HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-07-2003 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
January 7, 2003
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, January
7, 2003, the Honorable Richard Colclough, Mayor Pro Tem, presiding.
Present: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Shepard, Beard, Cheek,
Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Absent: Hon. Bob Young, Mayor.
Also present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; and Lena Boner,
Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by the Rev. Caldwell.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America was recited.
The Clerk: In the Mayor’s absence, and on behalf of the Mayor Pro Tem and
members of the Augusta Commission, we’d like to thank you for being here today to
impart God’s Word with us. On behalf of that and in light of that, we’d like to honor you
today as our Chaplain of the Day and we appreciate you being here, and Happy New
Year.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, ma’am.
The Clerk: Would you like to address deletions or additions to the agenda?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, ma’am, go ahead.
The Clerk:
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
1. Approve Change Order Number Three with Mabus Brothers Construction
in the amount of $37,170.00 on the Laney Walker Boulevard Reconstruction Project
to be funded from the project contingency account. Also approve Capital Project
Budget (326-04-288811018) Change Number Six to reflect internal project account
transfers.
2. Approve reclassification of the Assistant Solid Waste Manager position from
pay grade 52 to Solid Waste Manager at pay grade 55.
1
3. Approve the Change Order Number One in the amount of $29,333.17 to
Advanced Disposal to provide Solid Waste Collection Services (Bid #00-119) to
Nellie Drive/Plantation Road Area (Section 9A).
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: What is your pleasure, gentlemen?
Mr. Cheek: I move to add.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion? Hearing
none, all in favor of the motion please vote.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk: Proceed?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes.
The Clerk:
RECOGNITION:
Proclamation
(Requested by Commissioners Steve Shepard and Bill Kuhlke)
Lucy C. Laney Wildcats Football Team
2002-2003 Class AAA Semifinals
Atlanta’s Georgia Dome
The Clerk: At this time, we would like to ask the principal, Mr. Hawthorne
Welcher, and the coach, Mr. Eric Parker, to please join Commissioners Shepard and
Kuhlke, along with Mr. Mayor Pro Tem --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, Madame Clerk, I would like Mr. Beard, who represents
that District, to participate.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And Mr. Mays if he’s here.
The Clerk: Would you please join us here so that we may present the
proclamation and certificates to the team players?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays?
2
The Clerk: Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: He’s here.
The Clerk: In recognition of the Lucy C. Laney High School Football Team,
Whereas, the Lucy Laney Wildcats football team played in the Georgia Dome for the
State AAA Semifinals, and
Whereas, this is the highest placing in the school’s history since becoming a
member of the Georgia High School Association, and
Whereas, Coach Eric Parker and staff have guided the Wildcats team to the
playoff for three consecutive years, this year being the best showing thus far;
Now, therefore, I, Bob Young, Mayor of the City of Augusta, do hereby proclaim
January 7, 2003, to be the Lucy Laney High School Football Team Day and urge all
citizens to recognize them for this outstanding achievement.
In witness thereof, I have unto set me hand and caused the seal of Augusta,
th
Georgia, to be affixed this 7 day of January, 2003.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, Mr. Chris Kane from
Channel 26 will now do our official roll call of the Lucy Laney Wildcats team.
Mr. Kane: Ladies and gentlemen, it’s really an honor to be here and recognize
these fine young men and coaching staff. When I first arrived at Channel 26 in August of
1997, my first job was to go to Laney High School and interview a coach named Eric
Parker, and at that time, I don’t think anyone really knew who this guy was. Well, six
years later, everyone in the state knows who Eric Parker is, because he’s one of the finest
coaches in the state of Georgia right now. No question about it. Congratulations to
Coach Parker and the players and the entire coaching staff, and also Coach just told me
he had his third baby right before Christmas, a daughter named Cameron, so
congratulations to you and your lovely wife. Right now let’s meet these fine young men.
We’re going to start off with number 1, he’s a senior, he played running back and
linebacker. Allen Walker.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Number 2, a junior, played running back, scored a bunch of
touchdowns this year. Jarrett Moye.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Number 3, another running back. He’ll be back next year as well.
William Scott.
3
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Senior linebacker, number 4. Eddie Jeter.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Number 5, and I think everyone knows this guy, he was The Augusta
Chronicle Player of the Year in the state of Georgia, All-State Linebacker, Running
Back, Kicker. I think he drove the Laney team bus. He did it all. Number 5. Jake
[inaudible]. You’re going to hear a lot about this guy in the future.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Number 6, a junior, defensive back, Travis Glover.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Number 7, sophomore, wide receiver, Curtis Sapp.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Number 8, this guy, when the season started, wasn’t even supposed to
be the starting quarterback, but there was an injury, and Dominick Walker, only a
sophomore, stepped in and had a quite a season to lead this team all the way to the
semifinals. And by the time he’s a senior, I think he’s going to be one of the best
quarterbacks in the state of Georgia. Dominick Walker.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Number 9, a junior, defensive back, Marquez Gibson.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Number 11, sophomore wide receiver, Jason Morris.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Calling a lot of sophomore and juniors, so a lot of these guys are going
to be back next year. Freshman quarterback, number 13, Kenneth Walker.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Freshman running back, number 15, Jeremy Singleton.
(A round of applause is given.)
4
Mr. Kane: Junior defensive back, and this guy made a ton of huge plays in the
post-season. I think he had two or three big interceptions. Number 18, Kendrick Gonder.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Number 19, a junior running back/defensive back, and they’re
expecting big things from him next year. Robert Dunn.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: One of my favorite Laney players this past year, he made our sideline
show quite a bit during the season. We called him the Brisco Kid. Wide receiver,
defensive back, number 21, Rodriquez Brisco, a terrific two-way player.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Junior wide receiver, number 23, Jamar Wright.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Number 24, a junior running back, Deresco Williams.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Junior wide receiver, number 25, George Comacho.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Sophomore wide receiver, number 28, William Tolbert.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Number 29, he’s only a sophomore, defensive back, Zachary
Stevenson.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Number 32, sophomore linebacker, J.T. Moss.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Freshman defensive end, number 36, Herndon Burns.
(A round of applause is given.)
5
Mr. Kane: Freshman wide receiver, number 38, Marcus Reeves.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Number 40, only a freshman, defensive end, Robert Owens.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Number 44, junior defensive lineman, Debarius Moss.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Is Elijah Macarthur here? All right, come on up here. Number 16.
Wide receiver. Sophomore. We didn’t forget you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Number 48, sophomore running back, Brian Collier.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Number 50, one of 13 seniors on this team, Aquino Freeman, senior
offensive lineman.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Number 54, senior defensive lineman, Russell Brunson.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Another senior on the offensive line, number 55, Steven Fryer.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Sophomore defensive end, number 56, John Boyd.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Junior defensive lineman, number 60, Robert Truett.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: A freshman on the offensive line, number 64, Lonnie Miller.
