HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-06-2002 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
August 6, 2002
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:05 p.m., Tuesday, August
6, 2002, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Kuhlke, Colclough, Shepard, Beard,
Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hon. Mays, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; and Lena Bonner,
Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by the Rev. Bowden.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, do we have any items to add to the agenda?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Before we get started, Mr. Mayor, I’d like to let you and the
members of the Commission know that Commissioner Mays will not be in attendance at
today’s meeting. He’s hospitalized, so we need to offer up our prayers for Commissioner
Mays as well.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: We have a request for an addendum item:
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
Addition to the agenda:
1. Approve Grant Agreement between the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) and Augusta-Richmond County for Neighborhood
Initiative Grant funds in the amount of $500,000.00. (Requested by Mayor Young)
Mr. Mayor: We ask that that be added today. [inaudible] two months ago
[inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: I move it be added.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard. So we’ll add that. Let’s add that to the
consent agenda.
1
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Kolb, were you going to pull item number 12 today? The
organizational chart? Okay, I had understood from our conversation yesterday with Mr.
Hornsby he was going to do some additional work on that.
Mr. Kolb: If you want to pull it, it’s fine.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have any objection to pulling item 12, the organizational
chart? They still have some additional work they need to do on that. It should be back at
the next meeting. Okay, no objection is heard so we’ll pull item number 12.
Deletion from the agenda: Item #12 [Motion to approve Augusta Richmond
County Organizational Chart]
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madame Clerk, let’s proceed with the agenda.
The Clerk: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Kolb would like to make an introduction, if
that is okay.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, that’s fine, Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Commission, it gives me great
pleasure to introduce to you Mrs. Peggy Seigler, who has been retained by Augusta as the
assistant to the Administrator. She comes from the Metro Augusta Convention and
Visitors Bureau as their public relations person, and I’m glad to have her as part of our
staff and I believe that she will be a great asset to this organization. Let’s welcome Ms.
Seigler.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Next item?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, we’d ask that Mr. Bobby Taylor, Mr. Jerry
Lewis and Mr. Albert Roberson, would you please, Mr. Mayor, join them at the
podium here for a presentation, along with Ms. Teresa Smith, Director of Public
Works?
PRESENTATION:
Recognition of the following Pubic Works Employees who participated in the
Georgia Chapter for the Solid Waste Association of North America Road Heavy
Equipment Operators Competition:
NamePlace WinnerCompetition
2
Mr. Bobby Taylor Second Pan Scraper
Mr. Jerry Lewis Third Front End Loader
Mr. Albert Roberson Second Dozier
The Clerk: Mayor and members of the Commission, on June 13-14, the Georgia
Chapter for the Solid Waste Association of North America held their annual Heavy
Equipment [inaudible] in Dalton, Georgia. This competition includes heavy equipment
operators from around the state of Georgia. Augusta Richmond County registered three
employees for competition: Bobby Taylor, Jerry Lewis and Albert Roberson. Mr. Taylor
competed in the pan scraper competition and finished in second place among all
participants. Mr. Lewis competed in the front end loader competition and finished third.
Mr. Roberson competed in the dozier competition and finished in second place. There
were 30 participants from around the state of Georgia to compete in each of these events,
and we would like to honor you and recognize each of you today for doing such an
outstanding job in representing Augusta so very well. Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk: Proceed with the delegation?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
The Clerk:
DELEGATION:
Safety Communities Project
Ms. Priscilla Bence
RE: Traffic injuries and deaths.
Mr. Mayor: Priscilla, welcome.
Ms. Bence: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mayor: You have five minutes, so please proceed.
Ms. Bence: Mayor Young, Commissioners, Mr. Kolb, Ms. Bonner, Mr. Gibbons,
Mr. Wall, thank you for giving me this opportunity to express some concern about the
statistics this past year on traffic injury. Safety Communities is a grass roots coalition
that was formed four years ago to look at traffic injury and death and to monitor what’s
happening with it. We provide education through exhibits and high school education in
health classes called aggressive driving awareness, and we look at the data. We work
with traffic engineering. We added injury crash data to their data base and we located
using [inaudible] mapping. We have noticed that the rate of injuries went down
dramatically from ’97 to ’98 to ’99 to 2000. If you’ll look in the first, the top brochure,
in the center of the inside of it, you’ll see that we lost -- when you use National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration formula, you can do a crash cost formula that we also
3
change a little bit to make it applicable to Georgia cost of living, so that ’97, our city lost
$86 million related to traffic injury. That’s the cost of the injury, hospitalization,
rehabilitation, work loss, child care, rehabilitation, family matters, as far as counseling
and that type thing. All that’s added together for injury cost, and that’s what it cost our
community. Those amounts went down every year. $8 million from ’97 to ’98. $4
million ’98 to ’99. $18 million from ’99 to 2000. And then all of a sudden in 2001, we
had a dramatic increase. Now I knew about that in May when we crunched the numbers,
but I didn’t worry about it too much. I thought 2002 will go down. It’s not going down.
2002 has very similar numbers. We project a $71 million loss in 2002 for related traffic
injury. So I ask why is this happening? And we had to of course look at the
infrastructure. Also, if you look at those numbers in the center there, I’m projecting a
$32 million absolute loss above and beyond what we’d expect up there in this past year
and in 2001. But if you look at the trend, if you actually look at the declining trend since
1998, then 2001 and 2002 we will have lost $60 million. $60 million in traffic injuries
related to the increase that we’ve sustained. And so what I did is call several places in
Georgia, and I even called Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where the head traffic engineer there
was not reluctant to tell me the exact amount of money he makes. Here in Georgia I got
answers from Savannah and Columbus and Albany and Atlanta, something like $60,000
to $80,000 or traffic engineer techs $40,000 to $60,000 or $40,000 to $50,000. But by
calling the individual I found out that the one in Milwaukee makes $93,000. So I guess
what I’m saying is the gamut is huge and you can talk to your Human Resource people
all day and they’ll give you a range, but it doesn’t necessarily even reflect the actual
income of the traffic engineers. What has happened in a lot of cities, and there are 1300
Safe Communities in our nation now, is that cities are realizing that the cost benefit is just
too great to ignore the infrastructure when it comes to engineering. Well, something else
happened in our city. Beside losing our traffic engineer last year, we lost road patrols,
that you’re very familiar that that grant that ended, and so the infrastructure there is
somewhat skeletal, too, although Ronnie Strength has been able to bring all 200 road
patrol and keep them. I know they’re spread thinner when it comes to helping control
crime. So we have some problems with road patrol and traffic engineering from what I
can see. Of course, the professionals that you work closely with in each department
know much more detail. If you’ll look on the second pamphlet I gave you, this is my
dream sheet. As a grass roots citizen, somebody who has looked at traffic injuries for
four years, this is what I have to offer you, is just some ideas of ways to improve the
infrastructure to dramatically, I believe, in the next few years go back to that decrease in
traffic injury that we saw before. And that would be on your third panel inside that we
would add to traffic engineering. And by that I mean specialized traffic engineers and
that we would add traffic engineering technicians and that we would add not only a drug
recognition expert back into road patrols -- we lost one with that cutback that the Sheriff
sustained -- and we can already see a difference. DUI is one area that our city is not
badly on, and I believe it’s cause we do have a task force. Whereas our county ranks
very high in all other problems, we do not rank high with DUI. So an idea might be to
have aggressive driving task force, because they’ve got a laser gun, they can get a couple
more, and they can do a lot more than what they’ve already done. We’ve seen that
happen in the past and we think that that will continue. So these are just some ideas for
you. If you look on the very back panel, you’ll see that the revenue has not changed
4
dramatically, although this year it possibly will to some degree to support the new
infrastructure and the increased traffic that’s going through our city with the increase in
population. So hopefully it will increase. But these are just the numbers to show you
that the increase has not been dramatic for this infrastructure that’s supporting the
increase from the suburb traffic and all the extra traffic that we are getting with the 6%
increase in the population in the metro area. Also, finally, I would like to introduce a
special guest that I didn’t know I had until yesterday. I was very pleased to receive a call
from a lady from Australia who also works with the Safe Communities project in
Australia. She’s Careen Jillar and she is working in Logan, Queensland, Australia. She’s
sitting next to me here if any of you would like to meet her after the meeting and want to
welcome her. She’s going to give me a lot of good ideas about what they’re doing there
and vice versa. Thank y’all very much.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Priscilla, for that important report. We certainly
appreciate you bringing these statistics and these issues to our attention. I was noticing in
the Atlanta newspaper last week that this is not just a problem in Richmond County with
increasing accidents and injuries, but it’s a statewide problem, and I’m glad to see the
Governor is also committed to reversing the current trend. Any questions or comments?
Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, thank you. Once again an expert from our community
has come and highlighted the fact that we are short staffed in one of the critical areas of
this city. We have lived for too long under an urban legend that this government is
bloated in many areas, especially in Public Works. They’ve taken consistent hits year
after year for head count. We’ve lost employees due to the fact that we do not pay them
on a scale commensurate with their level of skill and what they can achieve in other
cities. Augusta, in order to achieve these goals that you have here and so many of the
other aspirations that we as a people have are going to have to be willing to hire the
number of people to take care of the 300 square miles we call Augusta Richmond County
and to put skilled people into jobs and not be afraid to pay them. And I, for one, as a
citizen am not afraid to pay a few more cents or a couple more dollars a year to make
sure we have safer streets, and that mean more police and more traffic engineers and the
infrastructure to support that. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Yes, Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I’d also like to comment on this, too. And also
point out the fact that we are talking about more road patrols and patrol the roads for
safer communities and so forth. I’m also concerned of how many are we -- we’ve got the
laser guns and so forth -- how many video cameras are in the cars and how important that
is, too, and when we are patrolling, whether that’s been considered. I know Richmond
County has a few cameras in the cars, but I think it’s a need that we have more video
cameras because things are happening nationwide, and it’s also for the safety of the
officer, when stopping vehicles and so forth. And I do believe that there is a shortage in
equipment as far as video cameras. Thank you.
5
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Anything further? Thank you very much, Priscilla.
Okay, we’ll move on to the consent agenda, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: The consent agenda consists of items 1 through 39, including the
addendum items and the deletion of item 12. That’s items 1 through 39, plus the
addendum items, with the deletion of item 12.For the purpose of any objectors to
the alcohol petitions, when the alcohol petitions are read, if there are any objectors,
would you please signify your objection by raising your hand?
3. Motion to approve a request by Christina Park for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Paul’s IGA Supermarket located at #2
Greene Street. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
July 29, 2002)
4. Motion to approve a request by Ritaben Patel for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Discount Stop located at 545 Sand Bar
Ferry Road. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
July 29, 2002)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions?
Mr. Mayor: No objectors are noted, Madame Clerk. Gentlemen, what’s your
pleasure with respect to the consent agenda?
Mr. Cheek: Move to approve, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve the consent agenda. It’s been
seconded. Do you wish to pull any items? Yes, Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull item number 39.
Mr. Mayor: Number 39. Anyone else? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Number 29.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull item number 13, 22, 28, and
36.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any others? Yes, Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: For clarification, number 11.
Mr. Mayor: Number 11.
6
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Motion to approve a request by Ywona Rich for a therapeutic massage
license to be used in connection with Loosen Up! Pro Massage located at 3529
Wrightsboro Road. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee July 29, 2002)
2.Motion to approve a request by Kathryn Welton for a therapeutic massage
license to be used in connection with Kitty Welton Massage located at 210 Robert C.
Daniel Parkway. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee July 29, 2002)
3. Motion to approve a request by Christina Park for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Paul’s IGA Supermarket located at #2
Greene Street. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
July 29, 2002)
4. Motion to approve a request by Ritaben Patel for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Discount Stop located at 545 Sand Bar
Ferry Road. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
July 29, 2002)
5. Motion to approve the transfer of deed for 1.19 acres at Blount Park to Sand
Hills Neighborhood Association for the purpose of economic development in the
Sand Hills area. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 29, 2002)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
6. Motion to approve retirement of Wilbur Jenkins under the 1949 Pension
Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee July 29, 2002)
7. Motion to approve Subordination Agreement for Henry Buller, 2921 Shelby
Drive, Augusta, GA 30906. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee July
29, 2002)
8. Motion to approve Subordination Agreement for Dina Abraham Crawford,
2042 Ellis Street, Augusta, GA 30904. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee July 29, 2002)
9. Motion to authorize the Augusta Utilities Department to reclassify positions
in the Water Production Division to reflect graduated titles and pay grades similar
to the Georgia EPD recognized operator classification. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee July 29, 2002)
10. Motion to approve the recommended evaluation process (with City Attorney
tabulating the results) from the Administrator’s Evaluation Sub-Committee.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee July 29, 2002)
11. Deleted from consent agenda.
12. Deleted from consent agenda. Motion to approve Augusta Richmond County
Organizational Chart. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee July 29,
2002)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
13. Deleted from consent agenda.
7
14. Motion to approve of migration to Oracle processor licenses. (Approved by
Public Safety Committee July 29, 2002)
15. Motion to approve the purchase of a vehicle carport cover for Engine #15
and to provide an asphalt pad at Station #15 to install the carport cover on. Funding
to come from contingency fund. (Approved by Public Safety Committee July 29,
2002)
FINANCE:
16. Motion to enter into agreement with Richmond County Department of
Health incident to Phase IV SPLOST funds in the aggregate sum of $2.2 million.
(Approved by Finance Committee July 29, 2002)
17. Motion to approve the abatement of taxes on exempt property. (Approved by
Finance Committee July 29, 2002)
18. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Mini Excavator for the Augusta
Utilities Department – Construction Division from Hertz Rental Service of Augusta,
Georgia for $25,675.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-131). (Approved by Finance
Committee July 29, 2002)
19. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Emergency Response Trailer
for the Augusta Regional Airport – Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Division from
Custom Trailer Works, Inc. of Harlem, Georgia for $15,150.00 (lowest bid offer on
Bid 02-143). (Approved by Finance Committee July 29, 2002)
20. Motion to approve Emergency Tree Removal Services required for cleaning
up numerous Recreation Department areas following severe thunderstorm on
Friday, May 3 for emergency services necessary to reduce hazardous situations and
expedite cleanup of debris prior to Georgia Games. (Approved by Finance
Committee July 29, 2002)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
21. Motion to deny Mr. Arthur Johnson’s request not be included in the sewer
extension into Pineview Estates and approve the alternate route for sewer extension.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 29, 2002)
22. Deleted from consent agenda.
23. Motion to approve the Utilities Department to participate in the cost of
installing a water line into the Phinizy Swamp Nature Park and Constructed
Wetland area. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 29, 2002)
24. Motion to approve Change Order Number 5B-Scott Nixon Memorial Drive
12" Water Main Extension with a completion date of September 1, 2002. (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee July 29, 2002)
25. Motion to award a contract to the lowest responsive bidder, Duke
Environmental Contractor, in an amount not to exceed $87,300.00 to be funded
from the Solid Waste Facility Account #541044210-5412110 to provide grassing for
Landfill Phases IIA/IIB & IIC. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July
29, 2002)
26. Motion to approve and accept the Deed of Dedication and Maintenance
Agreement for water and sanitary sewer mains with applicable easements for
8
Whitney Place, Phase II. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 29,
2002)
27. Motion to approve award for construction of the Horseshoe Road 10-Inch
Water Main Installation Project to Mabus Brothers Construction Company, Inc.
who submitted a low bid of $291,843.30. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee July 29, 2002)
28. Deleted from consent agenda.
29. Deleted from consent agenda.
30. Motion to approve Memorandum of Agreement between Augusta State
University and Augusta for encroachment on Augusta Right of Way for proposed
History Walk Wall. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 29, 2002)
31. Motion to approve waiver of street lighting charge for year 2000 and year
2001. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 29, 2002)
32. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget (CPB# 323-04-296823309) Change
Number Three transferring the amount of $67,068.13 from Right-of-Way (Account
# 323-04-1110-5212115-296823309) to Engineering (Account # 323-04-1110-5411120-
296823309). Also approve Supplemental Agreement Number Two in the amount of
$67,068.13 with Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan to revise the project design.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 29, 2002)
33. Motion to award contract to Mabus Brothers Construction, Inc. in the
amount of $2,505,808.35 subject to the receipt of signed contracts and proper bonds
for the Laney Walker Boulevard Street and Lighting Improvements (CPB #326-04-
288811018). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 29, 2002)
34. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 110-4, Parcel
139,which is owned by Terry Lee Kriete, for a right-of-way in connection with the
Windsor Spring Road Improvement Project, Section B, more particularly described
as 737.45 square feet, more or less, of right-of-way. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee July 29, 2002)
35. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 129, Parcel
489,which is owned by First Union National Bank, for the following property in
connection with the Morgan Road Improvement Project: 307.54 square feet, more
or less, of permanent slope easement and 616.7973 square feet, more or less, of
temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
July 29, 2002)
36. Deleted from consent agenda.
37. Motion to abandon unopened Alley on Tax Map 72-2 between Parcels 457 &
458 and authorize conveying to adjoining property owner. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee July 29, 2002)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
38. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held July 18 and the Special Called meeting held July 29, 2002.
