HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-06-2002 Regular Meeting
THE AUGUSTA COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
COMMISSION CHAMBERS
NOVEMBER 6, 2002
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:03 p.m., Wednesday,
November 6, 2002, the Honorable W. H. Mays, III, Acting Chairman, presiding.
Present: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Kuhlke, Shepard, Beard, Cheek, Williams and
Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Absent: Hons. Bob Young, Mayor; Colclough, Commissioner.
Also present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena Bonner,
Clerk of Commission.
Mr. Kuhlke: I move that Mr. Mays serve as the presiding Chairman of
today’s meeting.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Kolb: It’s been moved and supported that Commissioner Mays be
temporarily appointed to conduct your meeting and nominations have been closed. Is
there further discussion?
Mr. Mays: Just one question, Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Jim said since I was the senior member, that won’t put me in the same
status as Tom Murphy, will it?
(Laughter)
Mr. Kolb: No comment. Hearing no further discussions, Commissioners vote by
the usual method.
Mr. Boyles out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mays, you have been elected Chairman of this session of the
Augusta Richmond County Commission. Congratulations. You may please take the
chair.
Mr. Mays: Ladies and gentlemen, the meeting of the Augusta Richmond County
Commission will come to order. If you would, everyone, would you please stand? We
1
will be having our invocation by the Rev. Dr. Rosa Williams, pastor of the Everfaithful
Baptist Church in Augusta, and our Pledge of Allegiance will be led by Commissioner
William Kuhlke.
The Invocation was given by the Rev. Dr. Rosa Williams.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
The Clerk: Rev. Williams, on behalf of the Commission, we would like to
present you with [inaudible] on our behalf and in order of you being here today we’d like
to honor you as Chaplain of the Day. Thank you for being with us.
Mr. Mays: Madame Clerk, do we have any additions or deletions to the agenda?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, we do.
Addendum Agenda:
Deletions from the agenda:
Item 94: [Motion to suspend (revoke) the business tax certificate of Sunrise Assisted
Living, Inc. for failure to respond with request for information by the Human
Relations Commission]
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mays: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the deletion? If not,
all in favor of the motion will do by the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mays: Madame Clerk, for the purpose of forming a consent agenda, if we
might go to that and at least have it ready and I think what we need to do is probably go
through the delegations because we have two that are listed and I think we have maybe
one or two we need to bring up and we’ll handle that. Go ahead and formulate the
consent agenda. At least get it in place.
The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1
Yes, sir, Mr. Chair.
through 93. That’s items 1 through 93.
For the benefit of any objectors to the alcohol
petitions, would you please signify your objection by raising your hand once the petition
is read?
PUBLIC SERVICES:
2
1. Motion to approve a request by Christina Park for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Central Gas, LLC DBA KoAm located at
1502 Central Avenue. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee October 28, 2002)
2. Motion to approve a request by Christina Park for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Central Gas, LLC DBA J R’s Mart
located at 2078 Old Savannah Road. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee October 28, 2002)
3. Motion to approve a request by Sharon W. Bryan for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Blind Pig,
Inc. located at 1251 & 53 Broad Street. There will be a dance hall. District 1. Super
District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 28, 2002)
4. Motion to approve a request by Erika Devasconcelos for an on premise
consumption Beer license to be used in connection with Los Primos Mexican Buffet
& Restaurant located at 2906 Peach Orchard Road. District 8. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee October 28, 2002)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions?
Mr. Mays: I think we have two, Madame Clerk, and I think they are here I
believe on item 3. Is that correct?
The Clerk: Item 3?
Mr. Mays: Gentlemen, for the sake of formulation, you do have any on the
consent agenda that will need to be pulled, so we can go ahead and get those numbers
down? Commissioner Williams and Commissioner Cheek, on this end, to Mr.
Hankerson.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, item 21, 63, 64. I need some clarification on.
Mr. Mays: Slow down just a minute, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: I need some clarification on 63 and 64 and I need to pull item 90, I
think it is.
The Clerk: 90?
Mr. Williams: Right.
Mr. Mays: Is that it, Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Mr. Mays: Commissioner cheek?
3
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Commissioner Mays, I was just going to go ahead
and make a motion to approve the consent agenda with the noted deletions the
Commissioners will bring up.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mays: We have a motion and a second. I’m going to recognize
Commissioner Hankerson because he had something he needed to pull.
Mr. Hankerson: 87.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Chairman, could you note item number 65 and number 82, please?
Mr. Mays: Madame Clerk, if we could have a repeat of those numbers, just on
the [inaudible], I think we could get about 80 of them out of the way right quick.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Item 3, item 21, items 63, 64 and 65. Item 82. 87. 90.
That’s it.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Williams, did you pull 63 and 64, or 62 and 63?
Mr. Williams: I pulled 63, 64, Bill. I need some clarification on those two.
Mr. Kuhlke: All right.
Mr. Mays: Any questions, gentlemen, on the numbers to be pulled?
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Motion to approve a request by Christina Park for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Central Gas, LLC DBA KoAm located at
1502 Central Avenue. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee October 28, 2002)
2. Motion to approve a request by Christina Park for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Central Gas, LLC DBA J R’s Mart
located at 2078 Old Savannah Road. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee October 28, 2002)
3. Deleted from the consent agenda.
4. Motion to approve a request by Erika Devasconcelos for an on premise
consumption Beer license to be used in connection with Los Primos Mexican Buffet
& Restaurant located at 2906 Peach Orchard Road. District 8. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee October 28, 2002)
4
5. Motion to deny a request by the License & Inspections Department to
suspend the business license of the following taxi cab companies: Community Cab,
Royalty and Veterans for violating Augusta-Richmond County Code Section 6-7-39;
Telephone Listing Requirement. (Approved by Public Services Committee October
28, 2002)
6. Motion to approve a budget adjustment for additional options and related
grant award associated with purchase of new ARFF vehicle. (Approved by Public
Services Committee October 28, 2002)
7. Motion to approve a budget adjustment for Black & Veatch strategic
planning workshop in the amount of $24,765.00. (Approved by Public Services
Committee October 28, 2002)
8. Motion to approve a budget adjustment for Black & Veatch WA #2 in the
amount of $83,246.00. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 28, 2002)
9. Motion to approve a budget adjustment for Black & Veatch WA #4-DBE
Program Plan in the amount of $69,942.00. (Approved by Public Services
Committee October 28, 2002)
10. Motion to approve a budget adjustment for Black & Veatch WA #6 in the
amount of $167,300.00 (Approved by Public Services Committee October 28, 2002)
11. Motion to approve a budget adjustment for Black & Veatch WA #7 in the
amount of $44,000.00 (Approved by Public Services Committee October 28, 2002)
12. Motion to approve a budget adjustment for Black & Veatch WA #9 in the
amount of $5,267.00. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 28, 2002)
13. Motion to approve a budget adjustment for increased airport liability
insurance payment in the amount of $73,825.00. (Approved by Public Services
Committee October 28, 2002)
14. Motion to approve a budget adjustment for additional expenses related to
marketing of Continental Airlines in the amount of $50,000.00. (Approved by Public
Services Committee October 28, 2002)
15. Motion to approve a budget adjustment for Flight Explorer Software for the
airport FBO in the amount of $3,180.60. (Approved by Public Services Committee
October 28, 2002)
16. Motion to approve a budget appropriation from contingency to the property
maintenance budget in the amount of $5,000. (Approved by Public Services
Committee October 28, 2002)
17. Motion to approve a budget adjustment to record grant revenues and related
expenditures in the amount of $233,454.00. (Approved by Public Services
Committee October 28, 2002)
18. Motion to approve a funding for airport terminal improvement project not
to exceed $1,695,888.00. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 28, 2002)
19. Motion to approve a purchase of fuel for helicopters from airport
contingency fund in the amount of $278.27. (Approved by Public Services
Committee October 28, 2002)
20. Motion to approve the emergency replacement of a 15 ton HVAC unit at the
Boathouse Community Center to Mobley Mechanical, Inc. in the amount of
$12,750.00. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 28, 2002)
21. Deleted from the consent agenda.
5
22. Motion to approve a request from Augusta-Richmond County Public
Library for $50,000 from the Contingency Fund to meet operating needs and to buy
materials for the remainder of budget year 2002. (Approved by Public Services
Committee October 28, 2002)
23. Motion to approve 2003 budget adjustment for TSA Memorandum of
Agreement increase from $1,222 per day to $1,430 daily. (Approved by Public
Services Committee October 28, 2002)
24. Motion to approve budget adjustment to include additional grant revenues
and airport portion for AIP Project #22 Taxiway "C" Rehab. (Approved by Public
Services Committee October 28, 2002)
25. Motion to approve $100,000 operating account budget adjustments from
contingency. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 28, 2002)
26. Motion to approve change order for Two State Construction Multi-Use
Hangar Project not to exceed $11,000 to be funded from contingency. (Approved by
Public Services Committee October 28, 2002)
27. Motion to approve LPA Work Authorization #1 in the amount of $9,527.34
to be funded from contingency. (Approved by Public Services Committee October
28, 2002)
28. Motion to approve $5,000 from contingency to bring airport restaurant in
compliance with OSHA/Health Department. (Approved by Public Services
Committee October 28, 2002)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
29. Motion to approve retirement of Mr. Lloyd Thomas under the 1977 Pension
Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee October 28, 2002)
30. Motion to approve Subordination Agreement for Janet M. Gray, 129 Greene
Street, Augusta, Ga. 30901. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
October 28, 2002)
31. Motion to approve final version of Year 2003 Action Plan for Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) and HOME
Investment Partnership funds. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
October 28, 2002)
32. Motion to approve a Resolution authorizing submission of Year 2003 Action
Plan for Community Development Block Grant, Emergency Shelter Grant and
HOME Investment Partnership funds. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee October 28, 2002)
33. Motion to approve one-year Temporary Employment Services Contract with
Augusta Staffing Associates. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
October 28, 2002)
34. Motion to approve the upgrade of one Recreation Specialist IV to Recreation
Specialist II for the new McBean Community Center. (Approved by Administrative
Services Committee October 28, 2002)
35. Motion to approve the renewal of a lease agreement for a one-year term
between the Augusta Housing Authority and Augusta, Georgia (Weed & Seed
Program) regarding property at 3653 Rome Way, Barton Village, Augusta, Georgia
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee October 28, 2002)
6
PUBLIC SAFETY:
36. Motion to approve the purchase of 2 Thermal Eagle Imagers from Vallen
Safety Supply Company in the total amount of $17,800 for use in Fire/Rescue.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee October 28, 2002)
37. Motion to approve an amendment to Augusta Richmond County Code Title
3, Chapter 5, Section 86, to allow motorized carts use on certain roads in Augusta.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee October 28, 2002)
FINANCE:
38. Motion to approve refund to Lamar Advertising of 2001 taxes paid in error
in the amount of $1,298.33 on account #2068165.. (Approved by Finance Committee
October 28, 2002)
39. Motion to approve refund to Preston E. Price of 2001 taxes paid in error in
the amount of $9.03 on account #1194414. (Approved by Finance Committee
October 28, 2002)
40. Motion to approve refund to ISA Information Systems, Inc. of 1999, 2000
and 2001 taxes paid in error in the amount of $1,552.48 on account #2026466.
(Approved by Finance Committee October 28, 2002)
41. Motion to approve refund to Walter A. Dobbs of 2000 and 2001 taxes paid in
error in the amount of $32.30 on boat account #2006162. (Approved by Finance
Committee October 28, 2002)
42. Motion to approve refund to LeNails of 2001 taxes paid in error in the
amount of $138.39 on account #2031237. (Approved by Finance Committee October
28, 2002)
43. Motion to approve abatement of taxes on City-owned property: Map 34-1,
Parcel 319. (Approved by Finance Committee October 28, 2002)
44. Motion to approve abatement of taxes on City owned property on Map 59-2,
Parcels 119, 123, 127.01 & 127.. (Approved by Finance Committee October 28,
2002)
45. Motion to approve abatement of Taxes for Map 34-1, Parcels 309 and 310.
(Approved by Finance Committee October 28, 2002)
46. Motion to approve holding a Public Hearing on FY 2003 budget on
November 6, 2002. (Approved by Finance Committee October 28, 2002)
47. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Fairway Mower for the Augusta
Recreation Department – Golf Course Division from Stovall Turf Equipment of
Norcross, Georgia for $15,925.00. (Lowest bid offer on Bid 02-185). (Approved by
Finance Committee October 28, 2002)
48. Motion to approve the acquisition of Two (2) Harley Davidson Motorcycles
for the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office - Road Patrol Division from Augusta
Harley Davidson of Augusta, Georgia for $14,690.84 each. (Lowest bid offer on Bid
01-158). (Approved by Finance Committee October 28, 2002)
49. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Greens Mower for the Augusta
Recreation Department - Golf Course Division from Stovall Turf Equipment of
Norcross, Georgia for $18,488.00. (Lowest bid offer on Bid 02-174). (Approved by
Finance Committee October 28, 2002)
7
50. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Animal Transport Truck for
the Augusta Richmond County Animal Services Department from Custom
Fiberglass Coaches of Homosassa Springs, Florida, for $30,100.98. (Lowest bid offer
on Bid (02-184). (Approved by Finance Committee October 28, 2002)
51. Motion to approve budget adjustment for additional options and related
grant award associated with purchase of new ARFF vehicle. (Approved by Finance
Committee October 28, 2002)
52. Motion to approve budget adjustment for Black & Veatch strategic planning
workshop in the amount of $24,765. (Approved by Finance Committee October 28,
2002)
53. Motion to approve budget adjustment for Black & Veatch WA #2 in the
amount of $83,246. (Approved by Finance Committee October 28, 2002)
54. Motion to approve a budget adjustment for Black & Veatch WA #4-DBE
Program Plan in the amount of $69,942.00. (Approved by Finance Committee
October 28, 2002)
55. Motion to approve a budget adjustment for Black & Veatch WA #6 in the
amount of $167,300. (Approved by Finance Committee October 28, 2002)
56. Motion to approve a budget adjustment for Black & Veatch WA #7 in the
amount of $44,000. (Approved by Finance Committee October 28, 2002)
57. Motion to approve a budget adjustment for Black & Veatch WA #9 in the
amount of $5,267.00. (Approved by Finance Committee October 28, 2002)
58. Motion to approve a budget adjustment for increased airport liability
insurance payment in the amount of $73,825.00. (Approved by Finance Committee
October 28, 2002)
59. Motion to approve a budget adjustment for additional expenses related to
marketing of Continental Airlines in the amount of $50,000.00. (Approved by
Finance Committee October 28, 2002)
60. Motion to approve a budget adjustment for Flight Explorer Software for the
airport FBO in the amount of $3,180.60. (Approved by Finance Committee October
28, 2002)
61. Motion to approve a budget appropriation from contingency to the property
maintenance budget in the amount of $5,000.00 (Approved by Finance Committee
October 28, 2002)
62. Motion to approve a budget adjustment to record grant revenues and related
expenditures in the amount of $233,454.00. (Approved by Finance Committee
October 28, 2002)
63. Deleted from the consent agenda.
64. Deleted from the consent agenda.
65. Deleted from the consent agenda.
66. Motion to approve a request from Augusta-Richmond County Public
Library for $50,000 from the Contingency Fund to meet operating needs and to buy
materials for the remainder of budget year 2002. (Approved by Finance Committee
October 28, 2002)
67. Motion to approve 2003 budget adjustment for TSA Memorandum of
Agreement increase from $1,222 per day to $1,430 daily. (Approved by Finance
Committee October 28, 2002)
8
68. Motion to approve budget adjustment to include additional grant revenues
and airport portion for AIP Project #22 Taxiway "C" Rehab. (Approved by
Finance Committee October 28, 2002)
69. Motion to approve a $100,000 operating account budget adjustments from
contingency. (Approved by Finance Committee October 28, 2002)
70. Motion to approve a change order for Two State Construction Multi-Use
Hangar Project not to exceed $11,000 to be funded from contingency. (Approved by
Finance Committee October 28, 2002)
71. Motion to approve a LPA Work Authorization #1 in the amount of $9,527.34
to be funded from contingency. (Approved by Finance Committee October 28, 2002)
72. Motion to approve a $5,000 from contingency to bring airport restaurant in
compliance with OSHA/Health Department. (Approved by Finance Committee
October 28, 2002)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
73. Motion to authorize condemnation for portions of Tax Map 118, Parcels 14,
14.1 and 462, which are owned by Charles T. Weathers and Shirley Weathers, for
easements on the Morgan Road Improvement Project, more particularly described
as 655.62 square feet, more or less, of permanent slope easement and 377.23 square
feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement (parcel 14); 914.66 square
feet, more or less, of permanent slope easement and 1,769.74 square feet, more or
less, of temporary construction easement (parcel 14.1); and 131.57 square feet, more
or less, of permanent slope easement and 253.52 square feet, more or less, of
temporary construction easement (parcel 462). (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee October 28, 2002)
74. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 118, Parcel 379,
which is owned by Chol H. Yang d/b/a Yang Construction Company, for a right-of-
way in connection with the Morgan Road Improvement Project, more particularly
described as 400 square feet, more or less, of permanent slope easement and 799.95
square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee October 28, 2002)
75. Motion to approve Action Environmental Group, Inc. cost proposal to
consolidate, remove and properly disposed of the accumulated hazardous and non-
hazardous waste at a City owned property and clean up the waste storage area for a
lump sum fee of $18,055.00. Funds are available from Environmental Testing
Account 101-04-1110/52-13118. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
October 28, 2002)
76. Motion to approve to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 118,
Parcel 24, which is owned by Curtis S. Wilsey, for a right-of-way in connection with
the Morgan Road Improvement Project, more particularly described as 680.54
square feet, more or less, of right-of-way; 2,474.41 square feet, more of less, of
permanent slope easement; and 2,914.17 square feet, more or less, of temporary
construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 28,
2002)
9
77. Motion to approve a proposed amendment to Consent Order No. EPD-WQ-
3717 which was issued by the Georgia EPD on April 18, 2000. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee October 28, 2002)
78. Motion to approve additional funding to Southern Partners, Inc. in the
amount of $15,210.00 for the cost associated with revising the current Fairington
Sewer design, so as to reduce the project construction cost by approximately
$125,000. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 28, 2002)
79. Motion to approve award of contract to Eagle Utility Contracting, Inc. in the
amount of $671,128.82 for construction of the Hwy 1/Bath-Edie/Etterlee water line,
based on the preliminary evaluation of bids received. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee October 28, 2002)
80. Approve contract to Trimax Residuals in the amount of $1,132,869.50 for
cleaning of the digesters at the J. B. Messerly Water Pollution Control Plant.
(Funded by Account Number 509043420-5425210/80180175-5425210) (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee October 28, 2002)
81. Motion to authorize execution of Quit-Claim Deed to Thomas Morgan.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 28, 2002)
82. Deleted from the consent agenda.
83. Motion to approve Community Greenspace Program for 2003. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee October 28, 2002)
84. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering to award an engineering
services contract in the amount of $53,548.81 to Lowe & Associates, Inc. for the
Washington Road Intersection Improvements Project. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee October 28, 2002)
85. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget (CPB# 324-04-201824117) Change
Number One transferring $40,000 from project contingency to engineering. Also
authorize Public Works and Engineering to award an engineering services contract
in the amount of $114,562.00 to B & E Jackson & Associates, Inc. for the East
Boundary Street and Drainage Improvements Project. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee October 28, 2002)
86. Motion to approve contract with LeFevre Studios in the amount of
$54,000.00 to create and produce the Bronze Map for the Augusta Commons
Project (CPB# 327-04-296812009) to be funded from account #325041120.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 28, 2002)
87. Deleted from the consent agenda.
88. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget # 323-04-299823595 Change
Number Two in the amount of $55,000.00 for the Bungalow Road Improvements
Project to be funded from Special One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III Recapture.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 28, 2002)
89. Motion to approve Construction Project Budget (CPB # 323-04-201823161)
Change No. One in the amount of $185,000.00 to be funded from Special One
Percent Sales Tax, Phase III Recapture. Also execute the Georgia Department of
Transportation’s contract for acquisition of right-of-way on the S.R. 56 at New
Goshen Road (CR 4) Intersection Improvements Project. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee October 28, 2002)
90. Deleted from the consent agenda.
10
91. Motion to approve contract agreement with Ridge Recyclers, Inc. for scrap
tire storage, transportation and recycling services with the Augusta Richmond
County Solid Waste Facility for an estimated cost of $40,000 annually. Funds are
available in 541-04-4210-5212999. The terms of this contract are two years with an
additional two twelve-month extensions. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee October 28, 2002)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
92. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held on October 15, 2002.
93. Ratify Commission’s Letter dated October 28,2002 changing the regular
scheduled Tuesday, November 5th Commission Meeting to Wednesday, November
6.
Mr. Mays: You’ve heard a reading of those, you’ve heard a motion and a second
for the consent agenda. Is there any further discussion? If not, all those in favor will do
so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mays, Mr. Chairman, if I could note that I’m abstaining on
items 1 and 2 due to a client conflict.
Mr. Mays: So noted, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard abstains.
Motion carries 8-1. [Items 1-2]
Motion carries 9-0. [Items 4-20, 22-62, 66-81, 83-86, 88-89, 91-93]
The Clerk: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk: The Mayor will not be in attendance at today’s meeting and Mr.
Colclough will be here, but he’ll be a little late.
Mr. Mays: Thank you, Ms. Bonner. That gets us through the consent agenda.
For those of you who are here, particularly for an item that may have been pulled, we will
probably take those first [inaudible] delegation, and Commissioners, those that you have
pulled, for the sake of the visitors we have we’re going to go ahead and get into the
delegation items in case we have citizens that need to leave and then we’ll come back to
the items which you pulled in reference to other Commission business. There are,
Madame Clerk -- I know we have behind the delegations that are listed, we also have
[inaudible] persons here for item 98, which is the HPC appeal, and if we could move it, if
there is no objection, gentlemen, we could move it right behind the two delegations that
are there and that would take care of our delegations, and once we finish the delegation,
since the only objection we have on the license requests would be item number 3, if we
11
could move them in that order, those four. And the two delegations listed, HPC, and then
coming to the item on Broad Street of the alcohol. And then we’ll return to the items that
have been pulled, as well as getting into the regular agenda, in that order, gentlemen, if
there be no objection. None so noted, Madame Clerk, we can move.
The Clerk:
DELEGATIONS:
A. Friends of the Augusta Library
Ms. Martha Bertrand, President
RE: Funding for Augusta Richmond County Library
The Clerk: The spokesperson for that group would be Mr. Tom Dirksen. Mr.
Dirksen, would you plead come to the podium?
Mr. Dirksen: Honorable Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, friends of the
Augusta Library, which there are many here assembled, my name is Tom Dirksen. Jean
and I moved our six kids to Augusta some 35 years ago. This is now home. For me to
teach. My mother was a teacher, as was my grandfather. Mom was a great teacher, yet
one whose talents were momentarily lost upon my folks being married. What seems back
then as wedded bliss no longer qualified females to be in the classroom. So it remained
until December, 1941, when the war effort allowed her to re-enter the profession. The
initial entry being a one-room country school with eight grade levels. I attended that
school on my teachers institute days. Accordingly, I know very well mother’s interest in
her students. And why libraries and books made such a thing to her teaching. She liked
the third grade better than all. I asked why one time. She said third graders were young
enough to be sweet, old enough to take care of their mittens, and too old to wet their
pants in class. I told you she was good. Another of her truisms I won’t forget, one that
she has lectured to me upon our own six children arriving. If you can only get them to
love to read, the rest of it will come naturally. She put that maxim to work with little
Tommy Dirksen. There were no kindergartens back then when I was growing up. So I
had first grade reading, writing, ciphering, the last, the hand writing has not developed
beyond those first few years. The major portion of my early home schooling was the
library, bringing home books, attending story hour. Babar the Elephant was the first one
I ever attending. I pronounced it “elphenant” at the time. We elected to move here 35
years ago rather than seven other jobs offers I had in my hip pocket. Times were good at
that time. Why Augusta? We had a liking to its size, a good local college, several
universities within the state that were good. All six of our kids went to Georgia Tech. It
was a good weekend last week. It was a pleasant climate. The cost of living good.
Taxes manageable. The price of gasoline? Just drive to Chicago. Also, the work
environment. A new School of Dentistry. Able to be in on the ground floor to develop
the new school. On the down size, two things I heard up in Rochester, New York, where
I was finishing my schooling. What was perceived to be a barely adequate library system
[inaudible]. Also a mediocre public educational system. Richmond County SAT scores
were quite low. We made our decision knowing we would compensate, or at least try to,
by serving as PTO officers and on the Board of Education committees, joining the
12
Library Friends, serving on board, also on the county and area regional library boards.
