be fair with everybody. If we do something now ahead of the
game, then we going end up next year or year after that saying it’s unfair.
Mr. Reece: This is what I’m asking for, Mr. Williams. And based on the pay
grades that you’ve already adopted.
Mr. Williams: I understand and we going to do it on the pay grade we already
adopted when this study comes back for everybody. I mean that, that’s what I can vote. I
support your people. I tell people all the time, we need to pay people, we need to get a
day’s work for a day’s pay. I mean, I, I, I’m a stickler with that. But I can’t sit here and
support because next week, if any department head is the type department head they
ought to be, ought to be right behind you. And that’s going to create a snowball effect.
I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Just briefly. Sonny, I have a tendency to say no in
the past, but you just mentioned something as you stood there that I think that we could
give this as an emergency, and the question that the Mayor asked would it impact the
digest? And if it is, if you’re correct in that, I think we all up here have to take another
look at that, and we have to deem that as an emergency. In that case, I can support you in
this. Because if we don’t have the people down there to do, I mean you’re the one that --
kind of the engine of this government. And the impact and the funds that are coming in.
So I think it’s necessary. If this is delaying you in the digest, and that’s what you said
now, you stood there and it’s on record, I can support you in that.
Mr. Reece: That’s right.
Mr. Mayor: Want to make a motion, Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: There are a couple of other hands up.
61
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Shepard and then we’re coming down to the other end
of the table.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Reece, and I’ll make a motion in just a second. I notice this
financial impact statement is blank. What’s the financial impact of all this?
Mr. Reece: The part I gave you on the initial, on your original packet, will have
$4,045 impact for the GIS mappers.
Mr. Mayor: Is that the remainder of this year or annually?
Mr. Reece: That would be an annual impact.
Mr. Shepard: I move approval.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second we approve. Mr. Hankerson? That’s to approve
both. Okay, go ahead.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. My question is I know that this has come before us
several times, and I was just concerned, Mr. Reece, why -- was not this included in the
pay scale and the reclassification that first came up? Because I notice that you were very
concerned. Were you left out, your employees left out of something? That’s the reason
you’re so concerned about this being passed now?
Mr. Reece: The concern, Mr. Hankerson, is the fact that I need people in there to
be able to perform the duties that we have to in our office to get everything done. And
I’ve got three different pay scales with four different job descriptions --
Mr. Hankerson: I understand. I understand. I understand that.
Mr. Reece: That’s the concern.
Mr. Hankerson: You have a concern. Understand my question.
Mr. Reece: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: I understand you have a major problem.
Mr. Reece: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: But my, my question is, it’s coming up before the
reclassification, and I notice -- I mean you spoke. I’ve heard you speaking about this,
that you’re so interested. Were you left out of the reclassification that your employees
would have been included? Or what?
62
Mr. Reece: I think the clerical portion is included in the study that HR has. Is
that correct, Brenda?
Ms. Pelaez: All of it.
Mr. Reece: All of it’s in there?
Mr. Hankerson: It would have corrected this and will correct this? Okay. Cause
then another point that I have, I notice, I remember discussing this in the past and we
have approved some other pay increases and I remember the question. I had some
concerns about it. The question was asked and the Administrator said that there will be
more coming. Am I right? So that means that this is not the end. It may be some more
coming before the reclassification is done. Now I just want us to be consistent about it.
Not take this man serious and then somebody else come it’s more serious. Because I
think he already calls, the Administrator already called for all the emergency-type
increases to be brought forward. Now we need to know what they expect, what is
coming forward the next time. I haven’t heard the Administrator say anything about this
process and it says to me that he’s in agreement because that’s -- I mean Mr. Reece is
bringing it forth. So what, what do you say about it, Mr. Kolb? Some more, I heard you
say some more is coming. Is this concern, is this request here, there’s some problems
here. Is it something that need to be taken care of now? Or is something that the
employees can live with or such a morale in the department? If I had -- if it was left up to
me, I would give this man here a raise for fighting for his employees the way he’s
fighting for them. And that’s just left up to me cause he’s definitely fighting for them. It
keep coming up. So we need to resolve this. And if others are coming up, and we going
to vote on them one-by-one, we need to be fair about all of them.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, not at your specific direction
but there was some concern that if we did the reclassifications and there were some
emergencies that we would bring them back to you. We have done that. I am not sure if
we have more in the hopper, if any, and how much it would cost, but I believe the ones
that were immediately a problem you have already dealt with. With respect to Mr.