6
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: A senior, offensive lineman, number 65, Jacquez Sims.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Another freshman on the offensive line, number 68, Kelvin Thomas.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Number 72, a senior, going to be an engineer one day, I think, after
talking to him during practice one day this year, number 72, Courtney Safford.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: A freshman, number 74, defensive lineman, Ricky White.
(A round of applause is given.) .
Mr. Kane: Number 75, freshman offensive lineman, Lavert Goodwin.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Number 78, senior offensive lineman, Dimarco White.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Is that it for all the players? We’ve got some more names -- okay,
number 79, Wesley Hammond. Senior, defensive lineman.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Number 80, Danell Cunningham, freshman defensive end.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: This next guy, Johnny Beard, had probably the best play of the season
in the third play-off game. He caught a high snap against Carrollton and saved Laney’s
season, I believe, in that, before the Georgia Dome. Johnny Beard, 81.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: And number 90, freshman defensive lineman, Philip Jackson.
(A round of applause is given.)
7
Mr. Kane: I’d like to bring up some of the assistant coaches who are on hand.
Comilio Johnson.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Pete New.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: And the head coach, once again, Eric Parker, who led the Laney
nd
Wildcats to a 12-2 season, 2 place in Region III, a trip to the Georgia Dome in the
semifinals. Congratulations, coach.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Would also like to introduce once again the principal of Laney High
School, Dr. Hawthorne Welcher.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Kane: Congratulations, guys. You represented Augusta in a class, class way
this past season. It was fun to cover you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, under the delegation portion of our agenda:
DELEGATION:
Mr. Vernon Zinnerman, Sr.
Augusta, Georgia
RE: Ordinance 6236 – Removal of Abandoned and Junk Vehicles
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is Mr. Zimmerman present?
The Clerk: Is Mr. Zimmerman here?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: He’s outside?
The Clerk: Would you like to defer it until the end of the meeting?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ll defer until the end of the meeting.
8
The Clerk: The next order of business is election of officers for the position
of Mayor Pro Tempore for 2003.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
A. Mayor Pro Tempore for 2003
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Again, it is the extreme honor
and privilege that I have to nominate the existing, and Lord willing, future Mayor
Pro Tem, Richard Colclough.
Mr. Williams: I second that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion? Hearing
none, all in favor, the sign of voting.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, gentlemen, for trusting me with this office for
another year. I will try to do the best I can to make you proud of me. Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, the next order of business is the appointment of legal
counsel for 2003.
APPOINTMENT:
B. Appoint Legal Counsel for 2003
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek? I’m sorry, I mean Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, I nominate
James B. Wall as legal counsel.
Mr. Mays: I second that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
9
Mr. Williams:I would ask that
I’ve got no problem with the nomination, but
we defer this until we go into legal.
I’ve got some things that I’d like to ask in a legal
sense before we make that nomination, if that’s possible. I mean.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is that in the form of a motion?
Mr. Williams: In the form of a motion.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Second on the floor. Motion and second. All in favor -- is
there any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor -- we’ve got to [inaudible] the first
motion, right?
The Clerk: No, sir, substitute.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the substitute motion, please signify by
voting.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] any discussion on that substitute motion, Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, we did not.
Mr. Mays: I’m going to respect the right to take it to legal session, but it’s not
going to change my second or my vote.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Boyles, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item?
The Clerk: Next item is our consent agenda, which consists of items 1
through 31. Items 1 through 31.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] alcohol?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor for approval.
10
The Clerk: For the benefit of any objectors, would you like me to read the
alcohol ones?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Read the alcohol --
The Clerk: Read the alcohol petitions. For the benefit of any objectors to
the alcohol petitions, would you please signify your objection by raising your hand
when the petition is read?
PUBLIC SERVICES:
4. Motion to approve a request by Chris Cheek for an on premise consumption
Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Somewhere in Augusta
located at 2701 Washington Road, Suite 2. There will be Sunday sales. District 7.
Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 23, 2002)
5. Motion to approve a request by Milton D. Simmons for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Nate’s
Lounge located at 3663 Deans Bridge Road. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved
by Public Services Committee December 23, 2002)
6. Motion to approve a request by Yong Henson for a retail package Liquor
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with J.C. Package located at 2501
Peach Orchard Road. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee December 23, 2002)
7. Motion to approve a request by M. Richard Cutler for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Roland
Garros, Inc d/b/a The Club at Raes Creek located at 3206 West Wimbledon Drive.
There will be Sunday sales. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee December 23, 2002)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those petitions? There are no objectors,
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, can we add items from the addendum
agenda, 1, 2 and 3 to the regular consent agenda?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is that a motion?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion on the floor to add items 1, 2 and 3 to the consent
agenda.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
11
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Any discussion? Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Insofar as item number 3, if the motion could also recite that it’s
to amend the resolution to include that insofar as collection of the fees.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay.
Mr. Cheek: Motion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Accept on the amendment
Mr. Cheek: I’ll accept it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams and Mr. [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I just want to bring to the floor, to the
attention that 10 and 14, is that the same item, just under different?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Same item.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Okay. I just -- that’s all. Just wanted to make sure that
was the same item, not two separate items that we voting on.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right.
Mr. Bridges: Is this the time to pull?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridges: Okay. I want to pull number 3 on consent, just for discussion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Number 3. Any other items to be pulled?
Mr. Bridges: That’s number 3 on the addition, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: On the addition? Okay.
Mr. Williams: Pull number 8.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Number 8. Any other items?
PUBLIC SERVICES:
12
1. Motion to approve bid award in the amount of $92,225.93 to Beam Pavement
to pave runway extension at Daniel Field. (Approved by Public Services Committee
December 23, 2002)
2. Motion to approve bid award in the amount of $42,058.54 to Walker &
Whiteside, Inc. to modify runway lights and install PAPI lights at Daniel Field
Airport. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 23, 2002)
3. Motion to approve a request by Gordana Z. Downs for a Therapeutic
Massage License to be used in connection with Integrative Massage and Body
Therapy Center located at 25 Wheeler Road, Suite 210. District 3. Super District
10. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 23, 2002)
4. Motion to approve a request by Chris Cheek for an on premise consumption
Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Somewhere in Augusta
located at 2701 Washington Road, Suite 2. There will be Sunday sales. District 7.
Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 23, 2002)
5. Motion to approve a request by Milton D. Simmons for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Nate’s
Lounge located at 3663 Deans Bridge Road. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved
by Public Services Committee December 23, 2002)
6. Motion to approve a request by Yong Henson for a retail package Liquor
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with J.C. Package located at 2501
Peach Orchard Road. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee December 23, 2002)
7. Motion to approve a request by M. Richard Cutler for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Roland
Garros, Inc d/b/a The Club at Raes Creek located at 3206 West Wimbledon Drive.