APPOINTMENTS:
39. Deleted from consent agenda.
9
Addendum Item 1. Approve Grant Agreement between the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Augusta-Richmond County of
Neighborhood Initiative Grant funds in the amount of $500,000.00. (Requested by
Mayor Young)
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve the consent agenda, minus items 13,
22, 28, 29, 36, 39 and 11. Are there any others? None heard. All in favor of the motion
then please vote aye.
Mr. Bridges: Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: Yes, sir?
Mr. Bridges: Would you record a no vote on number 21 for me, please?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: Yes, sir?
Mr. Shepard: If you could record an abstain vote on number 3 for me due to a
client conflict.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard abstains.
Motion carries 8-1. [Item 3]
Mr. Bridges votes No.
Motion carries 8-1. [Item 21]
Motion carries 9-0. [Items 1-2, 4-10, 14-21, 23-27, 30-35, 37-38]
Mr. Mayor: We’ll move forward with item number 11, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
11. Motion to approve restoring $142,278.52 from recaptured UDAG funds to
Laney-Walker Development Corporation for support of the Armstrong Galleria,
Phase II Project. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee July 29, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, there is a resolution in your
agenda packet that gives you the option of taking the monies from UDAG or Section 108
10
repayment program funds. My recommendation is to take the money from the Section
108 repayment program funds, which is CDBG funding, funds that are not necessary to
repay the Section 108 loan. However, it’s your option. The resolution, however, states
both funds so we would just scratch one or the other, whichever you decide.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion to take it out of the Section 108 reprogram
funds?
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Any discussion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: I yield.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I yield to my senior Commissioner.
Mr. Mayor: Well, you had the ball, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Well, we’re going to keep this ball, see, Jim, I brought it. I just
wanted to know whether that was going to change the scope of anything that’s going -- I
mean is that the same scenario under the UDAG or that going to change anything at all
that’s going to make it anything different from what we did with UDAG? That’s the
point.
Mr. Kolb: Only the source of funding.
Mr. Williams: Only the source.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. George, I’ve got some concerns and first
let me say I intend to vote for the motion. But I do have some concerns in this in regards
that there seems to be the perception that our staff did something wrong or illegal with
$142,000. Could you explain that to me a little bit?
Mr. Kolb: I don’t believe that staff did anything wrong in this respect. There was
one project, Galleria Phase II, and it was divided between two different agencies at the
request of the initiating agency. There was no capacity at the time to purchase land, clear
it, and make it available for the project. Almost to the end of the project, they ran out of
money, and it was in the middle of the program year. If they had stopped, they would
11
have had to either locate monies within the current budget or displace other projects. So
because the development project was not ready to begin until this project was over, they
took the money that was there to complete the acquisition of the land. And that left the
development project short. We’ve attempted several ways to make up the shortfall,
including private investment, loans, whatever. The Commission is deciding that they
want to replace that money, and this is a formula to make it happen.
Mr. Bridges: Now my understanding of that is the $142,000 was spent at the
direction of our staff and that money would have been spent for the same purpose or
similar purpose if Laney-Walker had had that money.
Mr. Kolb: That is correct.
Mr. Bridges: Okay, so really what we’re doing here is, in my understanding of
this, we have not shorted $395,000. Laney-Walker will benefit from the spending of that
money. We’re in essence giving them additional monies of $142,000.
Mr. Kolb: The Galleria Phase II project needs another $142,000, if you look at it
all as one project.
Mr. Bridges: Okay. And in my mind, what we’re basically doing is a change
order to give them additional funding to complete the project.
Mr. Kolb: That’s correct.
Mr. Bridges: Okay. Like I say, I intend to vote for the motion. It’s my
understanding where it’s being funded from the benefit of it, I don’t have a bit of problem
with, but I did have a problem with perception coming away that our staff had done
something illegal in this or underhanded or anything like that, and I just did not find that
in the analysis done and in coming back and discussing this. So I just wanted that
clarification, Mr. Mayor. I will support the motion.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. George, to get some clarification in my
own mind, too, like Commissioner Bridges, the perception was that something had been
done and not either the process been followed or the chain had been followed. To keep it
from happening again. Because what I’m hearing is that the money was delegated for a
specific purpose or project, then somebody, whoever, authorized the movement of that
money to do something else with for a legitimate or, better word, legal move but the
participant of the project was not notified and had no awareness. Now it comes back to
us and here’s the perception that something went wrong. So to keep this from happening
again, what’s in place to stop that from somebody taking $50 out of $100 to do
something else with and then the other $50 needed, they not going to have it and they go
to go through -- cause I mean we went through some stuff we didn’t really have to go
through. And it gave the perception even to me that it look like something wrong.
12
Mr. Kolb: Well, I’m not sure that there’s anything that can be put in place. There
was pressure from the Commission as well as from the developer to move the project
forward. And if we had not moved forward with that, we would have had to wait
approximately a year in order to complete the land acquisition portion of the project.
Since the two projects were pretty much tied, we could legitimately use the monies from
the development part of the project to complete the land assembly.
Mr. Williams: I understand that, and I’m with you. I’m on the same street with
you now. But what I’m trying to say is that if that money was designated for a project
and those people in charge of that project, thinking that that money is still there, and
when somebody, and somebody had to give the authorization to okay it, to move it to do
something that’s legitimately should be done, but to keep that from happening again --
am I making sense to you?
Mr. Kolb: Well, the alternative, if you want to change it, what we can do in the
future is that when that project runs out of money, we stop it, and then we’ll bring it back
in order to appropriate more monies to the project in order for it to be continued, which
will be a delay.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’m sorry, but I’m lost now. I’m not asking if a
project is out there, if a project is out there and there is a set amount of money for the
project, and we going to use $100 for simplicity. If $50 of that $100 has been spent,
George, and this project has another $50 coming to it, well, when the people, whoever is
handling the project, whoever is doing it, don’t know that it’s being spent, and it was
spent to acquire land or whatever, but if the right hand ain’t telling the left hand what it’s
doing, I mean how can, how can we progress, how can we go forward?
Mr. Mayor: Let me interject, if I may, because I think, Commissioner, is part of
the issue here has been communication. You have to recognize we had two outside
agencies involved in this, we’ve had some staff changes within HND, and apparently
some of the new people didn’t know what the other people had done.
Mr. Williams: Exactly. And that’s my point.
Mr. Mayor: It’s just a matter of having consistent communications within the
organization to make sure that the new people that come into the project are aware of
what the history of the project is, what’s been done, and what remains to be done. That
would be my observation.
Mr. Williams: And I appreciate that, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. But as long as this
project been ongoing and we talked about how it been dragging along, look like there
would have been some kind of records or dialog or something in Jim’s office over there,
under the seat somewhere, that somebody could have got a hold to to find out.
13
Mr. Mayor: I think you have that dialog and communication now, because we do
have a complete record of this project, and I’m sure Mr. Kolb and staff have learned a
lesson about this one, about the accuracy of records and communication, and we’ll move
forward without any additional problem with this project or any other one we’re working
on. I feel comfortable with the process now.
Mr. Williams: I think that the explanation been said already, Mr. Mayor, and I
thank you for that, but I do want to make that clear so we won’t back up in that ball no
more. We been in there one time. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Anything further? We need a motion to approve this.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry, we had a motion to take it out of Section 108 already.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: The president of the corporation had his hand up.
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry, I didn’t see it. Did you want to speak, Rev. Bennings?
Mr. Bennings: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, if you’d come up to the podium and give us your name and
address for the record, please.
Mr. Bennings: My name is Hardy Bennings. I live at 1123 Miller Street in the
city. 30901. I’m currently president of the board of directors of Laney-Walker
Development Corporation. First of all, Mr. Bridges, your concerns are very valid. I have
a great deal of respect for the questions you asked. I do have some concerns about the
response. To me, it’s important that language be dealt with in the proper fashion.
According to Mr. Administrator, it appears that we gave permission to the other agency
to go forward with the first part. That’s not true. All Laney-Walker knew is that we had
a $395,000 grant for construction. The contract was let between the other agencies
without the permission of Laney-Walker. That’s the fact of the matter. So consequently,
when we talk about the total amount of figures that were involved in the process, it seems
like an enormous amount of money that went to Laney-Walker, and that is incorrect. The
project has a cost overrun, at which time Laney-Walker was not considered or even
contacted at the point that somebody authorized moving funds from the grant. And I
emphasize that word the grant. Moving funds from the grant to complete the first part of
the project. So language is very important, because I don’t want anyone, especially the
reading public, to think that Laney-Walker has expended any funds. Just like I don’t
want any mud thrown at the HUD office. I think Mr. Mayor has clarified some
14
information very succinctly by saying that there were changes in administration and folks
didn’t know what was going on. But I don’t want anybody to think that we used funds.
We have not spent $1 of any of the funds allocated for this project. We are still waiting
on $395,000 construction grant. And that’s all we will be spending. The other, whether
it was to do a project, ten projects, or what-have-you, the fact of the matter is when you
are talking about money, you must explain what the money is doing, and we had no
control, nor did we receive any benefits from whatever amounts were paid before the
$395,000. Laney-Walker has not had one dime of that money, and we are still waiting on
the $395,000.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] get your money.
Mr. Beddings: Hopefully we will. Mr. Mayor, I apologize, but I needed to clear
that up, because I don’t want the reading public to think that we have in any way
absconded with any funds, we have used funds or mismanaged funds in any manner
whatsoever. You want a new method, Commissioner Williams, for this not happening in
the past? My suggestion would be we need some clear definitions about contracts, grants
and however else monies are allocated. If you tell a person you have a grant, it’s like
going to school. If you get a grant to go to school, when you get there, you are expecting
your grant to be intact. That’s what we were expecting. And consequently, the monies
were not there. That’s not to say that HUD did anything wrong, but I wanted to be very,
very clear. Laney-Walker had no input whatsoever in the moving of those funds. When
we found out the funds were moved, we were written a letter asking permission because
to move funds that had already been moved. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Rev. Beddings. Anything further? We have a motion on
the floor to approve this so they can get on with the project. All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Number 13, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
13. Motion to enter into a contract with CWH Management Solutions to
provide and administer the Fire Department promotional process for the
ranks of Captain, Lieutenant and Sergeant. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee July 29, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have no problem and I will support the
motion, but I need to ask the question. The Fire Chief, I guess, would be the person that
’
could help me out with this. And Im wondering why -- the program seem to be good
and seem to be something we used in the past, but why is it limited only to the rank of
15
’
Captain, Lieutenant and Sergeant, and not Chiefs? If we going use a process thats
good,then why is it not good for all of the officers that we going make in a department?
We have a lot of criticism, we been criticized up and down, right and left. What make
’
this process different that we cant use it for the Chief positions as well, and not just the
lower positions?
’
Mr. Gillespie: I think thats certainly possible. We could have and could use
that process in the future. We had a certain dollar limit that we hoped to fall within, and
’
our bid came right to the edge of it with just these personnel. We didnt know that
’
coming into that. But thats where it did fall. The Battalion Chief process that we did
and Deputy Chief and whatever we end up doing in the future is a little bit different
process than your standard written testing, which is the larger portion of the costs of these
things, developing the written tests. For those we use a resume search, we do a
questionnaire, and we work closely with the Human Resources Department to develop
’’’
those. Im not saying that we couldnt. In fact, I think its a good idea to do that. It
’
helps remove us one more step from being involved in that so theres no potential for us
to make mistakes or have our own biases in there.
’
Mr. Williams: Chief, I think you understand why I make that comment. Im in
’
support of this motion as well, but weve got a lot of criticism when it comes to the
upper ranks in our Fire Department, especially in the lower -- we having no problem with
’
the lower ranks and I just thought Id bring that to your attention. Hopefully we can
merge this system right into doing all our grading and our promotion rather than leaving
that aspect.
’
Mr. Gillespie: I think thats a great idea.
’
Mr. Williams: Okay. Thats all, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Chief, does this contract kind of guarantee
’
that the Commissioners wont be involved in the promotion process over there?
Mr. Gillespie: This is an outside group. It comes from Colorado, that will come
in and assess each of our levels of the organization that are being tested here. We have
done some of that internally already by using the job descriptions and interviewing the
people who are performing those jobs. The tests will be developed based on those with
that outside organization. There will be evaluators that we will have to supply that will
come from probably our state or the region that will sit in and participate on that, job
16
knowledge in that. Once those lists are developed, much like the Battalion Chief process,
’
then there is a list developed, theyll send a group of folks up for Chief interview and
’
well make selections for those promotions out of that area. So I would say that in my
opinion that there has been no Commission involvement in the current testing process we
’
just went through, and I dont anticipate any in the future.
Mr. Boyles: I certainly am glad to hear that. I appreciate those comments.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Chief, is this going to be a reoccurring cost
to us or are we going to use this as a model in establishing our own, in-house promotion
process from this outside vendor that is indeed free of, I guess, political interference?
Mr. Gillespie: I think, my recommendation obviously will be that we continue to
budget for this, that we have an ongoing process where we do this externally. That would
be, I believe, the best for the organization. And for the people involved.
’
Mr. Cheek: Im just -- my concern is that the cost for this is one or two fulltime
employees that we could use to administer the program.
Mr. Gillespie: I understand. Part of what we did when we did the RFP on this
was what would be a continuing cost on this, and we anticipate that would be much more
’
because weve done the job evaluations and the basic test development would be taken
’
care of in this initial bid, so we dont anticipate the cost would be this high in the future.
Mr. CheekI move to approve.
: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the motion?
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Just wanted to clarify something. I was kind of shocked to hear my
colleague say that there is an indication that Commissioners have been involved in the
promotional process, and I hope what I heard in reference to that is not the way that it
was intended to be. But the way the question was put to the Chief is if in the past we had
Commission involvement in that, and in the six years that I’ve been here, whatever, since
’96, I have not known that. So is there any reason, Chief, do you believe that in the past
we’ve had that?
Mr. Gillespie: I don’t know the answer to that.
17
Mr. Beard: I think that need clarifying from what he said.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you for sharing that with us. Anything further? We have a
motion to approve. All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is 22.