And today I’m retired, the kids are raised, on their own, gainfully employed, educated,
own their own homes, raising the world’s 13 greatest grandchildren, and they don’t write
home for money. I have time for reflection now. There’s two things I’d like to bring to
your attention. Knowing that last year’s per capital library support for Richmond County
was only $8.72, as compared to five times that for Fulton County, could you as
Commissioners recommend to me that today I accept a position here in the City, or rather
have accepted that job over there at Emory University, knowing that Muscogee County
last year provided $450,000 for purchase of new library books and supplies, that
Chatham County gave $277,000, as compared to zero dollars here in Richmond County?
Could you recommend to some outside industrialist who has interest and major concerns
for his own children’s education, that he move a major business into this county that
could employ hundreds of our citizens? It’s no secret that Georgia’s SAT scores now
th
rank 50 in the nation, with Richmond County being below state average. The answer to
these questions are, of course, moot. Yet without something to read, our children are at
best handicapped. Our teachers are hampered. They cannot really have much in the way
of assisting to raise those SAT scores. I appreciate this opportunity to meet with you.
You are presently dealing with allocations of limited funds. I appreciate that. But you
have an opportunity to invest wisely, to promote the future of our children’s education,
and to ultimately raise those SAT scores. As you proceed with your deliberations,
remember what Mom said. If you can only get them to love reading, the rest of it will
take care of itself. Thank you.
Mr. Mays: Before you leave, thank you so very much for coming. If you would,
those of you who are here as Friends of the Library, would you just stand for just a
moment please? [inaudible] While he’s getting that number, I’m going to defer for just
a moment for comment, because it’s not falling [inaudible], and y’all can be seated and
we thank all of you for being here today, and it’s not ceremonial. Obviously your timing
is great. It comes before a time that we will be debating and hopefully in a gentlemanly
fashion, the expected tools that we will deal with in the budget season. But I’m going to
yield for a moment for another good friend of the library, my Finance Chairman, and one
that has represented the Commission, and as far as the consolidated government and the
old city of Augusta. Commissioner Steve Shepard. Steve, you may want to comment,
even though this will not deal with the specifics of how we deal with some other funding,
but the item 66 on a more immediate need, as well as where we may need their lobbying
efforts both with us and the Delegation to do some creative things.
(34 supporters noted)
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to say to the Friends of the
Library and to Mr. Dirksen and the library staff, I think on today’s consent agenda we did
fund some money that will help you through the end of the year in a contingency fund, an
appropriation of $50,000, which Dick brought to my attention some time ago. And we
did pass that. That’s short term relief but I think we’re in an atmosphere where one thing
that will be helpful to have would be some direction about and some support for
additional revenue sources to the library. I don’t know that that is going to be something
13
that we can find, but we are certainly interested in the library. One thing that has always
handicapped the library’s development, in my opinion, has been the rulings previously
made at the state level that the SPLOST, Mr. Chairman, could not be spent for books or
other media items. And one thing that seems to enjoy a considerable support here in the
community in terms of revenue raising for all kind of public projects is the Special
Purpose Local Option Sales Tax. We could not use that for book, media, or any kind of
library media according to the last interpretations we had. And Jim, if I am wrong, please
correct me, but that’s been the prevailing interpretation every time we’ve had a SPLOST,
but I think that would be something we should seek to obtain from Atlanta. Of course,
we all understand that the state government is under new management effective January
st
1, and we don’t know what their priorities will be, but I think we should bring the
library to the attention of the Delegation. It’s something that is definitely a community
asset. We want to see that the main library has a prominent place downtown and it’s
expanded. There have been commitments made in south Augusta, and I’m sure this
Commission will be honoring that commitment, but it’s a world we’re operating in that
you all who are operating your businesses would understand. It’s a recessionary
environment. We have had a tax increase last year for public safety largely, and this is
going to be I think a very difficult budget. We had a hearing before some of you came in,
and we discussed the budget for the first time. We’ll be discussing it Friday and
Saturday. You are welcome to come. But I think as I indicated before last year’s budget
was driven by 9/11, this year’s budget I think is going to be impacted by the recession,
which is very much upon the country as a whole. But still we appreciate your coming
down. I certainly appreciate the support you show to the library. Any innovative ideas as
far as raising revenue for the library would be heartily appreciated. Our airport friends
were able to mount a successful Continental Challenge. These are all kind of ideas that I
would certainly be welcome to bring before this body as the liaison between the library
and the body. So don’t keep your lamp under a basket, so to speak. But those are just
some of the challenges we’re facing, and you know, the library is not forgotten, but there
are a whole lot of programs across this government that have to be impacted in our
current revenue situation, and I’ll just – if you have, if you brought a revenue source that
hopefully doesn’t burden the taxpayer, then I’m certainly eager to hear about it, and I’m
sure my colleagues would be, too. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mays: You’re quite welcome, Mr. Shepherd. Any other comments from the
Commissioners? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Having noted the fact that we spend less
in our city on libraries than many, many other cities do in this state, and knowing as a
citizen and now as a Commissioner that our priorities on the quality of life issues,
initiatives, that make our community a better place have taken a very low priority in the
past, I would hope that this Commission, following what Commissioner Shepard would
do, has said, would look for those additional funding sources, but to put it in the old
terms, it’s time to bite the bullet and step up to the plate and actually fund the library in a
manner that would make it able to fully complete the mission. The library has done a
tremendous job with little or no resources to date. I think there are opportunities for us to
partner with the School Board, which is the government entity with the largest budget in
14
this area, to develop after-hours classrooms and training [inaudible]. There are just
many, many opportunities out there, but I really do think that it is time for this city to bite
the bullet and start funding its libraries, because our libraries are places that hold the
opportunity for our children to come and to learn apart from school, and it’s a tremendous
resource that we have neglected for too many years. So I hope that we will in the future
find those funding sources and put them in the library where they need to be.
(A round of applause was given)
Mr. Mays: Commissioner Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Since I’ve been on this Commission since
st
January 1 of this year, we’ve had numerous requests come in from in the museums and
from the libraries and from our other cultural arts and activities. If I may steal some
thunder, I suppose, from Commissioner Kuhlke and Commissioner Hankerson, we’ve
met with the museum board one day and we were talking about one day a true leader is
going to emerge. And we’re going to have to go back to the people on an open
referendum and probably ask for half a mill or a mill to be designated simply for our
cultural activities. I don’t know when that’s going to happen or if it will happen. If it
will happen. But I think that’s what we are going to need to do at some point, because
we can’t continue month after month of coming back and going into Contingency and
funding our libraries and museums. You all don’t deserve that, this Commission doesn’t
deserve to do our folks that way. We always seem to find money for our landfills, for our
public safety, for our law enforcement, for our fire protection, our water and sewer, but
it’s the mind we need to work on. And I know I’m probably jumping a little bit ahead of
Commissioner Kuhlke when he suggested that over at the Augusta Museum, but at some
time we need form a leadership group that will go out and sell the people of this county
on a referendum to make improvements to the things that our children need. And Mr.
Chairman, I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to say that.
Mr. Mays: You’re quite welcome, Mr. Boyles. Any other Commissioners with
any comments? The Chair needs to entertain a motion.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Chair, I move that we accept the presentation as
information.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mays: Was there another spokesperson from the group? Okay. We had a
motion and a second, but don’t worry about it. Let me hear the other spokesperson and
then we’ll carry the motion on. Go ahead.
B. Leadership Augusta’s Class of 2003
Mr. Greg Capers
Re: Funding for Augusta Richmond County Library
15
Mr. Capers: Good afternoon. I’m Greg Capers and I’m here representing many
folks in the Leadership Augusta Class of 2003. And I really appreciate the opportunity to
be here. And as part of Leadership Augusta, we are charged with taking an active role in
our community and seeking ways to effect change where we see an opportunity for
positive change, and your allowing me this opportunity demonstrates your support for
Leadership Augusta. And on behalf of Leadership Augusta, I’m very grateful for your
support. Throughout our country’s history, municipalities have placed a high priority on
funding a cultural environment in their communities. It’s fundamental to our system. It’s
incumbent upon our leaders – you – to see that that happens. Since Ben Franklin
established our first library, cities have supported the arts, education, museum and
libraries as a means not only of enhancing the quality of life today, but of ensuring a
prosperous future. We are the second-largest city in Georgia. Per capital in library
th
spending, local funding, we rank 15. Savannah has about twice as many books and
materials as we do. Columbus is recognized around the state as having one of the best
library systems in the state. Indeed, their library is an integral part of their downtown
redevelopment. Macon recently increased the size of its inventory of books and materials
to rival that of cities much, much larger than is Macon. Our neighbors in Columbia
County recently allocated $180,000 for books and materials. Not for facilities, but for
books and materials. Our library system is a good one. You mentioned the dedication of
their staff, and it’s there, and they’re poised to implementing exciting programs we
cannot afford due to lack of funding. A couple of examples. A virtual reference system
is a computerized system which will vastly improve our ability to meet customer needs
and further enhance our capabilities for research and reference. The new Diamond Lakes
branch will be a showcase for south Augusta. It will be important for that community,
yet we cannot afford to appropriately staff it. With additional staff, all of our branches
can explore and create innovative programs other nearby cities already have. Many
exciting opportunities exist for expanding our services, but we simply don’t have the
funds to keep up. Even existing supplies and programs that we have are diminishing.
We have to depend on donations to have computers for our customers to have computer
access. Circulation at the Augusta libraries is stagnant. It’s level. Across the industry,
circulation is growing. In the past few years, book sales are up 60% nationwide. We’re
not able to replace worn out books. Many of the most popular children’s books are worn
out completely and we’re not able to afford to restock them. Imagine your children or
grandchildren not being able to go to the library and check out a Dr. Seuss book. Many
of the classic reading books for middle and high school students aren’t even on our
shelves. They ones they’re assigned by their teachers to read. The number of field trips
that our school children take the library, and I’m sure you all did it when you were
younger, that’s diminished greatly also. It just doesn’t occur like it used to. A well-
supplied and well-staffed library is essential for the support of our educational system,
and if you would think for a moment of the importance of a library on a college campus,
it’s among the highest priorities for the support of their academic success. Our
community deserves no less. Our students need the resources. Our citizens yearn for
innovative programs. As administrator of St. John Towers, I know firsthand how
important the library is to our senior citizens. They get books on tape, large print
periodicals, their only access to computers. They don’t have access to these services
anywhere else, and the access there now is very, very limited. Our library does serve all
16
citizens, at all social and economic levels, and all parts of the county. Even all parts of
the area. There is so much more that we could do with your support. Tom Clancy, the
famous author, was asked recently in an interview, what does it take to be a novelist? He
said all you need is access to a good library. In fact, he wrote one of his novels using one
library as his research source. We’re the second-largest city in Georgia. Our community
needs a good library. Thank you again for allowing Leadership Augusta to have a voice
in this, and we hope you will support the library. Thank you.
(A round of applause was given)
Mr. Mays: Thank you, Mr. Capers, on behalf of the Class of 2003. If the maker
of the motion would just simply accept an amendment to allow both persons to go into
that in terms of information.
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: Okay with the seconder?
Mr. Shepard: Yes.
Mr. Mays: I’m glad to see you back. My message hasn’t quite changed. But you
got it well the last time because you’re back and you’re right here on the right time, date,
and it’s just like Georgia’s right on our mind. You hear me say sometimes that an
important entity such as the library system that you have to be reminded of it, as a
governmental body. But when you, when you lobby for anything and in this case, you
lobby with your heart on behalf of a lot of minds, I think, as I said before, it’s not going
to go [inaudible]. We’ve got a lot of money we’ve got to talk about and certainly in the
course of dealing with everything – I know what we have to deal with in terms of
technicalities and the Attorney’s always said where we have a problem with some
sources of funding, but sometimes we have to make choices within the funding sources
that we do have. And then work in the long range for those that are not yet upon us. And
I think that’s what we have to do in this case. So thank you so much for being here
today, and I promise you that I’m glad to hear the numbers are growing, and Mr. Capers,
you’re in that 2000 Class, 2003, you know, I guess as an old-timer who saw Leadership
Augusta start up, an old relic being here before the first class got started. Some of the
things I guess I’m glad I’ve lived long enough and to be here long enough that minds and
ideas do change, and that it doesn’t take as many now to put together to do some other
things that our city does need. Cause we would have to not only talk about the library
and other cultural events, we’ll have to talk about transportation, we’ll have to talk about
all those things that help to make us a city. And while we don’t want to deal with
property taxes as an entity to rely on that alone, that the relief that may come from the
state, realistically we’re looking at something that may be introduced this year, may be in
for a ballot, may take two years to pass, we’re going to have to deal with this one, quite
frankly, out of what we have, to at least make a start in terms of where we are going. But
we’re interested, we’re glad you’re here, and I think you know that you have other means
to communicate with all ten of us, continue to make sure that we stay on, you stay on our
17
minds, on behalf of those that you represent and that we represent, and I think we are
going to be able to do better than Richmond County has been doing. Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Being pro active to what I’ve heard
of the two presenters, Mr. Capers, could you – I notice that you did some research on the
other cities about how they support their libraries. Could you tell us how, give us some
idea of where the funds are coming from? I know you said that Columbia County,
$180,000. But you named some other cities so, you know, we’ve been talking about it
and talking about the art museum and now the libraries here. We have these different
groups coming up every – during the year. But we haven’t found really the solution to
stop this and I think we need to stop talking about it and start putting something in the
budget or whatever way we are going to attempt to do it, how the other cities are getting
funds.
Mr. Capers: When I did my research, I talked with a library association member,
person active in the state association. I was not able to explore the sources of those
funds. However, I have heard, just in causal discussions over the last weeks, that some of
those funds have been through normal operating budget funds, as an operating entity of
the community, and I’ve also heard of some special taxes, not the sales tax as Mr.
Shepherd said, but like an entertainment tax or taxes on, say for example, concert tickets
or hockey game tickets or other events of that nature. Those are some of the funding
sources that I have heard of. Now I do not have any specific information about that, and
especially in Columbus, Georgia, it’s my understanding that they have used a number of
sources there, including tourism funds, to help fund the library and make it a part of the
downtown redevelopment and tourism attraction.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, I call for the question.
Mr. Mays: Got a motion and a second, with an amendment. All in favor of the
motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same. The motion is carried, and
we thank both groups for coming.
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 8-0.
The Clerk: Item 98 is next, Mr. Chair?
Mr. Mays: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:
98. Appeal Hearing for Mr. Steven Fishman, 2231 McDowell Street regarding
the HPC denial of his request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the
purpose of roof and window replacements affecting property located at 2231
McDowell Street.
18
Mr. Mays: I think both entities are represented. Mr. Pittman, Mr. Fishman.
However, before recognizing either one of them, I’m going to defer to the City Attorney
for recommendation that I think he may want to bring before us at this time.
Mr. Wall: If I may. I have spoken to Mr. Pittman and have also talked with
the Planning and Zoning people concerning this matter. It is my recommendation
that you send this back to the Historic Preservation Commission to be negotiated
between the HPC and Mr. Fishman. That would be my recommendation and Mr.
Pittman is in concurrence with that.
Mr. Shepard: I make that in the form of a motion for purposes of discussion.
Mr. Kuhlke: And I’ll second.
Mr. Mays: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion from Commissioners
first on this particular item?
Mr. Williams: Well, I’d like to hear, Mr. Mays, I mean I’d like to hear from Mr.
Fishman and Mr. Pittman. I think somewhere they have met already and to send them
back into the same setting, I think maybe we ought to hear something from that and see
where they are and what’s their reasoning.
Mr. Mays: Well, obviously there has been some contact on both sides. Let me
just ask this, and I agree with you, I was going to ask in terms of how far that had taken
place. But in terms of you all, just as we do this many times with neighborhood groups
with each other, and even in terms of where we’ve had cases that will come before your
group, Mr. Pittman, is this something that’s acceptable on both sides that you need some
further dialog within that particular body and so they –
Mr. Pittman: There has been no conversation between I and Mr. Fishman. The
City Attorney has proposed something that’s acceptable to the Historic Preservation
Commission and that is Mr. Fishman come back before us and we discuss the matter of
the fact that he’s done a great deal of work on a home in the historic district without
having met the Historic Preservation ordinance, the District guidelines, or the city’s
Planning and Zoning building permit process, so hopefully we can work something out
with him. That remains to be seen.
Mr. Mays: Well, let me just ask this, I guess from what Commissioner Williams
was saying, cause normally when we get these items concerning your body, whether a
citizen or a group, is something usually that has already transpired. And you’re here in
another state, so I mean what [inaudible] me up on it, I guess the simple question is what
are we doing with it at this point?
Mr. Pittman: That’s a good question. What happened in this case was, and
correct me if I’m wrong, Mr. Wall, Mr. Fishman commenced work on his home in the
19
Historic District. His neighbors in that Historic District voiced their complaints to the
city and to the Historic Preservation Commission. He may or may not have been granted
[inaudible] permits for work done, not under the ordinance, paid for building permits.
Now that that work has been done, it is possible that the Historic Preservation
Commission may be able to sit down with him and see if we can reason out what can be
undone, come to some meeting of the minds. Other than that, I think it would be left up
to the city to determine what might happen to Mr. Fishman as a result of his actions.
Mr. Mays: I was just trying to, as one person in the Chair today, to find out how
we got to that, and this point. That’s why I asked that particular question. Commissioner
Beard, and I think Jim’s proposal and a motion [inaudible], I think we probably need to
go ahead and do that because it obviously, they’ll either have a meeting of the minds on it
there, or they won’t, it we may end up hearing it again anyway, but it’s no need of us
hearing it here. They have to take it back and hear it and then we have to turn around and
possibly hear it again. So go ahead, Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mays, I was just going to make that motion because there is no
need for us to go through this three or four times, as you’ve just stated. And I move that
they be given the opportunity –
Mr. Mays: It’s already [inaudible], it’s one on [inaudible].
Mr. Beard: Okay. Well, then, I call for the question and we can vote.
Mr. Mays: Go ahead. In fairness, Mr. Fishman, go ahead, you have the floor, but
we’re going to in just a minute go ahead and [inaudible] this motion.
Mr. Fishman: Gentlemen of the Commission, this is the first I’ve heard of any of
us going back to the Historic Committee meeting. The last time I was there, the last
words I heard were there was no way in the world that they would ever give me the
certificate on work that had already been done. We have spent a tremendous amount of
time, a tremendous amount of effort in trying to bring an 88-year-old house back to the
condition that it was in in its historic significant era. We took out storm windows, we
took out aluminum windows with levers that cranked up and put back regular vinyl clad
windows which would have been more historic. We went to contractor after contractor
about a roof that was completely gone, to try to cure a damage problem on this particular
house. And I really need to preface this, when we – this house has been in the Fishman
family since 1965. My father got sick in 1994, which is eight years ago. My mother died
a year and four months ago. For eight years, no work has been done on this particular
house. And the condition of the house has deteriorated, deteriorated and deteriorated.
Now we’re in the state issue, right now, the appraiser of this piece of property said that
this house is not only totally unmarketable, but we could not even get a loan on the house
in this condition, that we would have to go ahead an replace the roof, replace the
windows, [inaudible] inside and out, replace the flooring, replace the plumbing, replace
the heating system. There was no air conditioning system in the house whatsoever. I
think there were three window units. Right now, all we are doing is being more delayed.
20
It was recommended to us that we stop the work on this, I think last week, on this
particular house. My wife and I have been banging nails, stripping paint, working on
sanding wood work in this house for the last ten months. If we are going to have to undo
stuff that we have already done, it would be a tremendous financial disadvantage to us,
and in order to have the house appraised in good enough condition to borrow money on
this property, we would have to go back and do it again, and we would be back in this
position again. At the Historic meeting, we were scoffed, we were smirked at, we were
laughed at, and we were denied, and the last words I heard was that there was no way that
they would give us a certificate for work that had already been done. And this is the first
I’ve heard of this compromise. I’m ready, I’m ready to do battle for what it’s worth.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Fishman, you may do battle, but it won’t be on this ground today
anyway.
Mr. Fishman: Okay.
Mr. Mays: What we need to do is obviously in Summerville there is an ordinance
that’s there. It’s a historic neighborhood. There are some rules that are there, and I asked
the question, and I think some Commissioners wanted to know really how it got to that
point, and you were saying what has transpired, and officially I’m hearing that there has
not been a conversation, so the reason why the motion is on the floor is to permit you in
terms of a property owner and living there in a historic district, as well as [inaudible] that
the HPC and its board deals with, we are basically putting you into that meeting setting to
deal with it. It may be that in an official meeting that’s there, that you may meet
something in there, you may, you may not. That starts the process so that if it is not
worked out, then you have this battle, and then at that point you may be on a battle
ground to do it. But your war plans are not quite in order to get it done in here today.
And I think the best thing that we can do since the HPC board is receptive in terms of
dealing with it, we are under that ordinance that’s there to do that, and not really in a
position to fully hear this as a hearing today, and if there are no further questions from the
Commission, I’m going to go ahead on and move with the motion and second that’s on
the floor.
Mr. Fishman: Sir?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Fishman, I need you to wrap it up for me. We’re not going to
have a hearing here today.
Mr. Fishman: Yes, sir. All I want –
Mr. Mays: I’ll put it on for the record, but it will not be a hearing here.
Mr. Fishman: Yes, sir. All I want is to be able to buy a permit to continue the
work inside the house that my wife and I have been doing. That’s all I want right now. I
have no problem going back to Historic, but right now we’re stopped, and time is
running.
21
Mr. Mays: Mr. Fishman, there is a process in that Historic District that’s there.
We do not need to put the horse before the cart in terms of starting a permitting process,
knowing [inaudible] possibility that then we’re going to have to deal with whether it be
ordinance violation or not, that can be debated. But we’re putting you in that particular
setting so that if you reach an agreement, that would be a beautiful thing. Because I
think, quite frankly, the ten of us would rather not have your hearing back here. And I
think that the Board members, as well as others who may protest it, don’t really won’t to
have come back. And we may have to hear it again, but what we’re trying to do is that is
gets you on an expedient [inaudible] that does not delay you as a property owner and one
who wants to go ahead and try to get this resolved. But under that guideline of the
ordinance, we basically have to follow an [inaudible] to a point that [inaudible] not been
heard. That’s why we put [inaudible] and obviously you may be back.
Mr. Fishman: Yes, sir. And while you’re [inaudible] I just want to go forward.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you. Let me ask Mr. Pittman. Does this look like an
unworkable situation?
Mr. Pittman: The problem, Commissioner, is that this gentleman has – and I’m
not going to make a speech. It’s the long and the short of it. This gentleman has decided
to take it upon himself not to adhere to the historic ordinance. In this particular case, the
Summerville design guidelines. Some Summerville residents are here and also the
chairman of the neighborhood association is here. He came before us simply because,
without our knowledge, simply because he had undertaken and complete and continues to
undertake and complete work without the building permit and without prior approval of
the Historic Preservation Commission. Caught off guard, we turned him down flat. It
could be, Commissioner, that we might be able to work something out with him, although
I think we may not. But I think on behalf of Summerville residents and the Preservation
Commission, we owe at least an opportunity to try to work something out before it gets to
your level.
Mr. Boyles: Well, the reason I say that is it wasn’t too long ago we had another
situation on Broad Street, and you were able to sit down, both parties, and work that out,
and I think it worked out very favorably as far as the City was concerned, and I think – I
don’t know the entire situation on this other than what I’ve read and what I’ve been given
and what I’ve heard.
Mr. Pittman: I’m not so sure, Commissioner, that we’ll be able to work anything
out with this gentleman, but we’ll try. I say that respectfully, we will try.
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question.
22
Mr. Mays: I’m going to move with this before y’all get into a hearing that I said
y’all weren’t going to have. So we have a motion and a second that’s on the floor. But in
fairness to Mr. Fishman, let me just ask this one question. When we started, I was
assuming that there had not been – that from what I heard from Mr. Pittman, no contact
with you at all with HPC. In the beginning I heard there wasn’t. Now just for the record,
or just for my hearing, was there contact? When I say contact, to a point, did you meet?
I mean I was asking that. Maybe I need to [inaudible] contact [inaudible]?
Mr. Pittman: He came before us at the October meeting of the Historic
Preservation Commission, Commissioner Mays, simply because he was directed to do
that in order to get a post de facto building permit. I was simply saying that I had not
talked to Mr. Fishman in reference to Mr. Wall’s motion that this item be sent back to the
HPC.
Mr. Mays: I was trying to get it clear on that [inaudible] I meant that I was
[inaudible] that there had been some knowledge of the situation.
Mr. Pittman: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed,
the same.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Pittman: And if I may, Mr. Mays, to update you on the two houses on Greene
Street, [inaudible] the Historic Preservation Commission. We’ll be meeting next week
with the owner on the site to take a look at those houses, just to give you an update.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Wall, do you want to [inaudible] in reference to the [inaudible] ?
Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: Go ahead with the [inaudible].
The Clerk:
3. Motion to approve a request by Sharon W. Bryan for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Blind Pig,
Inc. located at 1251 & 53 Broad. There will be a dance hall. District 1. Super
District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 28, 2002)
Mr. Speaker: This is a request that you approve this alcohol license application.