There will be Sunday sales. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee December 23, 2002)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
8. Deleted from the consent agenda.
9. Motion to approve staff recommendation to pay for additional services for
tasks and deliverables outside the original scope in the amount of $43,000 relating to
the Inner City Master Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
December 23, 2002)
10. Motion to approve offering an annual salary of $50,000.00 (mid-point) to the
candidate for Fire Department EMS Coordinator. (Approved by Administrative
Services Committee December 23, 2002)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
11. Motion to approve a request from the CSRA Humane Society to extend the
lease for the old City Stockade for an additional five-year period.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee December 23, 2002)
12. Motion to approve a 60-month lease/purchase agreement with Dictaphone
Corporation for a 9-1-1 logging recorder and call checks. (Approved by Public
Safety Committee December 23, 2002)
13
13. Motion to approve the replacement of obsolete computers. (Approved by
Public Safety Committee December 23, 2002)
14. Motion to approve offering an annual salary of $50,000.00 to the candidate
for Fire Department EMS Coordinator. (Approved by Public
Safety Committee December 23, 2002)
FINANCE:
15. Motion to approve waiver of tax penalty ($2,536.87) on property purchased
by the Richmond County Board of Education from Shriom Enterprises. (Approved
by Finance Committee December 23, 2002)
16. Motion to approve increased budget for aviation fuel in the amount of
$750,000 for cost of goods sold at Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field.
(Approved by Finance Committee December 23, 2002)
17. Motion to approve the abatement of tax balance for 2002 – property
acquired by City for Greenspace Program. .(Approved by Finance Committee
December 23, 2002)
18. Motion to approve a request for maintenance funds for a new vehicle that the
District Attorney’s Office will purchase from asset forfeiture funds. The purchase
price will not impact budgeted funds. (Approved by Finance Committee December
23, 2002)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
19. Motion to authorize condemnation against property of Leroy H. Simkins, et
al. to acquire necessary easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
December 23,2002)
20. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 107, Parcel
35.03, which is owned by Steve Li, for an easement on the Butler Creek Interceptor
Upgrade, more particularly described as 5,495 square feet,
more or less, of permanent easement and 4,425 square feet, more or less, of
temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
December 23, 2002)
21. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 107, Parcel 347,
which is owned by John J. Manello, for a permanent utility easement in connection
with the Butler Creek Interceptor Upgrade Project, more particularly described as
676 square feet, more or less, of permanent utility easement. (Approved by
Engineering Services
Committee December 23, 2002)
22. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 139, Parcel 395,
which is owned by Tan Ngoc Long and Anh Tuyet Huynh, for permanent utility
easement on the Horsepen Sanitary Sewer Extension Project. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee December
23, 2002)
23. Motion to approve condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 123, Parcel 7.01,
which is owned by Norfolk Southern, for an easement in connection with the
Tobacco Road Water Treatment Plant, more particularly described as 7,679 square
14
feet, more or less, of permanent utility easement. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee December 23,2002)
24. Motion to approve a request to amend the Tree Ordinance with the
Illustrated Guide. The additional wording added to the Ordinance provides for
clarification of the existing regulations. The Illustrated Guide changes the point
values to multiples of five (5) for all trees. A list of trees under power lines was also
developed. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 23, 2002)
25. Motion to approve funds in the amount of $150,656.66 and allow the Utilities
Department to award extra work to a current contract with Construction Perfected,
Incorporated to install a new water line in the Apple Homes Development on SR 56.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 23, 2002)
26. Motion to approve bid award of contract to Eagle Utility Contracting, Inc. in
the amount of $1,373,072.00 for the construction of the Jamestown Sanitary Sewer
Extension. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 23, 2002)
27. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget (CPB #324-05-201150500) in the
amount of $260,000.00 to be funded from Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax
(SPLOST) Phase IV for the Judicial Center. Also, authorize Public Works and
Engineering to award a contract to the only bidder, KONE, in the amount of
$121,167.00 to replace the hydraulic elevator at the east end of the Municipal
Building. The contract will include an option to replace the hydraulic elevator at the
west end of the building for an additional $123,267.00 prior to February 3, 2002
subject to execution of contract. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
December 23, 2002)
28. Motion to authorize a section of Glenn Hills Drive between Breeze Hill Drive
and Bobby Jones Expressway be placed on the Street Lighting Master Plan. The
estimated annual cost of $2,304 per year plus a one time construction cost of $825.
This cost will be funded from the General Fund Street Light Account No.
101041610/54.14510.. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 23,
2002)
29. Motion to authorize payment in the amount of $10,720.29 to Southern
Natural Gas Company for reimbursable pipeline adjustments required in
conjunction with the Bobby Jones Expressway @ S.R. 56 Additional Loop Project to
be funded from the One Percent Sales Tax Phase III Recapture Account.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 23,2002)
30. Motion to authorize payment in the amount of $82,204.55 to the Georgia
Department of Transportation in accordance with the Force Account Agreement
between the Georgia Power Company, Richmond County, and the Georgia
Department of Transportation from One Percent Sales Tax Phase III Recapture
(Account Number 323-04-296823333). (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee December 23, 2002)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
31. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held December 7,
2002.
15
Addendum Item 1. Approve Change Order Number Three with Mabus Brothers
Construction in the amount of $37,170.00 on the Laney Walker Boulevard
Reconstruction Project to be funded from the project contingency account. Also
approve Capital Project Budget (326-04-288811018) Change Number Six to reflect
internal project account transfers.
Addendum Item 2. Approve reclassification of the Assistant Solid Waste Manager
position from pay grade 52 to Solid Waste Manager at pay grade 55.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There are no other items pulled. All in favor of the motion,
please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Colclough vote No on Sunday sales portion.
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 4 and 7]
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-3, 5-6, 9-31, Addendum Items 1 and 2]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Bridges, item 3.
Addendum Item 3. Approve the Change Order Number One in the amount of
$29,333.17 to Advanced Disposal to provide Solid Waste Collection Services (Bid #
00-119) to Nellie Drive/Plantation Road Area (Section 9A).
Mr. Bridges: This is an issue I received some calls on, and it’s old District 8
territory. It’s now District 6 and I certainly respect the right of the Commissioner there to
request this and I don’t think he’s going to have any trouble with it today. But I did
receive some calls on this from old constituents of mine and I’m going to vote against it,
not only for that reason, but it does -- anytime we piece meal an extension of the garbage
collection, it moves that garbage area further into the rural area which is District 8, and as
I’ve mentioned to you before, it does create a problem in District 8, because what
happens if the hauler for that District that is, that gets the new extension, if, if there are
some haulers that are in the rural areas that are not included in that extension and it
creates a financial condition for them, they just simply leave the individual that’s not, the
people that are not in the area included here, and those people are left without garbage
service, to try and find additional service. So it does create a problem out in the rural
areas, even though those areas are not being included in this. But I do respect the right of
the Commissioner to request this. I think that it’s his territory and I certainly respect his
right to do it, but this is not a motion, something I can vote for. Of course I haven’ t
heard the motion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I’m going to make a motion to approve
and then have a comment,
too.