The Clerk:
22. Motion to approve the removal of 2931/33 Richmond Hill Road from the
Mandatory Garbage Pickup and removal of charges from the tax bill. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee July 29, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I understand that there are some situations
that we going to be confronted with when it comes to pleasing everybody, but I think we
probably already opening up a door here with what we’ve done in the past, but this going
to be an ongoing thing when we got people who is going to have a legitimate reason or
for whatever reason come, that do not want the service. And if we can pick and choose
who is going to have the service for whatever reason, then, you know, I think we really
not doing the job. This City, which is a consolidated city now and the District that’s
combined with the garbage service, the whole District ought to be combined, not have
part of it in and part of it out. This is I know the second, maybe third time I seen on the
roster and I just thought I’d bring it to the attention of the Commission to let us know that
we not going to be able to please every one. We understand that. But I just think if we
go on having garbage service, then we ought to have garbage service for everybody. I
mean why should some people not be charged, I guess is a good word for it, for the
service and elect not to have it, and other people elect not to have it but can’t do that. We
opening up a door that we ain’t going to be able to close.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s hear from the Public Works Chairman, Engineering Services,
Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This particular case is very similar to the
case of the Rosiers on Highway 25. You have residents that live 300 or more feet from
the main road where the cans would have to be placed on an unimproved private
driveway inaccessible by large trucks. Plus, there is private property damage that would
be incurred if these big trucks did try to go down this road, and we have had this occur
off of Karleen Road right at a year ago. And so this meets and is consistent with the
criteria and the fact that it’s not any more beneficial for the hauler to take a smaller truck
in there, it’s not cost effective to take a smaller truck in there just for these three houses,
in addition to the additional liability and the unreasonable hardship we would put upon
18
these homeowners. If we do look at these things as we get to them on a case-by-case
basis, high density development, neighborhoods and so forth, cases where main roads are
accessible, the trucks can get there, the safety factors are there not to endanger the public
or the haulers, we can evaluate these on a case-by-case basis and as we move further
south in Augusta where we have flagpole lots and things that we have allowed to occur
due to the bad habits of the past, if you will, we’re going to have to evaluate these. The
main thing the government must not do is impose an unreasonable or unnecessary
hardship upon the citizens of this city without at least giving it a once over, and this
conforms to the same criteria that we did use on the Rosiers, and hopefully that we’ll
have adopted as a policy in the near future.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, this, as Andy has stated, this
particular instance here is a place off of Richmond Hill Road and pretty well conforms to
what we did for the Rosiers before, and I under Engineering Services is coming up with
an established policy in regards to the length of driveway, that type of thing. Not only
can these people -- they’re not handicapped but they are elderly -- and not only can they
not move the full garbage can down their lengthy driveway, but there is no place to put it
on the road without blocking the driveway itself. There’s just no access there without
placing it on someone else’s property or on the right-of-way, which it does not need to be
due to the heavy traffic congestion in that area. And so I think this is one that is
consistent with what we’ve done in the past and I believe with what I’m hearing the
exemption policy will be in the future. Also, in line with what Mr. Cheek said as well,
when you get basically south of Tobacco Road, we’re going to have many of these north
of Tobacco Road, but when we get south of Tobacco Road toward the county line, you’re
going to run into a lot of these long, long driveways, unimproved, going to private homes
that you’re going to have problems with, and it’s going to be very expensive garbage to
But
pick up, so hopefully we’re going to look at that very carefully when we come to it.
I make the motion that we approve the recommendation of the Engineering Services
Committee.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I’m going to vote for the motion, but I am concerned about a
deadline, a policy where we are going to cut this off. Because I’m concerned about the
constituents that I have that I’ve told that the policy is there now and we’ve got
mandatory trash service. But I have a question. When we first extended the service to
the 1700 houses, Ms. Teresa may be able to answer this or recall. The person, the
gentleman that was out in south Augusta, U.S. 1, that the garbage truck or something
broke a pipe and he was asking to be exempt from the project, and I thought we denied
him. It was several houses up there on an isolated road. Do anyone recall that?
19
Mr. Cheek: That was the incident I mentioned on Karleen Road to where we had
worked out an agreement for the hauler to actually drive down one of these flagpole lots.
Someone had put in a thin-walled, shallow water line across their private drive. The
hauler, in good faith, was going down a quarter of a mile to pick up four houses. The line
broke. The City deferred the cost to the hauler. The hauler asked the City to cover it.
The end result was the resident was not physically threatened but got a lot of verbal abuse
from his neighbors for ruining a good thing, but there, too, they had a situation at the end
of their driveway, private driveway, where there was a ditch and no place on the right-of-
way to park the cans, and we were asking them to do that. But we did deny that one at
that point in time and they just haven’t been back.
Mr. Hankerson: So they still have to bring those cans down there; right?
Mr. Cheek: That is correct.
Mr. Hankerson: I was concerned about that because I have constituents still
calling. For instance, I give this example then I stop talking trash. A senior citizen called
me and said, she was really blessing me out about raising, charging her for garbage
service for $195 and she said she was exempt from paying taxes because of senior
citizen, some of her taxes decreased, had been decreased, and now the garbage service is
more than the property tax. And you know, so many problems that we have with that.
So I’m saying that to say this, I think we need to also set a line, that we are going to draw
the line, and that this is it until we redo the contract. And everybody will be saying the
same thing. Cause it’s about time now that everybody that had a problem would have
brought the problem before us when it first began. But as soon as this person is exempt,
you know, then somebody go out and tell somebody else that they were exempt, then
somebody else is coming back. And so I think we just need to go ahead and decide that
this is it, instead of saying we just now going to accept any more, so we be fair with
everybody. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Any further discussion? Do we have a motion o that,
Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve the exemption. All in favor, please
vote aye.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Williams abstain.
Motion carries 7-2.
Mr. Mayor: Next item is item number 28.
The Clerk:
20
28. Motion to approve Change Order No. 2 for the Kemp Drive Sanitary Sewer
Improvements Project construction contract. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee July 29, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to tell Mr. Hicks that we do note
those things that are good, the savings on that change order on this end I think ought to be
noted and ought to be mentioned, that I see -- and [inaudible], you can help me out. Is
that a $14,000 change order that’s going to save, save us some money? Is that right?
Mr. Speaker: That’s correct.
Mr. Williams: I just wanted Max and you to know that we do note that, like we
note everything else, Max. You always jumping on a person when these change orders
come in and raising, and we need to let you know that we see it all. So I appreciate it.
Thank you very much. That’s all, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: You want to make a motion?
Mr. Williams: I make a motion to approve.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next item is number 29,
The Clerk:
29. Motion to approve Amendment to Augusta Richmond County Code Section
5-2-39 to provide penalties for violation of Augusta’s Water Conservation
Restrictions. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 29, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The point of my pulling this, gentlemen
and Mr. Mayor, was to make this procedure a little more user friendly to our customers.
One question that I had. We have this captioned, Max and Jim, they’ll be the ones I
direct the questions to. This 5-2-39 is rules and regulations of public utilities, and then
under A the Director is going to make additional regulations. Is that how this is going to
work? And then one of those under C is going to be the disconnection of the water. Is
that how the [inaudible]?
21
Mr. Hicks: Jim, do you want to address that?
Mr. Wall: Either way.
Mr. Hicks: It makes no difference.
Mr. Mayor: Whoever does it, say it in English.
Mr. Hicks: Okay. A and B are already there. They are already part of the Code.
The drawer-up of this ordinance decided to put them here also, but they exist already in
the Code of Augusta as was adopted some years past. The only new item is item C, and
Jim might want to address how that was put together.
Mr. Wall: Max is correct. The new penalty provision is in item C which would
allow the disconnection. Basically the Director has been empowered to take steps that
are necessary during watering to be sure that odd-even or whatever the rotation is, that
information is disseminated to the public and in the event that someone violates that then
the penalty, in addition to just a citation, is a disconnection of the water.
Mr. Shepard: Well, then, Jim, what notice are we going to give the person who is
not paying their bill or whatever and we’re coming to disconnect them? I have talked to
some folks in the utilities business, specifically Mr. Bridges, and he was talking to me
about how they phone folks before they disconnected electricity once, or twice, or three
times; isn’t that right?
Mr. Bridges: They’re contacted three different times.
Mr. Shepard: What kind of procedures will we go through prior to disconnection,
if any? I mean are there any in this --
Mr. Wall: I’m going to pass that back to Max, but they have a plan now where
they go by, they do everything they can to try to get the property owner to comply.
Simply citing people has not worked.
Mr. Shepard: You mean court citations?
Mr. Wall: Court citations. It has not worked.
Mr. Shepard: So this is an administrative type thing?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Shepard: And what -- if I could, Mr. Mayor, a couple more questions?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
22
Mr. Shepard: Max, what is our present policy for making those pre-disconnection
contacts? I don’t see it here, is what I’m saying.
Mr. Hicks: At the present time, and what we would propose to continue to do
would be when we observe someone watering on the day that they are not supposed to or,
as is more often the case nowadays, neighbors will call in or they write letters to the
paper or we find out in a number of ways that people are continuing to water on days that
they’re not supposed to. We have contacted them by phone. We have also gone to their
homes or to their places of business and admonished them that they are in fact watering
on a time they’re not supposed to. Heretofore, the only thing we could do after that
would be to try to write a citation for them. Well, that’s a lengthy and involved process.
This gives us a more direct move, and that is that if you go to a person and you warn
them and there has been plenty of publicity about our watering policy, then if they still do
not comply then we would cut their water off. We wouldn’t anticipate going out and just
whacking them off right then, but we would warn then. That’s our anticipation.
Mr. Shepard: But is the notice that they’re going to be disconnected, is that
policy now? Is that a rule you have already put forth under the authority granted you in
subsection A which I’m told, 5-2-39A is an existing section of our Code?
Mr. Hicks: It’s the way we do business.
Mr. Shepard: Well, so it’s a custom and practice but it’s not a rule or regulation?
Mr. Hicks: No, sir.
Mr. Shepard:
And the other thing, Mr. Mayor, that happened when we got the
garbage District in my area at least, I think that Public Works, Ms. Smith deserves some
credit for this and perhaps also the hauler that we have, Augusta Disposal -- Max, they
sent out a little card to help those of us remembering what day it is, you know, is this the
thth
6 or the 8 or whatever, is it odd, is it even? I would hope that -- and maybe I’ll just put
this in the form of a motion. And I’ll make that in a minute. But I would like to see in
the bill, and I think you do already in the bill put your odd and even plan, but I think if
we’re going to have the step of disconnection, I think we ought to go ahead in the next
several mailings and whatever is practical, and put a little notice of this in the bill of our
new policy of disconnection in the bill and remind the people what days that they can
water. I mean if it’s an odd day, I water on an odd day. Sometimes we don’t water on
Sundays or Mondays. I just think if we’re going to go this step, as part of this Ordinance,
that we require your department to insert in the next several bills a clear notice of our
policy of disconnection and a clear notice of when you are supposed to water. I mean
this, well, everybody knows. Well, I can tell you everybody forgets from time to time
and I think if we’re going to disconnect people, which is a pretty strong remedy, I think
we ought to give them every benefit of notice that we can before we take this
I’d make the motion that
administrative remedy. So if I’m still in order, Mr. Mayor,
we pass this ordinance with the requirement that a notice be inserted in the next
several water bills as practicable informing them of this new Section C and its
23
remedy of disconnection and informing that particular day the account number or
the account holder can water.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: There is a second from Mr. Bridges. I recognize the Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Hicks, how will this affect the commercial businesses that,
when there is a thunderstorm going on outside and the sprinkler system pops up and they
are watering the grass on [inaudible] days, will they get the same treatment?
Mr. Hicks: Are you talking about if they’re watering on a day they could water?
Mr. Colclough: Or could not water.
Mr. Hicks: If they’re watering on a day they’re not supposed to, we would treat
them the same way. We would let them know that they are watering on a day they’re not
supposed to. And sometimes it’s a thunderstorm that causes it, sometimes they just
haven’t bothered to set their timers.
Mr. Colclough: I’m sorry --
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor. To rephrase your question, you’re saying if they’re
watering on any day?
Mr. Colclough: Watering on the day that they’re not supposed to.
Mr. Kolb: And it rains?
Mr. Colclough: No, watering on the day that they’re not supposed to water on,
would they be treated the same as a residential household? Will they be shut off also?
That’s a question.
Mr. Hicks: What we do with them even now, if you’ve got a commercial entity,
and this would be something you [inaudible], there are some commercial entities you just
don’t go in and cut their water off just like that. For instance, beauty shops. If you were
to cut their water off just like and you had a lady who had a perm and her hair might burn
--
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] shower and you cut my water off.
(Laughter)
Mr. Colclough: That’s just as important as somebody who is at the beauty shop.
24
Mr. Hicks: I agree, sir, but that would not lead to a financial loss on your part.
Mr. Colclough: Oh, I don’t say [inaudible].
Mr. Hicks: And so the way we consider it is if would cause a loss of income right
then by way of maybe a lawsuit or some customers getting damaged, we do try to give
them the benefit, but any other group, we’ll cut them off.
Mr. Colclough: But then aren’t you treating them separately from your residential
folks?
Mr. Hicks: We’re giving them additional consideration if it’s certain businesses.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] residents, though. If you are going to have an
ordinance, shouldn’t that ordinance cover everybody, regardless of what business you’re
in?
Mr. Hicks: I have no fault with your comment, but we have been approaching it
that way, that if it was a certain type of business, where a person could suffer say second
hand -- for instance, a person having their hair done or the person having something done
suffered a loss for what the owner did.
Mr. Colclough: What Mr. Shepard is saying, if you put these notices in their bills
on several occasions, that these are the days that you can and cannot water, and if this
person is sitting there with a head full of lye and they’re watering on a day they’re not
supposed to [inaudible], but if a residential person is out there watering [inaudible]. If
you’re going to do this, I think you should do this across the board.
Mr. Hicks: Your point is well taken.
Mr. Colclough: Whether it’s legal or not. I mean we’re talking about one thing
and you’re talking about something different.
Mr. Hicks: You’re right.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Hicks, let me just follow up a little bit
of what you said, but I had some telephone calls concerning this. A lot of times, a male
will go out and turn the water system on and the wife doesn’t know anything about it, and
then if we come to disconnect, they turn off the water system, and she’s getting ready to
run the dishwasher or she’s getting ready to wash clothes, or if it’s a situation where you
have a baby in the house and they’re getting ready to sterilize bottles, and it can affect
your gas hot water heater, too. Somehow that just doesn’t seem quite fair to me, not to be
customer friendly. That’s without some sort of notice. Because --
25
Mr. Hicks: Are you talking about not cutting it off at all or just -- what we
anticipate doing is the first time that they’re doing that, we don’t anticipate running right
out and starting to cut people’s water off like tomorrow. I’ve tried to use the analogy of
the seat belt. In other words, the seat belt became law. But the -- who is it in Georgia
that enforces it? In South Carolina, they gave you a little while, said all right now, you
know it’s the law, you’ve got to fasten your seat belt. Now if you don’t begin to do it by
a certain time. We would go out and warn those people. The wife in this instance, the
husband, whoever. We are not anticipating running right out and cut their water off. But
we can now begin to tell them there is an ordinance in place, and as of whatever time -- I
mean if the Commission wanted to say send out a couple of notices, we’re sending them
out only once a month, and so if we send out two, pretty well this season would be gone.
But if you wanted to say okay, we want this ordinance to become effective on whatever
date you want to say, then we would tell the people, all right, as of that day, this
ordinance will be effective, and we will cut you off, and even as Commissioner
Colclough said, that could apply very well to any business or any residence, whatever.
But we had anticipated a period of notification. Because heretofore we haven’t had that
authority. And it’s something I think they need to be aware of. But I think there does
need to be that authority to cut off. Otherwise, I think we’ll continue on just like we’re
going.
Mr. Boyles: As long as we can notify people without just automatically going off
and turning off water, going out and turning off water. I certainly support what you’re
trying to do and I will vote for you because we see it every day, coming down here, from
the far end of west Augusta coming down, you see on unauthorized days, you see water
on.
Mr. Hicks: Right.
Mr. Boyles: And I support it. As long as we do some form. Maybe as
Commissioner Shepard said, some form of notification.