It’s for a bar. Again, at 1251 and 53 Broad Street. It does meet the requirements of the
23
[inaudible], the distance requirements, and the License Department and the Sheriff’s
Department have reviewed the application and recommend approval.
(2 objectors noted)
Mr. Beard: I move for approval.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mays: Motion and a second. I understand we have some objectors that are
here. Would y’all like to address at this time? Is the petitioner also here or a
representative of the petitioner?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] If we could go ahead in our regular order with the
petitioner and then we’ll deal with the, with the objectors.
Mr. Sanders: Thank you, Mr. Mays. I have the privilege today – Freddie Sanders
representing the petitioner, Sharon Bryan, for the liquor license. Here today to represent
Ms. Bryan. She is here today with her husband, David Bryan, and I’m not sure what the
objection is to them getting this license other than some of the problems these nice ladies
have had down on Broad Street with their antique shop, which we understand. But I want
to tell the Commissioners that the business that Ms. Bryan is going into is not
inconsistent with the business that they’re running, although they don’t have an alcohol
license. Having an alcohol license does not make you a bad person. Mrs. Bryan and her
husband enjoy a good reputation in the community. They have gone to a great financial
investment and expense to redo this building and spend their money to bring
entertainment [inaudible] to Augusta, which is as much as art and culture as the paintings
downtown or other shops that are downtown. They could have actually gone anywhere
in Richmond County. I talked to them, they approached me about going on Broad Street,
and they are interested in revitalizing downtown and picked this area out. They do not
intend to run a rough establishment. They do not intend to in any way condone any
problems in that area or in that establishment or sell to minors or have any of the
problems in these regards. They are fully qualified. They have met all of the
qualifications from the Sheriff’s Department, the Licensing Department. We have gotten
the Fire Department to come down and look at it, and they have given them some
guidance on how to improve this facility, and we believe they are going to be an asset to
Augusta, and if you want people to come downtown, these are absolutely the type of
people that you want to conducting a business in Augusta and we just ask you to approve
this license and let them move forward in this endeavor. And I’ll be glad to respond to
any questions that you have, either now or later.
Mr. Mays: Does any member of the body have any questions for Mr. Sanders?
Mr. Boyles?
24
Mr. Boyles: Thank you. Mr. Sanders, is this also a restaurant?
Mr. Sanders: No, sir. It is not a restaurant and it is not applying for a Sunday
sales license.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] Young lady in the back? Yes? Yes, ma’am. Could you
come? If you could come to the mike and pick it up just where the Clerk can get it on
tape. Yes, ma’am. Give us your name and address.
Ms. Clark: My name is Kathy Clark and I’m another antique dealer with that
mall. My question is that I’ve been given so little information about what kind of
establishment it is. Is it a bar, a blue bar, or with a dance floor? I mean exactly what
kind of clientele will they have? What kind of cover charge? What kind of level are they
striving for? Because we do have a problem not just with the possibility of their being
rowdy behavior, which could happen anywhere, you know. Restaurants, juice bar,
wherever, you know. But the fact that parking, there is already a very limited amount of
parking for the establishments that are already there, because of the Pizza Joint and then
the [inaudible] in the same building that has wedding parties and whatever, but the main
problem being that if you’ve got a type of establishment that involves a lot of parking,
that problem is magnified and our customers don’t have anywhere to go.
Mr. Mays: Some of that was brought up in the committee, but [inaudible] either
Ms. Bryan or Mr. Sanders, if you want to add to that part of it, because I think you
[inaudible].
Mr. Sanders: I will respond, Mr. Mays. Actually, the reason this location, one of
the reasons this location was selected was because it had so much parking. It has parking
back on Jones Street, behind the old fire station. It has parking besides the old fire station
which it adjoins. I can’t tell you and I don’t think it really matters how much the cover
charge is going to be, but it is going to be entertainment, there is ample parking, and we
just don’t see any conflict with the antique shop. We wish we could say they would have
a lot of business down there during the daytime when they’re open, but I don’t believe
they will. It’s going to be a nighttime business and it’s going to be run properly, with
ample parking.
Mr. Mays: Let me just say this. [inaudible] Mr. Sanders, to the young lady that
just finished. We had a long conversation with the other ladies, at least I did, the other
day after the committee meeting was over, because I was interested in more than just the
item with Mr. and Mrs. Bryant. And I think under the law and which they pledged to be
good owners and to try to run a good business there, but we were talking about some
things outside of the license itself and approving it, and one of the things I think that the
City needs to be a little bit more responsive to, which I think on this case the license, in
terms of meeting all the requirements on one hand and will probably be approved, but on
the other side of it, we also want to make sure that there is an atmosphere for business
25
owners that are already there and who have their share of problems with other things that
are going on, and again, that statement is not failing upon deaf ears. I think there are
some things that the City, and I’ve expressed this to the young ladies when I met with
them, that I think we need to do that are not necessarily the fault of anybody going in an
establishment that’s there. If you leave on a certain day, if you leave on a Friday to close
your establishment, then when you come back on Saturday, or if it’s Saturday to Monday
or whatever the next day might be, that there are certain things, I think, that the City is
going to have to step up to the plate and do in the downtown area, particularly with
having the mixed use that’s there. So that you’re not necessarily in the wholesale street
sweeping business and cleaning when you come there to open your business. And that’s
not a reflection on the new owners, because many times the adjacent owner of a certain
business may not even be [inaudible] that person’s clients [inaudible] come from other
places that are [inaudible], but I think there is something else that we need to be doing
because obviously to a point we want to welcome new businesses that are coming in,
such as the Bryans that are coming there, but also we want to be in the time of
atmosphere that we save those that are there and that you come to the type of place
whereby you can co-exist in a peaceful environment that is there at same time. I want to
go ahead and call the motion, but I think part of it may rely, and I promised those ladies
that when we got, Commissioner Cheek, not necessarily today, and [inaudible] get down
into item 101, and you’ve got on here [inaudible] Hospitality Resource Panel, I think this
will get us into a situation that you long to want to bring us up on and what we can do in
terms of making sure that we are not losing events, for instance, that take place, that have
been wholesome and then all of a sudden just die on the vine, that we’re able to have co-
existence, and I think that’s what both sides want to be able to do in a mixed atmosphere,
and particularly Broad Street, because there are great things that are coming back there
and I think if handled properly and if handled probably less by government and allowing
folk to be able to do it, but do the basic services, that you are need as business owners
period to co-exist, then that can be a wholesome atmosphere for everybody, not just the
owners or the people that you serve as well. So we have a motion and a second on that.
All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. My colleague was moving away
from me but I’ll put my band of young ladies on him if he acts up. I remember what y’all
told me the other day, okay? I delivered that message to him, okay?
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mays: I wish you all a lot of success, Mr. and Mrs. Bryan, and we also want
to still be able to do those things that we’ve been talking about that you are concerned
about there, as current owners, [inaudible] do business with you.
Mr. Sanders: Thank you.
The Clerk: Next item?
Mr. Mays: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk:
26
21. Motion to approve the upgrade of one Recreation Specialist IV to Recreation
Specialist II for the new McBean Community Center. (Approved by Public Services
Committee October 28, 2002)
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mays: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion?
Mr. Williams: I just wanted to get some clarification. I’m in favor of the agenda
item, Tom, I just need to know was this a move, moving a personnel in there or is this
just opening it up to bid on this particular job?
Mr. Beck: It will be advertised.
Mr. Williams: Okay. That’s, that’s all I need to know. Thank you.
Mr. Mays: Motion and a second. Being no further discussion, all in favor of the
motion will do so by the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk: Commissioner Williams, can we take items 63 and 64 together? Will
that be okay, sir?
Mr. Mays: I’m sorry, Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk:
63. Motion to approve a funding for a funding for airport terminal improvement
project not to exceed $1,695,888.00. (Approved by Finance Committee October 28,
2002)
64. Motion to approve a purchase of fuel for helicopters from airport
contingency fund in the amount of $278.27. (Approved by Finance Committee
October 28, 2002)
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, if I can speak?
Mr. Mays: I was going to try and go ahead and get a motion on them.
Mr. Bridges: I move for approval of both items.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
27
Mr. Mays: Got a motion and a second. The Chair recognizes Mr. Williams.
Mr. Mays: I want to make a substitute motion. No, I don’t think a substitute in
order, Mr. Mays, I just want some clarification.
Mr. Mays: The floor is yours.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Well, I just want some clarification on the amount of
money we was repaying and I thought we was in the process of talking about building
and this amount of money that we’re spending to, to repair. And that came to my mind.
And the other thing was this helicopter that – we own the helicopter out there? Okay,
Jim, has got his hand up, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mays: Go ahead, Mr. Wall.
Mr. Wall: Let me take the first issue concerning the $1.6 million roughly. That
has to do with the Continental, the ticket counter that we committed to build for
Continental, and so that is the expenditure that is going to be required for that. And that
work is underway. The reason that it is coming from Reserves, we hope to, we’ve got in
process a modification to the PFC, the passenger facility charges that we’re collecting.
We simply need to get the project description changed so that it would include this, and
then the money will be transferred from the passenger facility charge money that we’ve
already collected, put back in Reserves. So this is a temporary financing mechanism.
Insofar as the helicopter, no, we do not own the helicopters. This was a documentary
about Viet Nam war veterans that was filmed here in Augusta, and the airport agreed to
furnish the fuel for the helicopters while they were filming that. So that was the money
that was spent there. Just went through the Aviation Commission, which approved both
of them.
Mr. Williams: And all this coming from the Aviation, I mean from the airport
funds?
Mr. Wall: Their funds.
Mr. Williams: That’s all, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question.
Mr. Mays: That motion on 63 and 64, or just on 63?
The Clerk: 63 and 64.
Mr. Mays: Okay. No further discussion, all in favor of the motion will do so by
the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Motion carries 9-0.
28
The Clerk:
65. Motion to approve additional funding in the amount of $50,000 for Indigent
Defense Tripartite Committee. (Approved by Finance Committee October 28, 2002)
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, at your committee
meeting we discussed additional funding for the Indigent Defense office to cover bills for
private attorneys that they’re hiring between August and September and we mentioned
about $50,000 additional. Well, that number appears to be more like $300,000. So I’m
providing that to you for your information. We’re going to have to pay the bills. I guess
I don’t know what else to tell you other than it will pretty much deplete your Contingency
fund.
Mr. Mays: I knew some thing that I didn’t want to be the Chair today. Let me –
this, I imagine then, is a $250,000 [inaudible] change from the committee’s meeting to
today?
Mr. Kolb: That is correct, sir. Or whatever amount you would approve. There is
probably – I have recommended for next year some, or I have made some
recommendations for next year’s budget will hopefully will put a control on the amount
of spending and put some more efficiencies in that operation. We can discuss those now
or Friday and then you can postpone this until next week, allowing us to go ahead and
pay the bills as they are incurred. Or whatever other option that the Commission desires.
Mr. Mays: I’m glad there are hands up. Commissioner Shepard, Commissioner
Cheek, and then Commissioner Bridges in that order. But I do think getting [inaudible]
and out of here today and come in with a different deal, I wasn’t necessarily prepared for
– I was prepared to deal with the $50,000 that was on there, because I knew I was going
to deal with it. But I go ahead and recognize you gentlemen I that order.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I’m prepared to make the
motion that we sustain the committee action and the we discuss the remainder of it
in subsequent meetings. I think that the thing to do is there are some funding
sources that are being I think studied by the City Attorney in this regard and some
other matters, and I think we simply take it as we find it today and not meaning to
imply that you might not go to the recommendation that the Administrator has
made. I think there are several competing proposals out there. The annual retainer
proposal, the increased staff proposal, we are going to have to pick and choose from
that menu of choices, Mr. Chairman, and so I make the motion that we sustain the
Committee action as is and deal with the remainder of it at another session.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mays: Does that, and I’m just asking now. Is that in terms of just paying a
portion then of these bills per se, Steve, up to $50,000? I’m a little – go ahead, George. I
29
defer to you and then go back to the two Commissioners because this, this one, this one
has changed complexion on me a bit.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, we can probably live
with the $50,000, although that does not cover the outstanding bills that we have as of
this date. So we would need authority to continue to pay those bills. Mr. Persaud, I don’t
believe is in the room at the moment. Mr. Chairman, we’re about $114,000 over as of
this date, and so based on the current rate of spending, we probably would spend an
additional – well, it would be about $200,000.
Mr. Mays: I’m going to get back to [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: Like any lawyer, I like to be paid, like anybody who works for a
living likes to be paid. But I think that we maybe need to implement the system, the
recommendation maybe before the end of the year, but I’m not prepared to go beyond
what the committee considered at this time, just speaking for this Commissioner.
Mr. Kolb: You will have to pay the bills eventually.
Mr. Shepard: Well, I understand that, but I think that we might have a better way
to negotiate if we, we may be indicating that we’re willing to do this through the end of
the year. It may be more important to signal that we want to deal with this indigent
defense issue, but let’s not make it carte blanche or whatever. But I’m just thinking that
it would be – you know, we need to bring the discussions to a head, and I think we need
to look at these other revenue sources, which we don’t know whether they’re legal or not.
I think that is still an open question, Jim, so if we have other revenue sources which
would be non-tax revenue sources, Mr. Mays, it would be in the nature of – I guess I’d
call it a franchise fee or something. I don’t know what we’d call it. But is that a fair
assessment, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Well, you can’t really call it a franchise assessment, although it’s
someone akin to that, and I do have some concerns about it, but we’re still looking to see
if we can implement it.
Mr. Shepard: Well, I think we shouldn’t just jump at this time with incomplete
information, and I think we just sustain the Committee action to the point we had already
voted on it, and maybe this will cause everybody to come to the table, Mr. Mays, and
work this out. Because we’re going to have to provide the service, I understand that, but
I think we have a duty to provide it at a reasonable cost to the taxpayers, and also I think
we owe the taxpayers the accounting that we look for non-tax revenue sources to fund
this. And I just – I’m not willing to vote for anything more than what the Committee
approved today.
Mr. Mays: Commissioner Cheek and then Commissioner Bridges.
30
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Commissioner Mays. Since I’ve been here, I’ve noticed
that a lot of times these types of bills will come in to us and we will fund them because
they are “required by law” to provide this service. I don’t recollect any types of audits,
conformance audits, performance audits, or anything else being done to make sure that
when we are billed an hour’s, an hour’s worth of legal service that we’re getting in fact
the clients and we are getting an hour’s worth of legal serviced rendered. I would like to
see something like that put in place to where we see that these funds are being spent and
we’re getting a fair day’s work for a fair day’s wage.
Mr. Mays: Before I recognize Mr. Bridges, let me [inaudible] Mr. Kolb may want
to respond to you on that before I move on to others.
Mr. Kolb: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have, since the Commission referred
this to our office, we have been performing some performance audits and looking at the
process, etc., and we will be able to discuss that with you Friday during our workshops,
which is what led to our recommendations.
Mr. Cheek: It just seems to me that we have an unquestioned cash cow here and
there is opportunity for it to be taken advantage of, and I just want to make sure
everybody is obeying the rules as they should.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m supporting Mr. Shepard’s motion
here. I raised my hand because I guess I was really stalling when I heard $300,000 as
opposed to the $50,000, and I’m not real good about thinking on my feet. But those
numbers did jar me a little bit. So I think Mr. Shepard’s motion would take care of what
the committee recommended and what we discussed, and that would give us some time to
look at the other $250,000. I think George is right. We’re going to have to pay it
obviously, but in the meantime, while we’re working on the budget, we need to come up
with some means of funding for this, these increases in amounts that we’ve got in
Indigent Care [sic], but I support Mr. Shepard’s motion. I think it’s a good –
Mr. Mays: Any other Commissioner have any other questions in reference to
that? And it’s a good motion and I’m going to vote for it, but let, let me just ask this, I
guess of Mr. Wall or Mr. Kolb. I always like to get clarified between a bill and a
proposal. Now am I hearing that we, this is something in terms of services already
rendered that we’ve got a bill for that much that we owe in this category?
Mr. Kolb: We are already over the current budget and we have bills to pay in the
amount of $114,000. At the rate that they’re spending now, we’re projecting that it will
be an additional $170,000 between now and the end of the fiscal year. That comes to
about $284,000. And that’s just our projection. So we’re about $300,000, we’ll need
between now and the end of the fiscal year, at their current rate of expenditures.
31
Mr. Mays: I guess I’m a little old fashioned, but I kind of just want to know what
do we owe? And my reason for asking that is what I think would be most helpful, and
again, I’m going to vote for the motion, but I’m not going to dictate from the Chair. But
when you, when you’ve got an expenditure of $50,000, if there is a bill for $100,000, I
think it’s time to talk about the fact that you owe $50,000 more, is where you bring up the
fact that you are asking for $50,000 but you really owe another $50,000. And I’m just
saying as an observance because I think may what you and the Attorney need to do is that
while we are waiting to hear about how we are going to pay what’s expected to be paid or
what may end up being paid, that there needs to be some talks right away on formulating
(1) what procedure we are going to go into, and then when we get into future bills, in a
tight budget, I’m sure my Finance Chairman, when he hears $50,000 he wants to know
it’s $50,000 and not $150,000 and not $75,000 and $95,000. Because you cannot
[inaudible] be able to pull these $50,000 and $75,000 out of the air on a spur-of-the-
moment notice. If they are old, then they’re just old. But you’ve got to have an
explanation when these things come up that that’s what you owe. Because if I’m
thinking that this is knocking this out and then I’m hearing that we’re just beginning,
then, you know, give me the whole truth while you’re going at it. If the truth is hard,
then just let it be hard, but then I also know if the bill is three times more than what it is,
and that’s the only thing I’m making as an observance. If there is no further discussion,
all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mays: Madame Clerk, if we might, and I [inaudible] before we get back into
the item and [inaudible], we have a delegation that’s here that’s on item number 95. If
the Commission has no objection on that, could we go ahead and move that item and that
will be dispense as a full, I believe, delegation that might be here, and come back and
close out the items pulled from the consent agenda and then back into the regular agenda.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
95. Discuss neighborhood Improvement Corporation 30906. (Requested by
Commissioner Hankerson)
Mr. Mays: You want to start with that, Commissioner?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to bring to your attention and
have the Neighborhood Improvement Corporation 30906, Dr. [inaudible] come and speak
to us to let us k now what this program is about. My concern about it, I was out, absent
to a funeral, at the committee meeting, and I did not get a chance to discuss this, and it’s
one of my concerns about 30906. Today I do think we have some literature that’s passed
around to you and 30906 is the largest area in the city of Augusta. We have funding that
30901 inner city has been receiving. And my concern that they have been cut completely
to zero, not getting anything for the Neighborhood Improvement project. And if you
notice in your package, you would see also that they have partnership with the
community, so the community is also doing some things also. And I want to ask
32
[inaudible] come and tell us a little bit about 30906, the health clinic that’s there, 30906
and everything that’s available, the services.
Mr. Speaker: Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the Commission. I am
Melvin [inaudible], pastor of Belle Terrace Presbyterian Church and president of the
Neighborhood Improvement project. You have at your disposal some information about
the neighborhood improvement project. Very briefly, I became pastor at Belle Terrace in
1996 and the vision was to, from the community, was to do some things that brought us
together as a community. And there were five areas that we looked at. Five areas
included access to health care, access to mental health services, support for families,
support and care for the elderly, and economic development. The area in consideration
for today comes under support for families, and what we have done is we have
established the SAFE Program, it is called – the letters mean Student And Family
Enrichment Program. We were funded through CDBG but that has been cut completely.
There were 63 students involved in that program, 816 encounters, 1632 encounter hours.
I’m not sure if you have that bit of information. But we want you to know that 8 of the
14 local [inaudible] schools in Richmond County are located in the 30906 zip code area.
And when we first started looking at this endeavor, we were told by the members of the
School Board that they welcomed any opportunity for assistance from agencies involved
in helping the students of the school, of the schools in the county. And so we’re just
asking, we understand and we know that these are hard economic times, but we are
asking for the Commission to please consider our request for being funded at $25,000.
We can make it through the end of this year, this 2002, but we are asking for funding for
next year. Are there any questions?
Mr. Mays: Gentlemen of the Commission? I was going to ask – go ahead, sir.
Mr. Williams: I just wanted to know from [inaudible], you said you was cut, you
told why the cut was made, was there – and a lot of times, I mean I been hearing different
situations if we apply late, we don’t get there in time. I just want to know the reasoning
you was told for the cuts.
Mr. Speaker: Basically as I’ve said, tough economic times, cuts are being made
all over. As a matter of fact, I think one area that you’ve just looked at had been cut as
well, and they made an appeal, and we were also asked to make an appeal. And so we
made an appeal through the committee and it was put on your agenda for today and so
that’s why we are here.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Chairman, could I hear from Ms. White or somebody
concerning this? I know that we’ve had other appeals and other organizations wanted to
be funded from this source and what I’m, what I’m hearing is if we start funding one
entity, that’s different from the recommendation given by the citizens committee that it’s
just going to be pulled from these other entities and they’re going to be right down here
on us because we’re pulling their money. So I know this is a worth organization and I’d
33
like to help it out with this funding, but from what it sounds like from my limited
understanding of it, is if we start this we just would really be creating a chain reaction all
the way down the line. Ms. White, can you address it?
Ms. White: The Neighborhood Improvement Project, I can’t say an exact reason
why it wasn’t funded. We have been funding it for the last three years. We’ve never had
a problem with them spending their money in a timely manner or for the services that
they planned and do provide. It could have been due to the limited amount of funds for
public service activities that we have for this year, but it wasn’t anything negative or
related to anything the organization had done.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Chairman. Ms. White, could you explain the restrictions on our
Public Service expenditures and the unusual situation we have this year?
Ms. White: Right. Okay. I’ll – the maximum amount that we can spend for
CDBG for Public Service activities is 15% of our allocation. During year 2002, we
exceeded that by 10%. We spent 25%. So over the next two years, HUD is allowing,
rather than pay the money back, HUD is allowing us to decrease our Public Services
expenditures by 10%. So we only had $200,000 that we could use for Public Service
expenditures, activities for year 2003.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Commissioner Mays. One thing I would like to see is
that the traditional recipients who have been in the line and received forever and ever
large sums of money from this City, that we continually review those and push them like
we have our museum to try to find alternative funding sources instead of easily walking
up and getting the same amount they always get, and I would hope that y’all would put
pressure on them, not only this year, but in the coming years, to become as self-sufficient
as they can. It’s one thing that Commissioner Hankerson and all of us have concerns
about, is the money seems to be focused in the general inner, old inner city area. We
need to make sure that those funds are equally distributed throughout the entire City of
Augusta. People who have had unquestioned free ride for funding over the past few
years need to be held accountable to search out other funding sources and be made aware
of that they’re not going to always have that free ride. They need to do, like the museum,
they may not be able to 100% fund their selves from exterior sources, but dog gone it,
they need to work on it and not just count on the City to continually fund their efforts.
Ms. White: Okay. We take that into consideration. As a matter of fact, I have
proposed to the advisory committee that during our next funding cycle, if you are going
to fund an organization from CDBG, don’t fund that same organization from ESG, cause
it’s really double dipping, even though it’s for the same program. Because the ESG, we
have limited money and it can just be used for homeless activities, and with CDBG we
34
can use it for homeless activities and whatnot, and I think they may take that into
consideration.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Williams and Commissioner Bridges.
Mr. Williams: Ms. White, while you’re here, I just need to know the advisory
committee. This came up a couple of years ago. Is just that, though, it’s not a advisory
committee, they don’t decide, they –
Ms. White: What has been happening, you are correct. The advisory committee,
their capacity is as advisory, but they have given then – was given the sort of role of
making recommendations and we accepted the recommendations and passed on the
information. And you are right, they are only advisory. We can overturn their decision,
and the Commission can overturn their decision.
Mr. Williams: But shouldn’t we be doing something? This is conversation here,
but shouldn’t we be doing something to, when that advisory committee advise, there
ought to be somebody here, not necessarily Commission, but in Mr. Kolb’s office, we got
a ton of folks in there now. But somebody need to be looking at what we been doing and
how we been doing – like Commissioner Cheek says, it looks like, it may not be, but it
looks like we ride the same horse every time. And if the advisory committee is the one
making the recommendation, and I heard it said before that well, that’s what they said.
And I questioned that then. I said well, they don’t make the decision. But it look like,
since I been here, they been making that decision and we are going along with just what
they did.
Ms. White: Yeah.
Mr. Williams: And I think that that’s probably where our problem is. We may
need to look at a different way, after they do their job, and then come back and compare
some other things and we make the final decision. And I say we, but in this government.
I think that should be.
Ms. White: I think that’s a good idea. As a matter of fact, I think once, like you
said, the advisory committee makes their recommendations, then HND staff should meet
with Mr. Kolb or either Commission before it actually hits the floor for approval. As a
matter of fact, maybe when we get all the applications, we can meet with the Commission
and say okay, this is what we have, what are your priorities? And we will relay hat to the
advisory committee. But we’re open to for suggestions, whatever you all want us to do.