Reece’s request, I think Ms. Pelaez stated it correctly. We are recommending the
reclassification as proposed. In terms of whether or not it can wait, I guess I really don’t
have an opinion. That’s really up to the Commission. I’m understanding by detailed
discussions with Mr. Reece that there are some reasons that we do not really want to talk
about in an open forum that we ought to consider seriously this request. So we’re
bringing it to you, or Mr. Reece is bringing it to you for your disposal and consideration.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, do you concur that this is needed to get the digest out?
Mr. Kolb: I have no opinion one way or another. I don’t have knowledge of that.
63
Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Kolb said he’s not sure. Not sure don’t mean that
it’s not coming and it’s like it could, it could not be. But I’m reminded of the little boy
that kept hollering about the wolf. And he kept hollering and kept hollering and finally
he needed somebody and nobody showed up. We talking about now whether, asking Mr.
Reece whether or not this is emergency, and if it is, you know, I understand all of that.
But this is a tough decision to make. I want to support the people down, downstairs, and
I just can’t see this being an emergency. Had it been an emergency, we wouldn’t have
had to ask Mr. Reece if it was an emergency, we would have known about it, about
what’s going on downstairs. Now I know we, we going to set a precedent here and this
happen and then somebody else going to come up and next thing you know everybody
going to be coming up with emergencies. It’s going to be like the little boy hollering
wolf. I just can’t support it. We are close to the end of the road. The study ought to be
back soon. And I’m asking you to ask your people to wait.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Briefly, Mr. Mayor. We’ve heard this about the study coming back
and so forth. Now we’ve dealt with it on several different departments. What I don’t
want to see happen is when we come back and our study is validated for reclassification,
it’s got to be within the will of this Commission to enact that as swiftly as possible, or
that will be a tremendous downer on the morale of this work force.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to ask when do we expect the
study to be back?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I’m hoping within the next
30 days. We received -- she’s here?
Mr. Mayor: She’s right here. Brenda?
Ms. Pelaez: Always here, sir. I met with them on Tuesday of this week. I have a
deadline to get all of the information to him in terms of policies and procedures by the
thth
26 of this month. A final report will be given to you, Mr. Mayor, on August 15.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Is this going, is this study that you’re going to do, is it going to affect
and look at every individual employee classification in this government or are we only
st
looking at our salary scale that we adopted a month or so ago for August 1? Is that
going to take care of 90% of the problem or a great percentage of it and people like
64
these? I can understand if you’ve got four people doing the same job, each paid a
different salary. Am I reading it right, Sonny?
Mr. Reece: Yes, sir.
Mr. Boyles: I understand from experience before how that can disrupt the morale
of a department.
Ms. Pelaez: Right. Let me answer and try to do it in just short term. What we
have here really is confusion of what we need done. You have what is called a
realignment of duties, and you have what is called a reclassification. A realignment of
duties is really what is needed in Mr. Reece’s office. A reclassification is where you look
at, for instance, your engineers and say because the market is saying, the market has
moved such that that higher class should be moved to another grade. A realignment of
duties is where you look at someone’s job duties and the job duties no longer reflect the
position description that they are in.
Mr. Boyles: Excuse me, is this study going to look at realignment of duties?
Ms. Pelaez: The study on a long-term basis is going to do both. It’s going to put
in a place a process by which you do that. Therefore, you won’t continue to have coming
before you every time you turn around a request to reclassify a position. There will be
certain steps that have to be undergone to review, actual prior to an annual basis to make
sure that we are keeping up with what individuals are performing in their duties. Now I
can’t say that every position is going to be reviewed with this reclassification. No, sir,
that’s not the case. But on a long-term basis with implementation of the policy, there will
be a review of all of the positions.