Mr. Hicks: And I have no problem with that. Notifying them, if you want to send
it out in the mail, I would suggest maybe one mailing. That would be -- I mean we could
start sending it in the water bills and to get all the routes covered. There’s 12 routes. It
would take about four weeks for that to take place. It would be at least a month before
we could get everybody notified that way. And in that same time, we would be notifying
people who their neighbors did call in, be notifying them of the situation and people
would be adequately warned. We have no problem with that. I think that’s the fair way
to do it.
Mr. Boyles: Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hicks, I think it would be helpful to this Commission if you
would reduce to writing these customs and practices that you have in the Water
Department, and that may answer a lot of questions the Commissioners have. If you
26
could put those in writing and send us each a copy of those in the next week, I think that
would be helpful.
Mr. Hicks: Are you talking about such as has to do with --
Mr. Mayor: Whatever is not written down as a rule somewhere, but you guys do
it just as a matter of practice. If you would write all that down for us so that we would
know what you do, when you do it, why you do it, and who it impacts, and then we find
out, like Mr. Colclough did, that you treat business people different than you do
homeowners. So we’d have the benefit of that.
Mr. Hicks: We’ll do our very best.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, just to follow up on what you were saying. I
would hope we would codify that to make it uniform across the city, these practices and
policies and so forth. Max, one question. I know a couple of years ago this time of the
year, when we looked at the tank levels at 8 o’clock at night, we had several of our
supply tanks near or approaching the empty state and working on line pressure. In spite
of the severe drought we’ve been under for the last couple of years, are we still seeing
those same conditions or have our supply sources improved to the point we are no longer
bottoming out at night?
Mr. Hicks: No, sir, as a matter of fact, it’s almost gotten to the contrary. You
have to let the tanks go up and down a fair amount in order to keep the water good and
fresh in it and in order to keep the chlorine residual high in it. Our folks have been so
used to being in that mode of keep it high, keep it high, keep it high, that now they’ve got
to learn let it fluctuate, let it fluctuate. So we’ve been in no danger this summer. We’re
having to learn hey, we have the resources to get it in there, let the tank ride up and down
in its normal range and we’ll be all right. So we are in that mode. We have had no
difficulty along that line.
Mr. Cheek: I just remember on one given weekend, out of 14 tanks I think we
had 12 operating at the one foot level back then, and it sounds to me like we’re well
beyond that point now.
Mr. Hicks: And those folks still remember those days and they want to keep it
right to the brim all the time if they can, and it needs to operate up and down, just
keeping the water fresh.
Mr. Cheek: The folks that have to live with that are reminding me that they don’t
want to go back there but are real thankful that they don’t have to experience those same
conditions.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
27
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A couple of comments. First of all, Mr.
Hicks, I really appreciate what your effort is and what you are trying to do, but I can’t
support the motion. For a number of reasons. First of all, this only affect south Augusta
and the inner city. If you get down to it, west Augusta has no problem. You can go in
west Augusta and find water running from one yard to another and even into the street
and come down the street. Folks going water in west Augusta and that’s just the way
things are. But I don’t understand how we can propose a law or put a law on the books,
put something where you are able to go and cut the water off. I got enough people
suffering for lack of money to pay the bill. I got problems here where we got businesses
who have not paid their bill. I mean and here we are talking about even and odd days,
who is watering, if a neighbor calls in and says Andy Cheek been watering on odd days
and he’s supposed to be watering on even days or vice versa. I think that’s a good
suggestion and I think you mean well, but I just think people have enough now to
contend with. When you look at the blue collar workers, the inner city people, the people
in south Augusta who have been suffering, that we propose this on them. Even our own
city, I can ride in this city and I see sprinkler system come on on Gordon Highway and
Deans Bridge Road and water running down the street. I guess it’s an automatic system
that sets up, that comes on, Max. But if we going do this, we going have to clean our
own doors before we can tell somebody to clean theirs. I mean I’m not in support. I
think it’s good, I think it’s good. But I can’t support it for those reasons.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, I’m not going to let you sit here and let you cast a bad
light on the people who live in west Augusta and say in this chamber that they’re out
there wasting water and not abiding by restrictions and regulations that are in place.
That’s a foolish statement and you shouldn’t be saying things like that and try to pit
different geographic regions in the city against each other. That’s not fair and you
shouldn’t do that.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I understand what you’re saying, and that’s your
prerogative. Let me tell you what I know about west Augusta and the inner city.
Mr. Mayor: Why don’t you turn in addresses in west Augusta?
Mr. Williams: I can do that. In fact, I have some of my constituents who call me
about west Augusta that have the water. If you don’t believe it, Mr. Mayor, just open
your eyes and look at the green grass in west Augusta and look at the brown grass in
south Augusta.
Mr. Mayor: I see a lot of green grass in south Augusta, too.
Mr. Williams: Okay. If you want to look at grass, you find green grass in west
Augusta, and that’s a known fact. That’s not only for water or grass, that’s for
everything. Let’s be real about this thing.
Mr. Mayor: That’s what I’m saying.
28
Mr. Williams: Let’s be real then and own up to the facts. And that’s fact.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Hankerson. We have a motion to approve. All in
favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: Next item is number 36.
The Clerk:
36. Motion to approve Change Order #5 to Blair Construction, Inc to make final
quantity adjustments (deduction and overruns) in accordance with the unit price
contract, for additional work requested by the Augusta Utilities Department to
install three pressure reducing valve vaults. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee July 29, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I was looking at something here and now I lost my
train of thought after my last debate with you. Just give me one second, please, sir, to
find my place here. I think -- the change order, Mr. Mayor, what I wanted to know about
was there was no backup in this material and I needed to know what amount were we
saving or what amount were we spending? I mean I didn’t see any backup in my material
book.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, can you respond to that?
Mr. D. Cheek: This change order is actually three parts. The first part is
associated with the, actually with the existing contract. The other two parts are
associated with additions as requested by the Augusta Utilities Department. The first part
is a reduction and an overrun, all added up together it combines to $333.35. The second
part is an addition, actually what’s called --
The Clerk: I apologize for that Mr. Williams. Item 36 is included with item 24
and we only put it in one part of the book, under item 24. Sorry for that confusion.
Mr. Williams: Okay, Ms. Bonner. I have no problem. I see it now. I didn’t see
36 and that’s what brought it to my attention.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Do we have a motion?
29
Mr. Williams: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Second? All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is 39.
The Clerk:
39. Motion to approve the appointment of Ms. Mildred McDaniel to the
Augusta-Richmond County Coliseum Authority representing District 1.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke:
Mr. Mayor, I respect the privilege of my colleague from District 1
appointing whoever he wishes to any Commission or Authority that we have out there.
And I’d like to ask the Clerk to notify the
But I pulled this for just this one reason.
Administrator that I think we have a serious situation in the Coliseum Authority,
and I think it’s so serious that I think we as a Commission need to discuss it very
fully with the Legislative Delegation, and I would like for the Administrator to place
this on the agenda for our discussion prior to meeting with the Legislative
Delegation, and I would also like to have him implement some type of plan in the
event that the Coliseum Authority is abolished, which I hope that we will
recommend to the Legislative Delegation, and bring the Coliseum Authority under
this government. But if he would develop some plan, should that be acted upon, on
how we would do that. And with that I’d move approval of the nomination.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Again, I have no problem with a
Commissioner appointing whoever he chooses. That’s our prerogative. But a question
was raised, I guess I read in the newspaper, and being new here. Our appointments are
designated by two consecutive terms; did I read that? And if it is, I may have some
people that I have appointed that may not be in compliance, and I think it may be the time
for us to go through all and make sure that we are. Because I did carry some people over,
and I did read that --
The Clerk: Just the Coliseum Authority.
Mr. Boyles: Just the Coliseum Authority?
30
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Boyles: The only one that has consecutive terms?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. State Legislature Act.
Mr. Boyles: State?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. State [inaudible].
Mr. Boyles: So the local boards that we do here are okay?
The Clerk: It’s just the Coliseum Authority.
Mr. Boyles: So the rest are really basically unlimited terms? Cause I may have
some that have reached that, because I did carry over some from my predecessor.
The Clerk: No, sir, it doesn’t apply to that.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you very much. Just needed that clarification.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I, too, fully support Commissioner Beard or any of us
having the right to choose who we want to represent our District. What I wanted to
comment on is Commissioner Kuhlke’s comment concerning the Coliseum Authority. I,
too, have heard from our representative, as well as local media, very, very serious things
that are very serious to me and concern me, in the way of losing major sporting venues
and events and so forth for this area. I intend to, in addition with item number 43, to
make the recommendation that this doesn’t go through the old process of putting it in a
queue or lined with other items to be discussed with the Legislative Delegation, but does
go to the special committee that we created to work on Legislative and other issues, that
we discuss not only changes to the structure to the city government, but the Coliseum
Authority, with that working body that we created and have consensus with our local
Legislative Delegation to work on resolving both the Coliseum Authority and other
changes to this, to this government. We have a mechanism in place to do that, and if one
thing is for sure, the past methods of getting things accomplished in Atlanta using the old
techniques is a dismal failure. I think a working committee is the way to make things
happen. We have some good representation from the Commission and the Legislative
Delegation, and I believe that’s the way to go with the Coliseum Authority and any
changes to this government.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? All in favor then of the approval of item 39,
please vote aye.
Mr. Hankerson: That wasn’t an amendment to the motion, that was just a motion?
31
Mr. Mayor: Motion to appoint.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Number 40.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
40. Approve Amendment #5 to the existing contract with OMI, Inc. for the
operations, maintenance and management services associated with the James B.
Messerly WWTP in the amount not to exceed $4,840,000 to facilitate system
improvements. (Funded by account number: 509043420-5425210/80180175-
5425210) (Deferred from July 8 Engineering Services) (No Recommendation from
Engineering Services Committee July 29, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hicks?
Mr. Hicks: Gentlemen, this item was sent forward from the Engineering Services
Committee with no recommendation. To summarize, the purpose of this agenda item is
to ask for funding for Phase II of a program that was approved by the Commission
roughly a year ago. At that time, there were projects that were set forth that needed to be
done at the Messerly Waste Water Treatment Plant and OMI was selected to do those, but
only the first phase was funded. And there was going to be a time when we would come
back for the second phase and that’s what the purpose of this material is. You’ll notice in
your backup data there is a sheet that’s titled Augusta WWTP Improvements, Location
Augusta, Georgia and project items 1 through 12 were funded under Phase I. And then
items 13 through 22 had their initiation deferred until a later date when funds would be
available. Funds are available and we would, we would send this agenda item forward to
seek funding for those items. We really need to move ahead with the work out there in
that beginning January of next year we’ll be under more strict penalties or more severe
penalties from the EPD if the plant does not meet its discharge criteria.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Hicks, you and I have discussed, as well
as in committee discussed some concerns that several of us have had calls from local
vendors concerning allocation of work and so forth. I, for one, am very pleased with
OMI’s job that they have done for us. I remember initially, back before my tenure on the
Commission, a lot of criticism the Commission took for bringing them on board.
They’ve done nothing but do an excellent job. However, that concern still exists within
our local vendor community about OMI holding both the contract and contracting out the
work. Is there not some third party alternative to oversee the administration of the letting
32
of this work that would free OMI from that part of the process, while still keeping
someone in the loop that can help us meet our time constraints?
Mr. Hicks: Commissioner Cheek, during the discussion that has taken place in
two Engineering Services Committee meetings, we gathered that fact, also in the
meetings that we’ve had in a subcommittee. We have subsequently asked a firm,
Stevenson and Palmer Engineering, if they would be willing or if they could in fact serve
as the lead contract on a design-build program for accomplishing this same work. They
have given us such a letter. I didn’t hand it out because I didn’t know how this was going
to go today. But I did ask them for this in case this did come up. Because this is work
that we need to have done as quickly as we can. Had we known a year ago that the mood
of the Commission would be as it is now, and that is not to continue with the funding of
Phase II of this program, then we would have already gone out with RFQ’s, solicited for
contracts, had the work underway, and we would be done the road with it. But we were
not, until this discussion came up, and it seemed that there was not the mood to continue
it or the will of the Commission to continue it, so we did ask for this. And I’d like to read
this, if it would be appropriate.
Mr. Wall: I have some concern about going through a design-build process,
selecting a contractor for a design-build contract under the current purchasing statute. I
don’t think it would be appropriate for us to come in and name someone at this time that
we want to utilize. The reason that this is submitted as an amendment to the existing
contract is this Commission has already selected OMI to do this work, and that was part
of the Amendment No. 3 that was approved in June of 2001. It was just that only the
funding was done for the first part of that. The first phase of that work. Not Phase II.
This is simply carrying forward the Amendment No. 3. Now there are limitations on
what you can do on a Public Works contract as far as justification for being able to go out
and choose a contractor. OMI’s existing contract allows this work for us to do this work.
I do not think we are currently in a position today to go through the process of changing
and doing a design-build. I think there would have to be some advertising requirements,
I think there are some hoops we would have to jump through before we could do that, and
that’s the reason that I have supported this Amending No. 5 that has been proposed
because again at the time Amendment No. 3 was adopted, the full scope of the work was
authorized and was given to OMI. It was just that funding for Phase I was awarded at
that time. Now funding for Phase II has been awarded. And I have serious concerns
about designating a firm to do design-build at this point, at this meeting, without going
through a process that we have not gone through.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Well, that took a lot of wind out of what I was going to say there.
But we, that’s what we’ve got our Attorneys for and we need to listen to them. But let
me make sure I am listening right, Jim. You’re saying that back when we approved this
project, we approved Phase I and Phase II for OMI to do it and for just -- we just funded
Phase I and we’re under legal restrictions to fund Phase II and allow OMI to do this as a
result of that?
33
Mr. Wall: That’s correct. If you look at Amendment No. 3, which is a part of the
backup, it should be. I’ve got it here. As a part of Amendment No. 3, the Commission
approved for and OMI agreed to the amendment as follows, and provided for the
following work: the retrofit of the existing structure. It goes on consistent with the
summary plan dated May 9, 2001, attachment included herein. And as a part of that, the
full retrofit program was included with a total cost estimated to be approximately $14
million. And we did was items 1 through 12 were authorized and funded as a part of that
amendment in 2001, and this takes care of items 13 through 23. But that work was
contracted with OMI back in 2001.
Mr. Bridges: If we wanted to go out and do a design-build with Stevenson-
Palmer, how much time are we looking at before it comes back here for us to vote on? A
couple of months?
Mr. Wall: Yes. 60 days.
Mr. Bridges: Which we can’t afford. I’m like Mr. Cheek in this regard, too.
OMI has done us an excellent job out there. They’ve said us a million dollars the first
year they were out there in funds that we would have expended or had to expend, that
they saved us. My concern is that when you start using your sister company or yourself
to do the work, then the danger and the mood of the Commission could be that we want
to get rid of them as project manager, and I don’t want to see that. I want to see OMI
continue to be the project manager and I don’t want anything to happen that would
jeopardize that. So those are my comments right now and I’ll have to mull over what the
Attorney had to say while we debate it.
Mr. Mayor: Mayor Pro Tem, Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Wall, you say that we funded items 1 through 12 on the first
page; that correct?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Colclough: Okay, we did not fund items 13 through 23?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Colclough: So we’re not under any obligation to give them any more money
unless we vote to do so, regardless of where the amendments come in at.
Mr. Wall: Well --
Mr. Colclough: We paid for the scope of work that we said we were going to pay
for.
34
Mr. Wall: This is true.
Mr. Colclough: If we are looking at -- I agree with the rest of my Commissioners
up here, OMI has done a great job. But when you are taking and getting paid for the
services rendered, plus taking 15% and paying your subs 5%, that’s a little much, isn’t it?
Mr. Wall: Well, the -- let me say this. I don’t think that OMI is going to sue if
you choose to go another route. That’s not the point of my comments. My comments are
that you cannot just simply designate someone today to be the design-build.
Mr. Colclough: I understand.
Mr. Wall: We would have to go through that process.