Mr. Mays: And I think, Ms. White, I’m going to recognize Mr. Kolb a minute, in
between the Commissioners, but it’s an excellent observation because, you know, I
nicknamed it a miracle worker, but there’s only so much money over there in that
department, in that pot. And some direction and some help in terms of those changes that
35
she’s talking about would be more helpful not only to the committee, but to her and of
setting those priorities. That will help a whole lot. Mr. Kolb, and then I’ll recognize Mr.
Bridges, then Mr. Beard.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, we do look at the
Citizens Advisory Committee recommendations and we have an alternative
recommendation to the Commission. We’ve also provided as recently as I believe your
last meeting all of the requests that were made in the area of public service agencies. The
Commission has been given the opportunity, because you do have to approve not only the
budget, but you have to approve the action plans before it is sent to HUD. The
opportunities to amend that budget in any way you see fit. It is the Commission’s
responsibility and the Commission is held accountable for the expenditure of those funds.
Mr. Mays: In that order. I said Commissioner Bridges, then Commissioner
Beard, and now Commissioner [inaudible].
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, one comment I would
make following what George had to say is also my understanding this comes through the
Administrative Services Committee, I believe. And in the past, I know when I served on
that committee, the Administrative Services is very active in guiding those funds, so I
would think that it still the practice today, and then make the recommendation on to the
full Commission. But Mr. Chairman, I just, I’m not prepared to say that we should give
30906 $25,000 and choose where that money is going to come from. We talked about the
Citizens Advisory Committee and yes, what it does is advise, but they also meet, they go
through the details, and they make a recommendation to us. I think they’ve done a very
good job in the past. I know they’ve got very limited funds this go-around, this year. I’m
trusting their judgment on this and I’m just not prepared to have an effect on those other
projects out there that we may have to be pulling monies from for a funding source. So
I’m going to make the recommendation that we accept this as information.
Mr. Mays: We’ve got a motion – is that a motion?
Mr. Bridges: Yeah, I’m sorry, that’s a motion, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second that motion.
Mr. Mays: We have a motion and a second to receive as information. I recognize
Commissioner Beard, then Commissioner Williams, then Commissioner Hankerson.
Mr. Beard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I need to make a couple of
statements. I know, you know, there are a lot of people out there asking for funds, you
know. It’s always that way. Secondly, I have to kind of take exception to I keep hearing
that only the inner is getting funds. You must remember, for those of you just getting on
here, that this was started more or less in the inner city and this is where it has kind of
leveled off to. But in the past, it has been [inaudible] of all people who [inaudible]
submitted applications. They have been looked at and they have been decided on. I think
36
the other misconception that most of us are saying today is that the Advisory Committee
does all of this, but if you look at the sheet, I think you will see that there are two
recommendation. A recommendation from the Advisory Committee and also from the
staff. And I think in most instances, the staff has the right to either approve those
recommendations or adjust those recommendations. And a lot of time, the amount that
has been requested, they have adjust those amounts. Now I don’t think they’ve made the
choice and they should make that choice of who is going to accept this, but once they get
there and look at the amount, and we must also remember that they are working with a
small amount of money. They are only working with $200,000. So you have to divide
that up. Now if there are suggestions, and I think there are room for looking at things and
seeing what’s going to happen and make suggestions, but they are also working at a point
where you don’t have a director over there, and we hope that that will be cleared up very
soon, that they will have a director there. They been working without a director for about
a year-and-a-half over there. And I think that’s [inaudible]. The other thing that some
members of the, of this committee met with the Advisory Committee because there was a
point of where, what their role was. And the Advisory Committee wanted to know their
role, because I think they had, and I heard someone make the statement and that’s a true
statement, they had, had been led to believe that they were the sole source in making
recommendations. But I think we have cleared that point up. So, you know, you have a
lot of things out there that people are trying to clear up and make sure that the funds are
allocated throughout Augusta Richmond County, and I also go along with the idea that –
and we’ve expressed this many times before – that, you know, at some time, at some
point in time, those people who are receiving these funds would have to stand alone.
This is not a permanent situation. It should be a situation wherein at one time we will
level off and that agency can go on on its on. But there are a lot of misconceptions here
and I know these people need the money. But, you know, it’s going to be like robbing
Peter to pay Paul. And I just don’t know whether we, we can get into that.
Mr. Mays: Commissioner Williams and then Commissioner Hankerson.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mays. I agree with Commissioner Bridges, and I
wasn’t saying if we had any money to do anything now. I think we need to look at that.
But I was very concerned, and when Ms. White was here and I was addressing the issue
about the Advisory Committee. Commissioner Cheek said something earlier that it looks
like the money is going to one area. And, and he’s right. I mean it does look like the
money’s going to one area. And the Advisory group even three years ago, when I first
came to this Chamber, was making the decision as if, and it was brought back by the
Director that’s what they approved. And I questioned that then saying they were just an
advisory group. We have got to take the bull by the horns, so to speak, and make the
guidelines or somebody has got to say where it goes and where it doesn’t go. If, if the
record was checked and look back at the records and seen how many times grants and
loans and stuff had been forgiven when other people come to the table and can’t even get
one, people who got one, got another one. And, and, and, and if we going do what is
right, we need to do what is right. We need to use that money, which is a small amount,
for this entire city. All over. Where it’s needed. Where there is low-to-moderate
income. That [inaudible] the inner city, and I represent the inner city. That’s my biggest
37
headache. But still, we need to do what is right when it comes to dividing and, and
making decisions. Most of us would like for somebody else to make those decisions and
say, well, I didn’t make it. But somebody need to make those decisions. Somebody need
to call them shots. Somebody need to say what’s what. And somebody need to look at
other funding sources rather than coming to this body saying we need. And, and, and,
and Rev. [inaudible] and his group is here this afternoon because they been cut. They
have got some funds, but they been cut. It’s a rough time. We’re going through a budget
season, not just with federal money but with money we’ve got to deal with here. But we
can’t [inaudible], we are going to have to make some decision. If we help you, then we
need to help somebody else, help somebody else so we can help somebody else, and
eventually get back to where it started at. But I just think – and the Administrator
brought up a point. George, I need to say this cause you said that we have done this in
our previous meeting, bringing a list back. We asked for that list, I think Commissioner
Hankerson. There was some trouble about who was getting money and Commissioner
Hankerson asked for a list to come in to see who, who gotten what. And the [inaudible]
list came in, and that’s how it came to that point. I never known us to do that until he had
requested that to see what was being done. So we just need to look at some things
differently. And I think that, you know, we, we, we, as long as we being fair, that’s all
anybody can ask us to do. But I’m not saying we have any money to do anything else
with but I think we need to look at what we got so we can start to help some different
entities rather than the same entities.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson:
Thank you. We keep discussing this, and I’m going to stay on it
and stay on it until the entire city be recognized that we get representation out of our
taxation. Now regardless of where it started or whatever. But when I look at this list, I
see on this list all of these different organizations over and over that has been served, and
the majority of them 98% of them are in inner city. We must realize 30906 is a large
area. Ranges from Regency Mall, old Regency Mall to the Burke County line. And
other times organizations have come up, we just finished giving an organization,
restoring their funds. We, we need to look at this organization here. They have
partnerships, partnerships with Hillcrest Baptist Church. They are not just coming asking
for funds and not having community partnerships. University Health Care Foundation.
University Hospital Volunteer Board. Care Management Consultant. They have a health
clinic over there that are serving indigent patients daily. That’s helping the city. So this
organization, regardless of how the Advisory Board look at them, and I still say that the
Advisory Board need to be revised, and the whole department over there is making these
decisions and leaving 30906 out. I did receive a list from Ms. White, and the list was
numerous. And all of those organizations were not what you see, not looking at the
organizations you see, but I’m looking at the ones you don’t see. Those are the ones that
have been left out. So until we come up with a solution of how we are going to distribute
the limited funds, then I think that we – I’m going to keep coming back asking for it
when organizations in 30906 are being left completely out. Broadway Baptist Church
has programs, they were left completely out. This program here came to the Board.
They left completely out. Down to zero. And we just – I mean I look at this and the list
38
goes on and on of inner city programs that – Augusta Urban Ministries, Augusta Youth
Center. We just – the homeless, we just gave thousands of dollars in the last meeting to
them. It’s not problem. So it’s not – we don’t want to have a problem here today with
30906, and quite a few Commissioners here represent the constituents in 30906, brothers,
I make a motion that we get the funds UDAG. The
and I’d like to have your support.
$25,000.
Mr. Mays: Let me ask a question before that motion dies, and I’m going to help
you out there [inaudible] second. What about monies in that particular fund at this time
[inaudible] Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Speaker: $189,000.
Ms. White: We have in the recaptured UDAG unobligated $189,000.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Chairman, for purposes of discussion, I’ll second Rev.
Hankerson’s motion.
Mr. Mays: I appreciate that, my dear friend. Commissioner Shepard and I were
trained the same way. As the Chair, we didn’t want to second it illegally, but I was going
to step down and have him the gavel so I could. And then for the purpose of seconding it
myself. We have got a motion and a second to do that, out of that particular fund. Is
there discussion on the motion? I recognize Commissioner Cheek first and then
Commissioner Bridges.
Mr. Cheek: I would just like to see us, Mr. Chairman, at some point, and we’ve
all talked about time tables on different things, is put a three year or two year window on
funding to some of these organizations that have been forever in the list. And then
perhaps after that time has transpired, they rotate to the bottom of the list and some of
these people who have never received the grants get a chance to move up in priority on
there. This would give them a window, a time frame that they know they have to work
with to become more self sufficient, to be self sustaining, and would allow those other
people who desperately need the seed money that these programs are intended to provide
an opportunity to have that same option, with the knowledge that they, too, will be
rotated off the list in so many years.
Mr. Mays: Good observance. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mays: Then Mr. Beard and Commissioner Hankerson.
Mr. Bridges: George, is this UDAG, is it legitimate to pull this money from
UDAG to supplement this, and what effect will that have if you do pull it out of UDAG?
Will that put us out of any compliance, any government compliance or – I mean just give
me some information on that.
39
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Chairman, this [inaudible] cycle, this particular account UDAG is
in, it would not pose any risk in terms of sanction from HUD or anyone else, for that
matter. However, that fund was established for economic development purposes, and
you are pulling it out now for something other than economic development. So I would
not, for the record, recommend that you would use UDAG for public service programs.
For what it’s worth.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] go ahead in that same order. One of y’all, I know, will do
what I was going to do. Okay. In that order. You’re next, Mr. Beard. Then Rev.
Hankerson.
Mr. Beard: I’m going to support this time, but I do thing that we need to come to
some conclusion here, because, you know, I know another group that is going to be down
here in a couple of weeks asking for the same thing. And are we going to continue until
we deplete that? I think that somewhere down the line, Mr. Chairman, we need to ask,
since we don’t have, I guess a Director, but we need to ask the Administrator to come up
with some guidelines as to after these funds have been allocated, that some stipulation. I
think we should do some type of creativeness here to be brought back maybe to the
Administrative Services Committee and to this body to deal with this, because we are
going to have this for the next few weeks, people coming back. Because every time
someone hear that we have allocated funds or put it back on the list, [inaudible] coming
down here, so we are going to continue to have that. But I just want to say at some point
we are going to have to consider this and at some point we are going to have to draw the
line to all of this. Because we cannot continue to do this.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I agree it. It needs to come to a point where we do something.
And I don’t quite agree with just having the Administrator go, come up with the policies
to do it with, because for some reason I’m not getting the compassion that I’m looking
for for 30906. I think the committee ought to come up with some policies and I suggest
that we look at consolidating in various areas, consolidating some of these ministries to
prevent duplication. A lot of them are duplicating the same services. If we consolidate a
lot of these services, I think we will have partially enough to really have services in every
area, because as it was said before this started in inner city, but it’s a bigger picture here
now because we consolidated government and the City starts at the Burke County line.
And we got to think big on that. And I think we need to have the people at the table to
come up with some suggestions, recommendations for the next year how we are going to
go about servicing the various areas, meanwhile get a Director over there at HND. Let
that be a first priority, if the Administrator can work on that and make sure that happens
and let the committee start working and then we can whether we are going to continue to
work with the Advisory Board, of doing that, or we don’t need the Advisory Board any
more, that we sit down and we have the policies already in place. However. So I would
hope that you will support the motion.
40
Mr. Mays: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just to follow up on what Rev. Hankerson said. When Commissioner
Kuhlke and I were tasked by this Commission to go review HND, one of the
recommendations we did make was that these [inaudible] and other groups that provide
similar services to the community, that they do consolidate, because you have redundant
clerical, you have redundant directorship, you have a lot of things that consume the
funding that doesn’t it allow it to go directly to the projects. And that there would be
training to help grant writing and a partnership develop between these groups and HND
to help facilitate drawing in additional funding and reducing the redundancy within the
staffs of these various organizations. That doesn’t sound like it’s happened yet. I know
that it will take some time, but maybe that’s something we need to reinforce with HND
and its Advisory Board, as well as the groups receiving the money, that they need to work
on reducing on those redundancies and cutting costs and improving efficiency, like we
expect of the entire rest of our government.
Mr. Mays: Any further comments from Commissioners? Commissioner Beard?
Mr. Beard: Yes. [inaudible] and we do have a committee that is set up. And the
reason I mentioned the Administrator because I think he should be a part of this and I
also think that the Director, the Assistant Director over there, the person in charge of
these funds, which is Ms. White, should be a part of that. And I don’t know if we could
attach that on to the motion [inaudible] that, but we have a committee and already should
be looking, was looking into this. And maybe we want to activate that committee, along
with the Administrator and Ms. White to bring something back to the Administrative
Services Committee, some suggestion back to Administrative Services Committee to
look at. Whether you want to incorporate that or not is up to the maker of the motion.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: That’s a good suggestion, Mr. Beard, but I’m wondering, I don’t
know about the committee, but I’m wondering whether the committee members, whether
south Augusta is part of that committee.
Mr. Beard: Well, south Augusta is part of that committee, and you know, I think
that – to me, I kind of dislike that term. I think that Commissioners here represent the
City and when we appoint committees, it appears to me if you appoint an committee of
Commissioners then they ought to be capable of looking into any area of the City and
dealing with it on an equal and fair basis.
Mr. Hankerson: You’re right. The reason I said that because a couple of weeks
ago when we had the problem about where we going to place the Public Works, and you
all suggested that the south Augusta Commissioners get together and decide what we
wanted to do. [inaudible]
Mr. Beard: I don’t remember that.
41
Mr. Hankerson: Well, that’s what was stated, that we need to get together and
decide where we wanted the site at. But I’m saying that, the reason I’m saying whether
south Augusta is on that committee because I still see that we are not represented and we
need a voice.
Mr. Beard: I think Mr. Cheek is [inaudible] south Augusta.
Mr. Hankerson: Well, then you answered the question and I rest my case.
Mr. Cheek: Rest assured, brother, I will take care of my home.
Mr. Mays: Before support for this motion disappears, through another form of
good, spirited debate, I’m going to go ahead on and carry it. But for the record I want to
make two observations. One, I don’t think we clearly heard what Ms. White asked. I
gave her that nickname, the miracle worker. That’s good when it’s money that’s still in
the pot. She said something I think that kind of still went over our heads, and that is the
fact that – and I’m going to take up for her on this, because she works for the City and
she’s not going to holler it real loud. But it was very clear and really truthful. I think
what would help the Department in addition to needing and getting the Director there is
the fact that priorities that are set by the Commission that we want help from HND that
will flow to Citizens Advisory, of which each of us has a appointment to that board, it
would be probably most helpful if an extension of that dialog takes place from the
standpoint that when those lists are put together, that we’ve got a project that’s going to
say go through Rec and Parks, for instance, and it’s 90% funded, and we could use 10%
from HND, whereas they may have a program that’s over there that they are trying to put
together, Citizens Advisory, that would take up so maybe 75%, 20%, 50%, or maybe
100% from HND. I think what they’ve been begging and asking is that we let them know
when we have a priority project that gets on board before the fact and not after the fact.
And she said that on more than one occasion. We have not taken up on that. I’m going
to defend my member, cause when I put folk on boards, I don’t look over their shoulder.
I think if they’re capable and they do a good. My representative has been Ms. Gordon.
She gets in trouble, I think she’ll call her Commissioner. But I put enough trust in her in
her integrity and her intelligence to do a good job while she’s there. I think, though, if
we have those types of projects, it would be most helpful that we extend maybe a
different, one more level, to help put that in there and work it out. The other thing that I
do want to say is that it was mentioned, and I thought either in the friendly conversation
that y’all were having, Mr. Beard, [inaudible], that when we talk about spending UDAG
money and we made the statement – I don’t want it to stay on record that to effect that
it’s supposed to be used for economic development. I want to correct something in there,
that it’s not just a service project in which you have, it is a [inaudible] mission statement,
planned for 30906, that it deals with economic development and it also deals with
preventive health care, which covers two areas that this county deals with. Both through
Project Access. Commissioner Shepard was a great part in playing in helping us to cut
down on indigent care costs. As well as economic development in that area. So we may
can debate about what and whose economic development that we want to flow to the top,
42
but if the group is working and if it’s in its plan to deal with economic development, then
it needs to be a part of the official minutes and does not flow through to a point without
somebody saying that it’s not just going to a service orientated group, that it’s one that
has economic development in its plan and that is there. So therefore it does, if you’re
talking about economic development. Some may define it as a factory of 500, some may
define it in terms of what you [inaudible] in the interest of people in terms of economic
development. And I just wanted to bring that out. So many times we get caught up and
if you ask everybody for a definition, I’m sure we could get ten of them. Nine with
Richard being absent today. But what economic development really is. And I just
wanted to have that for the record. All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Any opposed, the same.
Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion carries 6-2.
The Clerk:
82. Motion to adopt Resolution to establish Special Services District for the
installation of a water line on south Atlantic Street and Shoreline Drive with 10-year
assessment. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 28, 2002)
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I asked that this item be
pulled for the purposes of being referred back to the Engineering Services Committee for
further consideration. We have had some lengthy debate at the staff level, and we believe
that we ought to take it back to the Engineering Services Committee with another plan.
Mr. Cheek: So move, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mays: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion? The Chair recognizes
Commissioner Bridges and Commissioner Cheek.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you. George, y’all are not ready to present anything today in
regards to this? Cause we’ve had some people out here been waiting, you know, all
today in regards to this item, and I’d hate to have to tell them, you know, it’s got to go
back to Engineering Services and then come back here again. And my concern here, too,
is being able to move along, if we’re going to do a project, being able to move along with
it. And you know, just time, once again, the time lost in holding it up two weeks.
Mr. Kolb: You could act on the special assessment in terms of the water charges.
But in terms of the installation and construction project, we need to have more
discussion.
43
Mr. Bridges: Well, that’s an integral part of this, then.
Mr. Kolb: I would suggest then that you refer it back to Engineering Services.
Mr. Bridges: All right. Okay.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the things that we talked about,
but I don’t believe we really included in the package is the – we’re asking these
homeowners to take on 100% of the cost of the installation of the entire service in their
area. As I drive down Highway 25 and I know in many other areas we have done
speculative installation of water systems in areas that are yet as undeveloped, and some
of it was based on political connections. I know that this kind of thing has not occurred
since consolidation, but it is a historical pattern that this city had for years. I would like
to see us look at, in addition to the information, as part of the repair and extend budget
that we do have in our Water Works some cost sharing, be it 25%, 20%, 15%, whatever,
that the City, since we are extending a new service into this neighborhood, that we do
take on a portion of that cost. Certainly not the lion’s share of it, but enough to offset
some of this, this cost and the impact on those homeowners. I firmly believe that these
folks have inherited a bad situation, just as we have, but that they are just like rich
developers in the past, entitled to some, some break if the City can offer it. And it’s my
knowledge that, that the [inaudible] budget and the Water Works does have funding that
would enable it to help offset some of the cost we will be passing on to these
homeowners. And which I will remind the Commission many of which are on fixed
incomes or low incomes, and they do need some assistance in this area. We’re not taking
on the whole project, but I believe we should take on a portion of the cost of the new
service in that area.
Mr. Mays: Commissioner Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think one thing – and I don’t disagree
with Andy in regards to some of the things that have gone on in the past, and I know, I
think I know the location he’s talking about. That’s previous to consolidation. It was a
former County Commissioner and probably already know who I’m talking about when I
say that. But I think since consolidation we’ve established practices and policies which
we’ve tried not to set a precedent in regard to private property and doing county work on
private property and funding particular work on private property. I think that’s what
we’ve got to look at in this regard, as well, is what kind of precedent if you choose to
provide some of the funding for what, what is really a private development, what’s that
going to do down the road. Do we, are we opening up the door for any other developer to
claim the same, same right? I really was hoping we could clear this up today one way or
another and get it done, but given the information from the Administrator, I do think it’s
better we send it back to Engineering Services and let this be worked out from there and
recommendation come on to the full Board.
44
Mr. Mays: Andy?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I share the same concerns that
Commissioner Bridges does. I do not want to establish some new precedent that would
have us providing services on private property. But I do, do think that the information
may be something, something worth looking at. We do run water lines to pre-established
areas that are currently on wells or run sewer lines to pre-established areas. These costs
go back into the water bills in the form of charges for sewer and water. I just want to
make sure we leave no stone unturned when it comes to trying to provide some relief to
people that live in that area that are not asking for a free ride but they are asking for any
assistance that the city can provide, and that’s why I request this information.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to ask, are you getting
water now?
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Boyles: You have water now, so there is no disruption of service that you
have. So us going another two weeks, to Engineering Services or whatever else, it’s not
going to be a handicap or a problem because you do have water? Okay. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Bridges, are you [inaudible]?
Mr. Bridges: I’m ready to vote.
Mr. Mays: My question, I guess, maybe then is to Mr. Kolb, and I guess my
feeling hasn’t changed since I was in the committee the other day and I think you, you,
you, when you use the word victim you really describe the folk in this situation
[inaudible] exactly what they are. And I think that one step toward dealing with this that
I thought we had cured from the standpoint that this one meter situation, and I had never
heard of it until I came to the old County, that I know to a point that if it ever went south
it was going to put a whole bunch of folk in jeopardy. Well, we got a bunch of them
that’s in jeopardy, and I don’t mind waiting if whatever is going to be worked is going to
a point get them to not just some light at the end of the tunnel, but get to them some total
relief on a plan one way or another. I don’t think any of them that are out there that plan
to stay there have expressed any desire or reluctance that they wouldn’t [inaudible] to
deal with some cost in terms of dealing with this, this [inaudible] situation. But you
know, the government allowed this whole deal to just, just, just, just go on and on and on,
and a bunch of them that we, we caught that we may totally deal with in a different
manner. But now you’ve got folk out there and I guess the question I’m asking, if there
is a one meter situation and a water bill that I know now in excess of $26,000, is
something going to come back in the formula plan to deal with a reduction on that side so
that when we get ready to start talking about it? Cause I want to make sure that that’s
45
still in the picture. We talked about installation, we talk about the other stuff, but if
there’s $26,000 when we met at the last committee meeting, then you know, they still
using water. And they are in a situation to where all of it’s coming through one deal, one
meter, and they almost to a point of where it’s like they don’t know what it’s going to be,
you know, a bear coming around the corner, or a rabbit that’s coming. Because you
know, what they got to share in may be, you know, last week we left it almost that a
family of five has taken on with the exception of the one, remember we talking about the
swimming pool, the family of five is in the same peril as the family of one. So I kind of
like to know that, because they, they, they are here and if it’s going back to committee
then that’s a decision to be made in committee and then back to this Commission again.
So I mean I’m just trying to get some, some info on it because while you do that on one
hand of putting together a plan, that was why I said the last time that something needs to
be done in a quick fashion because you still got water running out there. And, and, and
the more the water runs, if it goes from $26,000 to $36,000, then you going to be looking
for them to share in the $36,000. And somewhere in there you are going to really
handicap somebody. So I, I, I’d like to hear about that.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I can talk a little bit about
it. I would prefer that we talk about it in, at committee level, because I don’t fully
understand it now and I think that we need to have more discussions in house. But I
believe that the $26,000 bill, legitimately based on the criteria that the Committee set up
at its meeting because it’s substantially in half. About $13,500. So I think that at least
the residents would know that there is some relief that we’re considering when we’re
looking at that, at the back charges for the water bill.
Mr. Mays: Okay. Well, like I said, I’m a lame duck leaving here and don’t have
a vote where you’re talking so it’s not political to me. But if you’re talking longer, as
long as you’re sounding better, I don’t have a problem with you doing that. They
probably don’t either. But I just don’t want to talk long. It’s like an old checker player
used to say, you study long, you study wrong. I don’t want you to come back, $26,000
turns into $46,000 and then they don’t really get any relief, the bill’s higher, and they’re
still looking to deal with a meter. I just want to make sure that it stays on the front burner
and that the discussion stays in it to a point of how we consider them in this process.
Does any other Commissioner have any discussion on it? What was that motion, Ms.
Bonner?