Mr. Boyles: What Mr. Reece is asking for, do you feel like that will be pretty
much in line with the realignment that’s going to come?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes.
Mr. Boyles: He’s asking for it 30 days early.
Ms. Pelaez: Well, let me say this. I would, after further information that we
need, I, I still need to kind of sit down and see exactly what we’re talking about when we
say we have three different people doing three different things. And then when you look
at what’s actually being proposed, the changes aren’t that great considering what the
emergency that’s being proposed to you. I’m really a little concerned that maybe we
haven’t accurately corrected what the problem is, so that’s why I also ask him let’s wait
and make sure that we have a true system and we take a review of everything that we’ve
done, as opposed to coming now and we have an emergency and then having to come
back with a reclassification [inaudible] and say oh, by the way, we need to change some
of the ones that you previously approved.
65
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Reece, would 30 days make a difference?
Mr. Reece: Yes, sir, it would. [inaudible] hold off hiring two people.
Mr. Boyles: Because you’ve got vacant positions?
Mr. Reece: I’ve got two vacant positions. And as you’re well aware, with your
history, if I go and bring them in at three different salary levels, I’m going to have -- it
just wouldn’t be nice.
Mr. Boyles: Be a catastrophe.
Mr. Reece: Well, I’ll keep it vacant.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor. My question is, I guess, to, to the Administrator and
maybe the Attorney can answer this. I don’t like doors that get opened and then they are
not closed. Now is there something that we need to -- cause y’all cracked that door down
there a minute ago. I’m sitting up here and I’m hearing that something -- is there
something that possibly needs to be discussed about personnel in executive session in
reference to this? Because the door that was cracked was that there is something that
wouldn’t be said out here. Now when I hear something like that, that only relates to
litigation or personnel. Now if you got a personnel matter that we need to discuss, then
you need to state that you need a personnel matter, or we need to resolve it up or down
out here. But I don’t think we need to discuss it and leave it open and hanging in a
general, open, public meeting if there is something that we wouldn’t say out here. Now if
there is something we wouldn’t say out here, I assume under the, under that auspices that
we’re talking about, legitimate items that fall under the auspices of personnel. Now do
we need to do that or do we not need to do that or [inaudible] door [inaudible]?
Mr. Wall: Can we defer this action until after the legal meeting? Postpone it.
Mr. Mayor: We certainly can. It will take a motion to table it and we’ll bring it
back up after legal.
Mr. Kolb: Which is what I would recommend.
Mr. Cheek: I make a motion to table.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to table.
66
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll pull it off the table until after our legal meeting. Sonny, you
need to stick around a little longer.
APPOINTMENTS:
44. Deleted from the agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Item number 44, we’ve removed that from the agenda. That takes us
to item number 45, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
45. Consider the reappointment of Mr. John Fleming to the Indigent Defense
Tripartite Committee for a three-year term.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 48.
The Clerk:
ATTORNEY:
48. Discuss rescinding the Commission’s June 21 approval of section 9A (District
8) of Solid Waste Collection Phase II –Change Order #2. (Requested by
Commissioner Bridges)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges:
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank y’all for considering this
proposal. I don’t know if you remember, but when we had a special called meeting we
added looks like five sections during that meeting, which my understanding at the time
the purpose was to get rid of pockets in areas of Augusta that did not have the garbage
service that the Commissioners there felt wanted it. The problem is that first item, 9A,
67
th
that actually falls in the 8 District. I didn’t request that be on there. What it actually
does is create a pocket that does have the service in my District. And I had talked with
some in the area that was drawn out by Public Works to be included. There’s one
established neighborhood in there that I have had some calls for people that want it. But
I’ve also talked with people before in some of the other areas that included in that
section, and a lot of flagpole lots in there that don’t want it, after this came up, and I
didn’t realize until after the vote that it was in District 8 because I had not requested it be
on there. I made some quick calls and the sentiment seems to be the same thing. The
very best I can say is that in there that’s drawn out, there is no consensus of the people in
there to have the city garbage service, so -- as Murphy’s Law would have it, one of the
independent, truly independent haulers that we have would be included in the city
service, and there’s really not many independent haulers left doing this service. So I
would request that we rescind just Section 9A, which is District 8, and I know y’all are
getting tired of seeing this on the agenda in regards to garbage service. I promise you I
will not put any item out of school in regards to adding garbage service on any agenda.
