HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-15-2002 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
October 15, 2002
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:10 p.m., Tuesday, October
15, 2002, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Colclough, Shepard,
Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County
Commission
Also Present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena Bonner,
Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was presented by the Rev. Sheryl Fahr.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, do we have any additions or deletions to the agenda
today?
The Clerk:
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
1. Report from the Commission Liaison to the Richmond County Board of
Education. (Requested by Commissioner Bridges)
2. Discuss additional funding for the Indigent Defense Tripartite Committee.
(Requested by Commissioner Shepard)
The Clerk: We also have a request by the petitioner to delete item 44.
Item 44. Consider appeals request of Mr. William B. Merry, II regarding the
[
Historic Preservation Commission denial of their request for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to demolish properties located at 1219 and 1221 Greene Street.]
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection? Mr. Wall, this is correct with respect to Item
44, they want to take that back to HPC?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct, and I think the motion should reflect that it be
referred back to the HPC.
1
Mr. Mayor: Okay, well, we’ve just taken it off the agenda. Do you want a
motion to refer it back or just take it off the agenda?
Mr. Wall: A motion to refer it back.
Mr. Cheek: We’ll amend the motion to read that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. No objection? So we have unanimous consent to add those
two items to the agenda and no objection to sending that item back to the HPC. Thank
you, Mr. Rice. Thank you, Mr. Pittman. We’ll go ahead with our recognitions, our
proclamations.
The Clerk:
RECOGNITIONS:
Employee of the Month Award Mr. Robert L. Clements, Public Works and
Engineering Department.
The Clerk: Mr. Clements, would you please join the Mayor, along with Ms.
Teresa Smith, Department Director, and other Public Works associates? Dear Mayor
Young and members of the Augusta Commission, the Employee of the Month Selection
Committee has selected Mr. Robert L. Clements with Public Works and Engineering as
September’s Employee of the Month. Mr. Clements has worked for the City of Augusta
for over 11 years. Mr. Clements is employed as an assistant III construction engineer.
He was nominated by fellow employee Thomas Adkins, who gave the following reasons
for his nomination: Robert is very knowledgeable and always finds time to answer any
questions, whether they are within his area or responsibility or not. He is very strong
[inaudible] with moral for the entire department and beyond. He always has a friendly
and entertaining greeting or reply. He has helped me to do my job better and has instilled
more confidence in me and others because he is constantly solving problems or giving
encouragement to others. The committee felt that based on Mr. Adkins’
recommendation, and Mr. Clements’ attributes, he should be awarded the Employee of
the Month. Mr. Adkins further states that Robert Clements is a big reason that I enjoy
my work. His personality and willingness to go beyond Public Works. He is a big asset
to our City and the area in general, because he is also dedicated to guarding taxpayers’
money and is a very good public relations man. I’m sure that there are many other City
employees that share my opinion. The committee would like to appreciate and to join us
in awarding Mr. Robert L. Clements Employee of the Month for the month of September.
Congratulations.
(A round of applause is given)
The Clerk:
PROCLAMATION:
Ms. Lynn Bailey, Executive Director
2
Richmond County Board of Election
RE: Voters Education Month
Mr. Mayor: You want to read that, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. We’d like to recognize Ms. Bailey and her department in
recognition of the education week.
Whereas, Voter Education Week will place special emphasis on educating the
voters in Augusta Richmond County on the use of the new touch screen electronic voting
system; and
Whereas, Every effort will be made by the Board of Elections during the Voter
Education Week to ensure voting demonstrations within our community; and
Whereas, the Augusta Richmond County Public Library branches have partnered
with the Board of Elections to place a voting unit at each circulation desk during Voter
Education Week; and
Whereas, units will be available to the public at many Augusta Recreation
facilities, the Augusta Mall, other retail establishments, senior events, entertainment
venues, and church during this week; and
Whereas, the Augusta Richmond County Board of Elections encourages each
citizen to actively seek a demonstration of the touch screen electronic voting system prior
to the November 5, 2002 General Election; and
Whereas, the Augusta Richmond County Board of Elections encourages each
citizen to participate in the electoral process by casting a ballot in each and every election
for which they are entitled;
Now, therefore, I, Bob Young, Mayor of the City of Augusta, do hereby proclaim
October 13 – 19 to be Voter Education Week and urge all citizens to participate in this
observance.
(A round of applause is given)
Mr. Mayor: Next item?
The Clerk:
RESOLUTION:
Adopt Resolution Ensuring Hometown Security. (Requested by Mayor Young)
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, this resolution is being presented to cities across this
country by the National League of Cities. The President has asked for $3.8 billion to
assist local governments in meeting their obligations for homeland security since
September 11 of last year. And the Congress has failed to act on that request. And so
this resolution is sending a message to our Representatives in the House and Senate that
we need the money, we need their support to address hometown security issues, and we
would ask your adoption today of this resolution and send forward to our Delegation.
3
Mr. Cheek: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, if you’ll forward a copy of that to Congressman
Norwood and Senators Cleland and Miller, please.
The Clerk: I will, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s see, we have some people here for Item number –
that’s on the consent agenda. Let’s go ahead and take the consent agenda.
The Clerk: The consent agenda consists of items 1 through 40, items 1
through 40.
Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval
Mr. Cheek: Second.
The Clerk: For the benefit of any objectors –
Mr. Colclough: I’d like to pull Item 30 and 36.
Mr. Mayor: Any zoning or alcohol you’d like to read out, Madame Clerk?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to discuss 34.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk: Correction. Consent is items 1 through 39.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead with those captions, if you would.
The Clerk: For the benefit of any objectors to the alcohol petitions, would
you please signify your objection by raising your hands once the petition is read:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Motion to approve a request by Douglas Todd Fischer for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with I. Q.
Lounge located at 1082 Bertram Road. There will be a dance hall. District 7. Super
District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 7, 2002)
4
2.Motion to approve a request by Sun Hui Kernodle for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with S. H. Deli located at 3324-B Mike
Padgett Hwy. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
October 7, 2002)
3.Motion to approve a request by Sun Hui Kernodle for a retail package
Liquor license to be used in connection with 56 Package Shop located at 3324-A
Mike Padgett Hwy. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee October 7, 2002)
4. Motion to approve Communications Site Lease with Voice Stream for the
placement of a tower on Recreation Department property at an annual rental of
$18,000 per year, with three options each at a 15 percent increase. (Approved by
Public Services Committee October 7, 2002)
Are there objectors to those alcohol petitions?
Mr. Mayor: None are noted.
The Clerk: Planning petitions:
PLANNING:
29. Z-02-111 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Jannie Zellars, on behalf of Betty
McLeod, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a Family
Personal Care Home per Section 26-1 (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at #2 Florida Avenue and
containing .46 acres. (Tax Map 57-4 Parcel 101.01) DISTRICT 5
30. Z-02-113 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Beatrice Moore requesting a Special
Exception for the purpose of establishing a Family Day Care Home per Section 26-
1(f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta Richmond County
affecting property located at 3365 Saddlebrook Drive and containing .63 acres.
(Tax Map 188 Parcel 418) DISTRICT 4
31. Z-02-115 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the addition of day care activities; a petition
by Greater St. John Baptist Church requesting a Special Exception for the purpose
of expanding an existing church per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 1948 Ellis
Street and containing .37 acres. (Tax Map 35-2 Parcel 216 and 217) DISTRICT 1
32. Z-02-116 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that a maximum of three
square feet of signage may be used on the property; a petition by K. B. Martin, on
behalf of Antioch Ministries Inc., requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of
church related activities per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 1333 Blount
Avenue and containing .13 acres. (Tax Map 46-3 Parcel 340) DISTRICT 2
5
33. Z-02-119 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that a 20 buffer that conforms
to the County Tree Ordinance be maintained along the west and north property
lines; a petition by Atkins and Associates, on behalf of Cecile L. Thibodeau,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-2 (General Business) with conditions to
Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located on the north right-of-
way line of Spirit Creek Road, 210 feet, more or less, west of the northwest corner of
the intersection of Windsor Spring Road and Spirit Creek Road and containing
approximately 2.9 acres. (Tax Map 153 Part of Parcel 2) DISTRICT 6
34. Z-02-121 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that a 6’ solid board fence be
erected and maintained along the rear property line; a petition by Nickie Marks
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) affecting property located at 2315 Washington Road and
containing .31 acres (Tax Map 26-2 Parcel 144) DISTRICT 7
35. Z-02-122 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that a 40’ buffer that conforms
to the County Tree Ordinance be maintained on the property lines adjacent to
residential properties; a petition by William and Ray Tanton, on behalf of the estate
of Ann Elizabeth Rogers, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-
family Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at
3338 Peach Orchard Road and containing 3.15 acres. (Tax Map 122-3 Parcel 103)
DISTRICT 8
36. Z-02-123 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the street pattern within
the new development be designed to preclude access into any other adjacent
properties; a petition by Custom Contractors, on behalf of Samuel Sturrup and
Michael Nickerson, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to
Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) affecting property located on the northwest
right-of-way line of Pepperdine Drive, 316 feet, more or less, southwest of the
southwest corner of the intersection of Crest Drive and Pepperdine Drive and
containing 6.45 acres. (Tax Map 151 Parcels 10.2 and 161) DISTRICT 6
37. Z-02-124 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Edward J. Coleman III, Trustee
requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General
Business) affecting property located at 3906 Wrightsboro Road and containing .86
acres. (Tax map 39 Parcel 69.1) DISTRICT 3
38. Z-02-126 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Richard Faircloth, on behalf of
Susan Faircloth, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family
Residential) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) affecting property
located at 920 Hephzibah-McBean Road and containing 1.73 acres. (Tax Map 354
Parcel 154) DISTRICT 8
Are there any objectors to those planning petitions?
6
Mr. Speaker: Item 36.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Any objectors to any of those items? None are noted.
We have a motion to approve the consent agenda. It’s been seconded. We’ve had
requests to pull Items 30, 34, and 36. Are there any other items you’d like to pull?
Mr. Williams: Clarification on Item 22, Mr. Mayor, if I can.
Mr. Mayor: Number 22 for Mr. Williams.
Mr. Cheek: 33 for me, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Number 33 for Mr. Cheek. Any other items you’d like pulled? The
Chair would just note I’m happy to see Item number 20 on there, the repairs to the
Ezekiel Harris House. That item has been a long time in coming and I’m glad to see
we’re moving forward with that. So the items we have pulled are 22, 30, 33, 34 and 36.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Motion to approve a request by Douglas Todd Fischer for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with I. Q.
Lounge located at 1082 Bertram Road. There will be a dance hall. District 7. Super
District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 7, 2002)
2.Motion to approve a request by Sun Hui Kernodle for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with S. H. Deli located at 3324-B Mike
Padgett Hwy. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
October 7, 2002)
3.Motion to approve a request by Sun Hui Kernodle for a retail package
Liquor license to be used in connection with 56 Package Shop located at 3324-A
Mike Padgett Hwy. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee October 7, 2002)
4. Motion to approve Communications Site Lease with Voice Stream for the
placement of a tower on Recreation Department property at an annual rental of
$18,000 per year, with three options each at a 15 percent increase. (Approved by
Public Services Committee October 7, 2002)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
5. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain
unsafe and uninhabitable structures in the Turpin Hill Neighborhood: 1584 Linden
Street, 1616 Burke Street, (District 2, Super District 9); Bethlehem Neighborhood:
1122 Davis Street (District 2, Super District 9); Harrisburg Neighborhood: 209
nd
Metcalf Street, (District 1, Super District 9) and waive 2 reading. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee October 7, 2002)
6. Motion to approve Wellness Facility Contracts with the Family Y and
Powerhouse Gym. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee October 7,
2002)
7
7. Motion to approve Subordination Agreement for Daisy K. Gallegoa, 1015
Bluebird Road, Augusta, GA 30904. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee October 7, 2002)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
8. Motion to approve a three-year contract with AT&T for Inmate Telephone
Service at RCCI. (Approved by Public Safety Committee October 7, 2002)
9. Motion to approve of Purchase of Services Grant for juvenile offenders.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee October 7, 2002)
10. Motion to enter into a contract with the firms of R. D. Brown Construction
Company for the construction of Fire Station #1 in the amount of $1,471,000.00 and
Sherman Construction Company for the construction of Fire Stations #7 and #19 in
the respective amounts of $1,326,000.00 and $1,340,000.00. (Approved by Public
Safety Committee October 7, 2002)
11. Motion to approve of upgrade to Novell Netware Version 6. (Approved by
Public Safety Committee October 7, 2002)
12. Motion to approve upgrading the current Compaq ProLiant server to a new
ProLiant server and the purchase of a new Gateway server for content filtering of
outside traffic. (Approved by Public Safety Committee October 7, 2002)
13. Motion to approve a proposal from ADT Security in the amount of $88,190
to implement Phase II of the Security Plan. (Approved by Public Safety Committee
October 7, 2002)
FINANCE:
14. Motion to approve the purchase of tickets from the Augusta Task Force for
th
the Homeless for City sponsorship of the 5 Annual Chili Bowl Luncheon.
(Approved by Finance Committee October 7, 2002)
15. Motion to approve the purchase of tickets from the Citizens for Nuclear
Technology Awareness for City sponsorship of the Tenth Annual Edward Teller
Lecture/Banquet. (Approved by Finance Committee October 7, 2002)
16. Motion to sustain the recommendation of the Tax Commissioner to deny a
request from Jackson Law Offices for an abatement of penalties. (Approved by
Finance Committee October 7, 2002)
17. Motion to approve transfer of one-half undivided interest in property located
at 2522 Ivey Road to Constance Pearson for the sum of $1,128.00. (Approved by
Finance Committee October 7, 2002)
18. Motion to approve the abatement of taxes on various government properties.
(Approved by Finance Committee October 7, 2002)
19. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Hunter R611PM27 Alignment
Machine for Fleet Management from Target Tire Company of Charlotte, North
Carolina for $21,541.00. (Lowest bid offer on Bid 02-169) (Approved by Finance
Committee October 7, 2002)
19A. Motion to approve the purchase of tickets to the 2002 CSRA Classic, Inc.
(Approved by Finance Committee October 7, 2002)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
8
20. Motion to approve award of the contract for restoration to the Ezekiel Harris
House to Capers and Associates of Augusta in the amount of $182,188.00 based on
qualifications of the contractors.
21. 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
October 7, 2002)
22. Deleted from the consent agenda.
23. Motion to execute reimbursable agreement between the FAA and Augusta
for the relocation of certain cables at the Tobacco Road Water Treatment Plant site
at a cost of $18,144.00. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 7,
2002)
24. Motion to approve contract with Beam’s Pavement Maintenance Company,
Inc. for construction of the Bartram Trail Extension from Tenth Street to
Thirteenth Street in the amount of $59,549.00. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee October 7, 2002)
25. Motion to approve award of contract to Blair Construction in the amount of
$217,786.13 for construction of the International Boulevard Sanitary Sewer Project
based on the preliminary evaluation of bids received. (Funded by Account Number:
509043420/5425210 80150240/5425210) (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee October 7, 2002)
26. Motion to authorize execution of lighting agreement with Georgia
Department of Transportation for I-20/I-520, I-520/Wheeler Road, I-20/Walton
Way Extension interchanges and the Bobby Jones Expressway/Scott Nixon
Memorial Drive intersection. The estimated annual cost of $42,000 per year to cover
operations and maintenance will be funded from Street Light Account No.
101041610/54.14510. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 7,
2002)
27. Motion to approve the execution of lighting agreement with Georgia
Department of Transportation for SR 104 (Riverwatch Parkway). The estimated
annual cost of $53,000 per year to cover operations and maintenance will be funded
from street light account 101041610/54.14510. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee October 7, 2002)
28. Motion to approve amendments to Co-Location Option and Lease
Agreement for the placement of antennas on the water towers located at Jake Ellis
Road and at 1012 Kipling Road. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
October 7, 2002)
PLANNING:
29. Z-02-111 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Jannie Zellars, on behalf of Betty
McLeod, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a Family
Personal Care Home per Section 26-1 (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
9
for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at #2 Florida Avenue and
containing .46 acres. (Tax Map 57-4 Parcel 101.01) DISTRICT 5
30. Deleted from the consent agenda.
31. Z-02-115 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the addition of day care activities; a petition
by Greater St. John Baptist Church requesting a Special Exception for the purpose
of expanding an existing church per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 1948 Ellis
Street and containing .37 acres. (Tax Map 35-2 Parcel 216 and 217) DISTRICT 1
32. Z-02-116 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that a maximum of three
square feet of signage may be used on the property; a petition by K. B. Martin, on
behalf of Antioch Ministries Inc., requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of
church related activities per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 1333 Blount
Avenue and containing .13 acres. (Tax Map 46-3 Parcel 340) DISTRICT 2
33. Deleted from the consent agenda.
34. Deleted from the consent agenda.
35. Z-02-122 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that a 40’ buffer that conforms
to the County Tree Ordinance be maintained on the property lines adjacent to
residential properties; a petition by William and Ray Tanton, on behalf of the estate
of Ann Elizabeth Rogers, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-
family Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at
3338 Peach Orchard Road and containing 3.15 acres. (Tax Map 122-3 Parcel 103)
DISTRICT 8
36. Deleted from the consent agenda.
37. Z-02-124 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Edward J. Coleman III, Trustee
requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General
Business) affecting property located at 3906 Wrightsboro Road and containing .86
acres. (Tax map 39 Parcel 69.1) DISTRICT 3
38. Z-02-126 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Richard Faircloth, on behalf of
Susan Faircloth, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family
Residential) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) affecting property
located at 920 Hephzibah-McBean Road and containing 1.73 acres. (Tax Map 354
Parcel 154)DISTRICT 8
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
39. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held October 3, 2002 and Special Called Meeting held October 14, 2002.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the consent agenda then please vote aye.
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Mays out.
10
Motion carries 8-0. [Items 1-21, 23-29, 31-32, 35, 37-39]
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we’ll move with Item 36. We have an objector here
for that item.
The Clerk:
36. Z-02-123 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the street pattern within
the new development be designed to preclude access into any other adjacent
properties; a petition by Custom Contractors, on behalf of Samuel Sturrup and
Michael Nickerson, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to
Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) affecting property located on the northwest
right-of-way line of Pepperdine Drive, 316 feet, more or less, southwest of the
southwest corner of the intersection of Crest Drive and Pepperdine Drive and
containing 6.45 acres. (Tax Map 151 Parcels 10.2 and 161) DISTRICT 6
(1 objector noted)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, can you give us the background on this, please? Is the
petitioner here? Is the petitioner here today for Item 36? The petitioner is here? Okay.
Are there any objectors present? I heard one voice. Yes, there is an objector present.
Okay, Mr. Patty.
Mr. Patty: Okay, this is a roughly 6-1/2 acre tract right at the end of Pepperdine
Drive. I can’t think of the name of the subdivision.
Mr. Speaker: Sand Ridge.