The Clerk: Refer back to Committee.
Mr. Mays: Okay. Motion and a second to do just that. All in favor of the motion
will do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the Clerk to let the citizens know when
that next committee meeting will be?
46
The Clerk: I will do that.
Mr. Bridges: Okay. All right.
The Clerk: Next item, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mays: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk:
87. Motion to approve Georgia Department of Transportation County Contract
#PR 1502-2(245) for their participation in the Barton Chapel Road, Phase II Project
(CPB #322-04-292822678) in the amount of $1,262,250.51. Also authorize to let.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 28, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: I just asked for this to be pulled to explain the project
[inaudible], explain what’s going to take place in the Phase II Project of Barton Chapel
Road. A lot of citizens have been asking. And I didn’t see everything I needed in the
backup.
Ms. Smith: Barton Chapel Road, as you are aware, has been approved in certain
spots, from I believe it’s Gordon Highway back to Highway 1. And what this project will
do is those areas where the Georgia Department of Transportation came in and widened it
to three lanes, at certain intersections, this project will fill in those gaps. And widen
Barton Chapel, [inaudible] the ditches, side walks, curb and gutter for that part of Barton
Chapel Road.
Mr. Hankerson: On that part of Barton Chapel?
Ms. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Hankerson: Side walks and gutters, too?
Ms. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Hankerson: So to widen from Gordon Highway to Highway 1?
Ms. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. That’s all I have.
Ms. Smith: Okay.
47
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. I so move and make a motion to approve.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mays: Motion and a second. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor of
the motion do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mays: Yes, sir?
Mr. Cheek: I have to – I have a doctor’s appointment just shortly. Can I address
101 and 102 just quickly? I won’t take but a matter of a moment.
Mr. Mays: Go ahead, sir. I wouldn’t deny you that.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you kindly.
101. Revisit Hospitality Resource Panel. (Requested by Commissioner Cheek)
102. Revisit Entertainment District. (Requested by Commissioner Cheek)
Mr. Cheek: On our Hospitality Resource Panel, I understand that we are in the
process of putting a committee together to work with the issue downtown. It saddens me
that we had the opportunity to head off these potential problems months ago and we did
not react as we should have. To put this panel in place and start addressing the things
like policing and trash collection and the conflicts with the music and so forth. I have not
seen the structure of the current panel, but I hope that it reflects the best of what Athens
and Columbus and other areas that have this Hospitality Resource Panel have to offer,
because I see that in the entertainment district potential that would help us, the local
people that deal with the issues on their own streets and in their own shopping centers
and communities make recommendations to us without us having to go out and do the
extensive research and guess what is best. Let the people that are in the field make those
decisions and recommendations. But this is an opportunity of where we had something
in place legislatively that could have solved the problem, but we waited until a crisis
occurred to react. This is pattern I hope the City of Augusta will get out of. We are
moving in the right track with this. There is an opportunity once the Broad Street
Hospitality Resource Panel is in place and functioning for us to duplicate this perhaps on
Washington Road, Peach Orchard Road, Wrightsboro Road and other areas that have
high density potential for entertainment and hospitality type activities. Nothing is better
for solving problems than having those people that have to deal with those problems
involved in the decision making process. And I just wanted to revisit those because
again, we talked about this several, several months ago, about the need for policing,
48
additional policing, trash collection, and so forth, and we waited until a crisis occurred to
begin to react. I just hope that we won’t allow that to happen again and that we will take
these things that this Commission votes on and react to them in a more expeditious
manner.
Mr. Mays: Commissioner Beard?
Mr. Beard: Just in reference to what Commissioner Cheek is saying, that there is
th
a committee meeting on the 14, I believe, George?
Mr. Kolb: [inaudible]
Mr. Beard: Okay. There is a committee meeting coming up soon and it’s going
to involve the committee that’s supposed to be working on this. And this is just an
announcement to all Commissioners that, and hopefully Commissioner Cheek can come
or any other Commissioner can come because I’m going to tell you, that working with
this group you have the a variety of opinions, from the merchants downtown, you have a
variety of opinions there, and so I think we need to kind of understand where they are
coming from and maybe be a part of that. I’m not heading that committee, but I think
you ought to know about these committees so that everybody would have a chance to
participate.
Mr. Boyles: I move that we receive this as information.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mays: Does that cover both of your items, Andy?
Mr. Cheek: Absolutely.
Mr. Mays: Motion and a second to receive as information. And that’s the motion
from the floor, but I hope we start getting beyond just the information point on this idea,
that the information that we’re voting on gets to be more than just information. All in
favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mays: Any more on consent?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, we have one more item. Pulled off the consent agenda
.
90. Motion to approve a Supplemental Agreement with CH2Mhill in an amount
not to exceed $100,000 to provide program and project management support to the
Traffic Engineering section of the Public Works and Engineering Department.
Funding for this agreement is from unused salaries in this program resulting from
49
position vacancies. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 28,
20020
Mr. Mays: Thank you, Ms. Bonner.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I’ve got a little bit of a problem and I just need
some clarification, I guess, but in times like these when jobs are really needed, when
economic is down and we have not placed anybody in those positions and when I look at
the back up here, it says engineer and assistant traffic engineer. What is our problem and
why are we using CH2Mhill and where, when are we going to hire somebody? I, I, I, I, I
don’t understand what, what, what’s done here. I got no problem with CH2Mhill. Let
me get that straight. I’ve got no problem with the firm. I think that they do good work.
But I’ve got a serious problem when the job market is wide open and we paying monies
and we got work to be done but we have not filled those positions and we using a
qualified company in three or four other areas in this city. I need to know why we are not
hiring our own person. Ms. Smith, I see you –
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I will let Ms. Smith
answer in detail, but quite frankly, we have been looking for a traffic engineer and an
assistant traffic engineer for a very long time. Until recently, when you changed the job
description and the classification for the position, the salary was actually way too low for
us to attract someone that was qualified to do it. In the meantime, the projects kept piling
up. And so therefore, that’s the purpose of the contract being before you now. Now we
are in the same situation. We’re a little more competitive, but we’re still running up
against the fact that there are, there are qualified individuals who we believe match the
job description and the position, are asking for monies that are probably beyond our
reach. So we will continue to search. In the meantime, the work must be done. So
therefore, we are contracting with CH2Mhill to get it done.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Kolb, I need to respond to that. Let me, let me – Ms. Smith,
you got anything different to add to what the Administrator said, because I, I, I, I got
something to speak to that.
Ms. Smith: The only other information that I would, pertinent data to add to what
Mr. Kolb has said is we actually did advertise for the traffic engineering position back in,
and had the position to close in January of 2002. At that time, we had 15 applications
that were submitted, 16. Five of those did not meet the minimum requirements for the
position, which was a degree and several years of experience. Of those 11 that did have a
degree, only one came close to meeting the minimum requirements as it relates to
experience, design and the operational duties for that position. Since then, we have
readvertised the position with the new pay structure where the entry level pay for the
position was increased by $10,000. The original position was requested to be advertised
in the Institute of Traffic Engineering magazine. That did not happen. We have followed
through to make sure that it is advertised in professional publications to attempt to get
th
qualified applicants in for the position and the position closes on the 15 of November.
However, in the meantime there were several items that, when we did have a traffic
50
engineer on board, the Commission had expressed an interest in having certain programs
put in place in the traffic engineering group. We have not had the staff aboard to be able
to put those programs in place, and if you look at your documentation in the back of the
agenda item, the support documents, those are the type of programs that we’re looking at
putting in place with the support of CH2Mhill, as well as providing a single point of
contact and someone to interact with management, with respect to day-to-day activities
out there.
Mr. Williams: Okay, Ms. Smith. And I guess what I need to know is that you say
you went out for bids or applications and it was closed in January, is that right?
Ms. Smith: That is correct. Entry level at that time was $37,445.
Mr. Williams: Okay. And, and, and in January that was closed?
Ms. Smith: Correct.
Mr. Williams: Okay. And you went back out when?
Ms. Smith: August or September, I believe it was.
Mr. Williams: Okay. September. You mean to tell me from January until
September we got a very important position that needs to be filled and nobody did
anything from January until September?
Ms. Smith: The way that the position was advertised – it was advertised with a
closing date of January, with the position open until filled. So we were able to take in
applications from January forward until we were able to get a qualified applicant. The
thing that we discovered was that we did not have qualified applicants that were
submitting applications in that time frame. However, there was also presented before the
Commission the recommendation to change the pay scale.
Mr. Williams: When was that done?
Ms. Smith: I’m sorry?
Mr. Williams: When was that done? I mean you’ve got – I’m getting to that
point that if this position is an important as it is, and we need that person, somebody
should have brought it to the attention of the Commission.
Ms. Smith: It was included in the request for the overall change for the pay
structure for the entire government.
Mr. Williams: So, so it was thrown in with the rest of the deal and the other deal
and which had some other stuff that shouldn’t have been in there was thrown out and that
was thrown out as well. I go back to my point, Ms. Smith, it’s not directed to you but
51
you are the Director of Public Works and you stand before me. If this, if we can spend
$100,000 with any firm and get them in here, we could have raised up the pay to get a
qualified person in here so we wouldn’t have to go out and hire somebody for a short
period of time. We could have had somebody on staff to do not just this but other stuff.
And I don’t agree. We as Commissioners sit here and let stuff go. Folks may too much
money in this government for nothing to be going on. That’s not directed at you, Ms.
Smith, but you stand in front of me. I’m telling you we pay too much money to get our
backs up against the wall every trip, every time we get to the point we got to move or we
going to fall off the chair. And it don’t make sense. And if it stops with me, somebody
ought to call me in the office and sit down and have a long talk with me. But I ain’t
going to accept no more excuses for folks ain’t doing their job. [inaudible] gets me. I
work seven days a week because I’m concerned. If was making the kind of money some
of these people making, these simple little things wouldn’t be before us today. It’s not
about the, the firm we using but it’s about our technique and what we been trying to do
and what we not been trying to do. We brush everything off to the last minute. And I’m
going to stop wasting the little time that I’ve got trying to fill in or patronize those people
who are not doing their job. That’s all I got to say, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mays: Commissioner Hankerson was next and then Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Williams said quite a bit. What I was interested in about
hiring someone in at $100,000 to do a job that we should have the vacancy filled here,
I’m looking at, and I’m very concerned about this. I was concerned about it in
reclassification, saying that we don’t need to reclassify anybody until we get these eight
positions that Public Works have here concerning engineers and very important positions
that need to be filled. Now I see the salary range, entry salary is $47,260. Now we keep
finding, I’m having problems with people applying for the job, and they’re not meeting
the qualifications or the salary is not right. I think it’s time for us to come together to, to
make sure that we get the correct salary range and the qualifications for the person that
we need. It’s been quite a while with these vacant positions and I agree with that. And I
also agree with if we have to pay CH2Mhill and no problems with them, but them
$100,000, not to exceed up to $100,000, for entry level salary is $47,000, to do a service,
maybe we need to look at them as an employment agency if they can find the people to
do it. If they’re finding them, seem like something is wrong with this process, that we
need to fill these positions and do what we can to fill these positions. And that should be
a main priority, because we’re coming in to doing the budget and so forth. But these
positions, these vacant positions have been vacant so long. I think the Administrator, you
and Department Heads need to get together to make this priority, to get these positions
filled.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Kolb. And when we finalize this item up or down, the Chair is
going to ask that we take a five minute recess when we finish this one. And just wanted
to put that in there right now so that you don’t get restless on this one for me, cause we’re
sitting dead on quorum numbers, and I do want to try and hold you if I can. And you
may not be able to hold me. Go ahead, Mr. Kolb and then Mr. Shepard.
52
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, of the Commission, I can
understand the anxiousness of the Commission to fill these positions, but whether or not
these positions were filled or not does not necessarily mean we would not come to the
Commission and ask for a contract with some consultant to help us do specialized kinds
of work. Contrary to what Commissioner Williams is saying, we have been working on
trying to fill these positions diligently since they first opened up. It gets hard to focus on
trying to get something done when you have one hand tied behind your back. We did not
have the salary initially in order to attract a traffic engineer or to make any offers. Plus
the restriction on the Administrator of being able to go up 10% on the entry level. Then
we come back and we ask for the reclassification, and it has not been rejected, it has
been placed on the table by the Commission until a later date. I think we have done
everything that we possibly can to try and fill this position and to be attractive and
competitive with other communities who are also looking for a traffic engineer. But
again, I want to emphasize that even if we had this position filled or the assistant traffic
engineer’s position filled, if you look at the list of projects, they require specialized
attention, when our traffic engineer is depending or working on routine kinds of things
rather than long-term projects. So it’s not inconceivable that we would come back to the
Commission and ask for a consultant to assist us.
Mr. Mays: Commissioner Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Well, I notice the alternatives were to enter this
agreement or to not approve it and [inaudible] the traffic engineering section, but
wouldn’t another alternative be to hire these folks? I mean [inaudible] back up? I mean
just get somebody on staff?
Mr. Kolb: Yes. That’s correct. And we could do it. It’s going to take us longer
to get it done. And we’re looking at – well, the process is you’re going to hire a traffic
engineer, then that person is going to hire their assistant. Now how long is that going to
take? Six months? Eight months? And it will be some time down the road before they
can even begin to focus on these particular projects which we ought to be doing right
now. So it’s not inconceivable that we would say to the Commission we’ve got a person
on board, we may even have the two people on board, but because we need to catch up
and get some other things accomplished, we need to bring on a consultant.
Mr. Shepard: Did you want to speak to that, Ms. Smith?
Ms. Smith: And the only thing that, only other point of clarification there is to
make sure that there is not the perception first of all that this $100,000 is for a single
person in CH2Mhill. This actually will support a senior traffic engineering person, as
well as whatever other support we need to work towards putting these programs in place.
So there are multiple hands or multiple persons that would be working on some of these
tasks, so more than one of them can be getting accomplished at one time. The other thing
is we were very specific in writing this as a not-to-exceed so that if we have a traffic
engineer that comes aboard and he’s successful in bringing in an assistant in a very short
period of time, and if we’re lucky enough to get very progressive and very qualified
53
people in, we can analyze whether or not we need to hold CH2Mhill throughout the time
frame and expend the full amount of funds. It may not be necessary for us to do that.
Mr. Shepard: Well, let me ask you a couple of other questions.
Mr. Mays: Go ahead. Stay on it.
Mr. Shepard: Would this be like the contract we did for the water works, I mean
– not the water works, but the waste water treatment plant where we had that contracted
out, but this would be for a limited period of time, Ms. Smith? Is that the idea?
Ms. Smith: I can’t speak to the contract with the waste water treatment plant.
Mr. Kolb: I can.
Mr. Shepard: Is that –
Mr. Kolb: This is not to –
Ms. Smith: Operate.
Mr. Kolb: Operate the traffic engineering department. This is to do special
projects and provide limited supervision in those areas to the current staff. So it is not –
you can’t compare those two.
Mr. Shepard: Okay.
Mr. Mays: You might add, too, and I stand to be corrected. [inaudible] six
months?
Ms. Smith: Six months or $100,000. Not to exceed either.
Mr. Mays: Okay. Well, I’m going to throw this one to the Finance Chairman. I
know I asked you that. Six months or not to exceed. I know what he’s thinking right
now. Supposed the $100,000 goes in the first month, and I’m going to let him finish his
line of questioning, and then I’ll recognize Mr. Boyles and then we’ll go back to this side
of the table.
Mr. Shepard: But you are still going to be recruiting, excuse me, you are still
going to be recruiting for the position?
Ms. Smith: That is correct. That is correct. All of these activities are currently
ongoing. I mean for those of you that recall, there was a request from several citizens
and several [inaudible] for a traffic calming program, and we indicated we were going to
try and put together a plan for a pilot traffic calming program. However, we have not had
a traffic engineer since within 30 days when the commitment was made for us to put
54
together a traffic calming program. Since the traffic engineering position has been
vacant, the Uniform Manual of Traffic Control Devices has been revised and we now
have a mandate in place to upgrade many of our traffic control devices. That includes
signs and some regulatory items like that. And with Richmond County being the size that
it is, we have to put a plan together in order to move forward with that. Without a traffic
engineer or an assistant traffic engineer, it has not been possible for us to put together a
workable plan. We have pieces. We are working on it with the staff that we have as best
we can but we have not been able to put together a plan. And by the way, for the stop
signs, at the schools, the signs in the school districts, things like that, those are required to
be in place by 2004.
Mr. Shepard: And lastly, Mr. Chairman, does this affect the traffic control center
project at all, the state project that we’ve been talking about?
Ms. Smith: Does having these? No, there is nothing on here that is –
Mr. Shepard: This is totally separated from that?
Ms. Smith: Yes. That project is – we don’t even have a site for that project yet to
move forward in incorporating the Public Works and Augusta Utilities building, so no, it
doesn’t directly impact.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Boyles and then Commissioner Beard and then Commissioner
Williams.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you. Ms. Smith, how long has this position been vacant?
Ms. Smith: The position, the former traffic engineer left in either November or
December of 2001.
Mr. Boyles: So almost a full year.
Ms. Smith: Almost a full year. And in order to advertise in the professional
publications and magazines, that’s a two-to-three month process.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you. What do we have that might be lingering that we
haven’t gotten to based on the staff personnel that we have now?
Ms. Smith: What do you mean?
Mr. Boyles: If all of a sudden after a year we’ve got to do some things that
haven’t been done supposedly, what is it? What are those things that haven’t been done
that our staff over there now has not been doing?
55
Ms. Smith: The list that’s in the backup for your materials.
Mr. Boyles: I read through those, but that means our staff over there now can’t do
any of that?
Ms. Smith: Not and maintain their current level of duties. There is report
submitted to the Commission about two years ago that indicated basically that there was a
need for additional traffic engineering staff. However, our budget won’t support that. So
our folks are working at a maximum capacity as far as the things that they are currently
doing with respect to operational and maintenance activities.
Mr. Boyles: I’m glad to know that. I apologize, I wasn’t here two years go.
Ms. Smith: Okay.
Mr. Boyles: I did notice that during the Masters and whatever else we had that
we instituted some new programs that we went out to see that the in-house staff was
doing. I’m just wondering if their capabilities are not as such to do this.
Ms. Smith: Those actually were some ongoing programs that we enhanced. We
have a very dedicated staff of people over in our traffic engineering group. Unfortunately
there is a limited amount of time in the day, and the duties that they are currently
performing do not allow them to be able to perform some of these duties that are listed
here. In addition, some of the training background and expertise that’s required for
traffic engineering, which is a very specialized field, we don’t have a staff of people on
board with broad enough educational background or skills and knowledge to be able to
charge them with doing some of these types of activities.
Mr. Boyles: So to some it up for me, then, you’re saying that we want to take
some lapsed salaries [inaudible] because we’ve not paid an engineer, an assistant
engineer, and pay that to the CH2Mhill group on a consulting basis?
Ms. Smith: That’s pretty much what we’re saying.
Mr. Boyles: And that would expire in six months, and you think before that time
limit is up we could have our own traffic engineer on board?
Ms. Smith: If, if, if – on November 15 when we get applications in, if we have
not been successful in bringing aboard or getting applicants for the traffic engineering
position at our existing pay grade, then it will be time for us to work very closely with the
Human Resources Department to attempt to get some additional information on the
salaries for other traffic engineers in the area and some things like that. We have no
information at this time beyond a few applications that are out there where the job
descriptions are not quite the same, to indicate that our current salary is not a competitive
salary.
56
Mr. Boyles: Thank you very much.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make a couple of statements
and that is, you know, I know that the Commissioners are very concerned, you know,
about hiring people and getting people in place. We have to realize this is government
and it moves rather slowly. It’s not like your personal business that you hire next, you
know, you go out there and hire somebody tomorrow and it’s fine. We also understand
that the Public Works Department has kind of been working under duress for a long time.
We know about the salaries there, that the salaries are not adequate to attract those
people. And when that, when we have to remove that we have to go back and do the
process all over again. I think that everything has been covered in here and since we
have all of the variables here, I’m going to make a motion that this item be approved as in
the agenda. I don’t know about the six months. Is that included in the backup?
Ms. Smith: Yes, it is.
Mr. Beard: I make that motion at this time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mays: Hear a motion to approve the committee’s action. Do I hear a second?
Mr. Bridges: I’ll second it, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mays: Seconded by Mr. Bridges. I’m going to – and I missed him,
Commissioner Williams. He was behind you with his hand up, and I’m going to
recognize both of y’all. I’m going to go with Commissioner Bridges first, though.
Because I missed him, I’m going to let you wrap up cause you’d be a little longer than
him.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you. I do know that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I
won’t be long. But I just been sitting here wrestling with this thing. I think
Commissioner Williams has got legitimate concerns here about $100,000. That’s a lot of
money. And the engineer employees and everything, I know you’ve been gutted in the
last two years in that department, so I’m sensitive to those concerns. But I’m just looking
at some of the duties that he’s got to do here, Mr. Chairman. I’ve got a list I just got from
the Green Meadows Association, it looks like some of those projects will fall right in
with those duties, so I’ll give you that list and hope that it will be done within the next
few months. I do have some concerns with traffic engineering. I know that those fellows
that are in there are doing the very best they can. They are under a heavy work load. I do
talk with them every now and then about different projects and they do a good job. I
know there is more to do there than they’ve actually got time to do. So I am going to
support the motion, but I do think we’ve had some legitimate concerns raised here today,
and I hope Teresa and George, y’all take them to heart and maybe we can get somebody
on board and get it moving and any support we can be in that regard, we certainly will be.
57
Mr. Mays: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you for recognizing me last, Commissioner, but I did get
recognition so I guess I’ll just go ahead.
Mr. Mays: And first.
Mr. Williams: Well, regardless of that. I mean I had my hand up, and if you
going to use that system, we need to use the system all the time now. Jim, we play the
same ball. I don’t care where we play at, if we going to play let’s do the same thing for
everybody. Now Ms. Smith had made my case along with Commissioner Beard and my
colleague, Commissioner Bridges. If this is, if this position is so important as we say it
is, why in the world have we waited until now to give it to a firm or some other entity and
not do something? We said, Ms. Smith said she had not had anything come from HR to
tell us what the comparison was. If there is a problem, if water is coming in your roof,
you going to eventually find out where the water is coming from. You can’t sit there and
just ignore it and not address it. If this is important as we all just said and what she have
just said and how much, what load they got, we had conversation after conversation after
conversation about the Finance Director and the Assistant Administrator. About the
salary. Getting the salary where it need to be or where it should be. Now if this job is
important, then why didn’t we have some conversation about the salary? Why didn’t we
look at the job market? Why did we not do those same things? And we don’t do
everything the same in this government. We need to. If it’s right, it’s still right. Now all
the conversation we had about salary, Jim, when we come to attorneys, we talk about
salary. We talked about what we needed to get people in here. We talked about
everything that had to do with salary except this one. Now we up against the wall. I’m
not going to support the motion. It’s not anything against the firm. When I look at the
backup and see how much work the firm is doing, in fact the firm ought to be part of the
staff of this government, as much work as they are doing for this City. I’m not going to
support it. And I’m not against anybody. I think we need to raise the salary up to where
it needs to be and hire somebody. I think a HR person need to be working on this, not
sitting there sending out something hoping that it will come back. We ought to be
sending out stuff that we know is going work. If other people are paying a salary, we
need to be competitive. Maybe that ain’t important. Maybe we just saying it is. But if
it’s as important as we say it is, why are we not doing the necessary thing to get people
in? We did it before. I can name a bunch of cases. So why are we not doing it now?
Can you help me, Ms. Smith, or maybe the Administrator can? Mr. Kolb, can you tell
why we not doing it?
Mr. Kolb: What was your question again?
Mr. Williams: My question was that as long as we been doing stuff, we talk for
days about the Administrator, Assistant Administrator, about the Finance Director, about
car allowances, about salaries. Why in the world is this position that got the priorities
and the responsibilities gotten and HR person have not give us anything. We have not
hired anybody. Why have not brought this forth to the Commissioners and say we need
58
to the, the, the pay or we need to do whatever we need to do? We did it on attorneys, we
did it on everybody else, but now we saying how stressed out that the engineering, the
traffic engineers is down in the office and they can’t do their daily work. Now if Ms.
Smith was the one should have brought it, then she need to answer that question. But I
need to know as a Commissioner why nobody who is making money has brought this to
us so we can pay somebody else some money?
Mr. Kolb: We brought it to you, Commissioner, in the salary classification, when
the salaries were approved. The increase in salary happened in August. And I’m not sure
if there is a reclassification in the present system now or not.
Ms. Smith: Not for the traffic engineering position because the salary grade, the
minimum grade increased by $10,000.
Mr. Kolb: That’s correct. And so that was brought to you. It was approved
effective August 15. It was brought to you back in late spring, early summer.
Mr. Williams: So it’s been approved?
Mr. Kolb: It has been set. However, we don’t know if that’s appropriate and
competitive until we get a candidate in who we believe or we want to match the position
and we can make an offer to.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Kolb, and this is all, Mr. Chairman, I’m going to be finished.