The only time I would consider it would be every two years when we do the bids, and I
would only do it then before -- I’ve learned this from Mr. Mays -- if you’re going to do
something that may be controversial, you better hold a public meeting or get some feeling
from the folks out there first. And I would certainly want to hold a public meeting in any
So I make the motion that we
section of District 8 before added garbage service.
rescind Section 9A from that proposal.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor, then please vote aye.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, clarification.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Williams: I can support the motion. All I need to know is this going to
eliminate District 8 altogether as far as garbage service? I mean is there a pocket?
Because I can’t see doing one area and then you know -- so is that going to eliminate
your District as a whole for garbage service? How is that going to work?
Mr. Bridges: Under my old District lines, which is when I ran -- of course the
lines have changed as a result now. But I added three voting precincts in that took effect
in July. That was from Lumpkin Road back to Phinizy Road. And the people -- I let the
people vote on that. I mean we sent out ballots in the water bills. They voted on it. It
was 2 to 1 they wanted it. So we did add those areas in District 8, but that’s the only
areas I’ve requested be added in District 8.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I’m in support. Just trying to get some clarification. What
do we do if [inaudible] residents says that District 8 has got garbage over -- with the new
lines and then ten more areas on the other side of District 8 says we want it? I mean
68
they’re taxpayers and it’s in their District, are we going to come back and say we’re
going to put it over there for those ten?
Mr. Bridges: I certainly wouldn’t recommend that and I have no -- I do not intend
on adding any, extending the mandatory garbage service to any area other than every two
years when we do the bid. That would possibly be the only time.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I just wanted to get that clear.
Mr. Mayor: That’s all right. We’ll go ahead and proceed with the vote. All in
favor of the motion to rescind this, please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Bridges. That takes us to item number 49.
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS:
49. Discuss department responses to citizens’ request(s). (Deferred from the
Commission’s July 2, 2002 meeting)
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, this is an item that I had put on last time and asked it to
be deferred. And I would ask simply that three case studies be studied by the
Administrator and his Deputies, for the idea that we improve our response time. I want to
cite to you three instances that were heavily involving some Commissioners and I think
the Mayor in one case, and we seem to be doing a lot of talking, a lot of communicating,
a lot of emailing, but we are not getting the action taken to resolve the problem. And I
know there are certain concerns. We just can’t go out and do work on private property
and that’s a violation of the law, but still I think we need in terms of looking toward our
goals of excellence in service, total quality, whatever, we need to focus on doing some of
the base things that really impact our citizens and we need to do it in a more responsible
and more rapid fashion. And I’ll cite to the Administrator and his Deputies three cases
and I’ll be happy to give you their phone numbers and what-not. But I know there is Mr.