16
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a motion on the floor to approve item number 3 on
the agenda addendum.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second.
Mr. Wall: As amended.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: As amended.
Mr. Cheek: The comment I have is that part of this area, this is an area that is
somewhat unique in that Nellie Drive is split basically 60/40 old District 8/District 6
which is now all District 6. Initially, the arrangements were made for all of Nellie Drive
to have the trash collection service. There was an oversight on my part when this was
reviewed recently and this area was deleted from that. We’re coming back. I, too, have
received many calls from folks in that area requesting the service. I had one last night
from an 82-year-old lady that wasn’t complaining, she just wanted to know when the
service would begin. This is a high density area north of Plantation Drive that has houses
basically shoulder-to-shoulder and has a good deal of rental properties in there, which are
the problem children for litter in this city that we’ve corrected in the rest of District 6, and
I just ask all of you as my colleagues to please pass this measure and help us continue the
clean-up that we have facilitated throughout the remainder of District 6 by this trash
collection. If you drive a short two blocks up to Boykin Road and drive down Boykin
Road and compare it to what your memories of Boykin Road were two years ago, it is a
completely different area because there is no, no desire on the part of the people living
there to hoard trash or burn things in their back yard or stack leaves. It is cleaned up and
I will say this for the record that the trash collection service has been one of the best
things that this Commission has done to actually clean up the city of Augusta and there
are remarkable things in District 6 as a result of it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Smith, you wanted to say -- come to the mike.
Ms. Smith: Thank you. I would just like to point out that included in that agenda
item are two alternatives. One alternative is to only add the Nellie Drive area. The other
alternative is to add Nellie Drive and the area that is on the north side of Plantation. So
when the motion is made, we would like to get clarification as to which of those two
alternatives we’re being instructed to follow through on.
Mr. Cheek:
The north side of Plantation is the area that has a high density
So we’re asking for the north
population. The south side of Plantation is flagpole lots.
side of Plantation back towards the area that is already in service.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussion on this item?
17
Mr. Mays: Yes.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I’m going to vote for the motion, I believe we’ve got some pockets
that, that need to be, be cleared up, and I know it’s something that the Commissioner
th
from the 6 has worked on for some time. But as we extend or expand any of these
contracted routes, and this may not be germane per se to, to the question, but if we’re
expanding, but how are we in terms of with the, not just with, with this particular hauler,
per se, but are we, are we up in terms of haulers period in terms of revenue owed the
county? And where do we sit on that particular issue?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Are you directing that to [inaudible]?
Mr. Mays: I’m directing it to anybody that can answer it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Administrator?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, if I understand
what Commissioner Mays is asking, I was kind of diverted, we are doing fine with
respect to collection of revenues. As you are aware, [inaudible] as special assessment
and service districts and it’s designed to collect or cover the actual cost of providing the
service. So we’re on track there and we will adjust it every year, depending on what the
cost of the actual contract is.
Mr. Mays: But there is no gross delinquency as such with, with, with any of the
companies per se that you’ve got that’s on, that are on us with these contractual dealings?
Cause I still will support the motion because I think the service needs to be expanded
[inaudible], but I want to understand as we expand that we, we, we talking recently to
businesses both large and small that, that have been owed revenues and we made a
particular issue about that last committee meeting and last Commission meeting. Now
we are dealing with a situation whereby taxes are being collected from citizens and
charged for them in order to provide these services and companies work for them, and
I’m just trying to find out whether or not just in general whether people are up-to-date
with what they are supposed to be paying in terms of whether it’s in landfill fees or
whatever it’s generated to owe to Richmond County.
Mr. Kolb: From my last review, which was last month, I did not see any
delinquencies on the part of any of the contractors related to this contract. We have not
checked any property taxes, but I think it’s probably a little early, since the collection
period has not ended. But we will check on that and advise you if there is a problem.
Mr. Mays: Okay. I just, I just wanted to ask you, Mr. Mayor, for the record, and
it was not specifically dealing with anything to do with property taxes. It was strictly in
revenues as such that they be dealt with, with the landfill and with solid waste
18
collections. And I might I was glad to see the previous item added on there today in
reference to the Assistant Manager in Solid Waste. I wish them in terms of hiring that
particular person and I’ll be even happier when I see one there for the Manager of Solid
Waste and of bringing that person on board as well, since we have not only one as an
only position, there are two positions that have been vacant for entirely too long that need
to be filled.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Cheek: Just a, just a quick question and this is for Ms. Smith, I guess. We
have -- the cans have already been put out. Do we have an estimated start date for
services?
Mr. Kolb: Thursday.
Mr. Cheek: Thursday?
Ms. Smith: As is stated in the agenda item, and I know you probably didn’t have
an opportunity to read it, but with the approval today, their first pickup will be on
Thursday.
Mr. Cheek: I had about four calls to that effect. It wasn’t complaints, it was
when are we going to start.
Ms. Smith: Right.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Since we’re talking trash here, I
wanted to make a comment. We did a contract, and I think we did ourselves an injustice
in some cases. I don’t know per se where this contract is. But what we did before was
allowing people to put any and everything out, really created some problems. And not,
not so great cause the good outweighed the bad. But I would hope when we negotiate
and talk about these contracts and what we doing now, that we would kind of have some
guidelines as to what we tell the constituents that they can put to the curb. And not only
those who are putting the curb, but those who are not picking up as the schedule has
permitted them or the schedule they had agreed to do. And maybe the landfill person that
Commissioner Mays talked about or that manager of somebody else may be able to
maybe be on track a little bit more. But I think we ought to be mindful about what we,
what we have put together and what we extended to the next contract and to the next
contract. If those same things are in place, we, we have not done in certain areas all that
we could have done in helping to work with the contractors so that it won’t be
overbearing. And I guess I’m talking around in circles and I don’t want to get too far in
19
left field with this. But we ask them to put out anything and there are some people taking
advantage of it, of the contractors. Then there are some people who the contractors
taking advantage of. So we need to look at our contract close and see what, you know,
when we keep extending, and then we going to extend this same contract, we are going to
get the same thing. So I just wanted to bring that to the table. Got no problem with what
Commissioner Cheek is trying to do and to get this cranked up. I see a great difference in
the city because we do have this type of service and I’d like to see it continue.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, I can’t agree with
Commissioner Williams even more. He is correct in his analysis. And of course, this is
our first effort and first round ever of solid waste contracts and we are documenting
lessons learned so that we can improve on our next round of contracts. However, in the
meantime, based on some concerns raised in the Engineering Services Committee
meeting by Commissioner Mays, we have been meeting with contractors to talk to them
about problems that we see currently with exactly what you’re talking about. And they
are committing to look into the situation, do a better job of tracking complaints and
noticing persons who may be in violation of the rules governing the refuse being placed
at the curb. So we are making efforts to improve that service. In addition, you will note
if you are within any of the service districts that you will be receiving either from us or
from your hauler a reminder of the kinds of things that you can leave at the curb, as well
as the days scheduled for bulk pickup, for your regular trash pickup, or recycle, etc. So
we are making every effort we can to remind the contractors, number one, and our
customers of their obligations in this program.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussion on item 3? Hearing none, all in
favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting. All in favor of the motion,
please signify by the sign of raising your hand. All opposed, likewise.