How in the world can you get an application in and, and people apply for a job at that,
that salary, cause the salary is down there and that’s one of the main reason people
change job, is for salary. If you’re not getting the response then evidently you’re not
paying the money. So I mean that ought to been obvious to me, and I might call my
Attorney to help me out to decide what’s obvious, but what does it take to hire a person
in if you paying [inaudible] amount of money? We lost some people in Public Works.
We need to replace those people in Public Works. So we need to raise those salaries up
so we can pay them so we won’t be up against the wall like we are today.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Williams, in January we took that salary level and we could not
attract applicants who were qualified for the job.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] January? January until this year.
Mr. Kolb: That’s correct.
Mr. Williams: So we needed some more money.
Mr. Kolb: So when you approved the salary increases effective August of 2002,
we immediately readvertised at the new salary, and we’re just now getting applications
in. It’s open until filled. I think you reviewed a few and talked to some.
59
Ms. Smith: For the traffic engineering position, that particular one with the new
salary range closes on November 15.
Mr. Williams: How much is that? How much is the salary range, Ms. Smith?
Ms. Smith: It’s from $47,260 to $67,936. That’s the full range. We still have
permission to go 10%?
Mr. Kolb: Got 10%.
Ms. Smith: So anything other than that would have to come back to the
Commission.
Mr. Kolb: That’s correct.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Now let me ask another question, Ms. Smith, while you are
standing there. Now you, you saying from $40,000 to $47,000 is what we are
advertising; right?
Ms. Smith: $47,000 to $67,000.
Mr. Williams: $47,000 to $67,000. Is that the current job market? Cause that’s
what we been paying folks here we bringing in lately, everybody, we been telling
everybody we going to pay them what the current job market paying. So is that the
current job market? If that’s not, then we’re not paying enough then, are we?
Ms. Smith: Actually, Commissioner Williams, I’m not sure that I have very many
people on my staff at this time that are getting paid relative to the current job market.
Mr. Williams: I, I, I, I, --
Mr. Mays: Let me get one of y’all, since we’re not going to have a trio. Now
they over there in the discussion for a minute, and if you’re finished with that then I’m
going to recognize the Administrator.
Mr. Williams: Okay, let me –
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] that question and then I’m going to recognize you.
Mr. Williams: My question was –
Mr. Mays: I can’t hear all three of you.
Mr. Williams: My question was, Mr. Mayor, we been paying folks what the
current job market and that’s what I been hearing since I been here, and we got a position
60
we have not filled. Is that the current job market? That’s my question. Yes or no. Not
who is in your office and who is at home. I want to know is that the current job market?
Ms. Smith: The $53,000?
Mr. Williams: Right.
Ms. Smith: Pay Grade 53?
Mr. Williams: What we advertising, whatever that is.
Ms. Smith: No. That is not the current job market for a qualified traffic engineer.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Thank you. And you can’t hire nobody. And that’s why
you don’t get nobody cause you’re not paying what, what everybody else paying. We
brought other folks in at the current job market. That ain’t your, your, your fight now,
but you was [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Well, what I was going to say, we really won’t know if it’s
competitive until we talk to an applicant and made an offer to them. And if they accept
what we can afford to give them, then yes, that’s a good market price.
Mr. Williams: But we giving $100,000, though, George, we going to pay
$100,000 to a firm –
Mr. Mays: Let him finish.
Mr. Williams: Wait, wait, now he answered my question. He answered my
question.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] question, he was finishing off something, then I’m going
to recognize you. I told y’all two weeks ago this ain’t Bob. I’m going to hear one of
y’all at a time. Now finish, Mr. Kolb, on your response, and I’m going to recognize Mr.
Williams to respond to that, in that order.
Mr. Kolb: Thank you, Mr. Mays. I forgot what was I was going to say.
Basically if we find a candidate and it exceeds the limit that I have, we will come back to
the Commission and ask you, if we believe that it’s reasonable. But understand that we
just got out of a compression situation with the employees in this organization, because
we were bringing people in above people who had been here a long time, at a higher
salary. We do not want to create that situation again. So it may mean that we have to
move several salaries in order to accommodate and make things happen. Now I’m just
giving you that warning, but that can of worms has been opened.
61
Mr. Mays: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. That can of worms should have been opened, Mr.
Kolb, when you opened that can of worms you can’t close it when you get ready now.
That’s been opened already. With previous people that we done hired. And that’s what
I’m saying now. If we opened it before, now we can’t get anybody under that low pay or
whatever it is, and, and, and I’m not so sure that, that, that’s correct. I’m going on what
you told me. I haven’t heard anything from Ms. Pelaez, but my thing is that we have a
position open and it’s a critical position, we need to – it need to be brought to this
Commission and let us either approve or disapprove the salary increase. And if we do
not approve it, then we got to go to the second alternative and that’s to hire some firm.
But it had not been brought to my attention, Public Works has been suffering and we
been, we been watching it suffer and watching it do some things, but nobody has brought
anything saying this is what we need to do. And now we saying we going to pay
$100,000 but we won’t raise the pay up to whatever the, the pay need to be, but we going
to pay up to $100,000 for six months. That don’t make good sense to me.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Hankerson had his hand up.
Mr. Hankerson: I’m just going to be short. The discussion has been long on this,
and I feel that we need to be more progressive about filling these positions. Now I heard
Mr. Kolb say your hand has been tied behind your back, and we sit in committee
meetings and have approved salaries, salaries after salaries and we say if there are
emergencies bring them and we got so that it was just, we was passing them every week,
every other week, just new salary ranges and salary ranges. This is important. I think we
need to look at filling these positions and not, not consulting, getting a consultant or
whatever, being more progressive about this. Ms. Smith said that after this has been
advertised and that we didn’t find someone, then we would ask HR to get involved in it.
I think that it ought to be a dual process. HR should already be involved in it. We have a
problem here. These jobs haven’t been filled. We ought to know what the market is out
there. We ought to know what the market is, bring it to the Finance Committee, and say
this is what we need to hire the person. If it takes a head hunter or whoever to hire these
people, not just coming up with a band aid here, putting it on, just a band aid, just to say
we are going to give some consulting firm $100,000 for six months. I think that we need
to be more aggressive about it and I can’t support this, either.
Mr. Mays: Let me say this. And I kid at my colleague, Mr. Williams, a minute
ago. I still need to [inaudible] regardless of the vote, cause I’m going to have hold a
second to keep the quorum, if you and Steve could just stay on that end down there a
second.
Mr. Williams: I’m tired of waiting.
Mr. Mays: Okay, well, we been waiting, too. On this item, you made most of the
discussion. If you don’t mind, let us finish it. I know, do that for me, okay? Now I’m
glad though, you made, on the serious note, the discussion you brought about, because if
62
you, if you take the minutes of the committee in an abbreviated form, this is what we
were talking about on last week. And I’m glad you brought the discussion and broadened
it to the level of where you are. And bringing it out today. You and I have had the
conversation personally about it and I know the seriousness and the concern of it. Now I
brought it up last week. I’m going to bring up something now and y’all notice I, I, some
things I keep up with I count. Now I’m going to bring this and throw this out for now the
th
7 time I’ve said this because it affects what we are going to vote on today. I voted for it
in committee cause obviously the department needs some help in that area. But I think
two things are going to have to be done. I think you are going to have to set a deadline in
there, Mr. Williams, and it may not even pass. But if it does pass, I think what’s going to
have to happen is that we are going to have to set a deadline that we simultaneously move
towards dealing with this position. Because it’s getting scary in that area, and Mr.
Administrator, I have to beg to differ with you greatly. I have called upon this
Commission to put the debate about what we are going to do in reference to contractual
hiring, thoughts about privatization, what we are going to deal with, and that’s not – and I
want to make it real clear, that’s not any support about doing it. But if we don’t ever
seriously talk about it, we are going to find ourselves in the budgetary process where we
are going to contract this particular department to death. Now I brought up, Mr. Finance
Chairman, in our committee where was this money going to come from and whether it
was going to affect the Director’s budget. At the time, I got two different answers. But
the money is going to have to come out from in there, because it’s not a special project
case. It’s going to have to come out in terms of doing this. We are going to have to
eventually talk about this issue, because right now it’s traffic engineering. Gentlemen,
the one that scares me to death, the one that scares me to death is the fact that you all do
not have – I’ll wait till y’all finish on that end, cause I’ve listened to y’all and I’m going
to wait till y’all finish if you don’t mind. Y’all leave before committees are up, you don’t
hear it, and if you don’t mind paying attention to it for just a minute, some of the things
that you might get, you could get it in there. What you have is you don’t have a solid
waste manager, you do not have an assistant solid waste manager. We have at this time
EPD, EPA, federal regulations that I started with them when I came to this Commission.
I’ll be damned if I’m going to get caught in them again to where they meet me coming
like a boomerang. I don’t want to hear to a point that we got to hire somebody then for a
million dollars to run the landfill. If we’re not going to talk about this seriously, we
either need to get on board as Commissioner Williams has said, not just about traffic
engineering, up and down in that department it is critical. And for some reason, there
seems to be the sleight of hand, whether to a point that it’s like bills you put in a drawer.
Mr. Administrator, they ain’t going to go away. It’s in this area. They are up and down
in that department. And I have said repeatedly, if you need the authorization, this
Commissioner does not mind supporting it. If you find an engineer or if you find a solid
waste manager that’s going to have to be above what we are going to do, then let us hire
that woman or man in order to do that. But we cannot keep to a point $100,000-ing,
$200,000-ing, half a million, $1.5 million, this department to a death to a point to where
it’s under girded and then all of sudden one day everybody is going to want to talk about
privatization cause there is nobody left in there to do the job and nobody there to boss.
thth
Now is the 7 time I have brought this up. Now the 8 time, I’m going to put it on the
agenda myself. And we are going to talk about it. And y’all might leave and walk out on
63
it, but to a point your department, Ms. Smith, cannot keep – this is one of the best firms
in America – to do what you need doing. But I think if we going to have to – and I’m
going to vote for it, because it cannot get into a situation where nobody is dealing with it,
and I hope that you Commissioners that are left will hear that. We can’t leave it to a
point where nobody does it. But we ought to make it within the motion that while we
don’t know who is going to do it next, that we put a time deadline on it, that we require
the Administrator and HR and the Director to bring us back somebody before the contract
expires, not on the day of, so that we got to renew another one for $100,000, but do it to a
point of giving 60 to 90 days and either pay that person or not pay that person. But when
you get this one solved, you’ve got a landfill out there to solve. That’s an Enterprise fund
that makes millions of dollars and y’all ain’t got nobody running it. And I am not going
to sit up in here and listen to some cockamamie story one day to a point that we got to
now hire a firm and we got to find somebody, this is the list of firms, and the federal
government, the state government says we got to do this in 60 to 90 days because we’re
out of compliance. Been there. Done that. Administrators will go. Directors are going.
We have got to find a way to get those positions dealt with in a serious manner with a
deadline on them from this Commission and then if we are going to talk about doing it
contractually, then honestly bring it up. Don’t have any sneaker room methods of how
it’s done, because we live under a perception bubble. Perception deals with us every day.
And it may not be true, but we’ll soon get classified that way. And, and, and that’s why
I’m glad my colleague brought it out. He’s not on the committee, but we talk about it,
and it’s painful to a point of seeing that department drag on in that manner, and we are
not seriously ever discussing. We can’t contract the whole world in there to a point and
then put it on a deadline basis of what we got to do. And I, I apologize to the
Commission for taking up that much time as the Chair, but I wanted to hear where y’all
were coming from today. I shut up on it from the standpoint that I’ve talked about it in
committee. I have brought it out here on the Commission in the open. And when I get to
th
the 7 time that I bring something up, the I’m, I’m getting tired of it. And, and
somewhere it needs to be honestly, openly discussed and put to rest to a point of where
we are going to hire folk and bring them up. We’ve got a department level in each one of
these places, the person who runs the department, the person who runs everybody else,
the person who runs the resources of human beings that are there, and we need to get that
resolved. And if you don’t put a deadline around it under this house, it doesn’t get done.
Commissioner Beard, I’m going to recognize you, and I’m [inaudible], and Mr. Shepard.
And I’m sorry for that, but I am just tired of it and I mean no disrespect to the company.
I think we are getting the best service in the world, but to a point we cannot service
contract this department to a point of where we get in [inaudible] and it has no money
and it’s out of budget.
Mr. Beard: I don’t mind amending that motion to that effect, the time line on it,
and also that they work simultaneously on getting not only that job filled but all the other
vacancies that are exist in Public Works, that they work simultaneously on getting those
positions filled. I don’t mind amending it.
64
Mr. Shepard: And I agree, Mr. Mays. I think you’ve got some problems that
we’ve got to address. And I don’t know what time line you are talking about. What kind
of time line are you talking about, Lee?
Mr. Beard: Well, that would be the six months time line on the one we’re talking
about, because you would only use it for six months and in that time, with the
understanding that you are in the process now of hiring someone. You’ve got the job, the
applicant is out there, you are seeking an applicant for that position. Maybe I need to ask
[inaudible]. Is the pay there that would bring you the appropriate applicant?
Ms. Smith: [inaudible]
Mr. Beard: In the margin that you’re using, is there that that we can use for
sufficient pay to get an applicant?
Ms. Smith: We may be successful in getting an applicant in in the pay range that
we have. However, their salary is not going to be within the range that neither myself nor
the Administrator have the authority to bring them aboard it. It would have to be above
the minimum level.
Mr. Beard: But to me, it just looks like if you have that person there, then all you
have to do is bring that back – if it’s beyond the 10% then all you have to do is bring it
back to the Commission and that’s easily solved.
Ms. Smith: Yes, sir. And that’s the reason that we advertise on these positions.
We advertise the entire pay range so that perspective applicants are aware of what the pay
range is for the position and would, it would instigate some interest in them in coming
aboard in those positions. We do have information on traffic engineering positions in
several other municipalities where those salaries are above the midpoint range of our
current pay grade for traffic engineering. However, that is true for several of the other
positions in Public Works, and what we will be doing is the thing that Mr. Kolb was
referring to, is then we start to compromise our overall pay structure. Because I can’t pay
the traffic engineer more than I’m paying the assistant director that he works for.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Beard, if I might, somewhere I think y’all may want to give the
authorization so that to a point that you do two things that – let me just break this down.
You, we need to go steal somebody else’s traffic engineer and somebody’s solid waste
manager before we’re in trouble. And I don’t know no common sense way other than to
put that. We know what they’re making, put a salary up there to it, bring it back, and we
need to be committed on this side that when you bring it back say hey, I found one, to a
point. Now if you bring one back that’s making more than the Administrator and the
Public Works Director, then what we need to do is, then we need to find two more of
them. But now they need to be in the position to go find somebody. If somebody is
stealing all our folk. Folk leave from here.
Mr. Williams: That’s right.
65
Mr. Mays: They go somewhere else.
Mr. Williams: That’s right.
Mr. Mays: It’s a game that’s played out there. Go hunt you somebody, bring it
back, and let’s hire somebody. But this game about 60 to 90 days back and forth dealing
with that, you’ll be back here in June dealing with this here if you don’t put a 90 day or
four month deadline to bring somebody back in here and with a commitment to go on and
hire. Because you need to have the firm simultaneously working so that when you hire
somebody they are not in here cold turkey, that they are there, they’ve got an ongoing
program, you bring them in, and you’ve got some time left on the contract that they can
work under the direction of the firm, the contract ends, and then you’ve got your folk
[inaudible]. But unless you get aggressive and go on and do that, find somebody over
there, [inaudible] ride over there, steal somebody the same way you found somebody
else, to get back over here.
Mr. Beard: That’s what I said, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Mr. Beard: That’s what I told her. All she has to do is find the person, bring back
to the Commission, we have a commitment to do that. And I call for the question.
Mr. Mays: Were you trying to finish up something?
Mr. Shepard: I thought we had, [inaudible], Mr. Beard, I thought we were talking
st
about 60 days, which would be about January 1.
Mr. Beard: That’s fine.
Mr. Shepard: Let’s put – I asked about a deadline a few minutes ago. Let’s have
the deadline or make it January 15. That would give 60 full days.
Mr. Beard: I’ll accept that.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Beard: That’s the time line.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Kolb: I really don’t think that’s realistic, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mays: One, if you ain’t finding them – let me just cut in here a minute. If
you’re not finding them in the professional magazines, then maybe you need to find them
66
in a car. I said this over and over again. We got enough Crown Victorias to start a
dealership. I think y’all, y’all put a deadline in there. I’ll vote for it. Let them find it,
either rail, bus, plane or however they want to find them. But if you keep playing this
game about who you are not going to find, obviously you are not finding them in the
methods you’re using, and if it’s money I’ll support the money, and I’ll try to hustle y’all
to support what they bring back. But this game about keep putting it off, putting it off,
you ain’t going to never get anybody to run any of it, and then I’m going to start raising
hell about that landfill cause that’s next on my agenda.
Mr. Beard: It’s in there, Mr. Mays. Can we call for the question? Cause you’re
going to lose a person.
Mr. Mays: All in favor of that motion will do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Williams: What’s that motion, Ms. Bonner? What’s that motion?
The Clerk: The motion is to approve it, the supplement [inaudible] CH2Mhill not
to exceed $100,000 for the time limit of 60 days, January 15, of ’03.
Mr. Speaker: To hire?
The Clerk: To hire. 60 days.
Mr. Mays: Go ahead, Ms. Smith.
Ms. Smith: Okay. The traffic engineer, the advertising and everything is already
underway for the traffic engineer. The solid waste manager position is a position that is
included in the recommendation from the University of Georgia, for that position to be
upgraded to a pay grade 59 and no action has been taken by the Commission on that
position, and therefore that position has not been advertised at a new pay range.
Mr. Mays: And we’re only, I think, on just the one for your traffic engineer?
Ms. Smith: Okay.
Mr. Mays: Hustle and get the paperwork ready. That one need to be on the
agenda for the next time, cause I’m going to have my side of it on there. It’s going to be
on there, because my time frame is running out with it. Now, and we need to hire
somebody. We need to get to addressing that before Jim Wall runs the clock up and have
to use all the legal folk he’s got to keep two federal agencies [inaudible] I don’t know
how many federal ones, but a state one that we get locked into and have to pay fines and
everything else about it. I agree with you to get that done, but get it on to us.
Ms. Smith: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: Cause it’s coming. I’m going to put it on.
67
Ms. Smith: Okay.
Mr. Mays: I’m going to get rid of this one, needs to get solved, and the next one
needs to get solved.
Mr. Williams: Call the question, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mays: All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed,
the same.
Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Cheek out.
Mr. Boyles, Mr. Williams and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Motion fails 4-3.
Mr. Mays: We’re going to take a five minute recess [inaudible] but while y’all
[inaudible].
[RECESS]
Mr. Mays: Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: Start with item 96.
FINANCE:
96. Receive report from the Internal Auditor regarding confirmation of all
Augusta Richmond County Bank accounts.
The Clerk: Mr. Cosnahan is here, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cosnahan: Thank you, Commissioners. At the last meeting, we were asked
to update the bank account report in three areas, and that was to determine if the account
was necessary, where the funds came from, and then where the funds were paid out to.
We [inaudible] each of the departments and also each of the elected officials and asked
them, sent them the form, really, and asked them to let us know whether the account was
necessary or not. And also the information about where the money came from and where
it went. And so these are the reports that came from them, showing the accounts. You
will notice there have been several accounts that have been closed, as being not
necessary. But this is just really the update from the information that was asked for at the
last meeting.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes. I’m glad you explained. One question I was going to ask
you about, I wanted to know whether the accounts are necessary, and I’m quite sure if
you ask anybody that opened up an account they are going to say it’s necessary. But –
68
and I was going to also ask you in your opinion as an auditor, your recommendation as an
auditor whether these accounts are necessary other than asking the individuals. You did a
great job on getting the information that I asked for. I do have some questions, and
maybe whether you could answer the questions or Finance can answer the questions.
And some of these accounts, the accounts that was closed, we have about seven or eight
of them, I believe, that were closed.
Mr. Cosnahan: Seven that were closed, yes.
Mr. Hankerson: Seven accounts that have been closed. Those accounts were
closed as of 9/30. And one question is, they were closed, where was the money, where is
the money? The finances. They were closed and they were put in what accounts? And
another one is that in the Augusta Richmond County suburban district vendor account,
there is quite a bit of discrepancy there in the bank balance 9/30. The bank balance said
$5,000 but the book balance says $75,483. That’s a great discrepancy. Is that an error?
Mr. Cosnahan: Which department are you looking at?
Mr. Hankerson: We’re looking at the –
Mr. Cosnahan: Up at the top of the page, left hand corner.
Mr. Hankerson: Finance accounting.
Mr. Cosnahan: Which account?
Mr. Hankerson: The – almost down to the bottom, the Augusta Richmond
County Suburban District vendor account. Regions Bank. Bob Young. The signatures
of the Finance Committee and the Mayor.
Mr. Cosnahan: Yes.
Mr. Hankerson: And it said it was closed.
Mr. Cosnahan: Right.
Mr. Hankerson: And that’s a –
Mr. Cosnahan: Let me just make a brief comment. The balances that we have
thth
here were as of September 30, so these accounts were not closed as of September 30.
th
They were closed after September 30. Now on that particular account there, that shows
the Suburban District Vendor Account, I’ll have to ask Mr. Persaud where that account
went to, where the money went to, whether it went to the General Fund.
69
Mr. Hankerson: Well, the question I’m asking about that particular one is that
also, I don’t understand the bank balance being $5,000 but the book balance being
$75,483.24.
Mr. Cosnahan: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: According to the books. But in the bank it was $5,000.
Mr. Cosnahan: That would indicate that there was a deposit in transit that had not
th
cleared the bank as of September 30. And that’s one of the things I have tried to be sure
that everybody understood, that a book balance and the bank balance would not agree
because deposits would be in transit or the checks that were still outstanding. So that, we
can get that information to you and find out exactly what it was. It’s possible Mr.
Persaud has got it.
Mr. Persaud: You’re probably right. It was in transit. Back in the old bank
account that we had last year that was closed, all the funds in Regions Bank has been
moved back to the full cash account in the General Fund.
Mr. Hankerson: I can understand that. I mean saying that, I’m hearing that a
deposit was made but you said it’s an old account, but it was closed around 9/30/02, and
it says $5,000 bank balance, but the book balance say you’re supposed to have $75,483 in
here. Then what kind of activity, if it’s an old account, what kind of activity was it?
Mr. Persaud: [inaudible]
Mr. Cosnahan: Why don’t I get the record [inaudible] and get that directly to you,
if you’d like, and we’ll see exactly what the difference is. We did not [inaudible] in order
to get this ready.
Mr. Persaud: [inaudible] looking at the book balance and the bank balance, you
will have some variable [inaudible]. [inaudible] was prepared [inaudible] report.
Mr. Hankerson: I can understand that. I’m still saying that’s a lot of differences
on an account that you say wasn’t active. Also, I mean, as being the auditor, our auditor,
then these are thing that in looking at the whole finance here, what we are doing this
research on, I think that I should hear something – I’m accustomed of hearing something
from the auditor saying suggestions that, you know, you know, this account or this
whatever, but not being just so passive about, about giving this information, that I’m
going to ask questions about it. Another thing is I asked where the money was deposited
in the closed accounts. And also I still see on one account that has a former elected
official name still on it as authorized signature, and I thought that we had asked that all of
these be, signatures be updated. Is that, we see that one, the next one?
Mr. Persaud: Commissioner Hankerson, if I may, going back to the account, you
are questioning. The Augusta Richmond County Suburban Account. These are what we
70
call zero balance accounts. It’s a whole complete, whole cash system. It’s called zero
balance accounts because the bank balance is always zero, checks are written, the letter is
posted, funds are transferred as necessary from the [inaudible] cash to the checking
account as necessary. The [inaudible] cash is always invested. And I tried to explain this
at the last meeting. It’s a full [inaudible] system [inaudible] zero balance. It’s a
[inaudible] monitoring [inaudible] cash [inaudible].
Mr. Cosnahan: On the account, Commissioner, where the former employees are
still here and the former official, that account is being closed or has been closed by now.
Mr. Hankerson: Excuse me?
Mr. Cosnahan: That account is being closed. See the note on it? On the next
column where the names are, it says to be closed. So the Finance Department is in the
process of closing that one.
Mr. Persaud: I am.
Mr. Hankerson: This is an account, the ones that are closed are accounts that are
since we did this report we found out that they are not needed?
Mr. Cosnahan: Yes.
Mr. Hankerson: So we have a lot of accounts here that really that we didn’t need
to have?
Mr. Cosnahan: Yes, I counted seven, I believe it was, that was closed.
Mr. Hankerson: Uh –
Mr. Cosnahan: The elected officials were not too interested in closing accounts.
They had their accounts set and pretty well wanted to keep them like they were.