James Lowe, who happens to live right where Bel Air Hills Subdivision/Flagler Road
goes off Bel Air Road, was simply trying to get a load of gravel and a release, in
exchange for that, seemed to go through a tortured exercise to get communications back
and forth between all the necessary offices involved. I know I was involved, the Mayor
was involved in that particular case. And there are others that we need to look at. And
I’m not trying to, here again, George, cast blame on any of the departments involved, but
I’m trying to say we really need to try to work out a better way of moving these things
through the system, because a lot of our citizens judge us on whether we get potholes
filled, whether we get the yard cleaned up from the eviction, whether we get the sofa
69
removed from the right-of-way. And the sofa in the right-of-way is I think is an area -- I
rdst
failed to tell Mr. Beard beforehand, but it was where the 3 District abuts the 1 District
on Battle Row. Some of our haulers just ignore their duties to pick up some of the large,
bulky trash. I know I had to make calls. Ms. Bailey is still hoping to get the cemetery
cleaned off next to her house on Battle Row. I rode by there today. That’s something
that’s been pending for a while and I know these things have to be researched, but we’ve
cleaned in there before, George, and we need to just tighten up our response times on
some of these things. I know the case that Mr. Williams and I were interested in was at
1429 Heard Avenue, I think. I would ride in there on the way to work, going out of the
way, Mr. Mayor, and there was just a God-awful mess of dispossessed possessions from
the curbing back to the front door of that house and it stayed for several weeks. I’m
hoping that these are not the norm for the way we’re handling our complaints. I hope
they’re the aberration, the exception. But I think we need to look at these exceptions
because they attracted the attention of at least two Commissioners and the Mayor and
others, and I know one thing we’ve had the opportunity to do -- I don’t know, I’ve tried
to do it from time to time -- we’ve had email access to some of our department heads so
we could send our requests in and not have them all choke up through the department
heads, and all of a sudden I’m on the website recently and the ability to contact the
management by email has vanished. So I think we need to try to do less emailing and
calling amongst ourselves and do more to try to expedite these requests. They’re within
policy. They’re not changing policy. They’re just basic things like let’s fill the potholes
and when they have filled them quickly I’ve tried to dash off some response to the
appropriate department saying hey, thank you for getting this done faster. But in these
three cases, we just seemed to get all wrapped up in our internal communication, the
coordination from the department heads. You know, we talk about a seminar in
September where we talk about excellence in government. We need to get back to doing
the small things well. This is the philosophy that Mayor Guiliani, several of y’all went
up to see after 9-11, implemented before anyone thought there would be a catastrophe
like 9-11, to try to do the simple things well in New York City. He improved the public
safety, he improved the appearance of the city. And you know, I think we talk about
excellence, we’ve got to talk about doing these base functions of government better to the
satisfaction of our citizens, and if any of you others have some cases that you want to
direct to the Administrator for investigation, I hope you do this because if this is the
norm, we need to change that. If it’s an exception, if it’s an aberration, I can understand
it. And oftentimes knowing business and practice, we can’t always get to everything
when we want to get to it, but nevertheless we need to have some prioritization and some
to do list where we take care of these concerns, and I had hoped they didn’t have to rise
all the way to the Commission level, but they bounced around for some time in Augusta
Care, it just bounces in the internal workings of this government, and I just don’t think
that’s acceptable. It is something we could do a better job of, George, and I just want
these case studies looked in. I want improvement. I’m looking at taking these
experiences and improving. I remember the Town Tavern used to have a sign inside that
said if our service and food are good, tell other; if it’s not, tell us. Of course, they’re out
of business, but I’ve always thought it was a darn good philosophy and I’ve quoted it in a
letter that I’ll tell you about in another time, to one of my favorite agencies, but that’s -- I
don’t think that needs to be a motion but I think some of you share my concerns. I’ve
70
talked with Commissioner Boyles about that kind of thing. And just getting down to the
basics and trying to cut out some of this back and forth and going on and getting done is
what I want done. I mean it’s not high faluting philosophy, I mean it’s just basic, down --
basic government 101. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. Let me just touch and two points then
we’ll go to Mr. Beard. We had a meeting this past Monday with the vice president from
Inland Services. We’ve been getting an exorbitant number of complaints about stuff not
being picked up in the service areas. So we trust that immediate improvements are being
made there. Fred Russell is continuing to monitor that. Likewise, I missed the email on
there, too, Mr. Shepard. I called IT and they had taken the email directory off our
website because people were using it to send junk mail and virus into our system. And so
they’re exploring now putting it back up and having it password protected so the City
employees can get into it and the Commissioners can get into it and use that service.