Mr. Patty: It’s actually not part of Sand Ridge, but the tract that was on the rear
of a large tract coming from the other direction, and the fact that Pepperdine stubs into it
makes it appear to be the obvious choice to develop the property. To extend Pepperdine
Drive and do similar development to what’s in Sand Ridge. Sand Ridge is zoned R-1C
which allows lots of 60 x 100 but the lots are larger because at the time that particular
section was developed, there wasn’t any sewer in there, but now there is, so they’re
asking for R-1A zoning, which the minimum lot size is 80 x 120. 10,000 square feet. So
these would not be small lots. They’d be wider than a lot of lots in Sand Ridge and
bigger than some of them. The zoning would allow only construction of site-built
houses. It would not allow manufactured homes, which would be allowed on the
property at this time if it were subdivided for that purpose. There are two outstanding
issues. I think one is what would the minimum square footage of the homes be, and the
developer or the petitioner, rather, has agreed to 1320 square feet, which I understand to
be the minimum in Sand Ridge in their covenants. And second outstanding issue which,
you know, really is not a problem to solve, but there was a problem several years ago
with someone using an adjoining, accessing an adjoining tract down the back, that
stubbed out of Pepperidge or whatever it is, Pepperdine, through this property and to the
11
adjoining tract. It’s now being [inaudible] bank. Control the bank and my feeling is that
that issue won’t be changed whether it’s subdivided or whether it’s left in its present
state. That’s just a problem with the tract. It [inaudible] no other access. But the
Planning Commission recommends it be approved. There were some folks there that had
those reservations. I understood that, you know, that they were satisfied, but that may
have change. But anyway, the Planning Commission recommended approval and I still
think that’s the correct action.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s hear from the objector, if we may. Give us your name and your
address for the record, please.
Mr. Speaker: Sammy [inaudible], 3839 Crest Drive. Mr. Mayor, Commissioners,
we object to this. The process of the zoning and the building development. In Sand
Ridge, we fought everything from running dogs, bad development, crime, and everything
else. And we have a successful neighborhood. And the reason why we’re in here today
is we want to keep it that way. Our concern is, number one, that the people developing
this tract have no connection to the neighborhood. This is strictly a project. Now they
come in here. We can’t hold them to a specific square footage of houses, or as Mr. Patty
says, 10,000 square feet, which is less than a quarter of an acre. In Sand Ridge, we’ve
been successful because we’ve had a little bit of room to breathe and we’ve paid attention
to our neighborhood. Now if a developer comes in there, and he says, he makes a
promise, he’s not obligated by law to meet that promise. He can tell us, he or she or they
can tell us anything. When they build and they’re gone, the neighborhood issues are our
problems. This tract of land is in a hole at the end of a street in Sand Ridge, and exactly
what I mean, a hole. And the way this property is going to be developed, we, based on
experience, feel like we will see a slum area created with these houses being small, small
lots in comparison to the lots around it. You have a hole where now you have rental
property other than going on [inaudible]. If they bring these lots and house up to the
same specifications of the immediate area around them, we will have no problem. They
want to put 17 houses or more on these 6.some acres. Some of that area is
undevelopable. So where are these houses going to go? They will be sitting on top of
each other. So, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, we are asking that we get your assistance in
fighting this problem up front instead of having to fight it with the Sheriff’s Department
three to four years from now. We need your help there. We are not asking anyone to do
anything illegal. We are asking these developers to come up, put it in writing what they
are going to do. I talked with the builder on Saturday, this weekend. We had a lot of
promises but no facts. I would like to see what they’re going to put in in writing and say
what they are going to develop. So until they come forth with a plan in concrete as to
what they intend to develop, we ask you to deny this petition. In closing, in closing,
[inaudible] I guess [inaudible] were making a joke. I guess they didn’t know I was living
until a few minutes ago. They said it’s zoned agricultural, why don’t we just bring some
of that in there and we’ll see how unhappy they are then. So gentlemen, if [inaudible]
serious about my neighborhood, I don’t understand. We are serious about, but if they
want to bring in cows and horses, we’ll be at the street waiting for them. Thank you.
12
Mr. Mayor: Let me, let’s hear from the petitioner, Mr. Colclough, then we’ll
move forward. Give us you name and address for the record, if you would.
Mr. Marshall: Arthur Marshall. 531 [inaudible] Hill Road.
Mr. Speaker: Richard [inaudible]. 824 Hickman Road.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything you’d like to add to what’s been said?
Mr. Marshall: Yes, sir. We, in talking with [inaudible], I don’t know where he
got his information from that we were going to build smaller houses and they were going
to be rental property. That was never our intention. That was never discussed. When I
met with him this past Sunday, I told him what our plan was, what our objective was. He
said [inaudible] lot size. Right now it’s presently zoned R-1C. There are smaller lots in
there than what we are going to be putting in the area we want to develop. There is no
guarantee on anything in life, but I plan on moving my mother into this subdivision. So
there will be a personal interest in this subdivision from my company and my family.
She presently lives in a 1900 square foot house now. I plan on building a house over
2000 square feet. So the concern, and no developer or builder is going to build a house in
that area with the range of 1100 to over 2000. That’s not our intention. I told Mr.
[inaudible] this the other day. He still had some concerns. The lot sizes that we’re
asking, we’re requesting you guys approve is R-1A, which is less dense than what’s there
now, and I really don’t see where – any plan that we submit to you have got to be
approved by the County anyway. So it will be in writing before we can actually break
ground and start developing the property.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: What is the actual lot size you’re planning on putting in there,
Mr. Marshall?
Mr. Marshall: The R-1, R-1 zoning I think is 80 x 120 or 80 x 100. Whatever it
is, that’s what we’re planning on doing.
Mr. Patty: 80 x 120.
Mr. Colclough: 80 x 120?
Mr. Marshall: It’s not going to be – every lot is not going to be that size. Quite a
few of them are going to have to be bigger because of the way the land is laid out. And
contrary to the comment, it’s not a hole. The property is a very nice piece of property,
and it continues on with the street that’s there now.
Mr. Colclough: So you’re saying that you are going to put houses in there that’s
comparable or better than what is in the neighborhood?
13
Mr. Marshall: They’re probably going to be better than what’s in there now.
Mr. Colclough: None smaller?
Mr. Marshall: Nothing smaller.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. [inaudible], the gentlemen are saying that they are going to
build houses the same, what’s comparable or better than what’s in Sand Ridge now. I
mean it’s not in writing, but it is on the minutes of this meeting.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Commissioner, Mr. Mayor, with all due respect to the
gentlemen here, I bought a house 15 years ago in Sand Ridge. I’m still waiting on some
of the things that the developer promised, the builder. So with all due respect to that, I
simply have no faith or trust in these particular issues unless they are in writing. Unless
they are in writing.
Mr. Colclough: We do have to approve anything that they put in there. It has to
come back before us; is that correct, George? Is that correct?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. Pre-development plans, have to file a plat. Let me say that,
you know, I don’t think we can require a condition that a certain size house be a
condition of zoning, but if they agree to it, if they offer to do that, I think you can make
that a condition of zoning. And if that will satisfy the problem, then I would suggest you
do that, in addition to the other condition, which is that the street pattern can’t blend,
extension into any other properties so that this would be the whole end of the
development on –
Mr. Colclough: That would land lock it?
Mr. Patty: Yeah.
Mr. Colclough: That parcel of land?
Mr. Patty: Right.
Mr. Colclough: Once they put those houses there?
Mr. Patty: That’s correct.
Mr. Colclough: So they would also have to come back to us with a development
plan so we’ll actually see what’s going in there?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. See the lot sizes, street configurations.
Mr. Colclough: If it’s not, then we can also deny it.
14
Mr. Patty: Sure.
Mr. Colclough: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Speaker: One issue still remains unresolved, and that is that tract of land that
is immediately to the rear of that property. And for the ones that have been around, that
was a pig farm.
Mr. Colclough: I know what it is. But that would land lock your subdivision.
Mr. Speaker: That would land lock that piece of property.
Mr. Colclough: Your subdivision would be land locked once they put those
houses in there; correct? George?
Mr. Patty: What the condition would do would assure that whatever street pattern
they come up with for this site, that it would have cul-de-sacs and it would not stub out –
Mr. Colclough: Come out into any other area.
Mr. Patty: So there would be no way to continue development on the other tracts.
Now there is this wild card out there, this tract next to it that appears not to have any
other access.
Mr. Colclough: I know where it is.
Mr. Patty: Feasible access. So they’ve got to be aware of that and deal with that.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] land locked.
Mr. Colclough: I’m saying that if we, if we do no stub outs from this piece of
development into that, there would be no access; the streets would end there; correct?
Mr. Patty: Correct. Absolutely. And that’s the purpose of the petition.
Mr. Colclough: All right. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, would it be beneficial for the parties to work out these
specific conditions, George? We are talking about condition this, condition that. I mean
have they tried to meet and work out conditions that would be acceptable for the
developers, as well as the neighbors?
Mr. Colclough: The developers, I think, are saying they are agreeable to what is
put down.
15
Mr. Patty:
Mr. Wall asked me to repeat those conditions so that everybody
The first condition is --
understands what they are.
Mr. Mayor: These will all be written into the zoning?
Mr. Patty: Yes. They would be a condition to zoning, there would be a deed
restriction that they will have sign to be placed on the property so that anybody
searches the title would be aware of it. The first condition is that the street pattern
within the new development would be designed to preclude access into any other
adjacent property and the second condition is that the minimum size house be
constructed in the subdivision would be 1320 square feet.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, thank you. Sand Ridge has been near and dear to my
heart for many years now and I’ve been very proud of the accomplishments they have
made, the contributions they’ve made to this community. I will say this, and I think I’m
well documented as being very concerned about the hit and run developers that will do
anything for a buck and leave a mess for all of us citizens to clean up later. I see Arthur
standing there. I know a man, based on his reputation and personal knowledge, of a man
that’s given way back more to the City of Augusta than he’s ever taken from it. He has
never done anything to my knowledge that hasn’t been first class. He has, by acts and
words, demonstrated a love and concern for this community and south Augusta, and I
know that certainly in some cases I wouldn’t say this about anybody, many other people,
but I know that his word is his bond, and he’s a man that you can trust. I think I know, I
feel in my heart he’ll do the right thing. And we appreciate your contributions to the
community.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion?
Mr. Colclough: So move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor: That’s with the stipulations?
Mr. Colclough: With the stipulations.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor then please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s see. Let’s take them in numerical order, Madame Clerk. Go
back to Item number 22.
16
The Clerk:
22. Motion to approve Supplemental Agreement Number Eight with Cranston,
Robertson & Whitehurst, P.C. in the amount of $11,390.00 to be funded from
General Ledger Account 352 04 1120 for the Augusta Commons Project (CPB #
327-04-296812009). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 7, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just need some clarification in that
supplemental agreement #8 kind of struck my attention. Number 8. And I wanted to
know what were we doing and where did #8 come, Ms. Smith? Is there going to be a 9
and 10, or is that --
Ms. Smith: Actually, Commissioner Williams, I wish I could say to you with
some level of definity no, there will not be a number 9. However, in running into
conditions in the old city such as this where we found a storm drain pipe that ran under
some buildings, once we got out and start doing excavation, it is necessary for us to go
back and take a look at what design we have put in place to reroute this storm drain
system. That’s what this particular one has done. During the Augusta Common Project,
as I’m sure all of you are aware, with this project being where we demolished several
buildings and moved forward to construct the passive park, we have come across several
items that we had not anticipated. Once we tore the buildings down or once we were in
the process of doing the demolition where we found that there were common walls
between some buildings where some additional design work needed to be done,
unfortunately for what we’re doing out here, it seems to be par for the course, and we try
to deal with it and address it as we come across it.
Mr. Williams: Okay, Ms. Smith. Thank you very much. I just had a flash to
come up when it said number 8, and there naturally had to be 7, 6, on down before we got
there, and I’m wondering why we didn’t see some of this, and not coming back with 9
and 10. But like you said, when you going through what we going through now with
new buildings, I mean tearing down buildings and building new structures, we are going
to run across a lot. I would think in this day and time with as much technology as we
gotten, advanced as this technology is, and I’m still using a fax machine now, but as
advanced as the world is, we ought to be able to at least look at this kind of thing and, and
save some money. When we done come as far as we come and almost ready to open that
facility, I think we should have been able to see that. So. I just wanted to bring a
comment.
Ms. Smith: Okay.
Mr. Williams: Thank you.
Ms. Smith: Thank you.
17
Mr. Williams: So move, Mr. Mayor
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: It’s not necessarily a question, but it’s a point I’ve been bringing up
for about three years now. And I think Ms. Smith is absolutely correct not only in what
they found on this project, but what I think we need to do, for future projects, if we are
looking seriously, if there are going to be a lot of work that’s done in old downtown, this
is not the first or last of surprise projects that you are going to find underneath the
ground. I think the amount of contamination that they found near and around the canal
th
area, that they continue to find, and it’s going to be there and basically run from 13
Street back, it would be wise that on these projects, when they are dealt with for bids,
and I think any engineering firm regardless of who it is is going to run into the same
things, but I think you are going to need some area of contingency that’s built directly
into those specific projects in order to allow for that, because you’re going to have that.
And it’s not saying that they ought to go back and do, deal with unneeded change orders,
but just based on the history of what’s being found underground in this city, you’re going
to have that to occur. And that’s not the first one. It won’t be the last one. And we, we,
we’re paying it out, so, I, I hope at some point when we do this, that as we move to future
projects we won’t look at them just based on what’s there and needs to be done. It’s
going to have to be a specific contingency for those particular unknowns when you deal
with downtown, and the age of those sewers that are there and what you run into are not
only with contamination but everything from wood to decay and everything else that’s
found on the ground in the old parts of this City. And I think that would help us a whole
lot as to where we’d all get. Cause at some point we are going to run into a problem
where those projects are up to the limit and the question is going to come up then, what
do you take money from in order to make an existing project work? And it’s just an
observance and I think that would help that department. So you’re absolutely correct in
what you’re brining out on that. But it won’t be the last one.
Mr. Mayor: Any other discussion? All in favor of the motion then please vote
aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 30.
The Clerk:
18
30. Z-02-113 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Beatrice Moore requesting a Special
Exception for the purpose of establishing a Family Day Care Home per Section 26-1
(f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County
affecting property located at 3365 Saddlebrook Drive and containing .63 acres. (Tax
Map 118 Parcel 481) DISTRICT 4
Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors to this item? Is the petitioner here today?
Okay, Mr. Patty, you want to give us the background on this, and then we’ll move
forward?
Mr. Patty: Yes. This is a request for a family day care home which would allow
them to keep up to six children in the home. The house is in Saddlebrook Subdivision off
Morgan Road. It’s at the very end of the subdivision. It backs up to a power line and a
low area so there are no homes behind it. It’s adequate in size for this. No objectors.
Planning Commission recommends you approve it.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Go on.
Mr. Colclough: There was no objectors at the Planning Board?
Mr. Patty: No, sir.
Mr. Colclough: I make a motion we approve it.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Any discussion? All in favor then please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Item number 33.
The Clerk:
33. Z-02-119 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that a 20’ buffer that conforms
to the County Tree Ordinance be maintained along the west and north property
lines; a petition by Atkins and Associates, on behalf of Cecile L. Thibodeau,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-2 (General Business) with conditions to
Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located on the north right-of-
way line of Spirit Creek Road, 210 feet, more or less, west of the northwest corner of
the intersection of Windsor Spring Road and Spirit Creek Road and containing
approximately 2.9 acres. (Tax Map 153 Part of Parcel 2) DISTRICT 6
19
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, you asked this be pulled.
Mr. Cheek: Yeah, just a question about what we plan to put there and if we’re
going to build something, throw something up, or are we going to build a quality
structure there.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, you have some background? Is the petitioner here on this
item? Okay.
Mr. Patty: This is kind of an unusual situation. The property is currently zoned B-
2, but it’s got a condition on the rear that only mini-warehouses could be built on the site.
And the petitioners, the petitioner is a real estate agent who claims to have a sale for the
property for unspecified use. But the sale would require rezoning to B-1. Now B-1, of
course, does not allow a lot of the things that B-2 allows. It does not allow mini-
warehouses. But since he’s not able to disclose the use, I remember some specifics, but
to answer your question, no, there’s no specified use but it is a downgrading of the zoning
from B-2 to B-1 and we would, you know, we do have a tree ordinance now and we did
require a 20’ buffer on either side where one side, one side of the road required a 10’
without conditions, so staff felt that it’s more protection than is presently provided for by
the current zoning.
Mr. Cheek: That does ease my concern some. With all that we have going along
Windsor Spring Road and the improvements on that and the struggle that Fairington has
had and town and Country have had trying to maintain the quality life in neighborhood,
I’m just very concerned about what is actually going in there. It sounds to me, though,
that if it goes to B-1 it’s a more restrictive ordinance.
Mr. Patty: [inaudible]
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion with a second. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: George, who is petitioning this? Have they been before us before?
Mr. Patty: Tony Atkins represented the petitioner. I believe that Thibodeau is the
owner. Atkins is the realtor.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: So, George, at no time they could give you a hint why they
wanted to downgrade the zoning so they could put something there?
20
Mr. Patty: No. And I don’t mean to imply that there is some, you know, use, that
he’s – I believe that his comments were that he had a potential sale for the property.
Mr. Colclough: So in order to sell the property he had downgrade it in zoning?
Mr. Patty: I think he also was looking at, I don’t know – what I’m trying to say
this was something that was going to close immediately after the zoning, but he felt like
the current zoning, which only allowed mini-warehouses on the back, was an impediment
to making any sale of the property as well.
Mr. Colclough: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, can I ask just a tight end question. And I probably will
vote for the motion, but there was one thing that threw me off just a little bit. You
mentioned about – just a little clarity on the setback on the trees, and this goes from 10’
to 20’ or from 20’ to 20’?
Mr. Patty: The tree ordinance right now, when you’ve got non-residential land
uses next to residential land uses, the tree ordinance would require 20’ on the rear of the
commercial or non-residential property, and on the side it would only require 10’. We’re
asking you to require 20’ on both sides. Side and the rear. And it would require, it would
allow more protection than what the ordinance would allow, did not make that a
condition.
Mr. Mays: I just wanted to get the clarity, Mr. Mayor, because – and I can vote
for it. What I want to make sure was we were not getting into a situation. Sometimes
I’ve seen them in the past where the use is not there, but then – and I’m not saying this in
this case – cause I’ll vote for the motion. But sometimes the use has not been described
because there is no use, and if we are in the process and I know where Andy is coming
form on it, sometimes down the road we have to turn around and buy these properties for
widening. They are bought with a speculative purpose that to a point then that we render
it useless because of what’s done on the setback. Then we got to turn around and pay
then an enormous price in order to get the right of way to come through there and do it.
And that’s why I wanted to make sure that it was a step up and not a step backwards. But
I’ve seen it done both ways. We get them and folk with sit on them and you turn around
and the county has got to pay three times the amount of what they would have paid for it
if the zoning had stayed the same. And that was why made the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion to approve on the floor. Further
discussion? All in favor of that motion then please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is 34.
21
The Clerk:
34. Z-02-121 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that a 6’ solid board fence be
erected and maintained along the rear property line; a petition by Nickie Marks
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) affecting property located at 2315 Washington Road and
containing .31 acres (Tax Map 26-2 Parcel 144) DISTRICT 7
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, let me ask Mr. Patty, were there any objectors at the
Planning Commission meeting to this item?
Mr. Patty: I believe that there were. Let me say that the surrounding properties,
actually the property west of this was zoned B-2. Most of the surrounding properties
have been rezoned to either P-1 or B-1, so this is consistent with what the zoning in the
area is. The petitioner, I think the issue, I think there was an objector. I think the issue
is, you know, does he understand that he cannot sell cars from his property, because
that’s been the business he’s attempted to initiate on that property in the past. He’s got a
clear understanding, he’s here, he can speak for himself. He’s got a clear understanding
that he cannot do that on his property, and that’s not the intent of the rezoning. B-1
zoning would not allow that.
Mr. Boyles: That’s what I was concerned about. My predecessor down here had
that, the used car lot come up, and I think it was, it was turned down by this Commission.
That was a concern that I had heard from the residents around this. I was wondering.
But this does not create a used car lot?
Mr. Patty: No, sir. Cannot have a car lot in B-1 zoning.