Mr. Hankerson: Also, now looking at under the Sheriff’s Department, my
question there is what else could these funds be used for? I guess the Sheriff have to
answer that. I see it’s just [inaudible] operations and the Sheriff’s office benefits fund,
Richmond County inmate phone and vending. And it says used for [inaudible]
operations. Is that, is that all of that money used for or could be used for?
Mr. Cosnahan: Our objective at this point was to get the information that we’ve
got here. We did not look at any information as far as any reconciliation, we did not
check to be sure that what the department heads told us where the money came from and
where it went. That would mean us going into each one and doing a specific audit. And
we have not done that. We have provided you really the overview of the bank accounts.
Mr. Hankerson: To get the answer to all of these questions, we need a specific –
71
Mr. Cosnahan: We’d have to get inside the departments, yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: I just don’t want to be – [inaudible] I have quite a bit I have just
received, have a chance to go over this.
Mr. Cosnahan: Would you like to receive something on the account that’s got the
big difference?
Mr. Hankerson: I want to know from our Finance Department, we have accounts
here that’s with one signature, so I guess that’s been the norm to have these sort of
accounts, so it’s all right for the Sheriff’s Department to have an account with the
Sheriff’s signature on there, so this is probably the norm. What I want to find out, what
I’m asking from our Finance Department or our Administrator whether we are pleased
with operation here of these accounts here, these accounts, or whether something else
need to be done so we would have more check and balance. I see we got a lot of them
have closed up since we did the study on them, so are we operating properly, with good
money management, check and balance?
Mr. Persaud: The question, yes, the accounts at Regions Bank are [inaudible]
closed. [inaudible] As relates to signatures, the bank requires at least three signatures.
That’s why you have a combination of signatures. Some of these accounts are
investment accounts.
Mr. Hankerson: And yes, all of these accounts are necessary to have? I mean I’m
not pleased with just asking the departments whether it’s necessary cause they thought it
was necessary cause they filled them out. I’m asking from our Administrator all of these
accounts are necessary? [inaudible] all of them was necessary off the records, but then
we come back this time and some of them was closed.
Mr. Persaud: They are necessary to the extent that in governmental accounting
we operate on a fund [inaudible]. For example the water and sewer fund. They do
maintain their own operating and capital fund accounts. So the answer is yes from a fund
accounting basis.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Shepard had his hand up.
Mr. Shepard: One question, J.T. Under the Department of Community
Development heading, there is an account that is the Office of Economic Development.
If we were to go down to the Economic Development Office route that our Administrator
has proposed, would that money be available, maybe J.T. or Jim, for that purpose, or is
that monies to be lent to businesses? I just wondered if it’s $800,000, it’s from
recaptured HUD loan payments. Is that – developmental activities – I guess my question
is that developmental loans or could it be used for funding of this Economic
Development Office?
72
Mr. Kolb: Without having more detail about what this account is, some of those
funds, remember earlier we only had $189,000 in UDAG funds available. There are
other monies that have been obligated for one reason or another for an economic
development purpose, I suspect.
Mr. Shepard: So that balance – go ahead, George.
Mr. Kolb: I’m not sure if this is money that comes from a loan on a home or
something like that, on a rehab, that is recaptured that we have to put back in the
program. So I can’t specifically unless I know more details.
Mr. Shepard: Well, then, it might be encumbered? The money is there but it
might be encumbered?
Mr. Kolb: That is correct.
Mr. Shepard: During budget, though, I know that’s one of the goals that you set
for that office, and perhaps – not perhaps, I’d like to know if it is encumbered because
that might be a source for that type of office whereas we might not have it otherwise in
the general budget. So we’re looking for funds, that might be found money, so to speak.
That’s all. Thank you, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cosnahan, on the Augusta Regional
Airport, I read in the paper last week, I think it was, [inaudible] said they had lost about
$26,000 on this year’s SkyFest, and see they’re showing a balance from I guess two years
ago. That loss they’re talking about would come out of that fund right there?
Mr. Cosnahan: That would be my understanding, and the reason it’s showing
money is part of the fact that they haven’t paid off all the bills.
Mr. Boyles: So that doesn’t obligate the taxpayers in any way?
Mr. Cosnahan: No, sir.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you.
Mr. Mays: Commissioner Beard and Mr. Williams?
Mr. Beard: [inaudible] Mr. Mays.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Beard. I was, Steve brought up a good point. I
was looking at the same thing, Steve, and thought that we might have some money that
[inaudible] there might be some money we might be able to use back into the system, and
if we can we need to move that money and use it back [inaudible]. And I would like to
73
have another copy of this if I can. I had another copy that didn’t come in the book. This
copy in the book is so small.
Mr. Cosnahan: Okay.
Mr. Williams: Maybe I can get some bigger glasses. But I can’t hardly –
Mr. Cosnahan: I can get you a big one. I need a bigger one, also.
Mr. Williams: Okay, I’m here going through, I’m looking for the account I saw
with the Sheriff’s Department about those –
Mr. Cosnahan: It’s the third one from the last, I believe, Commissioner.
Mr. Williams: Third one from the last? I’ve got a question here about this
account here that’s got $66,256.06. Funeral escort. And maybe you can’t answer that,
but what, what, how do we derive and what happens to this money, what is this money
used for, when does this money go down and go up, who set the fees? I mean I got a lot
of questions, but can you tell me what this money is used for?
Mr. Cosnahan: I can tell you very briefly, Commissioner. I talked with the
Sheriff on this when we got this, and the income, the funds from this comes from what
they charge for funeral escorts. And of course you’re quite aware that the Sheriff’s office
gets paid for funeral escorts. And then it’s used for employee flowers and gifts and
Christmas parties and things for the men themselves of a personal nature, you know, for
the morale of the department.
Mr. Williams: Believe it or not, I can’t tell you how many funerals I’ve done but
I did not realize that the funds that came in to, went to a special account for that. I
thought the funds went back into the city. When, when, when Commissioner Hankerson
brought this about, enlightened me on where this particular money went, cause I always
thought that a uniformed officer and a car and the gas and all that other stuff belongs to
the City. I thought that money went back to the City. I did not know that it went to an
account for those things, for flowers and personal things for, for the Sheriff’s
Department. And, and that it go again, we been scratching, looking for money for
[inaudible], we raising our rates as far as our taxes and stuff to try to do something for
law enforcement, but we need to look at all this money that we’ve got here and we need
to compile this money into one effort. What that top account for there? There another
account there, too. That the Sheriff’s name is on. $314,573.35.
Mr. Cosnahan: This is money that is coming in through the pay phones.
Mr. Williams: The pay phones?
Mr. Cosnahan: And the vending machines, yes, sir. I understand it’s used for the
range operations, to pay for the cost of the range.
74
Mr. Williams: How many ranges we got? We ought to have two or three. I mean
with that kind of money coming in.
Mr. Cosnahan: I don’t know, you know. The amounts, I agree, are large, and I’m
not sure how long an accumulation this is. That would be something that would be
interesting to look to see. And then there may be some extra funds there.
Mr. Williams: And I guess the reason I’m bringing it out, we been criticized
greatly in the past about funds with the Fire Department and other entities and having
money to use, and I just think we got to be really careful, we got to be really mindful of
what, what those funds are and who is signing in and signing out. We’re not accusing
anybody of anything. But I keep saying we play the same ball and we ought to use that
same ball to judge all of us or play the same game with, and I wanted to make mention of
those things so we have a better outlook on it.
Mr. Cosnahan: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: That’s all I have right now. And you say that was seven accounts
that was closed?
Mr. Cosnahan: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: And those accounts that were closed, where did that money go to
that was closed?
Mr. Cosnahan: Most of them went into the General Fund. There would have
been some that would have been closed, like there was Municipal Court that was an
account that would probably stay within the Court system.
Mr. Williams: Can, can, can we find out exactly how much money went into the
General Fund from the closing? Can you give us a record of that, too?
Mr. Cosnahan: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: So we’ll know what we had and now what we got?
Mr. Cosnahan: Absolutely. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: That’s all I got.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Chairman, I just have a couple of questions and they may not be
directed to J.T., but probably more or less to George and I guess to Jim. In reference to
what he just mentioned about the last fund, I think it was $66,000, that’s an individual
account with one signature on it. And the reason I’m following up on what he just
mentioned is because you know, in the past I read over that again about the other day,
75
about the Grand Jury report and how they criticized this, especially the Fire Department
in reference to they had this account, and they indicated that it was an illegal account. So
as the Commissioner always say, play with the same ball, how do we justify this account
as an account that should be there, it’s okay to have that account in the way that it’s used,
with no guidelines or policy, I assume. I haven’t seen any. As to how it’s used. But
maybe you can explain to me what, what is the difference there? Because it looks like
they were used for the same thing. This one is used for the Sheriff’s party, flowers to
individuals, whatever, and I think the account that was opened in the Fire Department
was a little different because that was for a convention that was coming in, so I’m just
curious to know and maybe just get it on the record how we allow one department to do
something and that’s okay, then we take another department and use it and then we find
everything, you know, wrong with that and may have done wrong in doing that. I just
need some clarification as to how y’all feel about it.
Mr. Kolb: Are you talking to me?
Mr. Beard: Either one of y’all can answer that.
Mr. Wall: Insofar as – the Sheriff is an elected official, and so therefore he has
the authority, as the Clerk of Superior Court, as the Tax Commissioner, etc., to set up the
accounts as he chooses to do so. And he is the one who is responsible for the money
under state law. And so as far as the setting up of the account, I mean that’s up to the
elected official’s discretion. Whereas, the Fire Department is a department of the city,
and it doesn’t have that authority, absent being given it by the Administrator or the
Commission. So as far as how the account can be set up that way, that’s the answer to
that, the monies. I do not know what finds go in there.
Mr. Beard: So as an elected official he does not have to –
Mr. Wall: He’s got a lot more discretion.
Mr. Beard: He doesn’t have to report to anyone?
Mr. Wall: He can have one signature.
Mr. Beard: He can have one signature?
Mr. Wall: Absolutely.
Mr. Beard: Okay.
Mr. Williams: Well, now, Jim, if you can, you need to help me out cause you just
throwed a curve sure enough. The Mayor is an elected official, too, but his name is on an
account with somebody else’s. I mean we all elected now. I mean what, what, what,
what?
76
Mr. Wall: He’s – the Tax Commissioner, Clerk of Court, Judges of Superior
Court, the Sheriff are constitutional officers. And they are given specific authority and
specific responsibility insofar as handling the funds. And so it is their – they run their
department. They make the decisions about who can sign or should sign.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] sign the checks it’s all right as long the Sheriff says all
right?
Mr. Wall: If the Sheriff says it’s all right.
Mr. Williams: Well, I just wanted to know.
Mr. Wall: But the Sheriff will be responsible for it. Individually. [inaudible]
distinction.
Mr. Beard: You know, I just – and I don’t want to get back into a report, but you
know, it just bothers me that, you know, in one department this can happen and then in
another one, people are very much criticized, and I think that just should be brought that
basically, whether it’s a City employee, a department head, rather, or elected officials, I
mean, you both doing the same thing. And if you are going to criticize one for doing it, I
think the other one should be criticized, and I find that oftentimes we don’t play with the
same ball, depending on who it is and what position they hold. And even though these
people, the Fire Department was criticized, I know that they had the authorization from
the Administrator. Not you, but the previous Administrator. To set up that account. And
it’s often done that way.
Mr. Mays: Any further questions of Mr. Cosnahan?
Mr. Shepard: I move we receive it as information, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mays: Motion and a second. Any comments?
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] I’d just like to make sure I get a copy I can read.
Mr. Cosnahan: Mail it down to the Commission office or –
Mr. Williams: Yeah, Commission office will be good.
Mr. Cosnahan: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I just wanted to thank those that were involved in getting the
information for us, Mr. Cosnahan.
77
Mr. Cosnahan: Thank you.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, and also the Finance Department.
Mr. Mays: Motion and second that’s on the floor. All in favor of the motion will
do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mays, before we vote, can I get some clarification? That, do
we need to have a motion to add those accounts that went into the General Fund, how
much it was? I mean do I need to have that in the motion? J.T. has agreed to get that for
us, but should I, do we need to add that into the motion? That we know what was put in
so we know what’s additional in there now? We closed some accounts and that money
went into the General Fund.
Mr. Cosnahan: If I could, the bulk of that is going to already be in the General
Fund. It will be in a different checking account.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Cosnahan: It will already be in the General Fund, per se. But I’ll be glad to
tell you which account it went out of, into the other one.
Mr. Williams: And a total of how much we did. That’s what I was getting it.
Mr. Cosnahan: Okay.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Cosnahan: It’s not going to change the amount of money.
Mr. Williams: I understand.
Mr. Cosnahan: Okay. All right.
Mr. Shepard: If Mr. Williams wants to add that, to amend the motion, Mr.
Mays, I so amend it, to get it in there.
Mr. Mays: Even though the Shepard-Mays school of parliamentary procedure
[inaudible] up a little bit, but that’s good. Reverend, it’s in there. All in favor of the
motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Mr. Colclough, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion carries 7-0.
The Clerk:
78
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
97. Motion to approve Ordinance designating roadways to be approved for the
use of speed detection devices (and waive second reading). (No recommendation
from Engineering Services Committee October 28, 2002)
Mr. Shepard: So move.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mays: Motion and a second. Any discussion? Commissioner Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: I’ve got one question, Mr. Chairman. I’ve heard the answer to this
and I can’t remember, but I get a lot of complaints about Goshen Road because people
are using it as a transfer, so I guess the neighborhood from Highway 56 to Old
Waynesboro, and there was a reason we never could put it on the radar list, and I don’t
remember what that is unless it’s because it’s a neighborhood, basically a neighborhood
road. But it’s used extensively as a cut-through.
Mr. Wall: I don’t know the answer.
Mr. Bridges: I knew the answer at one time, but if there is – I’d sure like to put it
on the list if there is anything we can do to put it on the list.
Mr. Mays: I may be wrong, and Fred, you may want to jump in on this. It could
have been on my – I stand to be corrected – but it could have been that the speed limit
would have had to have been raised up to a certain limit in order to put the detection
devices in there, and it may have been kind of a choice between whether or not to raise it
up so that they could have it or to know do it. And I may be wrong on that.
Mr. Bridges: I can’t remember. There was a reason and I would sure like to
know why we can’t have Goshen Road on a speed limit list. Teresa, do you know?
Ms. Smith: You want to add it now?
Mr. Bridges: Yeah.
Mr. Mays: Well, you want to go ahead and [inaudible] Mr. Bridges, when we
didn’t do this, because the Chairman, he isn’t here tonight, but the Chairman had a
concern about a couple of roads.
Mr. Bridges: I know he does, yes.
Mr. Mays: And it was stated that if we didn’t do it exactly like the list was, then
it couldn’t be done at all. And that’s how it got almost into a no recommendation
standpoint. So there was [inaudible].
79
Mr. Bridges: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Mr. Wall: And Teresa may know the answer. I sent an email that night, really, to
Dennis Ellis, who is the one who told me that we could not change the Ordinance, and
that it had to be adopted in that form, otherwise it would be carried over to next year.
And inquiring of who told him, and I never got a response. And he’s on vacation or out
of town this week.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to hold anything up. I mean it’s late
tonight and it looks like we are going to have to do something on this. Could I put that
on the next Engineering Services Committee to have an answer in regard, regarding
Goshen Road, why it can’t be put on the radar list?
Mr. Mays: I’m sure that can be done.
Mr. Bridges: If Ms. Bonner would put that on there.
The Clerk: Be glad to.
Mr. Bridges: I don’t want to hold anything up tonight.
Mr. Mays: Commissioner Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you. You and I were at the same meeting. I was just trying to
recall the same information. The chairman had a couple of roads in his District that he
was concerned about. Mira Drive or somewhere.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] email [inaudible].
Mr. Boyles: It may be in the same category as Goshen Road is. I think so.
Ms. Smith: And I’ll ask the County Attorney to forward that to me in Dennis’
absence and we’ll try to get an answer to those questions by Monday.
Mr. Mays: We have a motion and a second, Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: Motion by Mr. Shepard and second by Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Mays: All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed,
the same.
Mr. Colclough, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion carries 7-0.
80
Mr. Mays: The motion is carried.
The Clerk:
APPOINTMENTS:
99. Appoint two (2) members to the CSRA Unified Development Authority as
rd
approved in the October 3 regular meeting.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mays: Yes, sir?
Mr. Williams: I’d like to make a motion that we ask Commissioner Cheek,
tell Commissioner Cheek and tell Commissioner Mays to serve on that board.
Mr. Beard: Second that.
Mr. Shepard: Move that nominations be closed.
Mr. Mays: The Chair did not hear in an audible way the language that was said.
It wasn’t picked up by the Chair. Therefore it’s no motion, and I’ just joking. I heard it.
The motion and the second. Is there any discussion on that? If not, all in favor of the
motion will do so by the usual sign. Mighty generous today. Any opposed, the same.
Mr. Colclough, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion carries 7-0.
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS:
100. Discuss Commission’s Retreat scheduled for November 8-9, 2000.
(Requested by Commissioner Shepard)
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Chairman, I think it’s moot that we take the retreat, so I
move that we not retreat but instead move forward with the budget workshop on
those dates.
Mr. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mays: Motion and a second. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor of
the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Mr. Colclough, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion carries 7-0.
81
The Clerk:
103. Progress report on the Savannah Place Park Renovations and proposed
Apple Valley Park. (Requested by Commissioner Williams)
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Tom, for being so patient and listening to all this other
stuff we had to go through. We talked, but I needed a report from you. I worked with
Mr. Danny Brown, and I think I introduced you to Mr. Brown, along with the National
Guard, trying to get something done with the Apple Valley area, as well as the Savannah
Place. But when the National Guard came in and met with us at Apple Valley, they gave
us a list of things for us to go ahead and do. That’s in case they come in tomorrow or the
next day or the next day after that. And that’s been a while. I wanted to make sure those
things had been done. If those things had not been done, if that’s something we need to
do as a board, you need to let us know so we can, we can proceed with that. I would hate
one of those entities to come up and say we ready to go but then we got to wait until we
do something else. He gave us about – well, he talked to Ron, I think, gave him about
five or six things on a list.
Mr. Beck: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, did the report that was
sent in not make the book?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir.
Mr. Beck: It’s in the book? Okay. Commissioner Williams, those items that you
had asked about with the Georgia National Guard are addressed under the Apple Valley
Park section. There were actually five main topics that they had asked us to work on, and
each of those is highlighted there as to the status of those requirements by the Georgia
National Guard. And if you’ve got any specific questions on those, I’d be glad to answer
them.
Mr. Williams: Tom, I got that list and I had a copy in my box, too, and it stated
some things that – and I’m looking for it in the backup – it stated some things that they
asked us to do, but I didn’t get a confirm saying that those things was completed. I think
the EPD, the environment, drainage and a couple of other things was mentioned. And
what I need to know is, I need to know if those things have been completed so if I get the
neighbors or if I get any help from anywhere, to be able to go in there and do something,
that those things are done. So are you saying that all those are completed, so we don’t
have anything that would hold us up if we was able to find someone to go in there with
equipment and go to work?
Mr. Beck: Well, as to the time table, we have the time table listed here on their
requirements. And I can go through those if you want me to.
Mr. Williams: Well, no. I guess my question is when the Guardsmen came over,
they walked the area, they went over there and looked, and looked at environment, they
looked at drainage and gave Ron a list of things that they needed to have completed
82
before they could come in. So – and then later I got in contact with Mr. Brown who
came from Atlanta to Augusta. We rode out there, along with Savannah Place, and
looked at that. And we don’t have to do those same things at Savannah Place. You told
me about that cause we was not using the HUD money.
Mr. Beck: Right.
Mr. Williams: So my question is that those things that Ron, that the list he had,
has been completed or where we are with those if they have not been completed, so if
they came back next month, and I don’t know that but I’m working on some stuff. I’m
not just going to wait on one entity. And the Guards is talking about doing it, but I had a
real good conversation with Mr. Brown out of Atlanta with some corrections. They
informed me they have two crews that do the land. I mean they can come in there and
clean it off. Don’t take down no trees. They can do the – what’s the word, contractors?
Somebody? Clearing and, and, and getting the land ready.
Mr. Beck: Site work.
Mr. Williams: That’s it. That’s what I was looking for. They can come in. They
got a big crew and a small crew. And he told me to get those things ready so if we, if
they came and came up, and it wouldn’t take them very long to do what they needed to
do. He said he had a [inaudible] crew he could bring in here. And I been trying to get
those people in Apple Valley, they should not have to live with the type of growth that’s
behind those houses there. Now we done got this property. We had a time period in
order to do something with it. I met with the neighborhood association, and the
neighborhood wants to go in there and maybe do some hand work. And I keep telling
them there is nothing we can do with that. But they don’t want to continue to let it grow.
And if you look out their back doors, all you see is just an overgrown piece of property.
And it’s causing rodents and everything else –
(End of tape 1, beginning of tape 2)
Mr. Williams: I’m just trying to make sure that those [inaudible] are not costing
us any money.
Mr. Beck: If I could do this Commissioner, let me just go down a couple of them
and help you out a little bit. All the environmental clearances have been completed. That
was done when we purchased the property. We had to complete those to purchase the
property with HUD funds. That’s been done. The wildlife habitat impact study, DNR
had initially told us it would be November 30. They have already done that. They did it.
They were out there last Friday. All we’re waiting on now is the letter back from them
clearing the site. The [inaudible] and topographic survey was one of the other
requirements. That will be done by the end of the year. That will be completed by the
end of the year. The storage of equipment, I have been in communication with Procter &
Gamble, and they have confirmed the storage of their equipment on their site, so they are,
they are good to go with whenever the National Guard gets there. The fuel cost, what our
83
plans are, are to use the city fuel trucks. We have portable fuel trucks that we have used
on remote locations as well. Those fuels trucks will be on site for their use. Obviously
we have to pay for those costs, but that will be a part of our expenses. The only thing
right now that’s pending is in any housing. Housing and meals has not been worked out.
What we’re trying to do is to try to house them potentially at Gracewood State School &
Hospital. They have some areas out there that potentially could house them, that could
save the city quite a bit of money because it will be several weekends they will in with
this work, and then meal costs will be something we’ll probably have to pick up. But
really those were the five areas that came out of that meeting that they needed. Actually
six with environmental clearances.
Mr. Williams: You mentioned something before you mentioned Procter &
Gamble, cause I did get a letter back from them saying they would store the equipment.
But you named something before you mentioned that. What was that, Tom?
Mr. Beck: The [inaudible] and topographic survey?
Mr. Williams: Yeah, what is that? I mean is that something that –
Mr. Beck: Topographic survey shows all the contours and for engineers to start
the work they’ll have to have that, but that has to be done by a professional surveying
firm. And we’ve already started getting our prices on that. We should have someone
starting that work within the next couple of weeks. It probably will be done, well, prior
to the end of the year. But that was just a time table to have that done by.
Mr. Williams: And Mr. Brown said from the state corrections facility that they
wouldn’t need anywhere to store the equipment, they would leave it on site, they said that
they had had very few problems, people breaking, trying to steal the prison equipment.
Mr. Beck: Better luck than we’ve had.
Mr. Williams: But you know, and I did tell him that we would talk with people
over at Procter & Gamble. But Tom, that’s what I needed to know cause I want – if they
come in at the first of the year, if that happen, it may not, but I’m going to try for it.
Commissioner Bridges said something earlier, he done forgot it, he wanted something
done before he leave. And I might be leaving the same time he leave and I want to make
sure that this get on the radar screen.
Mr. Beck: I feel very comfortable with this time table.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mays: The Chair will entertain a motion to receive this as information.
Mr. Williams: So move.
84
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mays: Motion and a second. All in favor of the motion will do so by the
usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Mr. Colclough, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mays: Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: If we might, and let me apologize. I almost forgot about the back
page in here [inaudible]. If we could, since both of them are on here requested by
Commissioner Williams, if we could go, reverse the order of that and go to 105 before
104, since we still have business people in here. And I always get scared to a point where
we lose a quorum. We been here before and I kept looking and thought [inaudible] rest
of the day then I look and see we got the last page. If we might be able to do that, if you
gentlemen don’t have any objection to is.
The Clerk: 105?
Mr. Mays: 105, then go to 104, cause [inaudible] time frame [inaudible].
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
105. Discuss upcoming ambulance contract with Rural Metro. (Requested by
Commissioner Williams)
Mr. Williams: Jim might need to help, explain a little bit. I’ve been asking about
this because this contract was, was awarded probably three months ago now. Somewhere
there abouts, Jim, maybe a week or two different. And I been waiting. We had asked for
some things to be in the contract, and in that contract was supposed to been a bond and
agreement upon what the City would do. And today, Mr. Wall informed me, and I’m
going to [inaudible] usually I like to look at it before time, at least have time to go over it,
but we been talking about it. And when I look at the bond, the first thing I saw, Jim, was
st
it was signed the 31 of October. We been waiting on this for some time, but at least it’s
here. But you need to explain something to me, Jim, if you can. In this bond, is this not a
one year bond?
Mr. Wall: It is.