Mr. Colclough: I understand that. And, you know, I think if we do go through
the process here, you’re saying that everything is [inaudible] and I think that’s not fact. I
think that if we do go out and do the process that we’re talking about, I think we will lag
no further behind than we are now.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard:
Mr. Mayor, in light of what the Attorney just said, to me it’s getting
rather confusing here, and personally I, too, would like to commend OMI for what
they’ve done. But I think to make a decision here, I am not ready to make a decision one
way or another right here today. And I think that this need a little more debate than what
we can do on the floor here. And I’m thinking that it should go back to the committee and
give everybody a chance by Monday to kind of look this over and see what route we are
going to take. We may end up at the next meeting accepting this, but to me, I can’t speak
And so that we can move forward I’m
for anybody else, but I’m just not ready for that.
going to move that it be sent back to the committee to consider what Max has
proposed and consider what Jim has said here today and let’s give us some time to
look this over.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Jim, I need to ask the question to you. May 9, I think you said,
2001, did we not bind the new Commissioners, the two junior Commissioners coming on,
with the contract such that would extend the service from that time even until now but
them not being elected at that time? Is that not a rule that we --
Mr. Wall: I assume you’re asking -- I think you’re asking whether or not one
Commission is bound to subsequent Commission. And because the funding has not been
authorized for the second portion of it, that is the reason that it’s being brought back. Is
the funding portion that comes into play so far as one Commission binding another, and
35
you contract with someone to perform work for a period of time longer than a year, it’s
just the funding is the issue.
Mr. Williams: So in essence what you’re saying is that Commissioner Beard’s
statement is accurate, we don’t have to do anything right now, it’s not like -- and I’m
thinking we are up against the wall again like we always are, that we got to do something
before the cows get out the fence and all that stuff. So --
Mr. Wall: Well, I don’t want to leave the impression that there is not a penalty or
potential penalty for failure to move forward quite rapidly. And that is the concern. The
reason this was brought before you back in 2001, and the reason that it was recommended
at that time that OMI perform the work was because you are performing work in an
existing plant with an operator who is doing the work and you are doing retrofit work, it
would have been quite time consuming to draw up a set of plans and specifications that
you could have gone out at that time and requested bids and proposals. And so that was
the reason that we recommended that the operator perform the work under the first 12
items of work at that time. Now the same thing is true now. If you decide to go to a bid
process, you know, that would be very lengthy. A design-build process is going to be
longer than what it would take OMI to perform the work. We do run the risk of having
increased fines beginning January 1, 2003. They go up to $12,000 a month. And there is
an increased likelihood that we will incur those penalties if this work is not done as
rapidly as possible, begun now, and hopefully completed or substantially completed by
January of 2003. So there is the potential penalty. And can I tell you we are going to
incur that penalty if this work is not done? I can’t answer that. Max may can. But I
think that in defense of the Utilities Department, when the work was contracted in 2001
to be performed by OMI, all of the items listed, cause the contract called for them to do
all the work, only the funding for the first 12 items, then there was no alarm or urgency or
anything else so far as Utilities Department getting a set of plans that could be bid, nor
was there any urgency or concern that they needed to go through a design-build selection
process because the understanding was that OMI would perform the work when the
funding became available.
Mr. Williams: Jim, what got my attention, and I think probably most of the
Commissioners, when you are talking about $4,840,000 and an extension of money has
already been spent, I mean in my mind that should have been a bid situation where we
went out and had somebody else to compete. If you are locked in to the first phase, then
you got a $4 million second and then you got third, fourth, fifth or whatever. I mean I’m
just using that for an example. The money is -- my biggest problem here is awarding the
contract to anybody. And I think they did a good job. I got no problem. But I think if
we was at this threshold that you’re saying about could be charged with fines, somebody
from that company should have talking to Max, talking to George, or talking to the
Mayor, telling somebody where we are before we get to the edge of the wall.
Mr. Wall: And I understand what you’re saying and I think maybe we should
have brought this forward earlier. But if you’re looking back in 2001 and there is an
agreement with OMI for them to perform all of the work, and you’ve gone through the
36
first phase of the work, then the logical assumption is that Phase II is going to be done
just like Phase I, and that’s the assumption that was made. And so that’s the reason we
are where we are. It’s not that nobody was paying attention to it, it was just that the
assumption was that OMI would get the second phase because they had already
contracted to do the work. It was just a matter of locating the money and getting funding
for it and approval to do it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hicks, can you add something to that? You indicated you
wanted to speak.
Mr. Hicks: Yes. It is pretty well as I have stated earlier, and that is it was our
anticipation that it would move in that fashion. And I would just like to say this. The
main reason that we brought forth the name of Stevenson and Palmer, they are already
involved in Phase I as the design engineer, so it would be a seamless move on forward
with the same first preparing all the setting plans for the equipment, preparing the
drawings, we would lose as little time as possible there. And of course, whatever is the
mood of the Commission, you know, we will certainly carry out. And OMI has already
commented that they will run the plant to the very best of their ability to make every
st
effort to meet the new criteria or to meet the criteria already established come January 1.
The difficulty is meeting, is in meeting the [inaudible] in it. That seems to give us the
hardest time, during the winter. But they will operate it. They have already assured us
they will to the best of their ability, and they’re good operators, to meet that criteria. So
we can’t tell you that if this is not done, the plant will not meet its discharge criteria. But
there’s a better likelihood it will not if this is not done.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hicks, as a practical matter, what would be the effect of a two-
week delay? I mean in the big picture and the scope of this project, send this to
committee next Monday and then coming back to the Commission meeting two weeks
from today, is that going to have a significant adverse impact on this project?
Mr. Hicks: We have already, I think it’s what, two, three weeks ago that it was
first brought?
th
Mr. Mayor: July 8 it first came to committee.
Mr. Hicks: It was first brought, and so we’ve waited a month, and so
consequently it looks like we might get into January trying to meet it under current
circumstances with work going on. Depending on what route the Commission might
choose to go forward would be the ultimate effect.
Mr. Mayor: My question, are we going to be harmed by a two-week delay, which
would be the net effect of the motion?
Mr. Hicks: To wait two weeks we would not be any worse off than we are today,
I’ll put it this way. The biggest thing is ordering the equipment, and that’s the biggest
item. Getting the equipment on order and getting it in.
37
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hicks, since the equipment is going to have to be ordered
anyway, could the Utilities Department go ahead and order the equipment for whoever
ends up doing the work and get the order put in for the equipment?
Mr. Hicks: I hadn’t asked that question. I don’t know that I’d ever gotten the
[inaudible]. That’s a good point.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just to be brief and go ahead on vote on this, what I
didn’t hear, and I’ll have to review the contract for any language that precluded OMI
from selecting a third party to administer this portion of the work for them. With that, I
move to call the question.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called on the motion from Mr. Beard to send
this back to committee. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough votes No.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 42.
The Clerk:
APPOINTMENT:
42. Consider the recommendation of the Richmond County Board of Health to
appoint Marshal Steve Smith to the Community Service Board of East Central
Georgia due to the resignation of Mr. Jackson Usry. (Unexpired term June 30,
2004)
Mr. Bridges: So move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough: Ms. Clerk, please note that I abstain from that vote. It’s the place
that I work at.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: Item 43.
38
The Clerk:
MAYOR:
43. Consider approval of an Ordinance to amend Title 1, Chapter 2 of the code
of Augusta-Richmond County by amending section 1-2-36 regarding the duties of
the administrator; to provide severability; to repeal conflicting ordinances; to
provide an effective date; and for other lawful purposes.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Madame Clerk. I asked this be put on the agenda today.
It’s something that’s been talked about for some time. It’s time that we face up to it. The
ordinance simply gives the Administrator the power to hire and fire those Department
Heads who work for him. It would not change in any way the authority of this
Commission over those people who work for this Commission. It’s not a Mayor’s bill,
it’s not a Georgia Kolb bill. This is a good policy decision on the part of this
Commission. The change in government here has been advocated in one form or another
by a majority of the members of the Legislative Delegation. The change has been
advocated by members of the Charter Committee, by the Special Grand Jury, by the
business community, through the Chamber of Commerce, and even by the previous
Mayor. Former and current members of this body have advocated the change. In fact,
the Mayor Pro Tem had a more expansive version of this ordinance before this body. He
had it drafted and then pulled it from the agenda before there could be any debated or
even a vote on the issue. Giving the Administrator to hire and fire those people that work
for him makes sense. It is the right thing to do. It would have averted the debacle that
we had last winter over the hiring of our Fire Chief. It would also have eliminated many
of the areas of criticism that have been contained in the reports from the Special Grand
Jury. The change will eliminate about 90%, in my opinion, about 90% of those Human
Resources issues that sharply divide this Commission. The measure will empower the
Administrator to hold him fully accountable to the Mayor and the Commission as to the
accomplishment of his duties in accordance with the intent of the consolidation
Legislation. Make no mistake that employment decisions will still have to be done in
consultation with the city Commission, because contracts and compensation packages
have to come here and be approved by this body. Likewise, any terminations would be
appealed to this body. You have a chance today to move Augusta out of the 1960’s and
the 1940’s as some of you have said, so let’s do what’s right, let’s pass this simple
change to the law. The people are waiting for you to act. Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles:
Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor, and I applaud your effort and
your comments of trying to do this and I certainly support those. But let me just offer
these comments to the table, this Commission. You mentioned earlier this year there was
a motion made to give hiring and firing power to the Administrator. I believe under Mr.
Beard’s suggestion we decided that we would wait until we could work with the
Legislative Delegation and try to solve all of our problems that were acknowledged and
recognized back during the past Legislative Session. Back in April, I think a committee
was established to work with that Legislative Delegation on issues and restructuring of
this Commission. On June 11, from you and the Mayor Pro Tem, there was a committee
39
of Commissioners established -- Commissioner Cheek, myself, Commissioner Beard -- to
work with the members from the Georgia Delegation. This letter was sent to Rep.
Connell: Please accept this letter as an official request on behalf of the Augusta
Commission to join them in the formation of a joint Legislative Committee. The
Commission in its June 4 regular meeting approved the formation of this committee
which would consist of three members from the local Legislative Delegation and of
course three from the Augusta Commission. The said committee will meet twice a year
and return a report to both full bodies at the annual joint meeting outlining strategies for
the pending Legislative Session. Of course that was signed by our Clerk, Ms. Bonner.
This notation came back, this letter came back from the Speaker Pro Tem with the
Georgia House and the Chairman of the Richmond County Legislative Delegation:
Thank you, Ms. Bonner, for your recent letter concerning the Augusta Commission’s
motion to form a joint Legislative Committee to review the structure of local government.
As Chairman of the Delegation, I would like to appoint Sen. Don Cheeks, Rep. Henry
Howard and Rep. George DeLoach to serve on this committee. Further, I would suggest
that all the House and Senate Delegation members that will be elected in November to
serve the 2003-2004 term be able to participate and provide input into this committee at
the appropriate time. This to me was important, this comment: The Augusta
Commission should be commended for their efforts to work with the Legislative
Delegation on this important matter. I’m very much in favor of doing. And that was
signed Speaker Jack Connell. I’m very much in favor of this hiring ordinance and would
I would like to move, make the motion that we allow the committee
vote for it, but
that was established because of credibility to meet this month as one of our official
meetings and report back at that time and I make that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Cheek: I second that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. There has been a second. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I make the motion that we approve the
ordinance as it is.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve. It’s been seconded. Discussion? Mr.
Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I have some concerns about this. I have
concerns about the operation of the Commission and as Commissioners being policy
makers I want to abide by that, being policy makers and want to do that, what is best to
move Augusta forward. But I think that the manner we are doing some things is only
causing division instead of bringing us together and we’re not getting anywhere. I recall
February 4 that [inaudible] that was motion and it was approved for two workshops. This
was February 4. The first workshop was to address the hiring and firing power of the
Administrator. Also in that workshop, his ability to work with or without hiring and
firing powers. Also, it was the Administrator’s comments also, we were to discuss the
40
Administrator’s comments to the media, cause I have concerns of how we as our
colleagues, our Administrator, our Mayor, how we are supposed to be working as a team
and we talk to the media against ourselves. I don’t think that it’s going to be any unity
here as long as we go out and talk about the Commission. I think that’s wrong. I think
we, my colleagues, I hope that we will get the message that we need to stop that, that we
need to put a stop to it, if we are going to come together and work as a body working
forward, working to have a progressive city. Also, the second workshop supposedly
addressed early retirement packages. These things were to me very important as coming
on this Commission. Commissioner Boyles and I have only been on this Commission for
eight months. I now have reservations whether I should be involved, or Mr. Boyles
should be involved either, in the Administrator’s evaluation process, for the
Commissioners are evaluating him for 12 months. Mr. Boyles and I only been on the
Commission for eight months and his evaluation is supposed to end in May and that was
only five months. Whether that would be fair for us to evaluate him for five months and
the other Commissioners evaluate him for 12. I would have to evaluate him on how I
have worked with him in the five months, where other evaluate for 12 months. In my
opinion, that -- eight months I have been on Commission, I thought that the
Administrator had the power to hire and fire, as I’m saying to present to us any
recommendation to hire a person or fire a person. I don’t recall at any time where he has
brought someone to us that he had a discipline problem with them or wanted to fire them
that we denied that. So I see that process, it is in place that if someone that he
recommends to fire, that would be discussed, as well as someone that he recommends to
hire. It was mentioned about the Fire Chief, that that wouldn’t have happened. But a
correction have made. And I think that we as a Commission should give the respect to
two new Commissioner and the community that two Commissioners are here now, two
new Commissioners that was not involved in what has happened in the past. I don’t
expect to relive things that happened 12 months ago before I was on board, because I
don’t know who gave who what authority, but I am only going to make my decisions on
how I see things since I’ve been here for this nine months and from then on and I think
we need to get more serious about proposals that we motion and approve on this board,
that we have workshops and we don’t have workshops. We’ve had every kind of
workshop but a workshop on hiring and firing, Administrator, that first workshop that we
approved right here. The secretary, the Clerk can check the records, February 4, on my
birthday. I told you that it was my birthday and I wanted those workshops because I
thought when we operate, we should have some workshops. We need to sit down. These
issues that I see here today should be resolved in a workshop, not on the floor of the
Commission. I’m talking about this item, I’m talking about item 44. These things should
be -- we should be doing these things in committee meetings. But we are here now to
discuss these things and these are very controversial issues and are sending the wrong
message out to the community that everywhere I go I’m being approached out of town,
on conventions, in training, for this Commission, I’m being approached as though that
I’m fighting with all of my white Commissioners, that we are not getting along down
here, that we’re just fighting. And it’s not that. I’ve had lunch with everyone here,
except Mr. Kuhlke, and he’s going to take me to lunch, I know that.
(Laughter)
41
Mr. Hankerson: But I don’t see that kind of division. And the message need to
get out that we are not just fighting. There are some things that need some correction. I
think that we need to be more proactive and work on the things that we say we are going
to work on. My final point it also the second workshop stated that -- asked the Mayor
and Administrator to present to the Commissioners -- this was said February 13 -- a five-
to-ten year plan of action for the -- in the next 30 days which include your vision, your
goals and your objectives that we can work on a five-to-ten year plan. And I think when
we do that, all of these other things about who got power and all of that, I think the city
will move forward. But I haven’t received, that hasn’t came back to this Commission the
five-to-ten year plan. So those are the things that haven’t been completed yet.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, I beg to differ with you. Mr. Kolb and I sent a joint
letter to everybody on this Commission in April which had those goals and objectives in
it. It had master plans in it for a number of areas in this community, as well as the results
of the Commission workshop. So if you’d like another copy, I’ll be glad to give you one.
But that was complied with and that was sent out.
Mr. Hankerson: We haven’t had a workshop. I asked that we have workshops to
discuss this.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In spite of what is circulating around
town and the confusion that people think that’s going on, we here on this Commission
know better, so I don’t pay any attention that, the daily news or reports don’t bother me.