Mr. Boyles: I move for approval.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Further discussion? All in favor then please
vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 40, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
PLANNING:
22
40. Z-02-112 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to deny a petition by Velma and Buford Jackson requesting a
Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a Family Personal Care Home per
Section 26-1 (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond
County affecting property located at 2377 Dublin Drive and containing .27 acres.
(Tax Map 82 Parcel 209) DISTRICT 4
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Is the petitioner here? Are there objectors? All
right. Any discussion? Any questions for Mr. Patty? We have a motion on the floor to
deny. All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Number 41.
The Clerk:
41. Z-02-117 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that no modular or mobile
buildings may be added to the property; a petition by Stephen Heyl, on behalf of the
Unitarian Universalist Church of Augusta requesting a Special Exception for the
purpose of expanding an existing church, including day care services, per Section
26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County
affecting property located at 3501 Walton Way Extension and containing .97 acres.
(Tax Map 31 Parcel 27) DISTRICT 7
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here on this item?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Dan. Are there any objectors here?
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Kuhlke?
23
Mr. Kuhlke:
I have no objection to the special exception other than
Commissioner Boyles and myself have been informed by some of the neighbors in the
Tripps Court area that we have a serious drainage problem coming from the church into
I would like to make an amended motion that we approve
that, into that subdivision.
this subject to the church providing to the Engineering Department appropriate
work that needs to be done and guarantee that it will be done within a specific
period of time so that we can protect that neighborhood that’s behind them at this
point.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Any further discussion? Is that – do you understand what
Commissioner Kuhlke said? Okay. All in favor of the motion then please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, I’d just like to state for the record on item number
42, the entity that is involved in the sale of the property is an American Legion Post of
which I am a member, so I’m going to disqualify myself and ask the Mayor Pro Tem to
preside over item number 42.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
42. Z-02-118 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the conditions that 1) construction must
begin within two years or the zoning reverts back; and 2) that the development plan
will match the concept plan submitted with this petition; a petition by John
Calloway, on behalf of Jefferson Energy Cooperative, et al, requesting a change of
zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) and R-3B (Multiple-family
Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) with a Special Exception for a
shopping center having over 15,000 square feet of area affecting property located on
the northwest corner of the intersection of Richmond Hill Road and Windsor Spring
Road and containing approximately 18 acres. (Tax Map 121 Parcels 1, 9, 10, 11, 22,
22.1) DISTRICT 4
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is the petitioner here? George?
Mr. Patty: This is as important a zoning decision as y’all make, have made for
some time, and frankly, when I first discussed this with the petitioner, I thought I’d be up
here begging you to deny this, because it – but some of the other development that has
occurred in the southside and the impact that it might have on some of those other areas,
impact on traffic and impact on some of the residential areas surrounding it. But I have,
you know, I have checked on this developer, I have talked to other folks, I have looked at
some of the stuff he’s built, and I think that he offers an opportunity for something that’s
24
really nice and something that the southside is really crying for, and that is a real first
quality development on this site. The property has got about 660 feet on Windsor Spring
Road and about 660 feet on Richmond Hill Road, and I think he’s got plans that he’d like
to show you, to assure you that it will work and won’t cause substantial traffic problems.
The site is also the gateway to a large tract of land, I think it’s 400 or more acres, that
stretches along Bobby Jones Expressway, almost from Richmond Hill to Deans Bridge
road. It’s undeveloped. I think the second reason that you should approve this, in
addition to the quality of the development that he’ll do, is the fact that this will set the
stage for something really, potentially really good to happen with that entire property,
and it’s property that’s got some access issues, but it’s got some real potential, as well.
Some real potential for [inaudible] development, and from a growth management
standpoint I think that’s as important as anything else we can do. We did have some
objectors. We had some folks that were in favor of it. I think they’re all here and would
like to speak, but the Planning Commission recommends it. We had one no vote, the rest
were in favor of it after listening to the pros and cons, and I think from the staff
standpoint, we recommend it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Would the petitioner come to the mike, please?
Mr. Calloway: My name is John Calloway. I’m from Atlanta. Would you like
me to give you a quick synopsis?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If you would.
Mr. Calloway: I’ll try to make it brief. I could talk all day about this.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, sir.
(Laughter)
Mr. Calloway: Five minutes. I know your community really well. I worked here
about two years back in the mid-90’s. I came over and spearheaded the development
called the Evans Towne Center, which is on Washington Road in Evans. For those of
you who aren’t familiar with it, it has [inaudible] movie theater in it and an Applebees
restaurant, with some other businesses there as well. When I first went to Evans, Evans
had plenty [inaudible], they had no landscape ordinances, they had no architectural
controls, they had no sign ordinances, any of that. But when I went there, I wanted to
build something that would be a hallmark for that community and standard-setting
development. And I’m real pleased with the results, because Evans used that project after
that as a, as a standard, as a, as a new way of which they would like to control growth in
that community, and to a great extent it’s worked. They’ve created an overlay district to
control other developments in that area. And they’ve used the controls that I, myself, put
on my own project as the, as those standards. This is a – I’ve been wanting to do the
same thing in south Augusta. In fact, I wanted to do it in 1998, and I chose this very site
in 1998, but the opportunity wasn’t there then. The businesses weren’t interested then.
And even though I’ve shown you this picture, I’m not representing that any one of these
25
particular businesses in coming. But I want to tell you that the opportunity is there, and
in my opinion – now I came back this past spring, [inaudible] the entire southside, looked
at the traffic counts and demographics, and I came back to the same site. It’s the only site
for this kind of development in south Augusta. And I won’t bore you with the details as
to why, but I’ll try to explain to you very quickly why some of the people who are
detractors from the development would like it go somewhere else. They’d like me to go
take another failed development somewhere else on the southside and try to re-invigorate
that and make it happen there. But the problem is that a development like this has to be
in a very, very special location in order to succeed. And quickly, the reason why this is
the most important location is simply this: the market on the southside of Augusta is
framed by Peach Orchard Road on the east and Deans Bridge Road on the west. Those
are the perimeter of this market, and it forms a large V, as they fan out south of Bobby
Jones Expressway. And down through the – between those two boulevards is where most
of the subdivisions exist in south Augusta. And running through the very heart of that V
is Windsor Spring Road. It’s a nice boulevard. And it takes most of the residential
people, not people going out of state or to other towns, but most of the people who live in
Augusta, whether they live right there near Bobby Jones or all the way to Tobacco Road,
it takes them home in the afternoon. So Windsor Spring Road is a vital road in south
Augusta. It is the vital road. It has the opportunity of being a magnificent boulevard. A
true quality boulevard through the very heart of south Augusta. If this project were put
all the way down at Tobacco Road – if you think about it, there’s only two intersections
on Windsor Spring Road, one is Tobacco Road. And I mean four way intersections. One
is Tobacco Road. And the other is Richmond Hill Road. Because Rosier Road and
Meadowbrook Road are not, are just T intersections. We need a full intersection. But if
we put this kind of project all the way down at Tobacco Road, then those people – if we
put this project all the way at Tobacco Road, then all of the people who live just north of
Bobby Jones Expressway – and there’s a lot of them – all those people would have to get
on Windsor Spring Road and drive all the way down to Tobacco Road to get to it. And
that would only increase traffic on the roads. On the other hand, if we put the project on
the north side of Bobby Jones Expressway, then all the people who live on the south side
of [inaudible] Tobacco Road, we’d ask them in the afternoons to get off Bobby Jones and
come under and north of Bobby Jones and go out again, which I don’t think they’ll do.
The reason this site is so special is because it’s on the going home side of the road for the
people who live down in the Tobacco Road area. So they hit it on the way home. It
doesn’t create new traffic for them. And by virtue of Richmond Hill Road, people who
live north of Bobby Jones can get to it quickly without ever getting on Windsor Spring
Road. Now this is a small project. This is not Augusta West. Or Augusta Exchange.
This is a small project. Three of these projects could fit inside the new Wal-Mart on
Deans Bridge Road. It would take two of this entire project to fill up the new Lowe’s
building. This is a small, neighborhood project. It’s not designed to bring people there
from South Carolina or from west Augusta. It’s there to serve people in a one-to-three
mile radius and to do it with a, in a very exclusive setting. The reason that I think
something like this could be so valuable to south Augusta is that this it the first major
intersection you come to as you travel south on Windsor Spring Road. This is the first
nodule. If we did a really excellent job of developing this corner, then the same qualities,
the same controls that we use on this project, could be used through the entire corridor to
26
Tobacco Road and beyond. We could prevent Windsor Spring Road from becoming like
Peach Orchard Road. And on top of that, what happens on this property, since it is, like
Mr. Patty said, it’s a very – at the very mouth, at the very entrance to this huge 400 acres.
The quality of what’s built here will determine the quality of everything that’s built
behind it. Now we’re not here today to talk about whether you want the other 400 acres
to develop, and if so, what to. But you’ll want to have the opportunity of voting on high
quality development. And in my opinion, that’s some of the finest, finest real estate,
real estate in south Augusta. That is the 400 acres behind us. Because it has two miles of
frontage on Bobby Jones Expressway, and it overlooks downtown Augusta. And I’d like
to just close on this final note. I know I’ve probably exceeded my five minutes. Final
note. I have gotten a, just a wealth of interest in this idea from people all over south
Augusta. I have gotten a lot of support. And I value that support. Because this is a – this
is more than one developer’s dream. This is a community’s dream. Now there are some
people who live in the immediate area who are against it. Every project has that. We’ve
seen this today. The problem is that this property, this intersection has been inalterably
changed forever by virtue of the widening of Windsor Spring Road. It is a new
intersection. And there has already been pressure for small commercial developers to try
to get in there and start stripping it out. Convenience stores. Waffle House will try to get
in there. That would be terrible. The other thing that I think would be a great disservice
for this intersection is that a lot of this property is currently zoned apartments. And if we
don’t build something like this on this corner, a marquis kind of development, a trend
setter, a standard, then I think the next most likely development will be apartments. And
I don’t think that that would do justice to this corner, because apartments are transient
homes. And they can, they can go down in quality very quickly. And that will affect
everything that I’ve described today about what, about the potential that this site holds.
So that’s, I’ve cut a lot of corners, but that, that’s it in a nutshell.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek:
: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I have received a number of calls on this
project, and to a person, every one have been favorable. We have over the past couple of
years had discussion about putting a large modular home community on that 500 acres.
We are fighting [inaudible] and other things and abuse of the property. The people that
I’ve talked to welcome this to our area, are very proud to have this offer made. The
people in my neighborhood have never been hesitant to call me and have been very active
with that neighborhood. Everyone that I’ve talked to, again, has been supportive of this
and these are people that live across the street from or are literally one to two blocks
I would like to make a motion that we approve this, and just as a sidebar, say
away.
if you know anyone in Applebee’s that will come there, the people of south Augusta
will love you forever.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Got a motion and second on the floor. Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty: With the conditions?
27
Mr. Cheek: Of course.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, we have a motion and second on the floor. Any
discussion?
Mr. Hankerson: I have a question. [inaudible] is that what’s going in there, those
[inaudible] and [inaudible]?
Mr. Calloway: Well, there won’t be a movie theater, sir, planned. We are
anticipating say an upper scale supermarket. The pictures that I showed you, I showed
you for the reason of showing you the architectural quality of what you can expect.
Mr. Hankerson: So you don’t know what businesses are coming in there?
Mr. Calloway: Well, I know what businesses are looking at it. I can’t divulge
that. I can’t divulge that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Chairman, this is of course close to Andy and Bobby, but I
would like to just speak up and say if you haven’t seen the Evans Towne Center that this
gentleman built, he did a first class job on it, and if he’s talking about the same type
quality out in south Augusta, it will be very nice.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and second on the floor. Let me ask a
question. Do we have any objectors in house? Okay, seeing none, all in favor of the
motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Bridges: Madame Clerk, let the record show that I neither discussed nor
voted on this matter. I’m employed by the present property owner.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridges abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mayor, you now have the gavel back.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Colclough. The next item is number 43.
The Clerk:
43. Z-02-125 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to deny a petition by Ronnie Craven requesting a change of
zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to Zone HI (Heavy Industry) with
28
a Special Exception for an auto wrecking yard affecting property located at 2008
Old Savannah Road and containing 6.21 acres. (Tax Map 72-4 Parcels 283 and 286)
DISTRICT 2
Mr. Williams: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Let’s see, is the petitioner here?
Okay. Are there any objectors here?
Mr. Colclough: They were supposed to be here, Mr. Mayor, but they are at the
funeral.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Patty, you want to give us the background and then we’ll
hear from the petitioner.
Mr. Patty: This property was a junkyard for years, way before the zoning
ordinance was adopted in 1962, so it continued to operate as a junkyard over the years as
a legal non-conforming use. But the legal non-conforming use ceased to operate several
years ago and it lost its non-conforming status, and the base zoning was R-1, single-
family residential. Mr. Craven bought it, applied for specialty H-I, special exception.
Some of the neighbors objected. I think he is here today asking you to withdraw it. I
don’t speak for him but he’s got some other business ideas for the property, or he
informed me on the phone he had some other business ideas for the property, and I would
just tell you that if you turn him down he’s got to wait six months for anything else. The
property is obviously not residential property. It’s been used as a junkyard and it’s got
business around it, so something other than R-1 is probably proper zoning, but as far as
H-I with special exception, we recommend denial, and I think it was unanimously voted
on.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Craven, did you want to speak to the Commission? Mr. Patty
indicated you might want to withdraw this petition. Is that – could you come up to the
podium, please, and we can get you on the record?
Mr. Craven: Yes, I want to withdraw the H-I and just go with the –
Mr. Patty: You understand that you have to put this back in, a new application,
we have to put a new sign on it, new fee and all that?
Mr. Craven: Right, right. Just going to do it for [inaudible] industry.
Mr. Patty: So you’d be asking for withdrawal without prejudice is what you’d be
asking for?
Mr. Craven: Right.
29
Mr. Mayor: We have a request from the petitioner on item 43, to withdraw the
item without prejudice.
Mr. Kuhlke: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, the neighborhood association came by, and they could
not be here this afternoon, they had one of their members to pass and they were there
attending the funeral this afternoon. But even if Mr. Craven came back with this six
months or whenever from now, this area, Mr. Patty mentioned that, has been in service
for a junkyard for many, many, many years. I don’t know, I mean I don’t know what the
EPD or anything else would do but as far as another use for that property, it’s going to be
rough to come back and do another [inaudible] industry or something else in that area. I
just need to know what, what, what would six months do? I mean if we did not pass this
now, I mean how can he come back and, and reapply for this, I guess is my question.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall is going to answer that. Mr. Mays, did you want to speak?
Mr. Mays: I, I, I’ll [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall is answering his question. Did you get your question –
Mr. Williams: Yeah, yeah, Mr., Mr. Wall has kind of helped me out a little bit,
but to, to bring this back again, and I’m just trying to figure out, I can see Mr. Craven
saving his money and not being able to come back and put another fee in, but to come
back again and, and to request another zoning for that, for this particular piece of
property, this piece of property been in that area, people been living with some stuff that
they had not been [inaudible] for a long time, and I just think that they are very
unsatisfied and they wanted to come out in numbers. But like I say, they had to attend a
funeral.
Mr. Patty: Mr. Mayor, he would have to pay another fee. He’d have to start from
scratch. But he’d be able to do it immediately and not wait six months. That’s the, that’s
what the issue is.
Mr. Williams: So the only difference there, George, is – and, and if we, if we let
him retract it then he just have to pay another fee and start over tomorrow or whenever?
30
Mr. Patty: That’s correct. Rather than wait six months.
Mr. Williams: Okay. So move, Mr. Mayor, if I can get a second to that.
Mr. Mayor: I think we’ve already got a motion, don’t we? We’ve got a motion to
allow him to withdraw it. Mr. Mays wanted to be heard. Yes?
Mr. Mays: Let me ask you this, George. On the – just a point of clarity. On, on a
withdrawal without prejudice, does a different, a different zoning have to be brought back
on the new one or can this one actually be brought back again?
Mr. Patty: Well, he could bring the same one back again, but I think the reason
that he’s asking to withdraw it is he sees the handwriting on the wall. To answer your
question, he could bring the same thing back.
Mr. Mays:
You, you, you, you’ve answered my question, and, and historically
what has happened with a lot of neighborhoods is the fact that we have seen these things
kind of go back and lie dormant and they snooze but they don’t close. They pop back up
again. And I think the only reason you’re not packed with Turpin Hill folk is because
one of the leaders in that neighborhood is being funeralized while we are doing this
today. But I think particularly the two Commissioners from that District, District 2 and
District 9, have been repeatedly asked, called and even people yesterday that want a
closure brought to this part of it. Now I think that they are willing to work even with the
petitioner probably on some other things that’s there and I think it would probably be a
Bu I’m going
good idea that if they are involved in whatever new that may be coming.
to make a substitute motion that we concur with the decision of the Planning
Commission.
I think this one needs to be brought to a closure and that whatever else is
going to be done, I think then that process needs to start over, but I think we need to
respect the neighborhood in that process.
Mr. Williams: I second that.
Mr. Mayor: Second? Okay. Any further discussion? We’ll vote first on the
substitute motion. And that’s to concur with the Planning Commission and deny the
petition. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote.
(Vote on the substitute motion)
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: It was turned down, Mr. Craven. All right. That takes us to item
number 45, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
FINANCE:
31
45. Receive report from the Internal Auditor regarding confirmation of all
Augusta-Richmond County bank accounts balances.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cosnahan?
Mr. Cosnahan: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. At the meeting of October 3, you asked
us for a schedule or a listing for us to confirm all of the bank accounts directly with the
banks. You also asked that we compare that with the schedule of all the book balances.
You have in your schedule there are seven banks that’s listed. There is a first page that
shows a summary by the banks themselves, the seven banks, with the totals there. And
behind that is a schedule by each bank that shows each account. As we mentioned last
meeting on October 3, of course these have not been reconciled from book to bank, in
this short period of time. All of these balances are as of September 30, except for one
account, as reported in there, with the Tax Commissioner’s office, at SunTrust. The book
balance is as of August 31 instead of September 30.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Cosnahan, I noticed on the backup information here that there
are a lot of names on there that – on the signature cards that some are not here anymore.
Mr. Cosnahan: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kuhlke: Is it your recommendation obviously, for the Administrator to make
sure that all these things get brought up-to-date?
Mr. Cosnahan: Yes, sir, Mr. Kuhlke. And as I mentioned somewhat last time,
also very briefly, but it’s brought to my attention even more that more of this is the
banks’ error, not the City’s error. The banks have not updated their cards and as you’ll
notice in the memorandum, the Daniel Field account has already been corrected already
and the other accounts are in the process of being corrected.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cosnahan, did your review show that all of these accounts had
been authorized by vote or resolution of the Commission?
Mr. Cosnahan: No, sir, these accounts go back for years, even to the City
accounts, and we did not go back to all those minutes. You know, that would take some
time. We’d be glad to do it, if you’d like.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I have several I have some questions, and following up on the
question that you asked. I asked the question in committee meeting when this first came
up, whether or not all of these accounts here are necessary? I am hearing that a lot of
32
them way back into the old City, and we’re talking about – we’re not talking about a little
or small amount of money. We’re dealing with over $50 million. And I see some of the
accounts that I questions. Some of them have a dollar in them, a balance. You know,
I’m questioning that. I think that it is [inaudible] see what is necessary for us to still
have, whether those accounts, like you said, had resolutions to open. Also, I see some
accounts have large amounts again, and being a new Commissioner, if my question
cannot be answered now, then maybe I could have a [inaudible] Finance come to explain
some things to me. I see accounts with over half a million dollars. For instance, the
Sheriff’s Department. That’s over half a million dollars is in that account. And I’d like
to know what the purpose of these accounts, because I’m concerned because of the fact
that we’re raising taxes and all of this, and I’m looking here, and we’ve got accounts out
there with $50 millions and some over a half a million dollars in them. And also we have
one, particularly Mr. Cosnahan – sorry if I mispronounced your name, sir – the City of
August Downtown Development Authority 1989 Bonds. [inaudible] bonds. That
account. Federal ID number not available. Bank cannot find signature cards. And
you’ve got $91,234.34 in there. So we have this money out there that we – that the bank
can’t find signature card, don’t have a federal ID number on it. I’m wondering, do we
just have to just go to, you know, computer [inaudible], put your name in it, you may
have some money in here.