Mr. Bridges votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, for the notation of our official meeting, we’d
like to acknowledge the absence of Mayor Young because he’s attending the U.S.
Congressional Inaugural activities in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So noted. Next item?
The Clerk: [inaudible] consent agenda now?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Number 8, item number 8.
8. Motion to approve the early promotion to ten (10) percent above minimum
range for Ms. Brenda Brown to the Augusta Regional Airport’s Accounting
20
Analyst/Accountant II position. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
December 23, 2002)
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I just wanted to ask a question
for some clarity on this because I discussed this item the last time it came up about the
policy, about hiring someone that has only been on the job for six months. And the
question I want to ask, we asked it last week but I want to make sure that I understand
what we mean by this position being advertised as in-house position. It was advertised
in-house, I think. The Administrator says something about how it was advertised, I
wanted to get a clarity on that because I want to know the difference in in-house and
intra-departmental and how, again, how this position was advertised. I thought we were
told last, our last meeting that the position was advertised to all city employees and I just
want to get clarity on that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Pelaez?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir, thank you. The position was advertised in-house. In-house
means that it’s advertised only at that particular department, which would be the Augusta
Regional Airport. Therefore, if you worked in another department you would not, you
would not be able to apply for that position. Intra-governmental applies to people who
only work for the government, which means that an outside individual who is not
employed by Augusta Richmond County, they would not be eligible to apply for that
position. So those would be the differences between in-house and intra-governmental.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay, cause I understood last, when I asked that question last
time it was stated that this position was advertised to all city employees, and I don’t have
any problems with it cause I said last week that it seemed like everyone [inaudible]
approval of this position, but I just want to remind us what we are doing and making sure
that we following policy in what we are doing.
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: So by it being on consent, I pulled it off. Does it still need a
motion to be approved or what?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: Cause I’ll still do that in the form of a motion to approve it.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. Mr. Williams and then Mr. Beard?
Mr. Williams?
21
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I got no problem with the
position, but I do have a problem with what I just heard then, and like Commissioner
Hankerson said, we was told that it was advertised in-house. And assuming in-house
meant that everybody inside the government had an opportunity that wanted to apply for
the job. But if we are waiving or doing a six months early move and that’s not legal from
what my statement was from last time, cause I said if the policy is wrong we need to
change it, so if we are having a special exception and then a 10% advance, if everybody
don’t have that special exception -- Jim, how can we allow just those people in that area?
I got no problem with the position, no problem with -- but I mean, if we going to play
ball this year, I’m going to keep score.
Mr. Wall: A decision is made at the time a position is advertised as far as whether
it’s going to be, whether candidates are going to be sought from in-house, that
department, or whether you’re going to expand the scope of that. And then the personnel
policy has a provision that specifically allows the Commission to allow an early increase
in compensation, early promotion. And so the policy is being followed in allowing
someone to bring it to the Commission to allow for that early promotion, because the
policy does have a specific provision that allows it to be brought to the Commission to be
considered.
Mr. Williams: So since we approved that and we said it was okay to do that, did
everybody know that -- here I am with Andy, and he’s got six months and I’ve got six
months but I don’t know I can apply for the job. I mean if, if you don’t know you can
apply --
Mr. Wall: Talking about to apply for the position?
Mr. Williams: Apply for the position.
Mr. Wall: Or apply for the promotion?
Mr. Williams: Well, for the position and, and then I’m looking at, this position
which was enabling them to move before the year’s probation was up. And if we okay
that for that department just to do within that department, then everybody in that
department should have known, even though you ain’t got but eight months you still
eligible to be able to put in for it.
Mr. Wall: Well, it was posted within the airport, so every employee that was
there had the opportunity to see the advertisement and apply for the position. So that part
of it, I think has been covered. Now if a department director made inquiry of Personnel
Department, if there has been a request to promote somebody early within that
department, then I would hope that the Personnel Department would be familiar with the
provision and would allow it to be brought before the Commission for consideration.
22
Mr. Williams: I would hope so, too. But you ain’t answered my question, Jim.
Did it happen?
Mr. Wall: Well, it happened in this case.
Mr. Williams: It happened in this case? That’s what I want to know. If
everybody was in, and I was thinking in-house was everybody within the government but
in that particular department, if they knew that even though they didn’t have, they had
less than a year’s time, they could apply as well because you said it was posted?
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] apply, now they would not have known at the time of the
application that there was a promotion in store. No. I don’t understand what you’re
asking.
Mr. Williams: Well --
Mr. Wall: A promotion issue is a separate issue than the application. So I’m
confident that there was --
Mr. Williams: It’s two things being asked for. I mean it’s early [inaudible]
within six month and a 10% and the promotion.
Mr. Wall: Well. I think that’s really one thing. I mean the promotion and the
10% are one and the same thing.
Mr. Williams: Okay. The promotion, you not allowed for that until you get 12
months, so that’s --
Mr. Wall: Unless it’s approved by the Commission to be promoted early.
Mr. Williams: Okay, so you’re asking for two things, still. You come asking the
Commission to approve it, six months, less than a year. And with that you get 10%, is
that what you’re saying?
Mr. Wall: Well, it’s part and parcel the same. Promote them with the 10%
increase. And I guess you, the promotion would necessarily include an increase, and I
guess the amount of the increase could be considered a separate item.
Mr. Williams: Okay. All right. Well, we’ll go ahead, Jim. That’s all, Mr. Mayor
Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is there any further discussion on this item?
Mr. Hankerson: Call for the question.
23
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The question has been called. All in favor of the motion
please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go back and approve the consent agenda.
The Clerk: We approved the consent agenda, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. We’re at the
regular agenda.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’re at the regular agenda?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
32. Motion to approve a request by Pratul B. Patel for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with The Big
Easy Cafe located at #2 Eighth Street. There will be Sunday sales. District 1. Super
District 9. (No Recommendation from Public Services Committee December 23,
2002)
Mr. Sherman: This is a request by Mr. Patel for an on-premise consumption
liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with The Big Easy Café, again
located at #2 Eight Street. There will be Sunday sales. It’s District 1, Super District 9.
The License Department and the Sheriff’s Department have reviewed the application and
it meets the requirements with regard to the location requirements, the zoning and the
distance requirements. We recommend that it be approved.
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion? Hearing
none, all in favor of the motion please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Beard: Do we have objectors to this?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No objectors.
Mr. Sherman: No objectors.
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Colclough vote No on Sunday sales portion.
Motion carries 10-0.
24
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir?