Mr. Williams: Okay. And don’t we have a three-year contract?
Mr. Wall: We do.
85
Mr. Williams: How then can we –
Mr. Wall: Because the bond has to be renewed each year. The provision – and
we’ve got the same situation, you may recall, had the situation insofar as the garbage
service contract. It’s a one-year bond. That’s the way the companies write the bonds.
Mr. Williams: I don’t think Ms. Bonner have a copy of it, but I’d like for her to
do something for me. In reading this bond and trying to decipher, me and Steve hadn’t
had time to confer with each other, so I’m going to have to go on my own, Steve. But in
this bond it lists three things that we need to have. And this paragraph talks about null
and void unless all of these following conditions are presented, are met. Then it goes on
and talks about material. Can you elaborate?
Mr. Wall: Can you read that?
Mr. Williams: Can you help me out with that, that, just that segment right there,
Jim?
Mr. Wall: All right. Bonds, all bonds are worded somewhat in the reverse. They
say they are null and void unless, and that’s done in all the payment bonds, performance
bonds, fidelity bonds, etc. And those are the conditions of default. The conditions under
which the bonding company would be responsible. And the first one is that there is an
uncured material [inaudible] caused solely by the principal undersaid contractor resulting
in [inaudible] early termination of the contract [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: Slow down a little bit, Jim. Slow down there.
Mr. Wall: All right. All right.
Mr. Williams: Take me with you. Don’t –
Mr. Wall: There is an uncured material service default.
Mr. Williams: Hold it right there. What is a uncured material service default?
Mr. Wall: All right. Under the terms of the contract, we’ve got Class A defaults.
Now this contract was in the agenda book when it was approved back in August. And
this contract has been there. And let me explain. The contract that was approved said
that the company had 30 days after the execution of the contract to furnish the bond.
They, they – the typical requirement is for the contract to be signed, furnished to the
bonding company, then the bonding company issues the bond. But under the Class A
defaults, you have a listing in 6.1 on page 18 of the contract which lists the defaults that
are the Class A. Then under 6.2, there are the remedies for the Class A defaults. And
under that, there is a right to cure. Except I the situation where there public health and
safety concerns require an immediate takeover. So the process for there to be a default is
86
set forth in 6.1 and 6.2 of the contract defining what the county has the right to declare a
termination of the contract for material breach of the contract and a default.
Mr. Williams: So that unsecured material service –
Mr. Wall: Uncured.
Mr. Williams: Uncured.
Mr. Wall: We give them a right to cure it. If they don’t cure it, then we have the
right to terminate the contract and call the bond.
Mr. Williams: Okay. And, and the second one [inaudible] me, too, but most of
all the third one. And the way I understand it, and Steve couldn’t get with me, but the
way I understand it is that –
Mr. Shepard: I don’t do bond work.
Mr. Williams: You don’t do bond work? I don’t do much of it, Steve.
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: But it says here, Jim, that they would have to lose their license
before we would be –
Mr. Wall: No. Those are – there are four different conditions.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Wall: Any one of the, any one of which would, would give us a right to call
the bond in default.
Mr. Williams: So either one, either or? I mean and that’s not lawyers’ writing
there? It’s [inaudible], but it could be either or, is that what you’re saying? They lose
their license because the way it looks now, and I been asking for this for some time and I
been wondering why we hadn’t gotten the final –
Mr. Wall: I just got it yesterday.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Well, I understand. But that –
Mr. Wall: You understand that they weren’t required to furnish the bond until 30
days after the contract had been signed by the City, so we got the bond actually earlier
than we are entitled to.
Mr. Williams: But the bond, but the agreement was 90 days away we approved it.
87
Mr. Wall: I understand that.
Mr. Williams: And whose fault is that?
Mr. Wall: I told you I’d take responsibility for the fact, because I had asked the
question as to whether or not the counsel had to approve Rural Metro. And a letter was
written to them apparently. I don’t have a copy of the letter. But those were done by
people other than myself. I made inquiries several times concerning the status of the
process. Unbeknownst to me, until the last two or three weeks, the counsel had decided
that they were going to handle it administratively. I knew that they were discussing
handling it administratively but I had never gotten the firm answer. So I told you I will
assume responsibility for not calling the counsel directly. I was making inquiry. We had
plenty of time to get the contract in place. The contract language had been agreed upon.
And so that was not an issue from my standpoint as long as I had the contract and the
bond in place and I knew the bond – I had had discussions with their counsel. I knew the
bond would be issued.
Mr. Williams: Jim, and that’s normal for us. I mean we do it all the time. But I
talked to the counsel as well. And they was waiting on –
Mr. Wall: I understand that. And you and I talked about that.
Mr. Williams: That’s right.
Mr. Wall: However, I did not talk to the counsel directly and I told you that I
would assume the responsibility for not calling them directly. I was making inquiry of
other people.
Mr. Williams: And I’m going to repeat the same thing now that I told you, Jim.
We pay too much money. We pay too much money for this kind of stuff to go on. And –
Mr. Wall: Well, I don’t think anything went on.
Mr. Williams: When I say went on, I don’t want to give the wrong impression.
But we pay too much money to not have people do what they be paid to do. And here it
is three months later and this is not reflection on, on, on the company. I wanted to see
those things cause we asked for those things. In this – it was a couple of other things here
and I see a mutual aid agreement. I got a letter that Mark brought me from the Mayor’s
office and showed me about a mutual agreement between Rural Metro and Gold Cross.
But it’s not signed by Gold Cross so I mean I don’t know whether it’s valid or what.
Actually, it’s signed by someone from, Region General Manager from Rural Metro but
not anybody from Gold Cross. The other point I brought to your attention, Jim, was that
in my mind we said we would have eight ambulances. You said today in our private
conversation that there would be seven ambulances and then eight ambulance at peak
time. We been trying to figure out when is peak time.
88
Mr. Wall: All right. The peak time is defined, and here is the RFP or response to
it, and it says eight peak load ambulance, seven off peak [inaudible] ambulances. That’s
the proposal that was approved by the Commission when it was awarded. This language
about the seven ambulances and one additional ambulance during the peak was in the
contract at the time it was presented in August. And peak time is to be defined under the
service level agreement. Generally that’s going to be from noon until midnight, but it s
also going to encompass times when you’ve got special events such as First Friday, such
as anytime that there, you know, motor boat races or things of that nature. But those are
administrative decisions that are going to be made by Phil Wasson as 911 Director.
Mr. Williams: Well, but to, to assure the citizens of Richmond County that we
have the ambulance at peak time, we need to have a designated time set and if it’s going
to be noon till whatever. And if there’s a special event at the boat, at the races, or any
other event coming on, that may be additional.
Mr. Wall: Well, I don’t, don’t agree with that because peak time will change
from season to season probably. And that’s the reason that we put in the performance
criteria, the fact that they have to meet certain standards, they’ve got to respond within a
certain period of time, and this is a performance-based contract. If they don’t have
sufficient ambulances to meet those standards, then they pay us penalties.
Mr. Williams: But then we, we could never penalize them, Jim, cause we won’t
know when the peak time is. I mean –
Mr. Wall: It has nothing to do with peak time.
Mr. Williams: Okay, but –
Mr. Wall: They have to respond within a certain number of minutes, depending
upon the area, the type code it is, etc.
Mr. Williams: Okay, so let’s go back to peak time. Now you are throwing me off
with the code. Let’s go back to peak time. If they are supposed to be in a designated
time between 12 and 12, for instance, and if you say that’s not a legitimate time we can
use, it could be in the mornings cause there’s a boat race and in the afternoon cause
there’s a dance. So how can we penalize them if we change the time from yesterday –
Mr. Wall: That’s administratively handled between the 911 Director and the
contractor.
Mr. Williams: But we still – I don’t care who it’s handled by. We still cannot –
Mr. Wall: No, sir. I mean with all due respect, if the only had one ambulance and
they were able to meet all the performance standards, now they would not be in
compliance with the contract, but they could have 11 ambulances, they could have five
89
ambulances or whatever, but they’ve got to meet the performance standards. Now they
have committed and are contractually bound to have seven non-peak, which is their
proposal, what they submitted. This document, that was submitted in the interview
process and presented to the Commission, and then one additional ambulance during
peak hours.
Mr. Williams: So I, and there you go again, you throw them [inaudible], you said
peak hours. And I’m just trying to determine when is peak hours.
Mr. Wall: Peak hours, under the contract, and this was agreed to by the staff, is
pursuant to the service level agreement, and that service level agreement is worked out
between the 911 director and Rural Metro, because they are dealing with it on a day-to-
day basis, they know what the volume of calls are during, you know, periods of the week,
periods of the year, seasons of the year. Those hours are going to vary with all of those
things, I suspect.
Mr. Williams: Well, I don’t know bout nothing else, but peak time in any other
facet is a time when we know something is going on now. I mean does it mean midnight
to morning or from 12 to 12 in the afternoon? There ought to be a peak time if there’s
going to be a peak time. I, I think it would be unfair to Rural to tell them this week you
are going to be on peak time cause we got an event going be downtown, then the next
week we going to tell them it be peak time cause there’s going to be something down
there in the afternoon. I think, I think we ought to be really clear when it comes to
providing services for the citizens of Augusta Richmond County, and that’s something
I’m not clear on.
Mr. Wall: It’s defined under the agreement, and the agreement which was
approved by the Commission back in August that that would be set forth in the service
level agreement.
Mr. Williams: All right. [inaudible] mutual aid. This letter that I got from Mark,
can you, can you elaborate in mutual aid, then, because I got a letter saying that we got an
agreement here, what we going do. But it’s not –
Mr. Wall: The mutual aid agreements are between the ambulance companies.
We are not a party to the mutual aid agreement.
Mr. Williams: I understand.
Mr. Wall: And so it is the obligation of Rural Metro to have mutual aid
agreements. They could be with Gold Cross or they could be with someone else. It does
not have to be with Gold Cross. And I haven’t seen the letter that you’re talking about,
but they could submit one to Gold Cross and Gold Cross could either accept it or decline
to do it.
90
Mr. Williams: Well, Article II says here now, Jim, and this is the contract that
you say we voted on. Now Article II says here the terms and scope of agreement. Then
it’s got down here 2.3 is provide service. Then it talks about mutual aid. That’s a part.
Mr. Wall: But it doesn’t say with whom.
Mr. Williams: No, no, no. In fact, in our committee meeting, we sent the
Administrator, Gold Cross and Rural into a meeting to try to come up with something
cause we didn’t have any. We, they had one when the contract was signed, we had a
dispute about a service, and, and, and both parties agreed they did not have a mutual aid
agreement then.
Mr. Wall: No, sir. Rural Metro said they did have a mutual aid agreement
because they had not been given timely notice of the termination.
Mr. Williams: Was anybody at that meeting?
Mr. Wall: Sir?
Mr. Williams: Was anybody at that meeting that heard that they had a agreement
at one time but they did not have one and we sent the Administrator along with the Fire
Chief, I believe, was in that meeting.
Mr. Wall: I was in the meeting. I was in the meeting.
Mr. Williams: To establish a mutual aid.
Mr. Wall: To work out and we did in fact meet with them and just as this contract
provides –
Mr. Williams: Why were y’all meeting, though, Jim?
Mr. Wall: Why?
Mr. Williams: Yeah, to do what?
Mr. Wall: There were three issues.
Mr. Williams: I mean to perform what? The purpose of the meeting was to?
Mr. Wall: To discuss the status of the mutual aid agreement.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Okay.
91
Mr. Wall: And was one of the three issues. And we did talk about that. And we
did tell Rural Metro that it was their responsibility to have mutual aid agreements. And
they indicated that they would have those.
Mr. Williams: As Public Safety Chairman, Jim, I want this contract to do and be
as fair for this city as it is for the person who is agreeing to the contract. I think Rural
wouldn’t have any problem getting with Gold Cross or anybody else. But if they need
backup ambulance or backup service, these people in Augusta need to know that we
going to provide services for them, we don’t need to say well, we ain’t got no services.
Mr. Wall: Our contractual obligation is with Rural Metro. It is not with Gold
Cross.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I, I understand. We [inaudible] Rural.
Mr. Wall: And they have an obligation to have mutual aid agreements in place.
Mr. Williams: This letter said that they got an agreement in place with Gold
Cross, but it’s not signed. I’m not talking bout Gold Cross or AAA or nobody else. I’m
saying that this agreement do not show –
Mr. Wall: Mr. Williams, a couple of things. First of all, this agreement does not
go into effect until January 1.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Wall: So their obligation under this agreement to furnish that mutual aid
agreement really doesn’t come into play until January 1. Secondly, they currently are
required to have mutual aid agreements under the licensing plan. They understand that
obligation. They have those mutual aid agreements. And once there was discussion
concerning the notice of termination by Gold Cross, they did not have written notice of
termination. Gold Cross indicated that they would give a copy of the letter that
terminated the mutual aid agreement or they say terminated the mutual aid agreement
before they left the meeting. Unfortunately, I think everybody forgot it by the time the
meeting was over with, and they did not furnish us a copy. The terms of the mutual aid
agreement is that they have to give 30 days written notice. And I don’t think that they
have given 30 days written notice.
Mr. Williams: But that agreement is not with us so we don’t know whether that’s
a term or not. Because you just said it’s not with this government, it’s with the two
ambulance services.
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Williams: And if I’m not mistaken, in that Public Safety meeting, Tom
Schneider said that he had gave a letter.
92
Mr. Wall: He did.
Mr. Williams: He said he had gave a letter saying that they no longer had an
agreement.
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Williams: Jim, I don’t want to wait until the first of the year. Here it is now
thth
November the 6, it’s going to be January 6 before we know it. I need to have all this
stuff in place so we be able to go on. This, this, this company has won this bid and that’s
fair and square but I want to make sure that everything in this, not just this one – and I
told you I’ve got a problem with signing contracts that I don’t know what’s in there. And
I’m not going to do that no more. I’ve got a problem with us okaying contracts and then
we come up saying well, we done okayed it and the contract is there. I’m not going to go
along with any more. But that, that’s something I think we need to look at and get
worked out. I have no problem. I’m not trying to change to contract, by no means.
Mr. Mays: Commissioner Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Move to call the next item.
The Clerk: Item 104, Mr. Chair?
Mr. Mays: What – I guess what I was going to ask before we move, is the
information that you passed out, Jim, on the contract, is it, is that something that we are
supposed to deal with any action on today? Or is that for information purposes that it’s
been passed out?
Mr. Wall: For information purposes, I think. Lena can perhaps check the
minutes, but I know that there was an issue about the performance bond. I committed to
you that I would furnish you a copy of the performance bond [inaudible] they would have
it, and from my vantage point, my recollection is simply for information purposes.
Mr. Mays: Okay.
Mr. Wall: To ensure that they have it. Because there were discussion [inaudible]
about whether or not they would be able to furnish the bond.
Mr. Mays: Okay, well as far as, since we have meeting dates that overlap, I guess
in terms of where your counsel meets, what is, I guess, the unofficial game plan where
we will bring this, the whole information back and to be voted on?
Mr. Wall: It’s already been voted on. I mean the counsel is going to handle the
issue that I had administratively. And they just need a copy of the signed contract. My
93
plan is to get the contract signed and furnish it to the counsel and furnish the bond to the
Clerk’s office and move forward.
Mr. Mays: And get them ready for them to deal with on their meeting this month,
I presume? Okay. I just was trying to find out.
Mr. Williams: I got a question, Mr. Mays. I mean just one question. Jim, are you
saying you’ve got to go to the counsel now, you’re saying?
Mr. Wall: Well, again, and I have not called [inaudible]. You indicated that you
had talked to them and that they were waiting on a copy of the contract.
Mr. Williams: That’s what they been saying.
Mr. Wall: Fred has told me that they are waiting on a copy of the contract. The
contract’s signed, we’re going to furnish them a copy of the contract. If the Mayor had
been here, I’d have gotten him to sign it tonight.
Mr. Williams: So if the Mayor sign the contract, it’s still got to go to EMS, the
counsel.
Mr. Wall: Just for administrative purposes. They don’t have the – no changes on
it, they just need it for information purposes.
Mr. Williams: Why, why –
Mr. Mays: I think that gets over into Steve moving into 105, but I think maybe
you can wrap up, maybe, Mr. Williams, in terms of any loose ends that’s in there, and I
put that on, and I guess where we can get through with ambulance things, I put that and
maybe if they’re not through, I put it on for the purpose that I didn’t know whether this
was ready at this time. And that was concerning, Mr. Wall, and Mr. Kolb, those items
that you have alluded to already in parts of 104 that y’all were talking about. But I put on
105 mainly because I wanted to make sure that part of what you were talking about in
reference to mutual aid and that discussion, you all were talking about what was to be
discussed in that meeting and you were saying three things and I know that not
necessarily word for word, but one of them, the concern I had that y’all were talking
about was the fact that – and I guess it was a lot mixed in there and I think y’all covered a
lot of ground in there, in the meeting that you all worked out. Maybe just if you can
briefly expound upon those areas that we, that y’all set to talk about, and where that
stands, and if that’s been worked out. Because I asked about two or three items in there.
One of them was in reference to the situation of transport and or the [inaudible] in
reference to using fire machines in terms of whether you were dealing with sick and
injured. And that’s something that, that I thought needed to be not only answered but in
terms of a formula of that being [inaudible], and you may want to just go ahead on this
[inaudible].
94
Mr. Wall: Insofar as the transport with fire vehicles, I think everybody that was
there was in agreement that that should not happen. And now insofar as the transport
policy, the Fire Chief may want to address this, but he was developing a policy when we
met, and that policy is in the process. I don’t know whether it’s finished or not. The Fire
Chief was preparing the policy.
Mr. Mays: Just a minute.
Mr. Wall: The third issue that we talked about dealt with the outstanding charges.
And that was resolved. Gold Cross said that they had never billed for it before, they did
not expect to get paid. They were not pushing that issue. And so that issue was resolved.
Mr. Mays: The Chair recognizes Mr. Boyles and then Chief Gillespie. But Jim,
we did not necessarily spell out and I know y’all went into it about mutual aid, and I
think what sparked it was the fact that when there was a dispute about [inaudible] and my
question at that point was, whether you call it mutual aid, whatever we called it, that there
needed to be some agreement to a point that if the contractor did not have and which that
can happen, I mean you can have an emergency to where you can have 20 ambulances
and all of them be busy at the same time. But to a point of where there was some – I
wanted to make sure they were, the other company was not sitting in a non-response
mode. And I assume – that’s what we kind of wanted to hear how that was worked out
and where y’all are on that.
Mr. Wall: Well, first of all, under a mutual aid the company that has signed the
mutual aid agreement is not obligated to come, so even if we had a mutual aid agreement
with Gold Cross, they were not obligated to come. Their system may be overloaded or
they may just choose not to come. Well, the way that worked out was Gold Cross said
they are not coming except in the event of catastrophic type of events. So realistically,
whether there is an official determination or not, Gold Cross has indicated that they are
not going to respond [inaudible]. That’s the reason we immediately turned back to Rural
Metro and said it is your responsibility to have mutual aid agreements in place sufficient
to protect the public. It is their responsibility, not the county’s responsibility. It’s your
responsibility. And so they have mutual aid agreements with Burke County, they have
mutual aid agreements with Jefferson County. That would cover most of the county
satisfactorily, probably. I have [inaudible] but there is still an issue about what I call
urban areas, because a mutual aid agreement with Burke County or Jefferson County
[inaudible] urban area. And they understand that. We understand that that’s the issue
that they have got to address. It may be addressed with Gold Cross, it may be addressed
with someone else, but it’s got to be addressed. But again, our agreement, current
agreement is with Rural Metro. Our [inaudible] with Rural Metro and Rural Metro has
[inaudible].
Mr. Mays: Okay. I’m going to yield back to Mr. Boyles and Chief Gillespie.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Williams asked a while
ago was anyone else in that meeting when we were talking. That would be the last Public
95
Safety meeting. There were three items that we were concerned about. That was
transport that was made. There was assistance for manpower because of some talk of 700
to 900. The man went from 700 to 900, [inaudible]. And mutual aid. And I thought the
request was, and Commissioner Shepard, I believe, seconded the motion that I made to
do it, was to hear back at the next Public Safety meeting and not this meeting here. I
thought was the original request. And I think that covered the three items that the
Chairman, Mr. Williams, had asked about earlier, so the three things that we have been
talking about, and I talked to Mr. Russell and he said that that meeting had already been
held. So I guess we just get that report back at the next Public Safety meeting. And so I
just don’t understand why you might have 106 on. Because I mean you may have used it
for a catch-all, but it was to come back to our next Public Safety meeting Monday, I
thought.
Mr. Mays: I will respond. I put it on and I may have [inaudible] but, and I have
no problem if that’s going to be [inaudible] Monday, don’t have a problem with it. But I
did have a problem to a point that, and I made the statement kind of in common language
that I thought that five parties, the Attorney, the Administrator, the Fire Chief, two
ambulance service companies need to go somewhere in a room and work out what they
need to work out. [inaudible] waiting until the committee to discuss it. But I thought
something of a point needed to be decided that if emergencies can occur way before you
have another committee meeting, and I thought to a point that if you had up in the air
whether or not you were going to put people in a [inaudible] or not for transport, whether
or not you had one company saying they were not going to respond or not, then that’s
why 106 is on there. Because I thought since those parties got together that that did not
need to be one where time drug on. If it’s worked out, I don’t have a problem with
hearing it on Monday, and I may have missed the time, you know, [inaudible] and I
wasn’t sure, but I wanted something to come back to us to make sure it had at least been,
you know, discussed, and that we were clear on it. Because I’m hearing on one hand that
an ambulance service is not coming, then I want to know, to a point that if we’ve got half
a million dollars to a million dollar fire machine out there at a non-emergency, whether or
not SUV is coming or Crown Vic is coming is whether or not, you know, we’ve got
somebody that may just be looking to [inaudible] and then we got to decide whether or
not [inaudible] injured one in there that’s not [inaudible] deal with, whether you are
going to hide them [inaudible]. And that’s one that does not necessarily need to wait
from week to week for a committee. That’s why 106 is on there. Cause I wanted to get
ambulance back on there. But if it’s ready, then I don’t have a problem [inaudible]
details have been worked out. But that’s why I put it on there, on purpose, to make sure
that it got some answer and response. Because, and, and, and evidently some, something
else must be going be added by the time [inaudible] committee, cause what I’m hearing
today is that you still have got a non-back-up [inaudible] agreement, and that’s not saying
that even in that case one is going come, but [inaudible] 911 [inaudible].
Mr. Wall: Rural Metro. That was decided. The obligation is with Rural Metro to
respond [inaudible].
96
Mr. Mays: And [inaudible] getting back to where we started with the original
argument on can you meet the need of what is out there and on our obligation [inaudible]
but I want to make sure to a point that at least [inaudible] somebody is going to respond.
Now if there is some way they can provide an alternative means [inaudible] but you, you
got [inaudible] to a point [inaudible] they are not coming, then I beg to differ, you are
contractually obligated [inaudible]. That’s what you’re going to end up with. [inaudible]
that’s why I put it on there. I yield, I shut up, let it go to the committee [inaudible] y’all
get it done next week. So y’all figure that detail out [inaudible]. But I have brought it to
your attention. And I yield to Chief Gillespie.
Mr. Gillespie: What was the question?
Mr. Mays: The question is whatever you want to respond to.
Mr. Gillespie: I’m sorry, the policy issue is what you asked about, whether we
had addressed the policy issue. It’s a piece of a broader policy, and the answer is no, we
haven’t got a written policy in place yet. We know what our intents are and what we’re
going to do. We’re going to respond to emergencies, to 911 calls. You can bet on that
one. That is going to happen.
Mr. Mays: But you’re not going to be hauling in fire machines, though? You
know you’re going to respond. I know you’re going to respond, first responder status.
But I mean are we going to bring that [inaudible] committee on Monday? I can wait to
Monday. I’m fine with it. But I’m just putting you on notice to a point that that’s why
106 is out here. [inaudible] but I just wanted to make that clear. I just have a
fundamental problem [inaudible]. [inaudible] not non-emergency, then it ought to be in
some other mode, means, quiet, getting to the hospital. And I still stand by that. Mr.
Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mays. I was just going to say that on page 4 of our
committee minutes, all of that discussion is in here, and it does say to bring back a
comprehensive policy by our next committee meeting, which is next Public Safety
meeting, Monday. So I think all three of those situations are covered in our minutes.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mays, I move we adjourn in light of the hour of the night.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mays: Have a motion and a second for adjournment. All in favor of that
motion will do so by the usual sign. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I had my hand up. Is there any real estate we need to take up in legal,
that we need to do it before the next meeting?
97
Mr. Wall: We’ve got the Public Works and Utilities property.
Mr. Beard: Can you do it –
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] Friday. We can do it first thing.
Mr. Beard: Because I think – the only reason I’m asking that –
Mr. Boyles: You just lost your quorum.
Mr. Beard: Okay.
Mr. Mays: Quorum automatically gets you to adjournment. Elvis has left the
building.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
98