I think that the Administrator has the power to hire and fire. I differ with him on several
occasions about the process. I think that this city, and Commissioner Hankerson touched
on it a little bit, need to know that we are working together. But when you are able to
bring one person to the table and to recommend that one and no other applicants is there
gives the perception that something could be wrong. I disagree with him on every
occasion when it was only one person brought. I think that as Commissioners we ought
to be able to, if we have the time, if we are interested in those positions, we ought to be
able to be there and to some of those interviews. So that’s where I differ with the
Administrator about. But I don’t understand how we can ask this board to vote on an
Administrator hiring and firing power. We haven’t even had an evaluation on him yet. I
mean we don’t know what his evaluation going show. We asking the board now to give
him the power. That’s something that we should have done some time ago, Mr. Mayor,
and you are not talking about that. He already has that power. If he recommends, if he
brings in, I said it right here on this floor, if he brings us three candidates for a position,
he can recommend his person, the top person that he feels that’s there, but it’s a decision
for this Commission and it’s not one Commissioner but six of us, to decide on the one he
selected or another one. So there has never been a problem that he cannot hire and fire.
If he brings somebody here and says that this person is not qualified, is not doing their
job, I don’t think we would even hesitate to do what has to be done. But that has not
been done. If that had been done, I would see this move. I don’t understand the move,
42
but that, that, that’s [inaudible], I just don’t agree with changing the government. We
struggled when we merged the city and county together. To come up with the type of
government, five Commissioners, the Mayor and an Administrator, I said it once, I said it
a thousand times, we don’t have a manager. There is a difference between an
Administrator and a manager. If you check the rules, Jim, you might need to make a
legal ruling on this. A Administrator or manager is two different animals. And we need
to understand the type government that this city elected to have Administrator style. He
follows out the will of the Mayor and the Commissioners. We are the voice of the people
that elected us to be here. Everybody can’t speak. Some of us may speak too much.
Some of us may not speak enough. But we are the elected official. And I’m not in
support of changing that, not for this Administrator or for any other Administrator. And
that’s all, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If memory serves, and it’s been 30, 45
minutes ago, I think we passed the first ever evaluation process in the history of this city.
I say that to follow along with the Administrative infrastructure to make the type changes
in the way we run our government is not in place. One of the things the Special Grand
Jury pointed out and has been pointed out in other reports is the lack of uniform policies
and procedures, uniform application of policy across the board, 17 departments and 17-
headed-beast working in many times different directions. We have some things that we
have to get in place first. We can in effect do what we’re dictated to do by print media.
A lot of time it has -- I’ll have to limit this to the opinion section of some of our tabloids -
- incomplete information to the public like government bloat, which is completely
contrary to the facts. But the truth is the infrastructure necessary to make sure that we’re
doing the right thing and that there is policy in place, guidelines for the Administrator to
follow in the hiring an individual and to give you, the public, an idea -- since I’ve been
sitting on this Commission, when we started, the first process for hiring a department
head was that the Administrator would bring three candidates in and all Commissioners
would sit down with them and discuss their choice. That was changed and we had
selected individuals come in and sit down and go through the same process and we were
given a selection, a choice. Well, both of those are within the law. Tells me that the law
is not real clear. And you can do just about anything you want to and be okay. Those
guidelines in my opinion are part of what’s wrong with the operational structure of the
city of Augusta. It’s just too darn many gray areas. I support this Administrator. I
supported him when we hired him. I have great hopes for what he will accomplish in this
city. We are well underway of codifying and bringing into formal compliance procedures
and policy manuals in all of our departments. We are working to organize our
government and reorganize it to make it more efficient, more cost effective under his
leadership. Great strides have been made by this Commission in actions it has taken to
reduce overhead costs. Energy conservation. Safety. Better application of policies
across the board. We’ve set a new mark for the city of Augusta. But to go marching
[inaudible] step off, without allowing a committee composed of the governing bodies
having jurisdiction in this matter to review and make sure every bit of the policies are in
place, to make sure we are making the right decision and there is a consistent policy not
43
just for this particular regime but for any subsequent Administrator or Mayor, to have the
same rules to follow that we pass today in the future is essential. And that’s why I say
this needs to go to the committee we created. If there is one thing that is clear in this city,
is that we need to work better with our Legislative Delegation. This is an excellent
opportunity to address this an other issues that have come before the public and have
been of real concern to them. I was told today, and this is the saddest thing, a co-worker
told me -- he said Andy, it looks like the government in Augusta is beyond repair. And
the simple fact is, the truth is, is that I was told, and I’m sure some of these other
Commissioners have been told, that we will not tell the public, and this by public who
have authority over the printing presses, that we will not print anything good that you do
because you don’t deserve it. We have a long history of improving this government.
This could be a step in the right direction, but it needs to go to the body that we
designated in our wisdom, at least six of us, to oversee this matter, to make sure we make
the right steps and not necessarily the quick, knee-jerk steps that we could make if we go
ahead and do this without having all the Administrative infrastructure in place to see it
through.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I think Mr. Bridges had his hand up first. I yield to him.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. Mr. Mayor, I think two points I want to
make here, based on some of the discussion that’s gone on here before. We keep
mentioning our present Administrator, George Kolb, whether we want to give him hire
and fire. This is not to give George Kolb hire and fire. This is to give the position itself,
regardless of who holds that position, the ability to hire and fire. And I hope we can look
at that objectively as a position having the authority and not at the person. This would
give -- this authority would hold for all years, regardless of who is there. So I think it’s
important to recognize we’re establishing this for the position of Administrator and not
for one individual. And also, in regards to the Administrator bringing -- having hire and
fire and that he brings choices to us, there is no way the Administrator can have hire and
fire when the final decision is made by the Commission, regardless of whether he gets to
bring the choices to us or not. It’s difficult to see how you can run an organization of
2600 employees without the ability to have the loyalty and respect and the ability to
choose those managers that you have under you. And I think that’s why we’re here
today, is to allow the position of Administrator to have that ability to choose those people
that are doing well, to reward them, and those that aren’t, to get rid of them without
having them go around him, come to the Commission, which many of us have
experienced in the past, without that happening. And another point, too. In regards to the
title, it doesn’t matter whether the title is manager or Administrator, it’s the authority to
do these things, it’s the ability to do them. There are a lot of different titles out there.
We chose the title of city Commissioners and established the Mayor rather than
Chairman of the Commission as the central authority because we at the time we did it, we
said we want a compromise between the county and the city and want both titles to be
there, and that’s what we did. And also in the past -- and I don’t have any large
disagreement with this going to the committee, but in the past when we brought up issues
44
of asking the Legislative Delegation to pass different laws in regards to the government,
some of them have come back -- I know on at least one occasion one of the, I believe the
Speaker Pro Tem came back and said look, that’s under hole rule, you can do that
yourself, you don’t have to bring that to us and ask us to make that change. You can
make that change yourself. And basically through the issue -- I don’t remember what the
issue was at this time, it might be this very same one. But that was thrown back in our
lap because we have home rule. So I think, you know, this is an issue that’s the
responsibility of this Commission. It’s in our lap. Based on home rule, I think we should
address the issue. Frankly, I’m a little bit like the Commissioner on the other end down
there, Mr. Hankerson. There might have been a better time to bring this issue up and I
might have wished that it had come up at that time, but it’s here on the floor. I think we
need to address it as it comes up. That’s why we get paid the big bucks and I think
today’s the day to do it, and that’s just the way it’s worked out and I hope we can support
this substitute motion.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think that it was once said about the
Congressional Legislative process that it’s about like watching sausage be made, it’s
terrible to watch but the result if fairly palatable. And at the state level and here in this
body, this is a legislative body, and the same thing applies. And of course the thrills are
in watching the back and forth of the process. But that being said, I echo what Mr.
Bridges said as far as the Legislature, because they did pass a series of statutes, and I
think maybe even a Constitutional amendment granting bodies like the Augusta
Richmond County Commission home rule. And we need to address these things at home
and we don’t need to go to the Legislature. I don’t know who -- if this passes, I want to
advance this process some way, but I don’t know who from the Legislature will be
attending on the other side of the table, because I think only one of them is unopposed
and will return to the Legislature for sure. Everybody else has some form of opposition
and they may -- people taking those seats this month may well not be with us come
January. And that was something I brought up when that procedure was enacted by this
body a while back. But I think this government is a work in progress. It’s always going
to be a work in progress because of different policy, ideas that compete one against the
other, and sometimes against third positions. But I do think, Mr. Mayor, that you are
correct in that we spend as a body far more time than we should on what you call HR
issues, Human Resource issues, and I think that what I’m hearing at least from my
constituents is we should delegate some of this power and that we should focus on policy
decisions and on program decisions and on oversight and on constituent services, and
that’s what I think being a representative is primarily about. And so I’m going to support
the substitute motion because I think it would advance the process. We may end up
taking it through the Legislative process, but I think ultimately we are going to be back
on this floor with a home rule issue of this type of reform, this type of change, along with
some sort of performance standards. But today I think to indicate where I’ll be going in
the future and hopefully just like we saw the last meeting, we’re about to reach an overall
consensus about our facilities, it’s going to be a win-win for all sections of the county,
and we will eventually get back around to that kind of decision and form a consensus as
45
to this ordinance that you’ve proposed, Mr. Mayor, and here again, I’m going to support
it, but I predict we’re going to be back yet again with a home rule situation, having this
ordinance and performance standards as a local issue. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to correct my colleague, Mr. Cheek. He
wasn’t here at the time, but we did have an evaluation committee with the last
Administrator. And my experience was that we never came to any conclusion, and the
reason we didn’t was because of this intrusion of this Commission in going against one of
his recommendations. And as a result of that, that particular Administrator left us. The
other thing is that I think we presented to the Legislative Delegation last year in excess of
20-some-odd items that we would like for them to take a look at and come back to us. If
I am correct, there was no action taken on any item that we sent to the Delegation. And
as Mr. -- Commissioner Shepard has said, for some reason this Commission is afraid to
utilize the power of home rule. But I fully support Mr. Bridges’ substitute motion. I
think this makes all the sense in the world. I can’t imagine being in the position of the
Administrator and having all the responsibility but not having the power to hire people
that he needs to have working for him. And I think it would make it a more effective
government. I think we would see some positive things come forth. And I commend the
Mayor for putting this on the agenda today.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I do remember the original so-called
evaluation process and it had probably 50 or 60 items on a wish list that we gave him
with no real process to follow. I do remember the comments as an exit from our former
Administrator and asking him if we should review those to see what was complete, and I
believe his comment was, I’ll have to paraphrase, I don’t have it in quote, but no, it
would be a blood bath. I have no problems, I feel completely vindicated from the past in
that what we discovered in Finance was factual, had been told in the past that everything
is okay, there are no surprises -- that is a quote -- and I can go on and on about the past
performance. Yeah, there is a reason why we don’t get things done in Atlanta. It’s
because we send them a wish list that’s not in proper Legislative form. We don’t consult
with them prior to the process, and therefore they get a list from us and from every other
civic group. What is needed in this government is for the elected bodies having
jurisdiction over this city to work together. Not only is this hire-fire power important, but
there are other aspects that have been brought to the public that need to be addressed and
potentially altered. Some of that can be done by home rule, some of that needs to be
done in Atlanta. The fact of the matter is, and as brought up earlier with the Coliseum
Authority, we need to start working with our Legislative Delegation and refine the way
we do business, not only here in Augusta but with our body in Atlanta. We have not done
a performance assessment in real world time since I’ve been here. The thing that we
attempted to put together was a very noble effort, and Commissioner Kuhlke led that
charge. Understanding the process and the infrastructure, the administrative
infrastructure necessary to make things happen within a large bureaucracy is as important
46
as passing the legislation. Quite frankly, back then we did not know how to do a
performance assessment. We do have a tool now that is the cream of the crop, not only
our own government but from other institutions throughout this city, and it’s a standard
equal to any of that in the industry. We need to allow time and those that have the
decision making process over this government to work together to solve this and other
problems. We can pass this today and do just like we’ve done in the past, not having the
supporting information and governance in place, and just wander through the darkness in
hopes we’re going to do best thing. There’s too many gray areas in the way we run our
government. Our Administrator is correcting that. We’re not there yet. I support hire-
fire. I’m hearing the same things from my constituents. But I will not in good
conscience vote to do something that we are not prepared as a government to do. When
the time comes and the infrastructure is in place to make it happen, I’ll fully support it.
We’re not there yet, and I’m not going to lie to the people and tell them we’re ready.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I thought I wasn’t going to say anything. I’m just
prepared to vote. But I’ve heard so many things that was possibly half-truths,
misinformation. Just want to correct a couple of things. I keep hearing that if the
Administrator is given this power, then all of our problems would be eliminated and we
would have a good government and we wouldn’t have any more problems and everything
would be just, you know, just nice. And we know that that’s not true. We would still
have the same problems that exist now. The other thing that I would like to correct is that
every time I hear someone say something they say Randy Oliver left here because he was
dissatisfied with the Commission. I was very close to Randy Oliver. I was about as close
to him as anybody on this Commission at that time. That was not the reason that Randy
Oliver left here. Randy Oliver knew, he came here from an Assistant position, he was
looking for greener pastures, I’ve always kidded him saying that if we kept him four
years we would be lucky, because Randy Oliver was a good Administrator and he was
going for better things. So you know, I just get tired of hearing why he left because of
the Commission, and I don’t think that’s so. I think any person in managerial position is
going to have problem with the board and he’s not going to have agreement 100% so we
have to suspect that and respect that. So I just wanted to kind of clear up a couple of
things, and I’m going to call for the question because we can go around this all evening
and we on good time today, so we’ll call for the question and get this over.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. I’ve got a couple of things I want to say in rebuttal since I put
this measure on here, and then we’ll move ahead with the vote. Number one, there was a
suggestion whether this is serious or not. I want you to make no mistake this is a serious
moment in the life of this Commission. And this is only controversial because some of
you choose to make it controversial. Let me remind you that we were given copies of
letters from Sen. Cheeks and Rep. Connell in the last session where the Legislative
Council said that the powers of the Administrator are a matter left to this Commission. In
fact, the Administrator’s position is created by ordinance, not by Legislative Act. You
will not find it anywhere in the consolidation Bill. The Administrator’s position was
created right here in this chamber. Also, let me say, too, that even before Mr. Kuhlke
47
remarked about the committee that was put together to evaluate the previous
Administrator there was in his contract a procedure for evaluation that was never carried
out. It was totally ignored by this Commission even though it was in Mr. Oliver’s
contract. We’ve hired our Administrator because we trust the person. We trust his
judgment, we trust that he will make the right decisions in the best interests of this
community. Giving him the power to hire and fire and put together his team to
administer this government in the best interest of all the people in this government is the
right thing to do, and I would encourage you to adopt Mr. Bridges’ motion that is on the
floor. The question has been called and we’ll move ahead with the vote. All in favor of
the substitute motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. Cheek, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Williams and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Motion fails 4-5.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to the original motion. Is there any further discussion
on the original motion?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, yes?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, having been here only two years, I can say with a clear
conscience that in two years I’ve been consistently requesting that we need to review and
do performance assessments. I’m not up for election this year, but I think there are some
of us who have been here four years and haven’t followed through with it and had just as
much power as any Commissioner.
Mr. Mayor: That’s true, and perhaps we’ll move along and do some evaluations
of the other employees who work for this Commission, like the Clerk and the EEO
officer and so forth.
Mr. Cheek: I think we should evaluate all of us.