Mr. Bridges: Could I go on record as voting against the Sunday sales portion of
that, as well as the ones under the previous consent agenda?
Mr. Kuhlke: It think he’s too late.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, he’s not. The Mayor Pro Tem likewise.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item.
The Clerk:
33. Motion to approve a request by Jonathan Vick for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with National
Hills Bar & Grill located at 2701 Washington Road, Suite 17. There will be a dance
hall. District 7. Super District 10. (No Recommendation from Public Services
Committee December 23, 2002)
Mr. Sherman: Again, the Sheriff’s Department and the License Department have
reviewed the application. It meets the requirements with regard to the location, again the
zoning and the distance requirements. We recommend that it be approved.
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion?
Mr. Bridges: Any objectors, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No objectors. No objectors.
Mr. Sherman: No objectors.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No discussion? All in favor of the motion please signify by
the sign of voting.
Mr. Colclough votes No.
25
Motion carries 9-1.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY:
34. Report from the Administrator regarding Mutual Aid Agreements relative to
ambulance service in the City of Augusta. (No recommendation from Public Safety
Committee)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, you have in your
packets a form or a mutual aid agreement between the two contractors, Rural Metro and
Gold Cross Ambulance Service. However, since the committee meeting, there have been
more negotiations and discussions on the two contractors’ part and I’m happy to report
that there is a tentative agreement that was arrived at yesterday, and I’ll let Deputy
Administrator Russell comment on those, and we do have copies of it. There are some
slight changes.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: [inaudible] at the meeting yesterday, representatives from Gold
Cross and Rural Metro signed a mutual aid agreement that met the specifications that
were outlined by the Commission in the last several discussions. There will be no county
funds paid for any mutual aid agreement. That would be handled between the two
ambulance companies themselves. They would have the ability to bill each other for an
agreed-upon price, and I have copies of those agreements here if you’d like for me to
share those with you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Fred, was what the changes the Administrator mentioned, said
there would be some slight changes. What, what, what are those changes?
Mr. Russell: In the initial agreement that we talked about last time, Mr.
Chairman, we had the county paying for the $200 fee that was required by Rural -- by
Gold Cross for receiving that. At this point, they’ve agreed to charge each other for that
fee if mutual aid is provided, if they feel like doing so. So no tax dollars are being paid at
this point, sir, per your request last time. There is an agreement where in case of an
emergency that they -- a disaster type emergency -- that they would provide mutual aid,
as they have both said all along to each other without any charge. So if we have a major
disaster, there would obviously be no charge, and both companies agreed to provide that
aid and have done so the entire negotiation.
26
Mr. Williams: I certainly appreciate that and I’m glad that this finally got worked
out. I don’t understand why we, we waited and drug our feet on it, but I’m just glad to
know that it has happened and we have got an agreement that this county, this
government can live with, and I thank all three, Rural, Gold Cross and yourself, Fred, and
George or whoever else had any input on it. I’m just, I’m just -- this is something I think
we could have done earlier, but it’s done and that’s the main thing.
Mr. Russell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would y’all like copies?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir, Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, there is no action required since this is a contract
between two parties, other than to receive the report.
Mr. Shepard: I move we receive it as information.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor to receive as information.
Discussion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, happy new year.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Same to you, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: I want to say that to the rest of my colleagues and all of those who
make up the Augusta Richmond County family. I certainly am most happy that this
situation has been resolved. I listened very closely, and I say this not just because I’ve
two ministers as colleagues up here, but I listened very closely to my pastor, Dr. Jordan,
on watch night service coming into the new year, and not to preach to anybody today, but
I’m talking about getting rid of old baggage and things that saddled us down in 2002. I
hope that in this spirit of what was just settled yesterday with this item, even though
maybe minor in terms of what’s being presented to us, but reflecting a major change
because of the amount of people that it affects, that this can be a [inaudible] in terms of
working smoothly in terms of things that the Commission requests or the things that staff
may request of this Commission in terms of getting problems solved, working them
before they get to the floor of this Commission, so that right or wrong the perception does
not go out that we foster an atmosphere that we cannot get along. I think it’s very
unfortunate that this drifted for a period of three months before a simple situation of
which I remember sitting in a committee, and I think my colleague Mr. Boyles, Tommy, I
think it gets to the crux of your motion that you made in Public Safety, to just get this
27
worked out. And I think the situation that has been resolved between two professional
companies, two old friends, two folk who work together in terms of in this community
and serving folk, that while long overdue I’m glad to see it done. And I hope that that
will be in the spirit, Mr. Mayor, of how business is done that when we set a policy and
that when we request things, that they are done in that manner, because I think it gives
then the indication to the general public that we are carrying out their business and in
their welfare and we do not have to start World War III over simple issues that we can
carry out in a very timely manner. And so I hope that that will be our new year’s gift to
each other from the Commission, the staff, the Mayor, Administrator, and the people that
he supervises, down to the other 2700 people that work in the Augusta Richmond County
family. And maybe that can be a start in 2003 of a much better relationship so that we
can move those things. And I realize we are going to have debate. That’s a part of the
political process. It’s a part of democracy in terms of doing that. But I think that the less
in-fighting that we can have over unnecessary things, those things that can be resolved,
those things that can be done with the simple idea of just sitting down with a determined
effort to work a situation out, will carry us a long way, not just in terms of imaging and
window dressing, but a serious means of letting people know we are about their business
and about their welfare, and I think it’s incumbent upon the 11 of us to do that, as well as
the people who work with us and help to make government run and function every day.
And I’m just glad to see it finally done, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. No further questions? We have a motion on
the floor to receive as information. All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign
of voting.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item?
The Clerk:
JUDICIAL ADVISORY GROUP:
35. Consider recommendation from the Judicial Advisory Group regarding the
new proposed Judicial Center.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, gentlemen, you have in front of you some
information that was prepared primarily by Mr. Wall. But we met yesterday and we had
some, we had some work, additional work that we had to do with the architectural firm in
regards to work orders. And what the Judicial Advisory Committee is recommending to
the Commission is that we execute a master agreement with the firm of Turner, Ricci &
Woodhurst, and from that master agreement we will issue certain work authorizations,
the first one being the project definition phase. So that -- you’ve got this sheet, this sheet
here -- Jim, I might let you go through and they can see, better than me.
28
Mr. Wall: Okay, the -- what we have done insofar as the master agreement is
concerned is the way the agreement is structured is to deal with the situation that we
currently only have $20 million in Phase IV and roughly $5 million left over in Phase III
to not only construct a new facility but also to renovate the existing facility. Therefore,
what -- and also recognize that there has been some consideration given to possibly
finding additional funding or authorize additional funding sometime during the course of
the construction of the new facility. Therefore, the spreadsheet that you have in front of
you, the large document, is a method of demonstrating the cost of the, the expected cost
of the different work authorizations. And it’s divided up into three categories, the first
being the basic services at the top that has a subtotal. And then the special consultants.