(Laughter)
Mr. Cosnahan: that’s how we found out this information, was asking them to
look at the ID number. Mr. Hankerson, if I may point out to you very briefly, and Mr.
Wall can probably maybe back up and give you more information, but a number of these
accounts, with elected officials, not, you know, Commission accounts, such as the Clerk
of Court and so forth, and the money goes into their accounts. The Tax Commissioner.
And then it’s transferred over to the City. So that accounts for a number of the accounts.
Now whether they are the normal accounts you’d have for a regular business –
Mr. Hankerson: I can understand that. My question may go beyond you, it may
go to the Administrator or then maybe we all have to come back and look at this, because
when we are talking about money shortage and so forth and then we see individuals come
asking for more money and then we have so much money that’s in an account here, how
is this money spent? I’d like to know. That’s my question. As far as the $642,976.77.
How is that money being spent? That one’s on page, on the third page. Excuse me, on
the fourth page. Second one from the bottom.
Mr. Cosnahan: That’s on Georgia Bank & Trust. The Sheriff of Richmond
County is that account.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I can’t be positive, but that
looks like that might be the Sheriff’s forfeiture fund account. And therefore that’s the
Sheriff’s whole jurisdiction. If you want, if you would like a complete explanation of all
of these accounts and the ins and outs and so forth, I don’t think we’re prepared to give
that to you today. If you want a report, we can put one together on each one. It will take
33
us a while to do that, but we can, as Mr. Cosnahan said, most of these are, in terms of
updating, are probably oversights by the bank or the bank responsibility. We have, we
met last week and we’re up-to-date on everything from our records.
Mr. Mayor: Has there been an evaluation of whether all these accounts are
necessary? Maybe that would be helpful, George, if you could put together a report for
the Commission of what each account was for and whether or not the recommendation
that that account continue in existence as an independent account or be merged with some
other account. I notice two accounts on here that have only one signature required. Is
that consistent with the financial policy of this city? Only one person is authorized to
sign a check out of a city account?
Mr. Kolb: I’d have to understand which accounts you are talking about.
Mr. Mayor: There are two of them. [inaudible] the Sheriff. I have every
confidence in the Sheriff, but I think for his own protection he ought two signatures on a
check. The page we were just on, where the Sheriff’s Department has the $642,000, right
below it is an account for the Sheriff’s Benefit Fund, $314,000 balance. And then on –
let’s see, there is another page that has another account, the very last page has the
Sheriff’s Department account with a balance of $66,000. Again has only one signature.
Mr. Kolb: Again, we’re really not prepared to answer these. The first time that
we’ve looked at it also. If you would like a report on these, we can give that to you.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, I’m not finished.
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry, did you say you were finished?
Mr. Hankerson: I’m not finished.
Mr. Mayor: All right, go ahead, Mr. Hankerson. I’m sorry.
Mr. Hankerson: I’ve been asking for this report. It’s been several months. And I
think that we need to get very serious. I’m not saying that we’re not serious about it. But
I think we need to get very serious when we’re talking about over $50 million in funds
and we just passed a tax millage increase equal – property taxes and all of this, and we’re
looking like we’re not good stewards of our money. We may be. But as a new
Commissioner, I’d like to – I don’t want three years from now or maybe eight years from
now that I have to look back at this and say that we didn’t have a chance to correct it. I
notice that in Mr. Cosnahan’s report that it says that one, one of the accounts, the
signature cards were updated. Now if Daniel Field, that account, they took time to update
their signature cards, then what it says for the rest of the people, we need to send a
message that we are very serious about these accounts. And where you have one
signature or you have people that have resigned and so forth, and their name is still on the
signature cards, I think that we need to ask the Administrator to look at this and, and, and
work with the Internal Auditor that these things, these accounts be brought up-to-date and
34
not just continue to drag their feet. And also like for, to get the information of whether
these accounts are still necessary and what are these accounts for.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams and then Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Willliams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I [inaudible] freshman Commissioner,
job well done. I heard Commissioner Mays use that on me and Commissioner Cheek so
long. I didn’t think we had graduated to that level yet, but this is something that is very,
very serious. I remember when we, we said we found a million dollars and my comment
was that I wanted to see the person that found it, but I also wanted to see the person who
lost it. Well, I need to forget about that person. I want to see the person who lost this
$50 million you’re talking about in there. This is very, very serious. When it comes to
monies, this government ought to be more aggressive and more serious about that than
probably anything else other than life safety. But here we are, sitting here, and monies
are being in the bank and names are on cards who are no longer with us, and one person
signing. I asked for a report from the Sheriff’s Department about drug seizure money and
it took me some time, but I finally got something that I could understand. I’ve got
several reports, but most of those reports are just some numbers and I was crazy enough
to ask for another report every time I couldn’t make any sense out of, and it took a lot of
paper, but I finally got something I could make sense out of. We are not being good
stewards. Commissioner Hankerson just said that a little while ago. But we’ve got to be
very, very studious of the taxpayers’ money. And this don’t show a good light on us as
Commissioners nor as the Mayor of this City, as far as having this kind of stuff back from
the old City. Somebody in this government – I don’t expect the banks to call us up and
say hey, you’ve got money over here because as long as our money there, they can use it.
But I think we as the government, somebody in this building, somebody who is getting
paid, ought to be able to, to go to the bank and not have the bank come to us. Because it,
it’s the City’s money. It’s not the banks’ money. They would leave it there forever,
forever if they had that privilege. But I think we are not being good stewards at all. This
is, this is, this is more than what I could imagine. I [inaudible] the previous
Administrator, Mr. Randy Oliver’s name is still on here. Mr. Keven Mack’s name is still
on here. Along with a couple of other people who, who may be here now. But we need
to, we need to get serious about what we doing here as leaders of this City. I know
people want to say we fussing and all and we’re not getting anything done. We are
getting a lot done. It may be slow, slow process, and it’s not about you or I, but it’s about
what the people are getting paid to do. This job don’t pay very much and I say that all
the time. But the people that are getting paid are not doing anything. The people up here
keep asking for it and we keep getting the run-around because nobody is holding anybody
feet to the fire. And until you burn somebody’s feet, they ain’t going to move. And I
think that this shows right here, Mr. Mayor, that we not doing that. I won’t accept this.
We can talk about it all day and I don’t want to cut nobody else off. But I’d like to make
a motion, Mr. Mayor, that we accept this as information, that the Administrator get us a
report back about all these accounts, not just who has the right to sign but all the
particulars about each one of these accounts. Also, the Grand Jury had made a report
about investigating and doing some work in our Purchasing. I’d like to make a motion
that we get that report back, receive this as information and also have Cherry Bekaert &
35
Holland to do that investigation that they want to do with the Grand Jury, that compliance
audit that we want to have. I want to make all of that in one motion, that that compliance
audit be done by Cherry Bekaert & Holland to, to do with Purchasing. And let’s get this
stuff out of the way and let’s be about this City’s business.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke wanted to speak, and then Mr. Shepard and then we’ll go
to Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Kuhlke: Well, I just wanted to say, you know, I don’t know that we are all
that bad [inaudible]. J.T., what is the concentration account? I know that we keep, we
keep a certain amount of money in case of emergency. Is that what that is?
Mr. Cosnahan: That’s the primary deposit account, which is an account that earns
interest.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay.
Mr. Cosnahan: And then as the money is needed in other accounts, transferred.
It’s like two link accounts.
Mr. Kuhlke: So your two biggest items in there are that account and the Water
and Sewer account?
Mr. Cosnahan: Yes, that’s correct.
Mr. Kuhlke: The way I see it. You know, I think it needs some cleaning up. I
agree with Mr. Williams.
Mr. Speaker: Commissioner Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir?
Mr. Speaker: If I may, the makeup of these accounts, two of them [inaudible]
operating account in combination with the [inaudible]. The account system in Augusta
Richmond County [inaudible] for instance, the Water and Sewer is separate from the
General Fund. The concentration account is based on a concept that would [inaudible]
and what you’re basically doing is create [inaudible]. It’s not co-mingled. It’s pooled.
Within every fund in [inaudible]. Accounts [inaudible]. There are no [inaudible]. The
only intent and objective is to maximize [inaudible] investments. At any point in time,
all the cash in this government is invested. If you look at the schedule for [inaudible] you
will find $70 million in the concentration account. That’s a [inaudible] for the entire
Richmond County government. There [inaudible] big operation [inaudible] expenditures.
All the accounts that are under Augusta Richmond County are [inaudible] accounts. The
only accounts that are currently in transition are accounts under the [inaudible]. A year
36
ago, when the RFP was issued for banking services, there was a transition. We’re in the
process of clearing up all the accounts at Regions Bank. But [inaudible] most of the
accounts are required accounts. The one in question, the Downtown Development
Authority, the reason why there is no signature, that’s because [inaudible] that’s money
reserved in the [inaudible] debt service account. No one can draw funds from those
accounts. [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Just a moment, Mr. Williams. Mr. Shepard has the floor.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I would just ask Mr. Williams, and I
appreciate his interest in the finances and I appreciate his motion because it speaks to
some other items on the agenda that I wanted to address later, and I was just hoping that
in addition to what you requested that you would give the administration a target date to
return to this body. I mean we’ve got budget coming up and I know that’s going to
consume a lot of November. But I was hoping that this is what the second meeting – this
is the second meeting in October, just have a date. The first meeting in December,
something like that day.
Mr. Williams: I can live with that.
Mr. Shepard: We’ve got budget coming up. I’m thinking would that be enough
time for you to have that, George? Those for us?
Mr. Kolb: well, first of all, the bank accounts we probably can get that done first
meeting of December or shortly thereafter. We’ll let you know of the time. The
compliance audit is already underway, and so there is no need for a motion on that.
When it’s going to get done, I can’t tell you at this point in time. Mr. Cosnahan’s firm is
conducting that right now, so you’re saying go to Cherry Bekaert. It’s unnecessary. So
we’d ask that you drop that from the motion at this time.
Mr. Williams: Well, Mr., Mr. Kolb, now, no offense to Mr. Cosnahan and his
firm. We been waiting on this report for, since July. However many months that is.
That’s my, my, my figure. But I want to try another firm, which we already got, we
already employed, and I thought if Cherry Bekeart & Holland – Mr. Cosnahan got his
hands full with what he’s got there now. Cherry Bekeart & Holland is already working
for us and we don’t have to send out for no, no RFP, no bids or nothing. We can assign
him to do this, and, and, and get it back. I don’t know why that, that would be any
different than that if, you know, we decide to do it. But for what reason, you know, not
have them do it?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Williams, Cherry Bekeart & Holland are our [inaudible] auditors.
They come in and audit us once a year.
Mr. Williams: I understand that. And we can ask them –
37
Mr. Mayor: Let him answer your question.
Mr. Kolb: Beard & Co. are our internal auditors, and they are the ones that you
use for these types of audits. You really don’t want to cross the two streams, so to speak.
Mr. Williams: And the scrutiny we been up under lately, Mr. Kolb, it might be
even better, in fact, I’m going to be more adamant about it now because what we been
doing in the past has not been showing up anything. We need to try something different.
I think that we ought to reverse the thing. I think if we get outside to do some inside
work and maybe our inside to do some outside work. I want to change it. I want to get
Cherry Bekaert & Holland to do this compliance that the Grand Jury has been requesting.
I don’t this we as a Commission have any problem with that, and, and, and that’s my
motion.
Mr. Mayor: All right, is there anything further? Yes, Mr. Mays, Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I don’t, with Cherry Bekaert & Holland being our
external auditors as a matter of professional – what word am I looking for? As a matter
of professionalism, courtesy, not just courtesy, but not morally, but ethically, I think they
would refuse to do the internal work as well, because all they’re doing is when they turn
around and when they do the external, they’re reviewing their own work. So I don’t
think that’s something that’s, you can really request to be done by an external auditor, to
review his work, and I would think that would be out of the ordinary. Is that the only
motion on the floor?
Mr. Mayor: That’s the only motion on the floor.
Mr. Bridges: I make the substitute motion that we accept this as information
subject to the additional information asked previously of the auditor.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the substitute?
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: It’s been seconded. All right. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, several observances. One, and I think it can speak to
both motions. But for one thing, and it came up during the committee meeting the other
day, so all of us were not here. And I wanted to, if I need to clear it through Mr. Wall I
can again. I think one thing, since we had a public meeting as we were the other day, it
needs to be cleared up. It’s something that I think maybe a little bit of a misconception
that we need to clear this, and it’s nothing, not finger pointing where anyone has done
anything wrong. But it pops up several time, as to whether or not the Commission has
38
authorized a particular bank account. When you break that down into other elected
officials who can have accounts, as well as those that are within this City, now if an
ordinance is to come about to so say that that be done, then that’s something that can be
done. But I think it needs to be clear for the record while we’re on that subject, there is
no such rule that has anything where the Commission okays every bank account that is
opened in this City. Now that may be where part of the problem is and needs to be dealt
with, but I think when we, when we say that has the Commission okayed a bank account,
and Mr. Wall, you can, you can explain to the [inaudible] that there is no rule, statute,
ordinance nor resolution which provides that an account be dealt with through the
passage of that coming before this Commission to be voted on. Now we cleared that the
other day in committee meeting. I’d like to get that cleared for the official record of the
Commission today.
Mr. Wall: Well, you are correct. There is no ordinance or – now insofar as
elected officials there are statutes that specifically designate them as far the accounts that
they should have and may have. However, banks typically require, should require in
every instance, a resolution that indicates that an account has been properly authorized
and who the authorized signers on that account are. And that is a bank rule as opposed to
a Commission rule.
Mr. Mays: Well, let me say this, let me back up then. You opened another door.
When I asked the other day was that part of the Commission and we said it wasn’t. And I
said I’m not picking any fights today, but I take on one if it happens. I just wanted to get
clear, and I’m not arguing with anybody on it, but the point being if the bank requires a
resolution to do it, then we need to so stipulate that and enforce that if that is what it is.
But obviously that is not the case in terms of accounts being opened, that they are opened
by resolution. And that’s the point that I’m trying to get on the floor. We keep saying
that it is. Now if that’s a rule [inaudible] bank needs to have one, then the Commission
needs to either do it by ordinance form or it needs to deal with any that are out there
without a resolution of this Commission being invalid. Based on what you just said.
Mr. Wall: Let me try again.
Mr. Mays: Cause we’re dealing with money now, and I told y’all last week,
money does not lie. Folks lie. You know, dollars don’t talk. We have to have
[inaudible] I’m taking this [inaudible] auditors’ back now for a moment because this is
the second time this has been out here in the wind. We keep hearing it about what needs
to be authorized. If we need to strengthen the language or authorization [inaudible] voted
on, if one is done, or if there is a standard resolution that is signed off on to be done. But
to say, and I think it’s being implied, [inaudible] Mr. Mayor, is the fact that we do not
vote on the fact that when bank accounts are opened at a particular bank [inaudible]
comes up before this Commission. Now that needs to be done. And if there is a gap in
the system, then let’s draw it up and do it. But there is no such rule.
Mr. Wall: I thought I said that, but maybe I need to try again, that’s what I was
saying.
39
Mr. Mays: What you’re saying, though, Mr. Wall, still is the fact that the banks
require it, and what I’m saying is if the banks require it and it, it helps the bank to clear
the air to a point that when an elected official resigns, dies, or person resigns or gets fired,
and you change all the signatures that are there, because what I’m looking at is
[inaudible] Christmas savings accounts, open them up in little neighborhood club, when
officers change they go over to the bank and they change the signatures. Now to me, to a
point of getting that to be done in a city of 2700 employees, with administrative staff,
external, internal auditors, Finance Department, it seems to me somebody can take a car
with a seal on the side of it, spend one day and go to the different banks, it’s not that
many of them, and take a lunch break in between, and come back with the damn
signatures for every amount of money that you’ve got in Richmond County. Now that is
not rocket science. It’s just a fact of our money. Now if I’m wrong on that, y’all pardon
my language with it, ladies, but I mean it just to the point that I just don’t think it takes
forever to deal with going through what accounts you’ve got. You [inaudible] the ones
you’ve already changed and you put a little X by it. Like grandmamma used to do. And
then the ones you’ve got left over, you send somebody and you change them. And you
change out the cards. And you bring it back and you say this is the new list. [inaudible]
to me take [inaudible] to do that. If, if, if it does then, then, then somebody needs to be
turning some money back in.
Mr. Wall: Well, I think that what, what I heard Mr. Cosnahan say and what I
have been told by people in the finance Department, the account cards have been changed
by the County. The banks are the ones who have not updated their records in most
instances. Now I can’t tell you which ones have, because unfortunately some of those
records could not be located within the county. But the records have been – the banks
have been notified in most instances to change the card, and the banks are the ones who
have failed to do it. And that’s not that unusual on the part of banks. I wish that with the
banks combining and getting bigger that services would improve, but I think most of us
who have dealt with banks have found it’s the opposite of that. And so I, my concern is
simply this. I think that this report indicates that the Finance Department or some
department of this City is at fault for failing to change the account cards, and I think
that’s an unfair criticism based on what I’ve been told.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, and it’s not even a criticism. It’s an observance that is
clearly there. Now if it’s been done, then what I say then, maybe I’m looking at the
wrong list. Then if I’m looking at the wrong list, give me the right list. Because you say
[inaudible] policy, we can only go by what is provided, whether it’s been provided is folk
that are not here. Now whether that’s our fault or whether it’s the banks’ fault is
immaterial. It’s kind of like the commercial where the executive walks in the room with
all his sales folk and he has them lined up in there and he has a plane ticket for every one
of his people that are there, and they are there and he wants to know where the boss is
going. [inaudible] sometimes to a point you can’t do everything by fax and by telephone.
These are not banks that are operating somewhere in New Zealand, Switzerland or
somewhere else. Most of them are right down in the banking area downtown and they
basically to a point, the only I’m saying is trying to [inaudible] to where one, maybe even
40
the Administrator or one of his Deputies, to a point can [inaudible] Finance person and
they just go and get them changed. When they get them changed, those that don’t need to
be changed, they don’t need to be changed. Those that are incorrect, then get them
correct. Then you come back with a list and say hey, these are the new cards. That is
what we have. And I think for us to say it’s a criticism of anybody, that’s too bad
anybody things it’s a criticism. Because just yesterday, [inaudible] Rev. Hankerson has
said, we just dealt with having to deal with a public safety issue of where we are dealing
with a [inaudible] millage rate increase. That was extremely painful, but I think that
[inaudible] be here where folks [inaudible] meeting five and six times and to see us
dismiss this to a point of making the dollars to a point of where people are totally
[inaudible], where they [inaudible] folk being able to take pension money away and it
disappears. It concerns them to where millions of dollars are out there and some folk, to
a point of where folks’ signatures may be listed and [inaudible] folk are no longer with
you. That’s a point that needs to technically be corrected. If it’s been corrected, then
give me the proper list in two weeks. If it’s not been corrected, then get in a car. We buy
new cars every week, and I’m not, I’m not, getting on Mr. Williams’ deal about them
cars, but we [inaudible] buy plenty of gas and we plenty of new cars. We got enough
Crown Victorias to open up our own Ford dealership. And it’s to a point that where
somebody could make it simple and get it corrected. That’s a daytime job. It can be
solved from 9 to 5 and take the lunch break. Don’t have to go through a fast food
window. I’m sorry. I, I, I totally disagree with you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cosnahan, you want to –
Mr. Cosnahan: Yes, just to respond very briefly. In an effort to get some of these
cards changed, the general way it works now is you tell the bank all the information
about the account. Of course they’ve got the numbers and all, but then you have to tell
them in advance who is [inaudible]. You can’t go the bank now and get the blank cards
and come out. The ones I’ve got in my hand right here is SouthTrust.