Mr. Mayor: Never done any of those. Yes, Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you very much. Let me just comment that as a
Commissioner-Elect, when I first came down, one of the most impressive things I saw
during that period of time was the committee that was chaired by Mr. Kuhlke on
reapportionment. And seeing Ms. Minchew out here from the Board of Education, there
was three bodies that worked together, and it was good this week to receive a letter from
our Attorney saying that the effort and the work of that committee had been approved by
the Justice Department. So now that we’re ready to do that. And I kind of tie the two
together, and if I’m in error, I’m in error, but I still think that if we work together with
each of the others, including the Board of Education, I think we’ll be a much better
community, a much better county, and certainly a much better government right here.
48
That’s my purpose and my reasoning for wanting to go back to the committee structure
and for the credibility of this Commission, that we establish with the Legislative
Delegation.
Mr. Cheek: Amen, brother.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Call the question on the original motion. All in
favor of that, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Motion carries 7-2.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, gentlemen. That takes us to item number 44. I tell you
what, why don’t we declare a five minute recess and then we’ll come back.
[RECESS]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, what item are we at?
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATOR:
44. Consider the re-adoption of the Car Allowance Policy of April 15, 1997.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Whose item is this?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] Okay. All right, Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, you have before
you a policy that was adopted by the Commission April 15, 1997. In July of that same
year, apparently it was overturned and there was a list of employees and employee
positions that actually received car allowances. I brought this policy back to you because
at the current time we don’t have a policy that will address the changes that could be
made to the auto allowance for hiring employees’ cars. I also include in your package the
original policy of April 15, 1997. After my review of it, I believe that it established a
very good policy and criteria for the selection of employees who actually receive
automobile allowances. But I put it back on your agenda for your consideration. There
has been considerable discussions about this policy. It is my recommendation for the
smoother operation and administration of the automobile policy that you adopt this policy
that was created, well thought out, developed in April of 1997.
Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval.
49
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on this. On the floor. Discussions?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Beard and Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, Mr. Mayor or however you want to be
addressed, this automobile allowance that was adopted in 1997 probably was and
probably still is a good one. But nevertheless, we have made some changes in this
government to try to reform, to try to save some money, to cut some costs. We are
looking at now raising our pay and trying to do better with our pay for our employees. A
car allowance is another perk to I guess help us when we didn’t have the funds or didn’t
have the necessary monies. As we come in this building [inaudible] year 2000, 2001, but
I’m thinking of the year 2001 Crown Victoria that’s sitting outside. I checked with Fleet
Management on. That car has been sitting there with 2500 miles on it. That really
doesn’t make good sense to take taxpayers’ money and not use it. We’re talking about a
car allowance, but if that’s transportation, if there is a need to get from point A to point B
-- Commissioner Cheek and I thought we had established a policy that this car would be
used in this government as far as anybody needed to go and handle government business
and using a sign-in and sign-out method. But this car sitting there with 2500 miles on it,
has been sitting there day after day after day. It was assigned for the Assistant
Administrator at one time and the new car was purchased, the Assistant Administrator
who was at liberty at one time to drive this car back and forth home, with that change that
Commissioner Cheek and I made -- when I saw we, the proposal we made and brought to
this body, that we voted on, to eliminate that, has saved us significant money, significant
wear and tear. That car has not had a schedule. We asked for a schedule to show how
that car was being used and how it would be signed in and signed out. We asking
taxpayers now, we sending out a tax digest talking about raising property value and that’s
going to increase our property taxes because we don’t have money. How can we sit here
and vote to extend or go back to 1997 and allow a car allowance when we say we don’t
have any money? And if we don’t have any money, then we need to conserve and cut
corners and cut costs as much as we can. I make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor, Mr.
Mayor Pro Tem, that we deny this request and leave our policy as it is for right now and
maybe later look at it at another time.
Mr. Cheek: I’m going to second that for purposes of discussion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a motion and second. We still have Mr. Cheek and
Mr. Beard, then I’ll get to you, Mr. Kolb. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Kolb, my concerns with this is
when I first became a Commissioner, I came in and being part of the federal system, we
had a massive draw down, if you will, of our fleet. We eliminated the take home policy
on vehicles. We have some of the smartest people in the world working in the lab that
50
I’m fortunate enough to be employed in that drive their own cars to and from work.
When I became a Commissioner I noticed that not only in this facility but also in several
others we were providing employees with vehicles to travel from home to work, to take
care of essentially personal business, and it was a very loose application of the ’97 policy,
if it was in fact in place at that time. I guess what I’m asking for from you is assurance
that I know we can’t have enough vehicles to assign to employees that are in the field and
we’ve got code enforcement people driving their own cars, etc.; are we going to be
providing people with car allowances that are strictly driving to and from work as we’ve
done in the past, are we going to be providing vehicles for people, I guess are we going to
have checks and balances in place with the implementation of this policy that we didn’t
have in place before?
Mr. Kolb: Commissioner Cheek, yes, we will have -- and that is, I included that
in the packet. There is specific criteria that is, that the Commission adopted in April of
1997 that would allow [inaudible] allowance policy. For example the one that you’re
specifically talking to, it states that employee (1) is on 24 hour call, (2) is frequently
required to work outside normal business hours or respond to after-hours emergencies
and (3) does not require a specialized vehicles, tools or equipment, and (4) is not
authorized to take home a vehicle. We have, and let me just say also that this is not
additional compensation to any employees. We are actually hiring an individual’s
vehicle for use for business, city business, especially if they are frequently going between
sites or [inaudible] business sites or having meetings outside of normal business hours
and it’s impractical to provide them, even from a frequency of use or cost basis a vehicle.
And we do have at least two instances where that occurs now. So yes, I believe that the
policy that was established in 1997 and the criteria does guarantee that we just don’t
willy-nilly say to any employee that they will receive a car allowance. One other point:
in terms of the take-home vehicles, there is also another policy that sets out the same
criteria where an individual or employee is considered for take-home vehicles. The
inspectors are not, the assessors are not. However, there is provision that they would be
allowed to have a vehicle during work, and currently they are being paid an auto
allowance. We are hopefully converting over to them using vehicles in the fleet.
Mr. Cheek: One item, and this is something Commissioner Williams brought up.
It’s a very sore spot with me. Is prior to your arrival, we went through a very detailed,
and I thought unnecessary, description of how the particular vehicle outside could be
th
allocated to government employees not only on the 8 floor but in this building a day log
with sign-out sheet for particular periods of time, and then that vehicle could be utilized
thth
by the 8 floor, 7 floor, whoever, in the service of the government. This is a simple
thing and it gets the biggest bang out of the buck. It works well for us and for the life of
me I could not see why it was so hard to implement that, unless we just didn’t want to.
But if these assurances are given and we’re going to make sure that we are strictly
adhering to these policies, then I have no problem with it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me get to Mr. Beard here. We’ll get around. Mr.
Beard?
51
Mr. Beard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I just have a couple of things to say.
I was trying to figure out, and maybe you answered this, George -- you did mention two -
- are we just concerned about the two people you just mentioned there, because I want to
know how many people we have in this category to even bring this forward. Do we have
enough people sufficiently involved in this for you to bring it forward?
Mr. Kolb: Currently -- and let me also give you some statistics. Prior to July 2,
1997, we had a little more than 200 people that were receiving automobile allowances.
After you implemented the policy and since then, that number has dropped to something
just over 70 employees that are receiving auto allowances. When there was no action a
couple of months ago by the Commission to adopt any formal policy on auto allowances,
there were two people that actually lost their vehicle allowances, and I believe that they
ought to have those allowances because of frequent use of their vehicles outside normal
business hours and also during business hours, in terms of traveling to sites, meetings,
community events, whatever, that they have to respond to.
Mr. Beard: So we’re doing this for two people?
Mr. Kolb: No. I’m doing this for the future also. I think that this is a good policy
that you should have on the books for future consideration. I believe, whether it was
right or wrong, from July of 1997 until currently, that policy inadvertently or whatever
was administered and there have been changes in personnel where the Administrator has
had to do, but those have been very infrequent. In fact, going back in the records, I only
saw where there were two that went under this particular policy.
Mr. Beard: Well, it just appears to me that, you know, if we have two people --
and with the financial condition as it is, and you know, we been saying we have plenty of
money in the government but that’s something that remains to be seen, and I think next
year is going to be a very tough year budget wise for us, with the economy the way it is.
And the type of -- and the number of growing agencies that we have in the government, I
mean some things we must do. I can’t see the necessity of just continuously bringing this
back when decisions have been made on this, and every time we look up we’ve got to
debate this over again, and it almost like it’s getting being like a forced type situation. If
you don’t pass it this time, I’m going to put it back down the next time, so every time we
get up here we got to fight this battle all over again or whatever. I think if we just
involving two people, it’s a unnecessary item that we have to, you know, expend a lot of
time on and a lot of energy on. So we do have to look at the financial impact that this is
going to have on our city also.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Question. Mr. Administrator, the
language you’re asking us to adopt is this paragraph of [inaudible] automobile
allowances and appendix 6, the criteria. Is that what you’re asking for?
Mr. Kolb: That is correct.
52
Mr. Shepard: And under that I note that the allowances will be authorized by the
Administrator, then a justification must be made by the Department Head of the
employee, and the test criteria must be met by the employee and explained in written
request. It seems like to me, gentlemen, that this policy recommendation is exactly the
type of recommendation we were looking for in terms of the process of hiring and firing,
the Administrator, and having performance evaluations. Under this policy we delegate
this authority to the Administrator and yet it has to be justified by the Department Head.
You know, by explicit reference to these two criteria. So seems like to me, in this smaller
area we’re doing just what we said we wanted to do and didn’t do just a few minutes ago.
So I commend this to you and I’m going to vote for it. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Do we have a motion on the floor?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir, we do. Have a motion and a second.
Mr. Hankerson: Have a substitute?
The Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Hankerson: What was the substitute?
The Clerk: To deny it.
Mr. Hankerson: Deny it?
The Clerk: Deny it and leave the policy as is and review at a later date.
Mr. Hankerson: And?
The Clerk: And review at a later time.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. Here again is my concern about the car allowances. I
don’t object to car allowances but I like to have something in place and know who is
eligible for the allowances. And that’s why I just hope that, I wish that we can go back in
committee and discuss this and get clear understanding. It’s vague and anybody can get
one at random, whatever, so we know specifically who is eligible for allowance, whether
it’s a Director, whether it’s an Assistant, or whoever, but if it’s just wide open it could be
anyone. But I think that -- I will support it if I had a policy. I don’t know about
[inaudible]. Mr. Kolb, you haven’t [inaudible] another policy? Did you -- before -- did
you present another one, did you?
53
Mr. Kolb: No. This is the -- what you have in your agenda packet is the policy
and it establishes exactly what you’re asking for in terms of the criteria for employees
being eligible for auto allowance.
Mr. Hankerson: That’s the one that was in ’97?
Mr. Kolb: That’s correct.
Mr. Hankerson: The policy from ’97. And I know that the Commissioners at that
time had some concerns with that. That’s why they changed it.
Mr. Kolb: Well, the concern was that employees were receiving automobile
allowances that were in conflict with the criteria established in this policy. And that they
were receiving as additional compensation. As a result of the change, you’ve cut in half
the number of people that were actually receiving an auto allowance.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. I just hope [inaudible] go back and review [inaudible]
review it in committee or something like that. [inaudible] and you might, Mr. Kolb, the
whole time you were discussing that, it’s hard for us to hear you back here. [inaudible]
maybe it’s just me, maybe I have a problem.
Mr. Kolb: For some reason this mike works a little different than everybody
else’s mike.
(Laughter)
Mr. Kolb: I think it was assigned to the Administrator.
Mr. Hankerson: Get a non-policy mike.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I just wanted to give another comment, and
that was we’re trying to -- Commissioner Beard mentioned about our budget. We’re
trying to serve and save and do what we can. And then at the same time we’re trying to
look out for the employees. But there’s nothing been mentioned about car mileage. I can
understand for employee have to come back and do some things, but when you got a car
allowance, that’s a mandatory -- I won’t say mandatory -- that’s a regular pay check.
That’s a regular sum that’s coming to you whether you use it or not. That’s another perk.
I don’t care how you look at it. If you got a -- if you use car mileage and there is a reason
for you traveling or whatever, then you be paid according to, you know, whatever
authorized to or you had to use your own transportation. But when you talking about car
mileage, I’m sorry, car allowance, I know some situations. I am not going to say they
here in this government, but I know some situation where we paying, where people have
54
got car allowances which was a car payment for a car, for their person. And if you going,
if you talking about using a piece of equipment or coming back in your off time or to do
some work, and you use your automobile, you ought to be compensated for car mileage.
But for car allowance, I’m in total disapproval of. Mr. Kolb, let me ask you another
question. Are any of these employees or prospective employees in the future has gas
cards as well as car allowances?
Mr. Kolb: There are gas cards in the organization. However, whether they are --
and they are used by our employees, especially if they are assigned a city vehicle on a
daily basis. I believe that one of the employees has a gas card but does not use it. It is
not used by them. But those with a card and assigned to the Department and used by
several of the employees.
Mr. Williams: Maybe someone from my shop can answer that, but my question
is, is there anyone or has there been anyone who has got an auto allowance and a gas
card?
Mr. Kolb: The answer is no.
Mr. Williams: Okay, that was my question.
Mr. Kolb: Okay.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Kolb? Go ahead, Ms. Smith.
Ms. Smith: The Public Works Director was assigned a vehicle prior to my
becoming the Public Works Director. When I was made Public Works Director, there
was a gas card that was assigned to that vehicle. However, as the Public Works Director
and not being a resident of Richmond County, I am not allowed to drive that vehicle out
of the county. Because I have offices in four or five different locations and staff that I
interact with, I have never taken possession or, nor have I ever used that car. That car is
used as a pool vehicle for employees that, in Public Works when we have vehicles down
or whether we have other employees that need to go to field visits or go to site visits or
out of town visits or whatever. Therefore, in Public Works there is one employee that I
am aware of that at one time was getting a car allowance, that a gas card was assigned,
and the purpose of that was so that Fleet had the ability to track that particular vehicle
and the vehicle assignment.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kolb? I know that employees in Public Works and also
in Utilities travel. I in my job cover five counties in the state and I use my personal
vehicle, but I do have to keep mileage from-to, from-to and turn that in at the end of the
day when I go back in. Have y’all ever considered something like that to control the
amount of money that is disbursed to people for using vehicles?
55
Mr. Kolb: The short answer to your question is yes. In fact, we do have in the
same -- we do have in the same policy a mileage reimbursement claim and employees
who do use their vehicles but not as frequently as other employees do fill out that mileage
reimbursement. One of the reasons that this policy is much, much better is because we
know on a daily basis that someone uses the car beyond, you know, during the work day
and beyond the work day, and it’s pretty much an administrative nightmare to keep up
with that, because it is on a daily basis.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I don’t know about my colleagues sitting up here, but we
use our personal vehicles to do our jobs.
Mr. Kolb: I’m sure you do.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And we keep track of mileage if you want to get paid for it.
We don’t get a car allowance per se, but I mean it may be a nightmare, but if you want to
get reimbursed for the use of your vehicle, you will keep that mileage and turn it in either
at the end of the week or at the end of the day. And I think that’s looked at much less
than as a gratuity or payment or whatever the case may be. But I just throw that out, and
you might want to look at that as a policy for employees who do have to use their
personal vehicles to conduct county vehicle.
Mr. Kolb: Let me go to the second part of my answer on that. The second piece
of that is by paying an auto allowance there is a probability that if we did what you are
suggesting on a daily basis for some employees we would exceed what that car allowance
would normally be on a monthly basis.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any others? Mr. Boyles and Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’ll ask a question I probably
shouldn’t. Don’t we have a policy in the Sheriff’s Department that they can take the cars
a certain distance outside of Richmond County?
Mr. Kolb: Yes.
Mr. Boyles: And in your operation, the part you administer, it can’t be done?
Mr. Kolb: That is correct.
Mr. Boyles: So we basically have two sets of policies?
Mr. Kolb: No comment.
Mr. Boyles: That was a question I shouldn’t have asked. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson?