Now I think that it’s fair to assume without exception that those services are going to be
needed and requested for each phase of the project. The optional services at the bottom
are something, are services that may or may not be requested in each work authorization.
For instance, in work authorization number 1, you will see that we have deleted the
physical model and have also deleted security consulting. Now this does not eliminate
security because again, if you’ll look back up at the top, under special consultants, you’ll
see security systems as a part of the overall plan. The security consultant here was a step
beyond what is felt is needed insofar as the new facility is concerned, and so therefore in
meeting, in the meetings it was decided that this was not a needed service at this stage.
And this will give the Commission the opportunity throughout the course of this project
to execute work authorizations as funds are available in the event that additional funding
does become available so that you can coordinate both the existing building work at the
same time that new construction, then you could combine the work authorizations and
move forward and do both of them simultaneously. But this is, the next sheet of paper
that should be in your package is a one page document. It outlines the tasks that will be
included in work authorization number 1, for a total of $361,280. The next document is
the work authorization form itself and you will see that it revises the security consultant
to demonstrate what we are requesting, which is what I call the nuts and bolts insofar as
the security consultant is concerned, and also eliminates the models and provides that this
work is to be done in 84 days, 84 working days from authorization. Then the final
document -- well, actually, we’ve got two more documents. The next document, which is
a spreadsheet bar chart, outlines the work to be accomplished in those 84 days insofar as
the working definition or the project definition phase. And it shows the various tasks that
will be accomplished and the schedule for those activities. And then the final document
is a schedule of not only the new construction, but the anticipated renovation to the
existing structure assuming that things are done sequentially and there is not a delay
because of some funding needs, to find additional funds to renovate the existing building.
And I’ll be glad to answer any questions, try to answer any questions if anybody has
them about these documents.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay.
29
Mr. Kuhlke: Let me -- I’d like to make a motion that the Commission
approve the master agreement and Work Authorization #1 in the amount of
$361,280.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Discussion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just a few questions. I’m looking on the project definition standard
services column, and I notice that there is analysis and meetings, review of codes and
historical regulations, conceptual alternatives and meetings, more meetings down in item
4. Is this a cost plus contract or is this in addition to cost we’re paying this firm to do this
work, or this is a line item review of the cost for each one these segments [inaudible]
work?
Mr. Wall: This particular work authorization is a lump sum contract for these, for
this item. This work authorization is a lump sum amount.
Mr. Cheek: And it includes these particular items?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: As listed?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Cheek: So if we don’t expend that money, do they keep it or does it come
back to the city?
Mr. Wall: Well, they -- we pay them a lump sum amount of $361,280 to do this
work, and so we are paying --
Mr. Cheek: There is no guarantee that we are going to get all of these goods and
services or that we are going to get --
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir. I mean if they do not, if they don’t perform this work, I mean
they’ve got to submit a pay requisition, and obviously if they don’t do this work, then,
you know, we’re not going to pay them or we’ll be back before you asking to terminate
the contract.
Mr. Cheek: I just, I haven’t read the contract. My concern is that we do drive this
thing in the way of a performance based contract, that -- I’m not going to rehash history,
but I just want to make sure that we do this thing consistent with the same method the
School Board has used in that we require whoever gets this project to produce us a
product with some savings, and perhaps there could be some award fees or other things
30
associated with that, but we need to drive this thing to where we are getting the biggest
bang for our buck. The thing I’m concerned about is the same thing we run into with our
road construction and our sewers and other things, is unanticipated problems. And we
seem to be more concerned in a lot of cases of covering the needs of these individuals
doing this contract work than we do making them bite the bullet on some of their
oversights, engineering oversights and so forth, and I’m just reading on -- we may this
lump sum payment -- I’ll have to find the language but it’s to help the architects avoid
hardships as a matter of the work they’ll be doing for us. I just have a problem with
paying for something in advance of the services being rendered.
Mr. Wall: Let me, let me try to -- different phases and different work
authorizations have different methodologies for payment. Work authorization #1 is a
lump sum amount. Now as you get into some different phases, and those work
authorizations, each one of them will be brought before you for approval and will set
forth the methodology for payment, as well as either the estimated amount or the
authorized amount, or a lump sum fee. Some of them will be lump sum later on. There
is an incentive in here from the standpoint that we did not -- we wanted them to bear the
risk of designing something that we can build. We have given them a budget, we’ve told
them how many square feet the project is estimated to include, etc. If in the event they
exceed -- once the bids come in, I move it down the road. If the bids come in at more
than 12%, then the redesign of the project is at their expense. And so there is a penalty as
such to ensure that they -- they know what our budget is and they design something that
can be constructed for that budget.
Mr. Cheek: So there is specific language governing, in this contract, governing
delays or unexpected cost overruns and other things that would fall back on the
contractor, not on the city of Augusta?
Mr. Wall: Insofar as the design is concerned, yes. Now understand that insofar as
delays are concerned, that there are time periods within which they’ve got to accomplish
the work. But there are also provisions in the event that we need to delay, because let’s
assume that a SPLOST referendum perhaps or a General Obligation Bond referendum or
some additional funding is two months down the road and we want to wait and see
whether or not those funds, those funds become available, so we may want to hold the
project until we execute that next work authorization so that the renovation and the new
construction can be combined and go on somewhat simultaneously. And so it has that
flexibility built in. So yes, there is a provision in that [inaudible] -- we don’t want to get
into what we did with the jail, where, you know, we had a --
Mr. Cheek: We were paying for their TV and their truck and their trailer.
Mr. Wall: Exactly.
Mr. Cheek: And their office furniture and their staff.
31
Mr. Wall: Well --
Mr. Cheek: I can give you the whole list. I read the contract.
Mr. Wall: We had, what, Mr. Mays, $30 million and it turned out to be $45
million [inaudible] $20 million?
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: We had $32 million, we had $32 million, we ended up spending $29
million, I think, $29.2 million. And we moved in five months ahead of schedule. And
we saved close to $3 million. That was after we reprogrammed it and fired the others
who said they were going to sue us, and they haven’t sued us yet, cause they knew what
the deal was. So those are the numbers and how we ended up. I [inaudible] recognized
later, but you referred to that, and I just wanted to --
Mr. Cheek: I know the contract for that last project was before your tenure, but so
help me, by God, if I see one come across the desk while I’m sitting here, there is going
to be blood on the floor. Cause that was a gross misuse of the public trust in that case, to
where the project, the people were being paid based on the amount of money they spent,
not the amount that they saved. And that’s in contract language. And again, I’m going to
go back to probably one of the finest examples in the history of this city. The School
Board passed a $115 million bond referendum. They paid for it in four years out of sales
tax. They hired the company with the fore-knowledge that we have this amount of
money, we have this list of projects, you will raise your fee out of the money you save
from this $115 million. There will be no additional fee other than that which you save. It
was capped in an amount. There were performance measures in there and awards and so
forth, but the truth is with that driver in place they were able to save enough money to
build another school and a stadium. I want to see our contracting go to that direction to
where we are, when these people come in and they get a job from Augusta, they give us
the total package, not nickel and dime us along the way with every little thing that comes
up that they didn’t anticipate. We’re big boys and big girls in this world doing this
business, and I just don’t see the people of Augusta paying for these things when it’s an
oversight on the part of the contractors. I support the Judicial Center. I support and am
very proud of the work that’s been done by the Chairman. I just want to make sure that
when the people ask me this question, that I take the full knowledge I’ve acquired by
being on the School Board Oversight Committee and down here and try to bring that to
bear to make sure we are getting the biggest bang for our buck in this city.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You want to be recognized?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Shepard had his hand up.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. On the larger spreadsheet, Jim,
[inaudible] talked about the SD and [inaudible]. What are you telling me there?