Mr. Mays: Pardon me just one second, Mr. Cosnahan. If the relationship is such
that – and I’m for following procedure – but you mean to tell me if we’ve got 7 to 8
figures in a bank that to get a card changed, that even if you let them know in advance,
okay, well that expands my program to two days then. But to a point I would think that
where do you start ranking as a preferred customer? Because if the little Christmas
savings account folk can go walk into the bank and get theirs changed, do you mean to
tell me that folk who bank and keep [inaudible] of dollars have to make an appointment
to call, to come by, and get the [inaudible] procedure? Then maybe we need to go bank
shopping then. We don’t need to go signature shopping.
Mr. Cosnahan: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] accord you one level of respect. It’s like the little credit
card. You know they got a limit on it, but when some of it comes [inaudible], command
a respect with City money. I mean the tail shouldn’t wag the dog now. [inaudible] make
money, make investments off what we [inaudible].
41
Mr. Cosnahan: Let me just say this. When I called the bank and asked them for
the cards, if we could have the bank cards so that we could bring them over to the City
and get the proper people to sign them, I was told that they would not give us cards
without the names printed in. That they had to be done in the computer before they
would process that. Now in the same respect, we ran into the same thing with bank
confirmations. You can’t, it’s not like going into one of the banks here where the people
have been here for 20 years and you walk in and you know people. Now, everything has
to go through the process, and the banks are not located here in Augusta. You don’t have
people, the banker that been here for 20 years. What you have now, you have got banks
in Alabama, banks in North Carolina, you have got banks in Atlanta. [inaudible] much
lower level.
Mr. Mays: But we do have some who live here, though, [inaudible] banks, and
operate them.
Mr. Cosnahan: You do.
Mr. Mays: Well, maybe then the procedure needs to change then. There is such a
think as a withdrawal slip. And, and, and that gets the attention immediately if the
service is not being there. So, I, I, [inaudible] point made but it’s not making any sense,
that maybe my one day theory is ridiculous, but also this continued from July to
December is just as ridiculous. [inaudible]
Mr. Cosnahan: [inaudible], but the –
Mr. Mays: I’m talking about money and you getting it straight.
Mr. Cosnahan: The information that I got form the banks themselves is that they
would not change cards, they would not provide me cards as an internal auditor without
authority. And to do that, then I had to come back to the City to get who the authorized
signers are going to be and then get back to the bank and then of course by then deal with
somebody else at the bank. So it’s a time consuming process. Not something that can be
done in two or three days.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor [inaudible] you were going to come back to me. I
know you were looking down that way cause there’s a lot of conversation down that way.
But you did say you was coming back.
Mr. Mayor: I did say that and I will, but Mr. Mays [inaudible] and waiting for
Mr. Mays to finish.
Mr. Mays: And the only thing, I, I, I wrap up, Mr. Mayor. This government can’t
be simple unless we – you know, there’s one thing you and I agree on, on that, and it can
be imposing obviously, but it, it, it can’t be made, to be made simple regardless of what
you pay for it and what, what you put in. But I, I do think that the observation of the, of
42
the, one thing that does need to be clear, I don’t think that the motion to or the original
motion to, to, to ask the external or someone else to deal with this particular mode of the,
of the Purchasing Department situation, that’s on there for another, another item, but it’s,
it’s got in the mix now where this one is. I think that the main reason, and I’m not trying
to put words in the Commissioner’s mouth who made the original motion, but I think the
main reason why that was made of that observance is that the compliance audit request
came back after the Administrator’s response to the Grand Jury. And I think [inaudible]
for putting a different person on that was the fact that in order to thoroughly clear that air,
if the internal auditor was working on that, and it had been criticism there in reference to
how quick the report was made, and I, I’m personally satisfied with it. And I think he
made a good report that’s in there, that covers the ground. But if you’re going to be
objective to do it, and it’s an air cleaning situation to do it, I think that was the reason for
the other firm being asked. No disrespect to our current internal auditor or his
professional side of it, cause I think all of them are professional people, but I think that
was the reason that that was done, so that could be out of that context of it and that would
clear the air.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. David, if you would come back for just
one minute, David, I need to ask our Finance Director a question. You made a statement,
and I didn’t understand. I wanted to get a little clarification on that. You mentioned
about the account, David, that where it wasn’t no signature cause no one can draw any
money from that.
Mr. Persaud: Yes.
Mr. Williams: Can you clear that up for me?
Mr. Persaud: Let me find that account for you. That’s the one with the bank
balance of $91,234.34?
Mr. Williams: What page are you on, David?
Mr. Persaud: Page 7.
Mr. Kolb: The 7th page.
th
Mr. Persaud: Page 7. 7 page.
Mr. Kuhlke: What bank?
Mr. Persaud: SouthTrust. SouthTrust Bank. [inaudible] Augusta, Downtown
Development Authority, [inaudible] bond [inaudible] funds. That’s money pledged in a
[inaudible] fund reserve for debt service. It’s call [inaudible] account. There are no
43
signatures, no employee of Augusta Richmond County because those are restricted,
reserved, debt service reserve account.
Mr. Williams: So [inaudible] in there for –
Mr. Persaud: Debt service [inaudible]. The reserve account remains over the life
of the bonds. Once they are paid off, the reserve will be liquidated. If there is any cash
balance, it will be returned to this government.
Mr. Williams: Okay. It just got automatically returned? It wouldn’t have to have
anybody to sign for it, it would be automatically returned; is that right?
Mr. Persaud: [inaudible] fiscal agent [inaudible]. [inaudible] bank control until it
[inaudible] protection of the bond [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: Okay. I, I, that, that cleared that up for me.
Mr. Persaud: Okay.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Jim, now I need to go back to something you said when
Mr. Mays was talking a little while ago. And that was that it’s a bank error. We changed
the cards but the bank had not, for whatever reason, have not changed their cards. Now
in my mind, I mean in my little money, I mean they don’t ever have to change my card
because I don’t have that much, but with as money as we deal with, should that bank be
dealing with our money in your opinion, if, if we go there to change the cards, we done
done what we supposed to do, they haven’t done it? If they have even neglected or for
whatever reason had not done it, should we still be doing business with them? This ain’t
no legal opinion, this just in your mind, Jim, right or wrong. Should we?
Mr. Wall: I think if you’ll look at the list, every bank has that same situation, and
I dare say that notification has been sent to every bank to change an account. And it’s
just part of the way that banks do business now.
Mr. Williams: Well, and, and, and, and we don’t run no bank, but I think what
you said earlier about them not changing the cards. Even if they don’t know your name,
when they pull your account up and they see the figure beside your account, dictate
whether they going to respond to you or not respond to you. I mean black, white, blue or
green, don’t make no difference when they see that figure on beside your name dictate
whether or not they going respond. If you got $10 or $10,000, going to dictate whether
they going come – and I’m not saying they are going to disrespect you if you don’t have
but $10, but those figures that we’ve got in these banks should dictate something, Jim,
and that what Commissioner Mays was saying.
Mr. Wall: Well, maybe I’m a bad one to be addressing this because –
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] who ain’t got no –
44
Mr. Wall: As far as banks, the people that you’re dealing with to make the kind
of changes that you’re talking about are not local people. They could be in Orlando,
Florida or they could be in New York City or they could be in Dallas, Texas, and you
pick up the telephone and dial the same number twice, and get two different locations.
Mr. Williams: Okay, Jim, hold it right there, cause I agree with you. But if we
got an account with a bank and we call Broad Street, which the home office is in Dallas,
Texas, or Utah, or Maryland, or wherever it is, and that person knows that we’ve got X
amount of dollars in that bank, and that person does, do not respond themselves, once you
pass the ball you ain’t got to run it no more. Somebody else need to run it. Or we need
to move our money. Ain’t no sense in paying somebody and begging them, too, Jim.
And that’s what [inaudible] we doing. I mean you say that. I can’t agree with you. Now
I know you, you’re not the auditor but you, you mentioned that and that’s why I –
Mr. Wall: Let me – I guess I can state this. A bank shouldn’t pay a check that’s
not signed for an authorized signer.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Wall: Now do they sit there and compare every check with the signature?
Absolutely not.
Mr. Williams: No.
Mr. Wall: And so what I’m saying is that, thank banks have gone to computer
systems, and just because we mail a notice to them to change the card, if they didn’t input
that, then they are going to have all these old names in there. And I am saying that I
don’t think that this is necessarily a failure, and I know in many instances not a failure of
either the Finance Department or anyone else with the county in failing to notify the bank
that these people are no longer with the City. That I know it’s happened, and, and I just
think that that needs to be said for the record. Because otherwise, it appears that we have
been lax, and I don’t think we have been.
Mr. Williams: Okay, Mr. Mayor, my last statement and I’m going to let it go. I
might jump on another one, but I’m going to let this one go. I promise you. Jim, if, if, if,
if that’s the case now, where what you’re saying and the banks, we have not been lax,
have there been any indication or any proof whether these accounts been drawn on by
these signatures that’s on this account since these people left or try after they leaving,
have, have the signatures who, who is legally there, have not been changed, have
anybody checked to see whether or not any check has been written and signed? Now we
got a lot of slack about checking accounts. But do anybody know when the last time
these names that was on these checks or on these signature cards be used? Have they
been used since their termination or since they, they left? That’s all, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
45
Mr. Williams: If you can answer that, Jim, I was thinking –
Mr. Wall: I can’t answer that question, although all of these bank accounts have
been reconciled as part of the audit process, been properly submitted and checks have
been done to that extent.
Mr. Mayor: We’re going to go to Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Hankerson and then
Mr. Boyles wanted to be heard.
Mr. Shepard:
Mr. Mayor, thank you. I’d like to vote for the original motion, but
I think there’s a problem here with the designation of the same auditor as the, as the
external auditor. I think there may be a conflict of interest. And I mean I think there are
more than two accounting firms. I think that we could certainly find someone that
doesn’t have a conflict of interest. But it seems to me, gentlemen, Mr. Mayor, that we
could, we could postpone, not postpone this, but table this for a few minutes while we
determine if the external auditor could handle this matter, and so I think in the middle of
this debate, somebody in recess, could be Jim, our finance [inaudible] do it, we could call
the external auditor and find out what, what the parameters of the conflict of interest are,
I’d make a motion that we table the two motions and bring it up later in the
and so
meeting after we could have, have some input from the External Auditor, so I’d
make a motion to table this item at this time.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion and second to table this item. All in
favor of the motion to table, that’s not debatable – all in favor of the motion to table,
please vote aye.
(Vote on motion to table)
Mr. Kuhlke votes No.
Motion carries 9-1
Mr. Mayor: All right. Do we need to – we’ve been here for two hours. We’re
going to take a break. When we come back from the break, we’d like to go into our legal
session. Mr. Wall, do you have anything for our legal meeting today?
56. Legal meeting.
??
Discuss real estate matters.
??
Discuss pending and potential litigation.
Mr. Wall: Real estate matters, as well as pending and potential litigation.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Do we have a motion to go into legal session?
Mr. Beard: I so move.
46
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. For the items enumerated. All in favor then please vote
aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: We’re going to take a five minute recess and we’ll reconvene.
[LEGAL MEETING]
57. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion on the floor.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. Further discussion? Hearing none, all
in favor of the motion please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Bonner, where are we starting?
The Clerk: Well, we tabled item 46.
(Continuation of discussion on Item 45)
FINANCE:
45. Receive report from the Internal Auditor regarding confirmation of all
Augusta-Richmond County bank accounts balances.
Mr. Shepard: I make a motion we take it off the table.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Kuhlke: That was 45, wasn’t it?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Item 45.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
47
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and second on the floor on item 45.
The Clerk: To take it off the table.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Take it off the table. Any discussion? All in favor of the
motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Speaker: What is the motion?
The Clerk: Take it off the table. Item 45.
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes?
Mr. Williams: I’d like to restate my motion. Ms. Bonner, Ms. Bonner, could you
read that motion back for us?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Your motion was to receive as information the internal
auditor’s report and commission Cherry Bekaert & Holland to do a compliance audit of
the Purchasing Department.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor? Do we have a second?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Got a second.
The Clerk: We have a motion and substitute.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a substitute and a motion on the floor?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any discussion on the substitute?
Mr. Shepard: Would you read –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Read the substitute.
48
The Clerk: The substitute was to receive as information subject to the additional
information that was requested of the Internal Auditor.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I’ve got a question, I guess a question. In both motions, I think
I’m receiving information that I was expecting to receive [inaudible] what I need to
know. Two motions on the floor. But we left, when we finished this, we was talking
about what the banks could provide us and what they can’t provide us. And that’s not a
problem with me right now because I have somebody very close to me as a retiree from
the bank and can provide me that information, my campaign manager, and can provide
me that information later on, so I won’t tie it up on, on getting that information. But
there are four things I’d like to see done. And I might have to ask for amendment of this
motion cause I’m not getting everything in it. Number one is to confirm which accounts
are necessary. Number two is how these accounts are used. The third thing is to provide
us with an updated list with the authorized signatures on them, and the fourth is the
question of how long would this take. With the time [inaudible] on it, so if the first
motion could accept that amendment that I get that information –
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Hankerson: -- have the vote.
Mr. Williams: I address that. The Administrator said he would bring back those
things but those things that Commissioner Hankerson just lined out, I have no problem in
amending that original motion to include those particular things, but Administrator had
mentioned that he would go back and give us an updated report on all that by the first
meeting in December. I think, was that right, Steve?
Mr. Shepard: I think that’s correct, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: And those things that you mentioned, I got no problems in
amending the original motion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: But we’re on the substitute motion now.
Mr. Williams: Right.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Steve, you made the substitute motion?
Mr. Shepard: I don’t think I did.
Mr. Bridges: I did.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ulmer made the substitute motion. So we still have –
Ulmer [inaudible] amend [inaudible]?
49
Mr. Hankerson: I amend the first motion, the original motion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The original motion, okay. So we still have to vote on the
substitute motion. We have a motion and second on the substitute motion. All in favor
of the substitute motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Williams, Mr. Cheek, Mr. Shepard and Mr. Hankerson
vote No.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion fails 2-6-1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We go back to the original motion. Would you read that,
Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: The original motion is to approve, to receive the report as information
and commission Cherry Bekaert & Holland to do a compliance audit of the Purchasing
Department, to include a confirmation of all necessary [inaudible] and to confirm if all
accounts are necessary, how they are to be used, to provide an update of authorized
[inaudible], and a time line. [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Mays, Mr. Boyles, and Mr. Williams, Mr.
Hankerson.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’m going to vote against that motion because I
think it’s, it’s, to me it’s a conflict of interest to have the external auditor to come in and
do a compliance audit. And I really don’t know the reason for it. We’ve got an internal
auditor. That’s his job, his responsibility is to this Commission, and I just think it’s
totally inappropriate.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I abstained on the first motion because I wanted to
make very clear that I had no problem with any of the qualities of the internal auditor and
he’s doing fine work for us. My main reason for why I will support the original motion is
the fact that I was, quite frankly, satisfied with the report that the Administrator had given
and the direction in which we were taking. But then I was not one of the people that
brought up the fact that further auditing needed to be done in the Purchasing Department
to clear the air. And it was given in terms of even through [inaudible] and others
[inaudible] giving criticism to the Administrator to a point that maybe this was not the
correct direction or that all the air had not been cleared on it. So my reason for
supporting the original motion is that if we are brining clarity to it, and if you’ve got the
internal auditor in there who is doing work through direction of the Administrator from
the Commission, if that’s being criticized and if it’s such a high point of [inaudible] to do
50
it, then that is the reason for dealing with the one time-ness and the independence of
another firm in terms of dealing with doing the work. That was why I can support the
original motion. My question, though, is that the internal auditor is currently gathering
the information in reference to those accounts. If the motion that’s on the floor
separating those duties, I mean, are you asking for the firm to do the auditing, because
see we got actually two different layers, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, of items on the agenda
that’s being handled, really in one motion. We got into another one before its time came
up. So what I’m asking is, is, is, is it really into the fact that the firm that you’re asking
to handle the compliance audit, is it also dealing with this banking procedure or does the
banking procedure continue as it is and the firm that you’re asking to handle the one
time-ness of the compliance audit, is that how the motion is being read? I just need to get
the clarity on it. Because Mr. Cosnahan, in all fairness, is already dealing with the time-
ness of the accounts and working with that. But what I’m hearing it kind of sounds like
you, you are taking that out and doing all of it in one. I just wanted to get it clear.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: My understanding, Mr. Mays, is that it’s two separate
issues. I think Mr. Cosnahan’s firm, I think is going to continue working the banking
issue. I think this other firm would like at the compliance of what the Grand Jury wanted
to do. I think it’s two separate issues.
Mr. Wall: Not the way the motions are currently worded. You need to clarify
that if that’s the motion.
Mr. Williams: I think my motion was to receive as information the report from
Mr. Cosnahan, that they represented already, but at the same time the Administrator was
supposed to bring back the list of things that he mentioned, plus what Commissioner
Hankerson amended to go in there, and that was whether these accounts are necessary,
which accounts was what, and the list of the –
Mr. Wall: Who is to perform that function? Is that to be the internal auditor or
Cherry Bekaert?
Mr. Williams: Uh, in my motion, I was motioning that Cherry Bekaert & Holland
do the, do the compliance audit with, with [inaudible] the Grand Jury been so adamant
about. But I got no problem with them doing, doing the other part of it, for the bank.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do I understand you’re saying that cherry Bekaert &
Holland will do the compliance audit that is ordered by the Grand Jury?
Mr. Williams: That’s right, just the compliance audit. That’s all.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And that Cosnahan, Mr. Cosnahan will continue to do the
banking part of it?
Mr. Williams: Exactly.
51
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro tem, members of the Commission, I also need some
clarification. Currently [inaudible] Mr. Cosnahan, currently doing the audit that you’re
asking Cherry Bekaert to do. Are they to continue doing the audit, or do you want them
to stop now and have Cherry Bekaert come in and start to finish?
Mr. Williams: Just as soon as this motion is passed, Mr. Kolb. They need to
cease whatever they’re doing and let Cherry, Bekaert & Holland come in and, and go
from there.
Mr. Kolb: I would again remind you that it is, I believe, a conflict to have your
external auditor do it.
Mr. Williams: Thank you for your belief.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’m ready to admit that I’m a little
bit confused on the motions. At one time we’re dealing with the accounts that Mr.
Hankerson had asked about, and then in this motion I hear Purchasing Department as a
part of that motion, and I’m a little bit – I was looking for that on the agenda and I don’t
see that.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Shepard, you might want to step in here.
Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Boyles –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mr. Boyles, that was one of the things that was talked
about [inaudible] item 48, and I, I was willing for Mr. Williams to go ahead and handle
the business here with getting to the audit of the Purchasing Department, and it seems
like to me that the one motion handles both items. The audit of the Purchasing
Department, as well as the continuation of Mr. Cosnahan’s work with regard to the
banking accounts. And I’m, I, I’m satisfied that we can use two equally qualified, or well
qualified firms to handle that. I don’t want them duplicating their services, but if that’s,
that seems to be the pleasure of the Commission I’m satisfied that either of them can do
those duties. So I’d like to see it done. I said I’d like to see it done in the committee, and
if it’s this body’s wish to designate that particular auditor as the auditor of the Purchasing
Department, they are well qualified, we had an opportunity to talk to Mr. Plowman, and
he indicated that he felt like that if the project was sufficiently narrowed in scope and it
was a project-type of audit, that that would not conflict with the external auditor duties.
So here again, I’m going on what Mr. Plowman said would not be a conflict, so if it will
not be a conflict, he’s a qualified auditor, there are other qualified certified public
accounting firms in town, and I would – none of them have been suggested – I think, I
52
think we can proceed ahead. My comfort level is there with either of those two firms. It
might be with a third firm. That seems to me the sense of the Commission wants that
particular firm to do it, and I think they’re qualified.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So we’re –
Mr. Shepard: We’re just – we’re doing more business than item 45 is captioned,
but it’s, quite frankly, something I am prepared to support.
Mr. Boyles: So we’ve combined 45 and 48?
Mr. Shepard: Well, that part of – that part of 48 got left out when it was passed in
the committee, so if it can get hooked up here, that suits me fine. Mr. Boyles, I don’t
think I’m going to get the audit any other way, so that, that’s why I’m going to support it.
Mr. Kolb: The audit that’s already going on.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible]
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I want to ask the Attorney. We’re voting on a
compliance audit and I don’t see where a compliance audit is on the agenda in any way.
And doesn’t it require unanimous consent to add that to the agenda?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Attorney?
Mr. Kuhlke: I’m the one that brought up item number 48 and I made no mention
of a compliance audit.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m waiting on a ruling on it from the Parliamentarian over
here.
Mr. Wall: Item number 48, there is –
Mr. Kuhlke: I only put in that motion, were the three suggestions for the
Administrator to come back to us with a report before the end of December of this year.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] item 48. Item 48, the wording in there does not talk in
terms of the compliance audit.
Mr. Kuhlke: And I specifically left that out because the Administrator had
already reported to us that the audit was already underway, so there was no need to put it
in there.
Mr. Wall: I think the point is well taken. It would take unanimous consent.
Mr. Kuhlke: Well, you don’t have it.
53
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] along with the bank accounts [inaudible] 48 does not
extend to the compliance audit.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. In looking at and reading 48,
Jim, can maybe, you know, I could call on Steve but he’s a partner of mine and I don’t
want him getting involved. I need you to help me out. How can you do this without an
audit? Tell me how could you do item 48 without doing an audit?
Mr. Wall: Well, I think that everything that is 48 is looking to the future as
opposed to looking backwards, whereas a compliance audit is looking backwards.
Mr. Williams: Okay, well, and then, and, and, and I agree you’ve got to go back
some, I mean, in order to do an audit you’ve got to go back some. But how can you do
this, Jim, you ain’t told me that yet. How can you do item 48 without doing an audit?
Mr. Wall: Again, because you’re looking forward to development of a policy
regarding vendors, you are going to [inaudible] Purchasing Department you don’t need a
compliance audit for that. [inaudible] you don’t need a compliance audit for that.
Mr. Williams: Well, then, how can you do that, then? I mean how in the world
could you do it? I mean you’ve got to have something to base it on, you’ve got to look
at, you’ve got to have apples to apples to compare with. I mean if you going to look at
changing anything at all, I mean now, that, just, just make it plain. Simple Steve, I mean,
give me that.
Mr. Wall: A compliance audit is going to determine whether or not a person is
compliant with the Purchasing statutes.
Mr. Williams: And that’s what the Grand Jury and that’s what the news media,
that, that’s what’s been on this table for probably a year now. And here we are, we’re
ready to do it, and because we ain’t doing, because somebody else want to do it, then we
going to take it off the table. Now the audit should have been brought up before we got,
we got the motion, we done got into a substitute motion and, and voted on the substitute
motion. Now we into the original motion. Now I’m, I’m, I’m still a rookie,
Commissioner Hankerson, up here, but I ain’t not fool. We, we, we need to, we got a
motion on the floor to do something. Had we not be able to bring it on the floor, that
should have been brought from your office, Jim, from your chair, before now. Now I
can’t see how you can do item 48 on here with the things they asking us to find out,
without doing audit. And if, if somebody was smarter than [inaudible] knows, Steve, can
you help us out with that?
Mr. Shepard: May I speak, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
54
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Williams, I told you I was prepared to support your
motion after hearing what Mr. Plowman said, and I think this Commission directs the
internal auditor, and I haven’t heard the Commission has directed that particular internal
audit. I’ve heard the Administrator has directed it, so I was looking for the Commission
direction of somebody to do the audit, and I think we’ve got two well-qualified firms to
do it. So if it’s, if it’s ruled by the Parliamentarian that the motion is not in order, then
I’ll bring it back up to the committee again and we’ll be back here the next time doing the
same thing.
Mr. Williams: And I understand that, but let, let me respond. When we tabled
this, and before we even tabled this, that was not an issue, and the issue was – and I think
Commissioner Kuhlke, the Attorney and you and myself went into the Clerk’s office and
we called to make sure it was not going to be a conflict. And, and with the scope of this
thing being the way it is now, Mr. Plowman told you, Mr. Kuhlke and myself, nobody
brought up an issue up then, whether you know, it, it, it, it’s the right point or not. But
now, since we are at this point, we, we want to change things. I’m tired, I’m sick and
tired of – Jim, where the ball at? We going to do this all the time now. If it’s right, it’s
right. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong. How in the world we – we are the deciding factors in this
city. Six votes. We’ve got six votes to do it. And I think we ought to do it. But y’all
keep playing those games and, and, and going up and down, and, and, and I’m sorry, I’m
not going to sit here and just along with it. I think that’s wrong. Can’t nobody tell me
yet how you can do 48 without doing a compliance audit. Is there any other
Commissioner smarter than our Attorney? I mean we, we, we tried from the Attorney,
but anybody can tell me anything? Andy, can you see how we can do without an audit?
Mr. Cheek: I’m not, I’m not smarter than Jim. You’ve got to have a baseline
before you make any new decisions.
Mr. Williams: You’ve got to have something to compare with. And if you ain’t
got no apples, how you going to compare other apples? You don’t know whether you got
plums, peaches or what. You got to have something to comply with, to look at with. I
just, I just – same old thing. Same old thing. 40 years. Same old thing.
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard, and I’ll come back to you.
Mr. Beard: I need to ask Jim a question on this. And this is – now we’ve already
voted on one part of this motion. On the substitute motion, didn’t we? We did, and it
was concerning this motion, right?
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
55
Mr. Beard: Then we just stop the proceeding, we don’t vote on the original
motion? And I know what has been brought to your attention, but we don’t –
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] needs to restated.
Mr. Beard: Okay. Now 48, that was taken up on our committee, and as it was in
the committee, it was passed on to the, this body without a recommendation. And the
compliance thing was involved on the committee. It was part of this motion. And that’s
what we voted on. We voted on, we passed that motion on without a recommendation.
So it wasn’t a changed motion. It may not be all in here, but it was at that particular time
on the committee floor.
Mr. Williams: Ms. Bonner, would you read the back-up? I think that might help
us out a little bit there.
Mr. Wall: The motion that was presented to the Commission, the letter that was
written does include the compliance audit. The motion that was made in the committee
did not include the compliance audit. And it is that motion that comes forward.
Mr. Beard: But it is – the back-up material, Jim, look at the back-up.
Mr. Wall: It is listed in the back-up material, I agree with you.
Mr. Williams: Then, then, then what is that? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I mean what,
what, what, what is that, Jim, is that, the wording is not saying it in the, in the agenda
item, but in the back-up material.
Mr. Beard: If you voted on something in the committee, then how can it be
changed [inaudible]?
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible] vote.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: Jim?
Mr. Wall: Yes?
Mr. Kuhlke: I think if you look at the back-up material, part of it is the letter that
I wrote to Ms. Bonner to put on the agenda. But when I made the motion in the
committee meeting, I did not include the compliance audit.
Mr. Wall: That’s exactly what you did. I’d like to move with the exception of
bullet one that the other three suggestions be directed to the Administrator. So that was
the action, the request.
56
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Read that again. Read that one again.
Mr. Wall: I’m reading part of Mr. Kuhlke’s comments before the committee.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The letter?
Mr. Wall: I’m reading from the minutes of the Administrative Services
Committee that this would carry forward to. I’d like to move with the exception of the
bullet number one that the other three suggestions be directed to the Administrator to
come back to us at an appropriate time, but no later than the end of this year. So it did
not include the compliance audit.
Mr. Beard: [inaudible] that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s correct.
Mr. Williams: Wait a minute. What we got [inaudible] ?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: I had a question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Why wouldn’t that same audit
[inaudible], why wouldn’t that same motion be amenable when it comes to this floor to
re-add bullet number one, if the Commission so desires? It was there. It was there
originally in Mr. Kuhlke’s letter. It was not in his motion. I understand that. But if, if
this Commission –
Mr. Wall: If you use that philosophy, then in theory, then anything that would be
in back-up material would arguably be something that could be brought up in the context
of discussion. I think that’s broader than the rules [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So the motion is – go ahead, Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: First for the record, I want to state that the Attorney is much smarter
than I am. And secondly, I’m, I’m concerned, if my understanding of this proceeding is
correct, and this letter was generated and went to Administrative Services on this issue,
directed us to do part of some things and then the rest of it was delegated to the
Administrator to do; is that correct?
Mr. Wall: You’re talking about the administrative motion, made in
Administrative Services? That’s correct.
57
Mr. Cheek: But now we’ve got a portion of it here that says no recommendation
from the Administrative Services Committee. How can we act until a full Commission
votes on something and, and the –
Mr. Wall: There is nothing authorizing the full Commission to vote [inaudible], I
agree with that.
Mr. Cheek: All right. And I guess the thing is, is the internal auditor’s position is
a direct report to the full body of the Commission, and so any action taken without that
approval is not a legitimate action. Is that correct?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Correct.
Mr. Wall: I would agree with that.
Mr. Cheek: Okay.
Mr. Wall: That’s a separate issue.
Mr. Cheek: Well, I mean the legitimacy of it is we don’t have as a committee the
ability to delegate things out to be done administratively unless it’s voted on by the full
body, to delegate that authority, especially when it’s a constitutional authority we have.
I’m looking for some daylight through some trees here. Is there a way out of this to
where we can move forward?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson and then Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Hankerson: Are we ruling that we need another motion?
Mr. Wall: You need to determine whether or not there is unanimous consent to
include on the agenda the issue of the compliance audit. If there is no objection to that,
then it can be added.
Mr. Hankerson:
I think we are going to have objection. We’ve got objection, so
that, I mean, we don’t need to continue, just to go over there, then if then [inaudible]
I put in the form of a motion that we accept the amendments,
another motion, then
our motions for the amendments, do I need to restate them?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: I make a motion that the Internal Auditor comes back with
a report confirming the accounts that are necessary, how these funds are to be used,
provide us with an updated list of the authorized signatures within the next – you
58
st
said it was going to take to December 1? How long do you need? Would that be
stst
December 1? Yeah, December 1.
The Clerk: First meeting.
Mr. Hankerson: The first meeting in December.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, we do have a motion on the floor.
Mr. Beard: I’m going to second that and add.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: -- ask the maker of the motion if he would accept the amendment that
the compliance audit be brought back, that we add the compliance audit at the next
session of the Commission meeting. We can add that into it.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible]
Mr. Kuhlke: I wanted to mention to Mr. Cheek, he was in our meeting, is, is the
reason that I pulled the compliance audit off in our committee meeting was we were
advised that the Administrator had already instructed the Internal Auditor to begin the
compliance audit. That’s the reason it was pulled off. By my question is I’m really not
sure what – we had a motion, we had a substitute motion. The substitute motion was – I
brought up this point – what is the motion now?
Mr. Wall: The motion that’s on the floor is that [inaudible] include compliance
[inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: By you.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The Parliamentarian.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay.
Mr. Wall: So now there [inaudible] Mr. Hankerson made a motion that the
internal auditor [inaudible].
Mr. Kuhlke: Our present internal auditor? Our present? But Mr. Beard then
asked for an amendment –
59
Mr. Wall: To add to the next agenda that [inaudible] compliance audit added to
the agenda [inaudible].
Mr. Kuhlke: So what does that do with the internal auditor who is already in the
process of doing the compliance audit in the Purchasing Department?
Mr. Beard: Well, from that he out to hold up off of things until after the next
meeting.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] no Commission authorization for the internal auditor to do
that work.
Mr. Kuhlke: Well, I would like to have some information from the Clerk that
back at the beginning of the year there was a schedule provided that showed that the
internal audit would be done of the Purchasing Department as well as other departments
in this government, and I think that should go on the record that that was approved.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles, Mr. Williams, and then Mr. Mays.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’m still trying to separate the two
motions. The two items. 45 and 48. Should we just go ahead and dispose of 45 and then
come back to 48? Because we are still mixing them together, aren’t we?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The motion [inaudible]
Mr. Boyles: We don’t need a compliance audit on what we have with –
[inaudible] these accounts that were included –
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Boyles: These?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, sir.
Mr. Boyles: But aren’t they different ones, Ms. Bonner? Aren’t 45 and 48?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: What the motion is, Mr. Boyles, is that Mr. Hankerson
[inaudible] auditor continue to work with the banking issue and Mr. Beard only added
amendment that the compliance audit be put on the next agenda. Mr. Cosnahan’s group
will go ahead and do the banking audit, what he’s doing now. And I think the
amendment was that the compliance be put on the next agenda.
60
Mr. Boyles: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. And, and, and I’m a little easy to
get confused, I guess, but I heard what Commissioner Kuhlke said, and the directions
said to the Administrator, but the Administrator’s hired help. We make the decisions as
elected officials. I heard Bill say there was a schedule already set up. That schedule
should have came through this body. When it comes through those type of decisions, it is
made by the majority of Commissioners, not even, not even in committee meeting up
there. But I, I, I’m, we been talking about this, we been, Steve been asking for it. Now
we decide to do it and because somebody is not doing it that we think ought to do it, then
we don’t want to get it done. Or we go around, we’ll change it if we getting the person
we want to do it. And that’s all the more reason why I’m not going to agree to going
back to doing with somebody else. Sounds like, and I say sounds like. I really don’t
know. But it sounds like there, there is a hidden agenda here. And I’m going to use that
for a good word. Mr. Boyles, I see you look confused down there. But that sound like a
hidden agenda. We talking about an auditor who we call on the phone, who said they
could do it, who said it wouldn’t be any conflict, who said in the scope of this thing for
temporary, it wouldn’t be no problem. We done had criticism right and left from the
report we got already, from the, from the in-house person that was doing it, but still we
don’t want to change, I mean, I believe we got [inaudible]. I don’t have anything to hide
myself, but I think we ought, we, we need to go ahead and do this. But the fighting ain’t
over yet. That’s all I can.
Mr. Beard: I call for the question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Before you call the question, Mr. Cheek had his hand up.
Mr. Cheek: I just want to say, I have to yield to Commissioner Kuhlke on his
wisdom on this. It’s my understanding that we did approve a schedule that becomes the
property of the body of the Commission at that point in time. We voted on it, we
approved it, it becomes the duty of the Administrator to execute that. And so having this
in the schedule and working it is exactly what we authorized to do. I guess the point I
was trying to make earlier is we can nickel and dime and debate this up one side and
down the other, parliamentary procedures and protocols and everything else. The point is
if the audit is being done, and it’s being done, and if it’s being done according to plan and
schedule, it’s being done properly, what we voted on earlier this year, irregardless of the
outcome since then of the Grand Jury’s report and it’s being done based on what we
voted on and again, Commissioner Kuhlke, I bet you never thought you’d hear this, did
you?
(Laughter)
Mr. Williams: I can’t believe it myself.
61
Mr. Cheek: But I yield. You’re exactly correct in this issue.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, we have a motion to –
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman? I had my hand up.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m sorry.
Mr. Mays: I’m going to go on and vote. I think we need to dispose of this, cause
we still got folk been here on other issues on the agenda. But I, I’ll say this, my, my
colleague is right to call on the ruling to deal with the parliamentary and right in where of
about raising it. But I totally disagree with the ruling from the standpoint, and y’all know
I make these little notes. I make the notes about putting, taking two motions off the floor
and changing them and seconder do it. Now I’m going to put an asterisk by this one to
the Parliamentarian. This one first of all, when I asked about it before we left out of here,
and I asked about the co-mingling of 45 and 48. First of all, number one, they never
should have been co-mingled without at least consent of doing that, of two items,
[inaudible] the Mayor was chairing the meeting, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. That’s the first
order of parliamentary procedure. The second one is that if it was going to be called,
then it should have been called prior to any vote being taken. The substitute motion or
the motion. They were there on the floor and to [inaudible]. He is absolutely right in his
decision, and I believe in supporting right. But in the middle of it was not the time to
make a ruling. That’s what taints the whole mess of doing it. But I think the best thing to
do is to go in and vote for the motion that’s on there, get it out the way, and then any
Commissioner can put what they want to put back on the Commission, on the agenda.
But I think while we were trying to bring some independence to this compliance audit is
because when it was brought up was the fact that we were trying to get a definition of
something that was maybe outside of the scope that had been missed or that we were
looking for. And in fact, I support it and I still say it, I support it with my Administrator,
had put out there from the very beginning, without doing either one. But it seems as
though there were a lot of doubts, more to be needed to do it, and that’s why the question
was asked during that committee. I’m not on it, but I came in here to sit in on it. What
specifically needed to be done in the compliance audit that was there. And that’s where it
still leaves a gray area, as to whether that’s still under the scope or whether the internal
auditor was to start at the beginning of the year or there is something to look at. The only
thing I was trying to do is to clear the air. But I’m ready to vote, Mr. Mayor, but I just
think when you going, when you are going to make and make a parliamentary move, if
you going to be so exact with it, then the Parliamentarian needs to make sure and to say
[inaudible] heard in other directions, we are now on the floor, we are in the middle of a
vote, the discussion has been had, it is not now time to rule after you take a vote on one
of the motions when you got a substitute and an original on the floor.
Mr. Speaker: Correct.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other discussion?
62
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The question has been called. All in favor of the motion,
please signify by the sign of voting.
(Vote on Mr. Hankerson’s motion)
Mr. Williams and Mr. Kuhlke vote No.
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion carries 7-2.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item?
The Clerk:
46. Motion to approve a request to place permanent funding in the budget for
the Augusta Museum of History and Lucy C. Laney Museum. (No recommendation
from Finance Committee October 7, 2002)
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion on the floor.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion? Mr.
Shepard?
Mr. Shepard:
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I think we are going to find that the budget
package is probably pretty far along, probably will be getting it today, and depending on
But I think the appropriate
how long we stay in session, a few more hours, perhaps.
thing is to refer this to the budget session. There could be several kinds of funding
and I think we should refer this to this budget making session of this Commission,
and let’s not bind, let’s not foreclose any form of financing for any of these
museums, and I’d make that in the form of a substitute motion.
Mr. Beard: I second that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a second on the floor. Mr. Boyles and Mr.
Hankerson.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Pro Tem, I was just going to say, this was put on again, as it was
in committee, I think by the Mayor. He may have had some things he wanted to tell us,
but since he’s not here, I just go along with Mr. Shepard’s substitute motion.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Mr. Hankerson?