56
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you for sounding so good, Mr. Kolb. I can hear you now.
Mr. Kolb: Do I sound -- is it working? I’m using the Attorney’s cause y’all like
to hear him.
Mr. Hankerson: It’s working. I had a couple of questions. I had made some
notes on this. What would determine the amount of a car allowance? There is nothing in
here. I saw your Test 1, Test 2, but it does not say what would determine the amount you
would give to an employee as an established amount. That’s not clear to me and that’s
why I need some more information. And I know that this would expand the number of
employees to receive the allowance, and how many employees would be involved
currently right now, and that’s not in the information either. And I would need that
before I can make a decision. I support car allowances but I want it to be written and I
want it to be there so when it comes up again, that you have given a car allowance it
won’t come back before us and saying it shouldn’t have happened and so forth. It needs
to be more clear with me.
Mr. Kolb: Okay. I think I did try to answer earlier. There are about 70
employees currently receiving an auto allowance -- well, currently receiving auto
allowance. With respect to determination of how much, it really depends upon the usage
of that individual employee’s personal vehicle. And the departments have to justify that.
And that’s in the policy.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussion? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Kolb, could you give us a
range than? You know, what you saying, I don’t understand. You saying that the
department have to justify, but there would be some numbers in here, some pricing that
we know for the high side and the low side. I mean you’re not saying anything when you
say range.
Mr. Kolb: I don’t have that number in front of me. But I think it is -- I don’t have
that. I wouldn’t even venture to give you that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussion on this issue? Hearing none, Ms.
Bonner, would you read the substitute motion back, please?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. The substitute motion was to deny the policy and leave as is
and review it at a later date.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hearing no further discussion, there is a motion and second
on the floor?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
57
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of
voting.
Mr. Hankerson: Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: The motion was to deny readoption of this 1996 --
Mr. Hankerson: Deny?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, to deny it.
Mr. Hankerson: Which one is to say take it back?
The Clerk: And to review it at a later date. That was part B of that motion.
Mr. Hankerson: The same motion? Take it back and review it?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: Just for clarity’s sake, a yes vote means that we take it back. A no
vote means we go back to the original motion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: A yes vote takes it back for a later review date.
Mr. Cheek: A yes vote takes its back for a later review date. A no vote takes us
back to the original motion. Just had to be sure.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Everybody straight on the motion?
The Clerk: To deny, Mr. Beard, and review it at a later date.
Mr. Cheek: So in order to deny, you must vote yes.
The Clerk: Yes, you must vote yes to deny.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Are we square away? Are we straight now?
The Clerk: To deny the readoption and vote later.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Bridges, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Motion fails 4-5.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Has everybody voted?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
58
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: What is the vote?
The Clerk: That motion fails.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Now the original motion.
The Clerk: The original motion is to approve the readoption of the 1997 auto
allowance policy.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen, we have a motion. All in favor of the motion,
please signify -- Andy?
Mr. Cheek: Just one comment. And were it not for the confidence that I have in
our Administrator to make sure we don’t get back where we were, I would have problems
supporting this, but I support allowing our Administrator to see it through.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Any further discussion? Please vote.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Williams and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Motion fails 5-4.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The next item Madame Clerk.
Mr. Cheek: Order of the day.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Back to the business at hand.
Mr. Wall:
45. OTHER BUSINESS
ATTORNEY:
§§
46. Motion to approve amendments and changes to 6-1-9, 6-1-10, 6-1-11, 6-1-
13, 6-1-14, 6-1-18 and 6-1-19 of Title 6, Chapter 1 of the Augusta-Richmond County
Code which regulates adult entertainment establishments.
Mr. Wall: I have put on there, on the agenda, an ordinance that basically makes
certain technical corrections in the ordinance that was adopted last week. In essence,
there was concern expressed about what happened if the Planning and Zoning
Commission fails to act within a certain time period. As a result of looking at that issue,
we realized that Planning and Zoning really did not need to be involved at all, it really
needed to be the License and Inspection Department, since they have to submit a plat in
connection with the adult entertainment ordinance and it’s purely an [inaudible] task of
looking at the plat to see whether or not it meets the distances, and so we are requesting
59
that you approve this amendment to the adult entertainment ordinance and that you waive
the second reading, if the Commission is inclined to do so, to go ahead and make these
changes.
Mr. Cheek: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion?
Mr. Hankerson: Before I vote, I need to consult with my Attorney.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Consult with your Attorney.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’d like to make a
statement.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I want to go on record that I’m voting to waive the second
reading but I’m not voting in favor of the ordinance.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any questions from the Commissioners? I think we have
the attorney here from the adult --
Mr. Maddox: Yes, thank you for recognizing me. As some of you may
remember, I’m Tom Maddox and first I want to thank you. The last time I appeared
before this Commission under some very unusual circumstances, your reception was very
cordial and very professional and I appreciate that. I am sorry Mayor Young -- I heard
him say he was going to catch an airplane but I want to commend him for handling very
well what could have been a difficult situation. I just have three things to say that. I’m
not quite clear, since what you have is an entire -- instead of the amendments that kind of
stick out, I’m not quite clear whether you are about to adopt in whole this, what is now a
second version of your ordinance of July 18, but I really have three comments to go back
to July 18, a well a the vote you are about to take on this particular amendment. One is I
was really quite astounded to find, to learn, at least it was reported to me and maybe
that’s subject to misunderstanding, but that when this amendment, when this ordinance
came up to the main body last time that it was actually handled in executive session.
There is always --
Mr. Wall: That’s not correct.
Mr. Maddox: That’s not correct?
60
Mr. Wall: That’s not correct.
Mr. Maddox: Okay. I would hope not but that was the way it got reported to me.
But first, with regard to -- it doesn’t appear on its face to say anything about zoning, but
it’s clear that it’s one of the main parts and most at odds about, it seems to me, is the
actual location which is, of course, a zoning question. And your whole Section 9 of this
ordinance has to do with location and actually refers to the zoning ordinance as it stands,
so this is a zoning ordinance or at least has some aspects of a zoning ordinance. The
Georgia Zoning Procedures Act clearly says that’s something that should be advertised
and announced and put out for public discussion under certain circumstances, and unless
I am entirely wrong about that, that didn’t happen either when you adopted this ordinance
in the main, July 18, and certainly not today, because I only learned about it informally. I
didn’t learn about it at all for July 18 and I only learned about it informally. Those
procedures, the zoning procedures, are not designed to protect people who have lawyers.
They are designed to protect people who don’t have lawyers. They are designed for the
people at large to know that something having to do with zoning and location is going to
come up and to have an opportunity to be heard. For that reason, I believe under Georgia
law this ordinance as it was written on July 18 and again today, particularly those aspects
having to do with zoning, are, as we say in the legal trade, void [inaudible], which is a
fancy word for the ordinance never existed, it was passed illegally to begin with. I don’t
think any of you intended to do that, but just because of your reaction to the way the
litigation is going. Second that I would have to say is that when you move beyond the
zoning aspect, when you do anything, pass any kind of legislation that impacts on a First
Amendment Right, as you recognize in your preamble here, this is an adult video store
which my client proposes to operate, is a protected interest. The Georgia Constitution
and the Georgia Supreme Court in several recent cases and the United States Supreme
Court in a case just last year reiterated that when you do that, you have to hold a public
hearing. It has nothing to do with zoning, but it has to do with First Amendment Rights,
and the first page or two of the ordinance of July 18 which is reincorporated in this has
something that really is at the heart of that issue where it says that the Commission takes
note of notorious and self-evident conditions, and those conditions being what we in the
legal trade refer to as pernicious secondary effects, meaning that if you have an adult
business your property values go down, your crime rate goes up and you destroy the
character of the neighborhood, and there is an additional one that kind of works its way in
there that you increase the burden on your police and your Courts. That hearing that the
Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Georgia said is necessary
is to decide whether that’s true. Because if that’s not true, you don’t have a legal
foundation for regulating this particular kind of business. And Justice Sutter, who is no
stark raving liberal on the Court, said in a case about three years go the same thing. He
said these are self evident and established as a matter of law that if you have adult
businesses and nudity, your crime rate goes up, your property rates go down, and you
increase your burden on your police and [inaudible]. He said that in the case. But just
last year, Justice Sutter unbelievably, and I really admire him for it, said wait a minute,
that’s not true, I was wrong about that, it hasn’t been established as a matter of law, you
have to prove this thing every time you go and set about to pass an ordinance that
infringes on First Amendment protected right. Folks, as difficult to believe as [inaudible],
61
that means it goes against the way you were raised or think about it, but those things are
not true. There has never been a case in either federal or state court where they have had
a trial and a full hearing in front of commissions such as yourself, evidence was put up
for both sides, and the conclusion was yes, all that is true. As a matter of fact, just two
th
years ago, and it was recently affirmed by the 11 Circuit, you cite in your preamble that
you rely on the experience of Fulton County. Fulton County did a study, and that study
on what used to be known as Stewart Avenue, one of the seediest parts of Atlanta --
you’d think if they were going to get a study that shows where they have nude dancing
and adult entertainment, you really are going to come out with evidence that they have
increased crime rate, that they have increased property values, have the character of the
neighborhood destroyed. Well, Fulton County did the study, trying to support their own
ordinance. Guess what they found? It wasn’t true. The evidence in that case was after
Fulton County did the study, that in fact there was a greater crime rate in places that just
served alcohol. It wasn’t nude entertainment. It was a greater decrease -- there was a
decrease in property values where the alcohol bars were, but as a matter of fact around
those bars on what is Metropolitan Avenue, around those places where adult
entertainment was, the taxes had actually increased, the property values had actually gone
up. I personally had the experience to know that it wasn’t true. In a similar situation,
people came before a county in Peach County in 1996 and the Sheriff and a guy from the
GBI and some woman who was just out of college from the planning division got up and
said basically those things and the Sheriff said he was having so much trouble and that
there was an increased crime rate and he was having problems with this particular place
in Peach County and the Commissioners of course accepted what the Sheriff had to say.
We took the depositions of the Sheriff and the man from the GBI. By the time I got in
front of Judge Christian, who was a Superior Court Judge there, I had rhetorically asked
the question -- this business had been in existence in Peach County for five years. How
many arrests for prostitution had there been at this business? None. In five years, how
many arrests for drugs had there been at this business? None. How many arrests for any
kind of sexual criminal activity as this business? None. What was the property values
like at that intersection on I-75? Astronomical. It had just taken off with my client’s
business sitting right there on the interstate with some of the ugliest signs you ever
wanted to see [inaudible]. I call it the tacky billboard case, but -- there is a reason to
have a hearing and the Supreme Court of the United States says you should have a
hearing and the Supreme Court of Georgia says the same thing. Before you pass
legislation that in fact does [inaudible] First Amendment rights here, and I’m only going
to say this, and I appreciate your letting me have this time. The only thing technical I
have to say about the tweaking that’s been done since July 18 is you took a step forward.
I commend you for your actions of July 18, of making that hard choice I talked about on
June 18, that there are some places in Richmond County where this kind of activity is
allowed to exist, with the caveat [inaudible] there really is a place that is in an L1 or H1,
LI or HI zone where you can meet all the other criteria. If there isn’t one, you’ve got
another whole set of problems. But I commend you for taking that step. I know it was
difficult, especially with the political pressure that you had. I also commend you for
taking out the absolute discretion that I know as Commissioners and politicians you
would like to have. This ordinance is a much better step in that direction. Unfortunately,
when you did it on July 18 you had a section there that said if the, that time the Planning
62
and Zoning didn’t act, the applicant would get a permit, you’ve taken a step back from
that in this and it has some real Constitutional problems where it says that the
Commission has to act. Really gives you 90 days to do that. There is some litigation
over whether or not that’s too long. But at the end of that process, Constitutionally I
believe, the ordinance should say if you don’t act in those 90 days and permits are issued,
or the person can go into business without a permit. There is some language in here
about waiving it. You really have to draw diagrams. I’ve been sitting here for the last
two hours drawing diagrams trying to figure out where the process is. But at the end of
the process, the place where you come just short of being Constitutional, in that regard
what’s called a [inaudible] area, is that at the end of the process instead of saying if we
don’t do anything in our 90 days they can go into business, you say well, we waive them
having to have a permit, but we don’t waive them having to meet these locational
requirements. I really don’t know what that means. Does that mean if you don’t do
anything in 90 days, we don’t have to have a permit, but if we go into business and
somebody thinks that we don’t meet the location requirements, cause we have to
[inaudible] do or not, are we subject to arrest? Are we subject to criminal prosecution?
That really leaves that in limbo and leaves the business at risk. And the other thing is that
rather than putting the burden on the Commission to get the job done, they need to say
yea or nay. When you say we don’t do anything, you can go into Court, I don’t believe
that’s Constitutional. That’s all in terms of the fine tuning. And the only reason I make
this speech here when you’ve got a few amendments that really do make some
substantive changes when you look at it is to ask you to take a step back and look at this
thing again, because it can be done right. And one of the things that has to occur for it to
be done right is to have a hearing, which I know is a pain, an additional burden on the
Commission, but short of that I really think you are back -- one thing all three of these
approaches that I have to say, have a comment, is that if you don’t, the ordinance is void
[inaudible], meaning that even though you pass it, you sign it, it just never existed. And
that’s the risk that you are running trying to keep my clients out of this particular
location, that at some point you are going to have a gap with no ordinance at all that not
only my clients but other people rush in to build where there is no legislation. Thank
you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall, can you address the legal
side of it?
Mr. Wall: I’ll be happy to. First of all, it is an issue for the Court. They made
that argument in the Federal Court that this is a zoning ordinance as opposed to licensing
ordinance, and that’s something that the Court will have to determine insofar as it relates
to the ordinance that was adopted on July 18, as well as this ordinance that we are
proposing. We contend that it is a Licensing ordinance and urge the Commission to
consider it as such. Insofar as the hearing is concerned, a hearing was held back
following consolidation at which these studies were presented. You are readopting, on
July 18 you readopted that. There was no change insofar as that hearing was concerned
and that evidence was concerned, and we do not believe that that argument has merit as
well. And so we ask the Commission to approve this ordinance. We’re still in Court
over there. A lot of arguments being made both ways. So we urge the --
63
Mr. Maddox: I want to say you’re very well represented by Mr. Wall.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen, you’ve heard both sides.
Mr. Speaker: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussion on this matter? The question has
been called. All in favor -- we have a motion and second?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of
voting.
The Clerk: You’re voting for the ordinance, Mr. Hankerson? Are you voting
against the ordinance and for the waiving of the second reading, sir? Still how you want
me to record your vote?
Mr. Hankerson: Right.
The Clerk: Okay.
(Vote on waiving the second reading)
Motion carries 9-0.
(Vote on the ordinance)
Mr. Hankerson votes No.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall:
47. LEGAL MEETING
??
Discuss Real Estate Matters.
??
Update on pending, litigation matters.
Mr. Cheek: I so move.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I would also ask for personnel to be included
in that.
The Clerk: Mr. Shepard, you seconded that motion?
64
Mr. Shepard: I did not. I just asked for an amendment, but I will second it for the
record.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. Any objection to going into legal
session? Hearing none, we will adjourn for a few minutes to go into legal session.
Motion carries 9-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Need to have a motion to approve the Mayor Pro Tem executing the
closing meeting affidavit.
48. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor, please
signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 8-0.
49. Approve purchase of real estate.
Mr. Wall: On item 49, I am requesting that you approve a contract for the
sale of real property between Stanton D. Loring in his representative capacity as
Trustee under the Irrevocable Gift & Trust dated December 15, 1992 for the
purchase of approximately 58 acres for a purchase price of $8,000 per acre.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Discussion? Hearing
none, all in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
65
Mr. Wall: For the record, there was no personnel matter discussed in legal
session, therefore the affidavit just reflects two items, real estate and litigation.
[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 August 6, 2002.
Clerk of Commission
66