Because that’s something I did use and discovered it missing one day. So having said
that, let’s go to Mr. Beard and then we’ll go to Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Beard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. While I agree with most of what
Commissioner Shepard has said, and I know that we all can do improvements here, and I
think we are trying to do that. I just want to mention two things, that Administrative
Services established a committee to look into just what he’s been talking about. We have
had a lot of debris. And especially say from the Gordon Highway back to the river. And
we hope that they will come up with something at our next Administrative Services
Committee meeting that we can utilize. My second point would be that we have to keep
in mind, though, that we cut our budget quite substantially at the beginning of the year,
and I think we are reaping the benefit of those cuts and it’s in a negative aspect. And I
know that our people out there, they’re doing the best we can at this point, and we must
remember that, you know, you kind of get what you pay for. And we don’t, I know we
should fix potholes, we should clean the lots, but I think we can go throughout this entire
city, and especially from the Gordon Highway back here, and we are finding a lot of
debris on the road side, the lots are growing up, and I just don’t think with the cuts that
we’ve made we have the personnel to do that. So you know, we have to kind of look at
this in both ways. So I hope next week, at Administrative Services, they bring some
recommendations back here, that we can do to enhance our area. I hope we remember
this conversation and support it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, did you want to respond to Commissioner Shepard’s
comment or you want to hear from everybody else first? Okay, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: While we’re looking at the response to citizens’ requests, I’m going
to bring this up. I can go into a lot more detail perhaps in the Engineering Services
Committee meeting upcoming. Two years ago we had comments about a problem in our
canal. It was given to the department heads and the Canal Authority and they played the
[inaudible] and pointed to everybody else. Over there the other day I saw another three
or four cubic yards of bank gone where the trees had fallen over and taken the undercut
area, and that water is under the road. 60% of the city’s water is about to take a left turn.
71
The problem again, while we’re looking at handling requests and expediting or taking
care of them through to completion, is there is a tremendous tendency for someone to
defer a problem, to say oh, that’s the DOT or that’s federal or whoever, and never make
contact or see it through to conclusion. We’ve got an overall process problem in that area
that needs to be addressed and resolved, and I’ll be happy to assist any way I can. But
that is a systemic problem that needs to be worked out.
Mr. Mayor: Some of these problems involve maintenance crews and what-not,
but others are just a matter of communication. That was the situation with the guy with
the gravel.
Mr. Shepard: That’s my point. If I could speak to that.
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: It’s not a matter of budget with that case. It was just -- the action
required was very low cost, but the amount of bureaucratic effort to authorize that action
was inordinate, and therein lies the expense which, in my opinion, if we could cut it out,
we could make the budget and we could get the service performed and move on. It’s the
inordinate amount of bureaucratic work that had to go forth to dump a load of gravel, for
heaven’s sake.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: And again, I’m going to go back to another case, a Mr. Smalls in
[inaudible], we just solved. We probably spent more delaying and not doing, in man
hours not doing what we promised we’d do than actually following through with it.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, your point is well taken, and
I’m hearing what you’re saying. We have already -- I have been concerned about the
process that we use for complaints, as Commissioner Shepard knows. We have
investigated looking at some computer systems in order to help us in that area. However,
at this point in time, we have not found one that is cost-effective for us to implement at
this time. However, that does not help us in terms of this issue in trying to respond to it.
So what we’re doing is we are now beginning to benchmark each and every department
in the various complaint categories to see where we are now, in term of our response
time. And we will begin the process of setting what we believe is a realistic goal each
month for the response and the completion of various complaints that the various
departments get. And we will begin reporting that information to the Commission, rather
than you seeing each and every individual complaint in your particular District. You’ll
also see how we’re responding to complaints, and also city-wide. So we’re starting that
process. Hopefully by next month we’ll be able to give you those statistics, as well as
administrative regulations that we will be implementing throughout the organization.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, would it be, would it be possible for you, when you bring
the budget for next year back to us, that you bring an option to implement the city stat
72
program so we can see some hard numbers on that? Mr. Shepard has mentioned that
before. We were involved in a conference call with the people from Baltimore. Mayor
O’Malley has done a wonderful job with that program up there. And if you could put
some numbers to it, so we could have that option out there when we look at the budget, it
might help us set some priorities with respect to dealing with these issues and
benchmarking.
Mr. Kolb: If I’m not mistaken, I think we’ve already given you the number. It
was somewhere in the neighborhood of $5 million.
Mr. Mayor: Well, see if there is a Volkswagen version of that.