63
Mr. Hankerson: I discussed this very [inaudible] the last time and I still think that
the museums each year, having to come before us and ask for funding, and as I stated in
the committee meeting, that my last visit, well, my visit to the Augusta Museum of
History. There’s a lot of construction going on there, a lot of great work is going on. I
think it could be, these museums could be used for tourists and so forth that would
develop something else out of, out of that. We need to keep the projects going. But I just
don’t think that the directors need to keep coming back and asking for funds every year.
I think a project like this, I still suggest that we need to look at permanent funding for, for
these museums, cause every year we come, they come back and we still end up giving
them the funds, so why should we just waste time and keep doing that? Just put it in the
budget and, and they could continue the projects so that the director won’t have to worry
about whether he has, has the funding, and these museums benefit everybody. And it’s a
lot more development down there going on. So I, I hope that we can really look at that
when we prepare the budget, that it will be permanent funding. I’ll still come back for
that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I think Commissioner Hankerson is making a good point, and I don’t
think that – my take on that is that it should become a part of the budget process, and I
think I stated this at the last meeting. And I think we are all in support of funding these
museums, but it’s a matter of working it into the budget. Because what we’re doing here
is we’re just [inaudible] and we haven’t worked out anything, where it’s coming from.
We know we are going to have some cuts in some places. In other places we may not
have it. And I think that we all going to work for the same cause, but to just, to just put it
in there with permanent funding I think that we need to look at the budget, see where we
are, and then come up with some alternatives in supporting this. I also agree with him in
that these directors should not have to be coming down here every year, you know,
begging for money. I think that we have to be prudent but we are going to have a very
tight budget this year, and I think we ought to work it, work these in like we are going to
work other things in.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, we have a motion and a second. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I was going to call the question, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and a second on the floor. The substitute
motion.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the substitute motion, please signify by the
sign of voting.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Kuhlke out.
64
Mr. Williams and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Motion carries 6-2.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item?
The Clerk:
47. Approve Fleet Maintenance Service to be provided by SKE Support Services
for the period of January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2005. (Bid Item: 02-161) (No
recommendation from Finance Committee October 7, 2002)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. When the fleet management was
audited, there is a couple of recommendations or omissions on their regular report, and I
think they had to deal with returns, dissatisfactory work done and so forth. A question I
had last meeting is have those concerns, those auditing findings been addressed and have
they been corrected?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kolb, go ahead.
Mr. Kolb: Members of the Commission. You have before you, and I’ll answer
you through this process. You have before you a recommendation from Fleet
Management to award this contract to SKE. At your committee meeting, you discussed
how close the two bidders were. In fact, over three years there is a total of $60,000
savings. And we have no problem with either vendor. The current vendor, SKE, has
done an excellent job for us. And yes, any concerns there were, they were raised in an
audit, and the audit came back very clean. There were several audits, in fact, that were
done on SKE that came back very clean. So if there were any concerns raised, they were
minor and we did address those. But we would have no, no problems, we have no
problem awarding it to the low bid provided that they absorb any transition costs that
would be incurred by switching vendors. And we’re estimating that there would be some
that would at least eat into, if not eat all, of such additional savings over the three years.
However, it’s the Commission’s choice, and it’s my understanding that First Vehicle has
agreed to absorb those transition costs. If there are other issues, which I think you have a
letter that I transmitted to you either yesterday or today, from SKE Services.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you. I guess my question, though, if you go back to the
original question, though is, and I wish I could remember the category verbatim, but it
was basically returned vehicles that weren’t prepared properly. Has that [inaudible] point
been added back to it?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Fleet Manager, why don’t you come to the mike and
asker the question, sir?
65
Mr. Crowden: This was addressed in the first series of audits, which was the first
scheduled internal audit as I was interim fleet manager. The comments that I recall was
there was an absence of some internal procedures, documentation, which has been
corrected. As a matter of fact, we started those as they were auditing. With regard to the
preparation of vehicles, that’s been corrected, and again that relates back to the proper
written procedures that would have been initiated by Fleet Management for the contractor
to comply with. We continue to this day to update and upgrade and as we find new
procedures, write them down and document. I think that was the big issue, is that we
didn’t have any written documented procedures which would assist the contractor in
complying with our needs. [inaudible] been addressed.
Mr. Cheek: I think the question in particular was that we had satisfactory, which
they did a real good of noting the number of satisfactory in turnovers we had, but the
column for unsatisfactory [inaudible] work was zero, and that was data we didn’t take,
and you know, I guess just for appearance I wanted to make sure those things had been
addressed.
Mr. Crowden: You talking about the comeback repairs?
Mr. Cheek: Right.
Mr. Crowden: Okay, yes. That has all been resolved.
Mr. Cheek: Okay, and that’s satisfactory?
Mr. Crowden: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: Okay.
Mr. Kolb: And if I may add, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, as I understand it, that was the
first audit and there have been subsequent audits and those, both of those have been
[inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams and then Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. George, you’re talking about
assuming the, I guess –
Mr. Kolb: Transition costs.
Mr. Williams: Okay. But in that transition costs, you’re talking about assuming
merchandise or what, what, what was in that transition costs that you was talking them to
incur and they said they would?
66
Mr. Kolb: Our request to them was to absorb any transitions costs that come up.
In order for us to realize the small savings that would be realized over three years. That
would include inventory and any other related transition costs that would, we may be
charged with.
Mr. Williams: Ron, I think we bought, we in committee last week we talked
about buying a piece of equipment. I think it was a tire balancer or something of that
nature for the shop. For them to use. That equipment that we buy, that equipment that
they have, is that, is that the city’s equipment now, the stuff that George is mentioning, is
that the vendor’s personal stuff?
Mr. Crowden: No, sir. The way the proposal, the contract is written is we own
the facility. We own the specialized tools normally associated with garage repair because
we will stay in this business. So those tools belong to us, and they use them. We are
obligated to provide those tools for them to do the work. They are required to provide
certain tools less than $100. They are required to have the mechanics that they hire to
have their own entry trade tools.
Mr. Williams: What about inventory? That’s what I’m getting at. What kind of
inventory is there that they may have to assume, whoever gets this bid?
Mr. Crowden: That’s primarily shelf parts. That could be up to $120,000 in
parts.
Mr. Williams: Okay. And, and, and, and we went out and, and we had bids taken
on this job. So if they bid it on these jobs, either the, the present company either has to
take those, that inventory with them cause it’s theirs, they don’t necessarily have to is
what I’m getting at. They have to get their own inventory if they don’t get that. But I
can’t see where we can demand them to buy the inventory from whoever is there.
Mr. Crowden: The previous, the previous contract, the way the transition works
when changing one contractor to another, those parts are specifically ordered for Augusta
Richmond County. They are on the contractor’s parts shelf and the contractor, in fact,
[inaudible] them now. If there is a change in watch, so to speak, the way it’s written is
Augusta Richmond County, parts that are on the shelf should be supply demanded. In
other words, they’re going to be used. So Augusta Richmond County buys those parts
from the outgoing contractor and then sells those parts back at cost, no markups, back to
the oncoming contractor.
Mr. Williams: So, so, so, so, hold on there. So what you saying is if we, if they
assume these parts that we going to buy from them, cause we eventually going to use
those parts, that’s what you just said.
Mr. Crowden: If your demand is –
67
Mr. Williams: If we got those parts in stock, we buy them, I mean they buy them,
but we eventually going to turn around and buy them back from them, so they really
losing any money, then, right?
Mr. Crowden: No, sir, although the oncoming contractor does have, by the
provisions of the RFP, by the provisions of the contract, does have the right of refusal for
any parts that they might classify as out of – not needed.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I, I, I understand that. I understand that. Mr. Kolb
mentioned that they would, they did say they would, you know, assume the, the parts, so
I’m saying, cause I didn’t want, in my mind I’m saying that if they buy these parts and
not needed, they going to be spending money that – but we going eventually use those
same parts, but it’s for our vehicles, is that right?
Mr. Crowden: If everything works well, that’s correct.
Mr. Williams: I mean, if, if, if it gets to be, I was just thinking in the beginning
that they was going to have to lose money or will be losing money, but looks like if they
gets this bid, then they won’t be because they going to pay for them now but eventually
they get paid back for them cause we going to buy them from them, cause we are going
to need them for our cars.
Mr. Crowden: That’s correct.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I make a motion that we award
this contract to First Vehicle Services for the year January, 2003 until December 31,
2005.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second on the floor. Any discussion? Mr.
Shepard, you had your hand up?
Mr. Shepard: I think I did, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. George, I think you are referring
to the letter you wrote on October 11 about the fleet maintenance contract proposals.
And you indicated that both bidders would be here to address the Commission, and it was
recommended that we do that in the delegate time. Of course, the Mayor didn’t call
them. I just wondered, are these bidders with us today?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission. Yes, sir, Mr.
Shepard, they are here, and they have asked to address the Commission. Both of them.
For no longer than I think three or five minutes. And the Mayor, the Mayor wanted them,
he’s not here but he did want them to address.
Mr. Shepard: Well, I think we should hear from them and then what I’m trying to
determine, George, and maybe you could be thinking of the answer or whoever, it’s kind
68
of hard, when I don’t know what the transition cost is here, to know who is low. And I’m
going back to this RFP that’s included in our, our back-up materials, the pricing
schedules, RFP 02-161. It may be the lateness of the hour of maybe it’s Simple Steve has
been baffled, but I remember we went through this, who was low in the committee, but it
really doesn’t jump out at me, so I would hope that we could tell in a numerical way who
is the low bidder here, cause I sure can’t tell from the material, but I would like to hear
from the bidders.
Mr. Kolb: You want us to go through that first?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think you need to answer.
Mr. Kolb: You want me to answer?
Mr. Shepard: Can you answer? I mean on the transition cost, how are we going
to, how are we going to sit and vote here? I mean I didn’t hear a figure. You said they’re
assuming the transition costs, but I don’t know what the transition costs are or what’s
being assumed. I don’t know, George.
Mr. Crowden: You cannot, I cannot answer exact, give you an exact dollar figure
because, on a transition cost, because a lot of this is labor intensive as far as conducting
inventories and so forth. I can’t give an answer and I don’t know that anybody can give
you a dollar value. The points that Commissioner Williams brought out with regards to
[inaudible] the outgoing contractor sells the parts to me and under the concept all those
parts are still go, they sell to the oncoming contractor, there is no zero loss for anybody.
Okay? There is a lot of time by management personnel in inventorying a whole bunch of
things that need to be done in order to make that transfer. That’s the big thing right there.
And there is a question as far as a new contractor coming in saying well, that vehicle
wasn’t –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me just stop you. Can you just give him a figure that he
asked for?
Mr. Crowden: No one can do that. [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There has to be – y’all have to have – those parts and stuff
should be in a computer, that data base somewhere. Is that correct?
Mr. Crowden: That is correct.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do y’all have any of your parts, your inventory in a data
base?
Mr. Crowden: We have approximately $120,000 –
69
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I don’t care if you have $1,000,000 of them. Do you have
any of this stuff in a data base where you can go to a computer terminal –
Mr. Crowden: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: -- and pull this stuff up?
Mr. Crowden: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You do have, with prices that you bought this stuff for?
Mr. Crowden: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So that means that someone can go to a computer terminal,
hit print, and print out something that can say well, we have X amount of inventory that
the transition bid would cost us, to make a transition?
Mr. Crowden: No, sir. I can only tell you what parts we have at the time.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’ve got to piggy-back on my Finance Chairman.
I got a real dilemma personally with this situation, because many times, we, we do need a
good professional recommendation when we ask for, for quotes and things for contractual
services that staff gives us, that there may be reasons why we don’t accept a low quote or
a, or a low bid recommendation. But I just be honest with you, and I want to be fair to
the contract holder that we’ve got, if that’s something there that’s going to be better and
deal with it, but if I’m getting presentations that, number one, let me just ask within the
process, was there written into the proposals on the requests a statement as such which
required, and this would only, I guess, apply to anyone other than the current contract
holder. Was there anything in there that, that implied in writing or whatever that
transition costs would have to be absorbed? Is that a part of the requirements that went
out in the proceedings?
Mr. Kolb: No. In fact, that is why we went back to the low bidder to ask them,
because in consideration of the total bid, we knew that there was the potential that there
would be some transition costs and some other [inaudible] and [inaudible] responsible for
in the transfer which would then negate the savings. That is why we recommended SKE,
our current contractors. Because we knew that the long-term costs would be higher, or
the three year costs would be higher, with the apparent low bidder than it would be with
maintaining our current contract.
Mr. Mays: Well, I have, I have a, I can settle my part of the discussion, Mr.
Mayor Pro Tem, very quickly. I have a real problem tonight in voting for anything other
than the fact that what you got with a low bid, for this particular reason. My question has
been answered. I think that the transition costs are going to be part of the settlement of a
70
quote, and it’s not in the proposal that goes out for requests, then we aren’t dealing with
true numbers all the way around in this deal at all anyway.
Mr. Kolb: Well –
Mr. Mays: Now let me finish. Because if you’re going to ask for transition costs
in an after-the-fact situation, then the transition costs are put in from the beginning, in all
fairness to any other bidders who presented. If they know that then I think they have the
right then to ask the question what’s in the inventory, how much will be expected to
absorb, what parts of it do we need to deal with, so that we can include that in our true
figures of giving you a bid procedure. Then I think also for the current holder of the
contract, that should have been a requirement in that [inaudible] to SKE, you’re required
to either give this up, take it with you, buy it. Case example point, jail contracts, of
which we’ve dealt with medical. And I, I opposed us moving because we were under
court order and I thought they had done an excellent job. That’s why I wanted to be able
to support staff in terms of this if it, it’s what you were doing in terms of this is going to
be the procedure to be done. But there was no requirement in there for the new company
coming in to buy the medicine or the drugs that the ongoing company had, that they had
on the shelf. They were required to have a listing from the Sheriff’s Department of what
type of patients they had, what medication they were on, and to come in fully stocked
with a medical lab of what they had to deal with. I would assume you would do the same
thing with car parts. So I, I can’t sit here and go outside of the scope of the low bidder to
speculate on something that y’all are asking after the fact that’s not a written part of the
requirements. Because if I was any one of those other folk out there, I would be filing a
bid protest in reference to it. Now that’s no disrespect to the current contract holder,
because they’ve only complied with what’s been asked. But I think when you make these
moves after the fact and tell folk to come in, well, now you’re going to be required to do
this, that, that, that’s not a way that, in my opinion personal, we should be dealing with it.
And on one hand, I don’t know whether we’re getting a true low. On the other hand, I
definitely couldn’t vote for anybody other than the low because I think we’ve added
something to the process after the fact. So I, anything other than the low bid, I, I, I refuse
to vote on that. May even get out of here so I ain’t even present when y’all vote on that
deal. That, that’s going to come back to, to, to bite you like, like a sewer rat.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I can agree with Commissioner Mays, and he
brings up a very good point. However, this is a professional services contract. This is
not a purchase for any product, and we have the right to award it to anyone of the three
bidders based on our, what it in the best interest of Augusta. And in this particular case,
our analysis shows, based strongly on the bid, on the proposals submitted and our
analysis of it, that SKE under the sub-terms, strict terms and conditions of the contract,
would be in the best interest of Augusta.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, just a quick response. Then maybe we need to
put at the bottom of our proposals a think instead of buyer beware, bidder beware.
Because I agree, and I know the difference between a service contract and a true bid. But
if we are going to, there should also be truth. Like there is truth in lending, it ought to be
71
truth in requests, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. If we are going to ask companies, this gets into a
reflection of what we ask and what gets out in the industry and what gets us in a
reflection of the City. If we are going to ask certain things to be done. And the
Administrator is absolutely right, we have the right to do it. But we ought to put it in in
writing in the very beginning when we do it. It should be there, the rules of the game
th
should now contain strike four, 5 down, and 4-pointer for shooting beyond the line.
You don’t change them in the middle of the game when you’re doing them. And that,
that’s – you’re right. You do have the right to do it, but every time that you’ve got the
right, it doesn’t necessarily make it right. And I’m, I’m, I’m just going to refuse to give
y’all a vote to deal with this cause I, I, I think it’s messy. I this ought to been something
that should have been in there and it ought to been a question asked before it got out here.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m a short-time [inaudible], but I can remember sitting
here, and we had a low bid [inaudible], and I can remember you telling me that
[inaudible], if somebody was the low bidder that we had to award the bid.
Mr. Wall: And that is correct where you are buying – you either have to award to
the low bidder or award it to the best bid.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, you said low bidder, cause we had a best bid.
Mr. Wall: Well, no.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s when I first came. No, that’s when I first came
down here now. I can go back and tell you exactly the date.
Mr. Wall: Well, I guess I, I need, guess I need to refer back. But, you know,
where you’re talking about purchasing of good, you’re talking things that are now service
contracts, then there has to be a good reason for not going with the low bid. Here you’re
talking about a services contract. I think that, that the comments that have been made
about the RFP are, are valid points.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mays brought in a good
point and, and, and I’m in support of that. I can’t see how we can have something so
important and so much money involved that we did not include that in our, in our bid
process so everybody would know up front. But this ain’t the first time I heard that. I
shouldn’t be surprised. We, we, we been doing that a lot. I mean that been coming up a
lot lately, and I keep saying that we can’t fault anybody but ourself, though, because we
are not holding people accountable. We let people go and do those kind of things and
they going to continue doing them. So I guess we just have to get used to that. But I’m,
I’m, I’m, I’m a little leery about not giving the bid to the low bidder because if it wasn’t
for that, then we have no reason to even have a bid process in the first place. If it wasn’t
going to give it to the low bidder, then we shouldn’t never been able to just say, we
brought the old firm back and just voted on them. I mean, but now we got a low bid. If it
72
ain’t but a dollar, it’s still low. And that’s what, that’s what we been going by. So I’m
going to call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] Mr. Williams. Let’s be fair to these contractors
and give them three minutes.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I’ve got no problem with that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: SKE? SKE in the house? Come up here.
Mr. Unger: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, Commissioners. My name is Robert Unger and
I am president of SKE Support Services. With me tonight, [inaudible] Dallas, Texas, is
my vice president of operations. We are here because we recognize the importance of
this contract and we want to continue this service with Augusta Richmond County. That
said, we understand that there is a great deal of debate going on here. The technical and
the [inaudible] are virtually even in my opinion. Dead even. Specifically on a technical
side. And on the price side there is less than, approximately ½ of 1 percent difference
over the three year period. $59,000. What is significant about that is that of the three-
year period only the first year is fixed price. The other two years are “negotiable” based
on key factors that are identified in the contract. So we’re within ½ of 1 percent. So how
do you know what is low price based on negotiations that’s going to take place? And you
evaluate on a three year contract on two option years that you still have to negotiate. So
what I’m saying is that $60,000 is the difference. I’m also saying that $9,000 in the first
year we were lower than First Vehicle by $9,000 in the first year. And I think the other
two years are indiscernible. So a case in point, I think we are low bidder at that. Second,
I was going to give a little bit of a speech here about how good we’re doing and customer
support and community support, but I want to get another point across. There is a point
here about low bid. Well, if, if in fact, all us as contractors, when you bid on things, we
understand procedures. We understand when we come in to, to a fight like this, we have
to adapt, we have to take over the inventory. It’s very well [inaudible] out. Anything in
excess or [inaudible], the customer pays for. But if you had identified that the non-
incumbent was to have to basically eat or absorb these hidden costs, which nobody can
really identify, in terms of inventory, in terms of pre-conditions where they are going to
come in and say that vehicle or that thing is not properly fixed so we’re going to charge
you over and above this fixed price, this fixed price because it wasn’t our problem, what
that would do to the bid in actuality, if you had so specified that, it would have raised our
competition’s price significantly. And I am saying significantly. I’m saying $150,000
plus. So I think if there is anything [inaudible] here, and in protest, it would be coming
from us because I think even though this is professional qualifications, I’m saying that
we’re the one that’s wrong. It is hard for me to say, you don’t have apparent low bid in
front of you. Okay? That said, let me go on with a couple of other points. I say why
change? I say that there are five keys issues of why you, why I think you should continue
with SKE Support Services. One is customer satisfaction. There were some issues raised
about our earlier performance. We have very much corrected that. We have been
exonerated by audits and we are providing excellent service and customer satisfaction,
which I think can be backed up by the fleet manager. How did we get there? We got
73
there by initiating in the very first year a detailed training program for our mechanics.