Mr. Kolb: And that’s what we’re attempting to do. We’ve been pretty much to
date unsuccessful.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll pay it out of the assessor’s office. (Laughter) He’s already
left. Okay, anything further on that item? We’ll move ahead then to item number 50.
The Clerk:
50. Discuss sewer situation at 508 Hillwood Circle (Mr. Robert Peek). (Deferred
from the Commission’s July 2, 2002 meeting).
Mr. Mayor: Who’s got that item?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I do. I was looking for Mr. Peek. I talked to him a
couple of days ago, I think since we’re meeting on Thursday my schedule’s off. I think it
was Monday afternoon.
Mr. Wall: We are having some discussions with him and negotiations. We
expected to hear back from him. We’ll follow up with that and if we can just defer it, I
hope that we’ll get it resolved.
Mr. Mayor: Do you think it can be resolved administratively, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: I’m hoping that it can, yes.
Mr. Mayor: Can you give us a report back at our next meeting?
Mr. Wall: I can.
Mr. Mayor: How about that, Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: That’s sufficient.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s do that. Okay, the next item is 51.
73
The Clerk:
51. Receive as information the Order of Appointment of Hugh M. Hadden as a
part-time judge of the Juvenile Court of the Augusta Judicial Circuit. (Requested by
Attorney Wall)
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: We have one item on the addendum agenda. And that’s item number
1.
The Clerk:
Addendum Item 1. Approve authorizing the Internal Auditor to send a letter to
area banks asking them to identify all City accounts bearing City identification
numbers. (Requested by Commissioner Hankerson)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson
: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m concerned about our accounts that
we may have out there unauthorized and no knowledge of. I think it’s a good time that
I’d like to put it in the form of a motion
we identify those accounts, if there are any.
that we do authorize the Internal Auditor to send a letter to all area banks asking
them to identify all accounts bearing City identification numbers and also that when
this report returns, that the Finance Department, Mr. Persaud, will forward to the
Commissioners the report indicating if there are any unauthorized accounts and
indicate those accounts, persons and departments opening the accounts.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: I might add that we did this when we discovered the one account that
is in the Grand Jury report, and our auditor, Cherry Bekaert and Holland, did not find
any, but it doesn’t hurt to do this periodically and I think it’s appropriate to do this, Mr.
Hankerson. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.
74
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to add also that we do it every couple of years
anyway through our internal auditor.
Mr. Mayor: We will await the report, then, if this passes. Any further
discussion? All in favor, please vote aye with your green light.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to Mr. Wall.
52. LEGAL MEETING.
??
Discuss real estate.
??
Discuss pending litigation.
Mr. Wall: Request legal meeting to discuss a real estate matter, pending
litigation, as well as personnel.
Mr. Mayor: Any other items for that agenda?
Mr. Bridges: What about item 54, Mr. Mayor? We going to take that up after we
have the legal?
Mr. Wall: Yes.
Mr. Bridges: All right.
Mr. Mayor: That’s personnel. Do we have a motion and second?
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection? We’ll recess into legal session.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 8-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
53. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meeting Act.
Mr. Mayor: We need a motion to authorize the Mayor to sign the affidavit.
Mr. Cheek: I so move.
75
Mr. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: We have items number 42 and 43 which were pulled off the
table now for consideration.
Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure?
Mr. Bridges: I move approval.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve. Been seconded. 42 and 43. Discussion? All in
favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 54.
54. Consider amendments to the Augusta-Richmond County Code, Title 6,
Section 1.
Mr. Wall: I would ask that you adopt the ordinance amending Title 6,
Chapter 1 of the Augusta Richmond County Code and waive second reading.
Mr. Cheek: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Hankerson votes No on the Ordinance.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor: With him voting no, we don’t have unanimous consent for the
second reading.
Mr. Hankerson: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, you’ll agree to waiving the second reading but you’ll
vote no on the ordinance; is that correct?
76
Mr. Hankerson: Right.
Mr. Mayor: Correct? Okay. Record a no vote for Mr. Hankerson. Any other
business? If not, we’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. We are adjourned without
objection.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County Commission
held on July 18, 2002.
________________________________
Clerk of Commission
77