There were poorly trained, we went in there and ASE certified them, and in the first year,
we got this facility as a “ASE Blue Seal” facility. That means we have qualified,
certified mechanics on job, doing work for your vehicles, and it’s the only one in the
state. Any repair shop in Atlanta, even the new car dealer shops, cannot match the type
of training we have, that work on your vehicles. And that is why we are providing
quality service. At a good price. Item 2. Community support. We vend out. We have
300 vendors that provide us parts and service and minor services. And materials. 90% of
those, we make sure they are all local to Augusta and Richmond County. We are
bringing money, sending money back here. We are keeping the money here from this
contract. We also have very good relationships with them and we pay our bills. Not like
our predecessor contractor. Another key point. Third point. Cost savings. These
intangibles you keep talk about is what will a vendor besides us have to absorb? I’m
telling you right now that we are going to absorb them. We, it’s our intention to absorb
them, and it was in our bid already. Those are, number 1, you have coming before you
the – let’s say the refurbishment of three dozers that you are going to have to turn the
leases back in to first quarter of next year. Okay? That is a precondition. If you select
First Vehicle, they’re going to have to pay upwards to $80,000 to take that over that we
would include, and if they don’t, you’re going to have to take that as over and above the
target price. We are going to absorb it into the target price so it won’t cost Augusta
Richmond County one dime. There are going to be other conditions, pre-condition items
and equipment that will be challenged by a vendor you select other than us. Because,
they’re going to come in – a vehicle, maybe next week or the first week in January or it
could the third month of next year. They’re going to come to the fleet manager and say
this is a pre-condition, we didn’t know about this report, and we’re going to have you pay
for this over and above. Over and above means not in the [inaudible]. Nobody can
define, nobody can define how much money that’s going to be. It’s going to be some.
Okay, and it’s going to be way more than $60,000. So those are intangibles. The third
thing is, it’s already been mentioned, on cost savings. First, going back to that second
point, there is no pre-condition if you keep SKE. You know, we’re here, we’re taking
responsibility, we’re going to move forward with. So we don’t have any claim at all. We
can’t have any claim. There is no pre-condition for us. The second one, the third point.
Inventory. You are going to have to do an excessive inventory. You’re going to have to
use government, your government people to help do that inventory, and it’s going to cost
you some money. But us, we intend to keep rolling. It’s seamless. It doesn’t cost you a
dime. Not your employees or these excess parts that has already been brought up.
Excess parts means unusable. What happens if, if First Vehicle decides well, whatever I
agree to or not agree to or it wasn’t in the original contract bid, you’re going to have to
pay for those unusable parts. That’s going to come out of your pocket, not in the, the,
fixed price, or the target price. I estimate $150,000+ that’s at risk here. Significant
amount. What about the performance that we’re doing right now in cost control? I can
stand here and guarantee you that we’re going to be under target budget this year, 2002,
by no less than $30,000 and upwards of $60,000, if not more. That is going to be a direct
savings to this government. We are going to give money back. A key point, I think. So
if you combine that with $150,000 with maybe another $50,000, you’re to a $200,000
difference right there. The last factor is risk. You have no risk by selecting SKE. You
74
have no risk in drop of service or quality of service. It’s going to keep on getting better.
We know that, we continually train our people. We’re getting more certified people on
board. We are already at – the requirement for Blue Seal is 75 of certain selected areas to
be certified by ASE. We’re in the 100% already. In the second year. We’re at 75 the
first year to get the seal. Now we’re at 100% and this year isn’t even over. So the second
thing, management. You’re going to have a change of management at corporate level
and at this level. Are they going to work as well? Are they going to work as a team as
well as you have right now? Can they still produce cost savings to Augusta Richmond
County as we are doing? What about risk of losing key personnel? How can you – we
are going to keep our people at the same rate and the same benefits. Can you guarantee
that some of these good people, some of these certified people aren’t going to walk off
the job because their pay or their benefits may not be the same? No. Again, no risk, if
you keep SKE. And then going back one last time to no risk in these, what I call
transition costs. You folks can hear and take a vote and say they’re going to absorb the,
you know, transition costs. Again, which I think is a negotiation that we weren’t allowed
to do. As far as I’m concerned. But when is it all going to end? Are they going to keep
on coming back and maybe six months down the road, a year from now saying well, wait,
this is a pre-condition and we’re not going to do that. There is no definitive number.
That’s why I said an apparent low bid is very difficult in this case. Our numbers are
almost right on top of each other. And we are supported by your professional staff at
Fleet. That said, I summarize that change from us is risky. It’s risky in terms of dollars
and it’s risky in terms of performance. We value you as a customer. We want to
continue our services. And continue to add quality maintenance services. And hope you
will vote for us. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Good evening, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and the board of
Commissioners here. My name is Dale [inaudible] and I’m the division vice president
for First Vehicle Service of the Southeast Region. The gentleman standing next to me is
Warren Knight. He is our general manager candidate for Augusta Richmond. If you so
vote for us. The Augusta Richmond selection committee scored First Vehicle Services
the most qualified contractor by a slight margin, but we were voted the most qualified
contractor. Also, we were the low bidder by $59,000, which may not sound like a lot of
money but it is to me. And I wanted to get into the transition costs, but let me just go
through this, if you would bear with me. Being the most qualified and the lowest bidder
are two good reasons for you to award the contract to First Vehicle. But there are
additional reasons. Many additional reasons why you should give us the contract. One
of those reasons is our general manager candidate, the person who will be managing this
location, Mr. Warren Knight, and I’m going to let Warren Knight talk about First Vehicle
Services and what we’re going to do for Augusta Richmond.
Mr. Knight: Good evening, Mayor Pro Tem, Commissioners. First of all, I’d like
to say it’s an honor to be selected as a candidate for the Richmond Augusta maintenance
program and contract proposal. Every day, well over 35,000 vehicles and equipment
operators can work 130 locations, rely on First Vehicle Service to make sure that their
75
vehicles in their fleet are ready for use. We maintain well over 15,000 police, fire, and
emergency vehicles. Well over 11,000 vehicles and equipment, specialized equipment.
Well over 11,000 light utility vehicles, and well over 1,700 heavy duty vehicles. By far,
we are the maintenance experts. Our company, for more than 20 years, has provided
public fleet management and maintenance services all across this nation. We are the
largest company both nationally and regionally. Currently we have five State of Georgia
fleet maintenance contracts. Cherokee County. Baldwin County. Liberty County. The
City of Thomasville. The State of Georgia. Southwest Hospital. Also eight locations in
South Carolina. 12 locations in Florida. We can react to any situation. We have
qualified technicians and also managers that respond to any emergency situation. We had
a situation a couple of years ago where employees at the coast, the town of Mr. Pleasant,
which we have a contract in. They had an emergency situation. Their personnel was
dispatched to Columbia. My site person handled all of the logistics involved in procuring
emergency equipment so that they could return when the way was clear, in helping the
clean-up in the aftermath. We do that all the time.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Would you mind using the microphone, please?
Mr. Knight: Certainly. We do that all the time. We have a, a emergency contact
list that we give to all of our clients. When the Commissioners, when your Sheriff’s
Department, when your police department and emergency services are out in other areas,
we have contracts there that can handle their breakdowns. A couple of weeks ago, we
had a visitor from Georgetown County that we had to take care of repairs when they were
in the Columbia area. This is what we offer the Richmond Augusta fleet maintenance.
This is what I will bring to you. We – the, the issues that are brought up here, our
competition, obviously your own committee has rated us very evenly. And I’m not going
to speak as to what they should do, but I know what we can do and I know we are expert
at it.
Mr. Speaker: Thanks, Warren. Currently this year we added nine new contracts
to First Vehicle Services. Nine. So we’re very experienced and we have expertise in
doing start-ups. And with transition costs, with employees, with employee benefits. All
those issues we’re experiencing and we handle them like professionals. In this particular
contract here, we’ve told Mr. Kolb that we would absorb all transition costs. They’re in
our bid. When we put our bid model together, the labor, we know what our transition
costs, we’re experienced. We had nine of them this year. We just, we just did a start-up
in the Washington, D.C., police. $6 million contract. So we’re very experienced at
transitions. We’re the most experienced fleet maintenance company in the country. We
have 110 locations. So any concerns you might have of changing vendors, I don’t think
they’re founded at all. We can more than, more than able handle this contract. If you
have any questions, be more than happy to answer any.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Anyone have any questions for either of the contractors?
Mr. Williams: No, sir, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’d like to call for the question and
we’ll vote.
76
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a Commissioner on the end who had his hand up
before you called for the question, Mr. Williams. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: My question, I guess I’ve got a question to, to, to both, and it may not
be the same. To the gentleman that just left, and I have a question for our current service
provider at this time. And it’s probably both maybe to you all and Mr. Kolb. The
question came up, and I raised the same question when we went from, from county
employees to the first provider, from the first provider to, to SKE. In the benefit section
and of people that may be retained, how is, what, what, what gives in that area? Because
that’s something that I think all of us have a concern with in terms of whether they be,
they be carry-over employees or employees that haves settled in this area, some that they
have [inaudible] for us. Expand on, on, on how that works with, with your system and
where that puts them within, if we were dealing with you. Or George, you may have that.
Mr. Kolb: Okay. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, Commissioner Mays’ question relates to
the employees of the contractor and [inaudible] continue to the podium, but let me just
make it clear that the employees are the employees of the contractor, SKE. They are not
City employees. They are private company employees. Now I think the vendors can talk
about the transition or how that impacts those employees.
Mr. Mays: Well, let me back up one second and you’re correct, maybe I should
ask this. Are we still retaining any from the current contract that were Richmond
employees or have they all been weeded out from new people who are brought in?
Mr. Crowden: There are several that stayed with the contractors, but there was a
lot of new people.
Mr. Mays: Okay, and I, I fully understand. Ron knows where I’m coming from
in this. I guess it’s old school from the standpoint that while there is no legal
responsibility of them being our employees, Mr. Administrator, I think that there is a
concern that even though we knew that they went under contract, that obviously either
company would have a right to terminate employment of a person who does not perform.
But I think I would be remiss as a Commissioner being here throughout the transition, not
to ask the question in reference to those that started off as our people that may be
technically a contractor’s folk to say where, you know, what situation then does that
make them, you know, the same, does it make it better for them? What, what does that
do? And I guess that would be to, to, to, the vendors and to them first. I mea obviously
they now where they are within their company.
Mr. Speaker: If you want me to go first, is that we aren’t going to have a change.
The people we have on staff now, we’re happy with, outside the normal evaluation
reviews and such. You are not going to lose anyone.
Mr. Mays: I understand where you all are coming from. I have a different
question for the [inaudible] employees, because I know you [inaudible].
77
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Commissioner, we included in our proposal a benefit
comparison sheet and in fact we are going to [inaudible] every employee, and on top of
that, our benefits, we’re going to keep their wages as is. We’re not going to lower
anyone’s wages. We’re going to employ everyone they have there except we’re going to
obviously put our own management team in there. That’s Mr. Warren Knight. He’s the
only person that will be changed. And we also included a benefits package in regards to
their health insurance. Our benefits package is better than what they currently have now.
So they’re actually going to improve in benefits as well.
Mr. Mays: Let me ask this one of both of you, then. And it seems like maybe a
very simple question, this may have been something that got ironed out. But, and y’all
can go first, but on a, on a, either one of you, but on a simple five passenger car, oil
change and lubrication, how much as a Commissioner am I going get expected to be
billed for on a simple oil change? Not a new motor, not a new transmission, just simple
oil change.
Mr. Speaker: I don’t think you’re going to be billed anything. It’s part of the
contract. It’s all inclusive to the contract. We don’t break it up per vehicle.
Mr. Mays: I mean obviously there is some cost that’s associated with it, now, to a
point I guess what I’m saying is, is it cheaper for the county to, to contract with the dealer
since we basically are dealing with mostly new vehicles, on our cars, cause they either
get tore up or we buy new ones, as Commissioner Williams can attest to. But the point,
am I looking at something that’s just as cheap for us to go Jiffy Lube or to the dealer or
am I looking at something $25, $35, $45? And it’s a real, it’s a real – for this
Commissioner, it’s real important. Cause I want to know whether or not I can, I can take
20 cars on a given day and they can go somewhere else. Because it may boil down to the
point that we don’t need either one of y’all. And that’s why I’m asking that question,
really, to a point I want to hear it from y’all and I’d like to hear it from the current
provider. [inaudible]
Mr. Speaker: Okay, good. Well, sir, the, the reason that you would want to
award the contract to First Vehicle Services is because of our preventive maintenance
program. There’s more than, there’s more to a vehicle than doing an oil change because
we are obviously doing tire rotations, we’re looking at your brakes, there’s a lot of cost
savings that we can catch, for example, your brakes before they wear into the rotor. So
we do a complete inspection check, complete vehicle check. It’s more than just an oil
change. You’re getting a full service. You’re actually going to reduce your overall cost
in the long run.
Mr. Mays: I, I, I actually [inaudible] tell me within a given range what, out of the
several million dollars, what it’s going to cost me to get a simple oil change. And my
reason for asking that is whether it’s fact or fiction, truth or lie. We’ve been basically
told to a point that we pay exorbitant costs in terms of dealing with oil changes. Now I
understand all of that about preventive maintenance out there. I’ve got four new Lincolns
78
I got to pay for out there right now. And, and I know what four, whether I go to the Ford
dealer or whether I go to Augusta Lincoln-Mercury, I know on just my regular changes
what it is, what [inaudible] and maybe we can change that pattern. That’s why I’m
asking the question. And I’m not, I’m asking it honestly and I’m not going to get with
figures but I’m not going to tilt a hand to you as a new bidder and do a disservice to the
one that we’ve got. But I want to hear in an open room record something simple that the
average citizen can identify with. What it basically costs to deal with an oil change.
Now it’s just a simple fact that I want one or both of y’all to tell me. It’s either $13.95,
$19.95, $49.95, you know, just tell me what basically that costs, and I don’t think that’s a
lot to ask. You, you, you, you see that where I’m coming from. These Commissioners
know where I’m coming from.
Mr. Speaker: You want me to take that one? All right. And I know why.
Believe me. Go ahead.
Mr. Speaker: Number 1, the comparison. You want to have a comparison,
Commissioner. First Vehicles says that they are going to max their employees out.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] oil change. That’s the only question.
Mr. Speaker: I understand.
Mr. Mays: That’s the only question I want you to answer.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir. The average mechanic, $15.00. Change the oil in 15
minutes. Material costs, $5, $6 max. Only think else you add to that is your fee, okay.
Our fee is 10%. Theirs may be higher. Okay? And you add it up. So who is going to be
higher here? I think we’re going to be lower here. And we’re under $20 for an oil
change.
Mr. Speaker: I’d have to agree about that number. The oil filter and you’ve got –
Mr. Mays: And I’ll be finished, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. The question, the reason
why I raised that question, and wasn’t trying to be tricky to either one of you all, is that
we had complaints, quite frankly, from our departments, and this may be something is
corrected, or it may have been the way they were reading what was coming back and the
preventive things were included in those items of doing it. But in lay speaking language,
to a point, we were being asked as Commissioners how do y’all get around paying $45 or
$50 for an oil change. That’s why I brought that out as a common denominator to a point
of whether or not you got costs out there that [inaudible] you know, that kind of
[inaudible] or a simple thing like a tire change.
Mr. Williams: How much we pay for changing tires?
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] and, and that’s why I really asked that question. I can, I
can relate to –
79
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m going to get to you.
Mr. Mays: -- something of where, I know that’s a small item, but that’s
something that a person, the average person watching a program, looking at us, asking
contractors to a point of something that they do definitely with their cars. They put gas in
it and they change the oil and lubricate it. All the other things the [inaudible] may or may
not do the same way, but those they’ve got to have. And that’s been a sticking question.
I just wanted to ask that, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, that, that, that they are there in that range.
And, and, and I’m going to leave that alone.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Williams: Well, I, I wanted to call for the question. Mr. Mays was talkig
about oil change and I wanted to get it, try to get [inaudible] about how much it costs to
change a tire. But that’s another whole issue. I’m ready for the question, Mr. Mayor Pro
Tem. We can debate this mechanically all night long.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We will hear, we will give Mr. Cheek a chance to air his
differences and then we’ll go ahead with the vote.
Mr. Cheek: My question is whether potential fleet management firm, we have a
very extensive software package we’ve done our inventory with. Spent a lot of work
putting that in place and it’s a [inaudible] routine maintenance and so forth. And
[inaudible] it’s going to stay with us. Are you guys going to be able to manage that
system and operate it or do you bring your own package in, and put it in place?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, I’d be happy to answer that. The system you have is called
CCG Faster. We have the [inaudible] I think now at five locations. We do, however,
have our own proprietary software, but in this case, the RFP said we would use CCG
Faster. We will use CCG Faster.
Mr. Cheek: If you are awarded the contract, can you guarantee us a seamless
transfer with no loss of services?
Mr. Speaker: Absolutely. No question about it. We had nine start-ups this year.
I don’t think my competitor had any.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, call for the question. I’m ready to vote. I’m
going to have to --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] Ready for the vote. If there are no further
questions or concerns, the question has been called.
Mr. Mays: My question would be, Mr. Mayor [inaudible] Administrator
[inaudible] transition costs. [inaudible]
80
Mr. Kolb: Commissioner Mays, I guess I did not hear the answer to the transition
cost. It’s up to the Commission. You’re the ones to have to make the decision on the
vendor. If it satisfies you –
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’m true to respect the Administrator to the point
that he raised the question about the transition costs and the reason why I asked did that
satisfy him was the fact that he was recommending we stay with, but if we were going to
deal with this as a low quote that was out there, and he had questions about them
absorbing the transition costs. And my question is, does that satisfy his question about
the transition costs? If not, I think we need to defer it and take it off and, and, and allow
him time to bring that, that back to us, if that’s not clear. But that’s the only question.
He’s brought two points, to recommend the company that we have, or if we are going to
deal with this in a low situation, he needs to know what they are going to deal with in
transition costs. Now [inaudible] satisfactory to him or not, as the person who does the
day-to-day leadership of this county.
Mr. Kolb: They have agreed to absorb the transition costs, so yes, that satisfies
my concern.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, gentlemen, no other – no other discussion? Please
vote. If there is no other discussion, please cast your vote.
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Kuhlke out.
Mr. Shepard votes No.
Mr. Boyles abstains.
Motion carries 6-1-1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I was going to ask could we take 49?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We are going to 49 right now.
Mr. Beard: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk:
49. Consider recommendation(s) from the Administrator and HND staff
regarding possible funding sources for restoration of requested funds for the
Augusta Task Force for the Homeless.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission,
81
Mr. Beard: I move that we restore funding in the amount of $31,000 from
recaptured UDAG funds.
Mr. Mays: I will second it.
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Shepard: I move we adjourn the body this evening and carry over the
remaining agenda items to a called meeting or the next meeting.
Mr. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mays and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Motion carries 6-0.
[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 October 15, 2002.
Clerk of Commission
82