32
Mr. Wall: The SD is the schematic design for the new facility, and you will see
that that is 2A and then work authorization 2B, if you go to the right hand side, is the
schematic design for the existing. Now the only reason that is broken down into a 2A
and a 2B is for cost purposes, cost analysis, because during the schematic design phase, it
will be one work authorization for both the new and the existing. Because those, the two
buildings obviously have got to work in conjunction with each other, and so that, the
schematic design, once it’s authorized, will be one work authorization. But now beyond
that, the design development, I mean that’s the drawing of the actual construction
drawings, you have design development for the new facility, as well as design
development for the existing, and then -- well, then excuse me. Design development is
not construction drawings. The next one is. The construction drawings is work
authorizations 4 and 8, and then you get to work authorization #5, which is the actual
bidding process and then work authorization #6 is the construction administration when
the actual contract work is done. Then on the far right hand side, you’ve got two work
authorizations, #11 and #12. That would be if the Commission chose to have a resident
project representative on site from the architectural firm to oversee the construction.
That’s an option that the Commission may or may not want once we get to the
construction phase, depending upon the staffing levels of the city and who may be in
place to do that work, etc.
Mr. Shepard: And will we have, Jim, at sometime when we get into the actual
construction, will we have construction management in the same terms as they had it out
in Columbia County or is that an option?
Mr. Wall: That’s the option that you have in work authorizations 11 and 12.
Mr. Shepard: Okay.
Mr. Kuhlke: Steve, one reason that we did it that was is that there is a position
authorized in Public Works, and if that position is filled, would work under Rick Acree
and would probably, would fit in that slot. But if that doesn’t happen, then we’ve got an
option here.
Mr. Shepard: To get it from the architect?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: Get that oversight from the architect?
Mr. Kuhlke: Right.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays and then Mr. Boyles.
33
Mr. Mays: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Let me, let me, let me thank first the
Chairman of the Committee and the Committee along with the county Administrator and
others who have been working with this, as well as members of the judiciary and the
whole family of people that have got in there in that facility. I think it’s a blessing that
we do have a colleague that we can kind of lean on in some ways and don’t have to pay
him, and make him Chairman and pick his brain and do some things. That’s one of the
pluses of being here [inaudible] the city, so therefore he won’t be able to get a check. But
I thank him for that. I think that where we are with the motion that’s on the floor, at least
to support the committee of getting it out of here today as we move, while I think that
needs to be done, I won’t be redundant. I’m in agreement, though, with what my
colleague, Mr. Cheek, has said in terms of being very careful with this project,
particularly from the standpoint that we are starting off talking about building a facility
where on one hand we’re talking about what we’ve got and on the other hand talking
about what we need. And I don’t want to see us get trapped into a situation to a point
where we are, we are forced to do some level of financing because it’s like you are
building a 10,000 square foot home and you’ve got enough money to build 8,000 and
then the back wall of it is out and you think well, I’ve got to borrow some more money to
deal with the rest of it. I think, one, we need to figure out how to build what we are going
to build with what monies we have and that that needs to be configured in that way. And
I’m sure we will deal with that as we move along, as least I’m hopeful that we will. And
I can vote for where we are today. But let me just ask this, because when contracts are
signed and you start off with some things, as Andy has said, sometimes the domino effect
happens to where you get what’s on page one, but then you are locked into several other
pages based on what you’ve done just on the first page. And case in mind, it’s not on the
table today, but I just want to ask for information’s sake, and while I agree with
supporting what’s out here today, but for instance in this reimbursable amount that I see
on here for $40,000, now that’s a small amount of money compared to the amount of
money that we’ve got out of the $20 million to $25 million that we are going to spend.
But now is there a beginning part of the contract itself which deals with an incentive level
or a regulated process from day one that goes further than what I see with these
reimbursables? Because I’m seeing an amount. Now does that get to a point of who
controls the reimbursables? You know, I see the amount there, and if that is built in like
say a contingency that would have to be approved as you go through the reimbursables,
or is that kind of a -- for lack of a better term -- I just don’t want to see it be an open
pocketbook situation to where somebody knows that it’s $40,000 laying over here and
rather than using say the clerical person who may reside and work for the company in
Augusta, you use the one that resides in Lithonia and you pay the travel expenses. And I
think, Andy, that’s what you were referring to, that’s what got us locked in before of all
the different types of reimbursables where there was no incentive for anybody to, quite
frankly, do anything that was right, for the lack of a better term, because money was there
and it could be spent as long as you requisitioned for it. And I know that’s not dealing
with the $321,000, but once you get past the $321,000 -- $40,000 is lot but when you
start dipping into that and then you get into others, and I just wanted to ask that question,
is there language in the overall contract that would deal with every level of where
34
[inaudible] checking off process as to whether you use construction manager in-house,
outside with a firm, or not, will there be a means within the contract to be able to keep
that in line where there is a check-off system and that it is approved and that it is not just
spent simply because it is at part of the line item budget? That’s what I’d like to know.
Mr. Wall: The -- there is approval insofar as the invoices that will be submitted
by the architect to ensure that we are being billed only for the actual services. We have
to have prior approval of the owner that, you know, if they go beyond what is there, we
have limited and defined the expenses that we will reimburse in the contract document
itself, and so, yes, sir, I mean I feel like that we have control over that.
Mr. Mays: Okay, I just saw the number and I just didn’t want it to be -- I know
usually in government when we, when we, when we telegraph a message it’s almost like
to a point when you, you know, you’re third and long yardage and everybody in the state
knows you’ve got to throw the ball. I just didn’t want to have $40,000 sitting out there
that we end up spending $39,999 because we had $40,000 and by some means of control
maybe we could have spent $15,000 to $17,000. I just didn’t want it spent because it is
there. And that’s the type of control that I’m talking about, when you put those in, and
it’s not just with this project. I think we get caught a lot with government. It’s not
necessarily our fault. It’s something Bill and I have discussed before, when you lay a lot
of things out in sales tax and folk know what you’ve allocated on a ballot to do it, you’re
not really going to come in a whole lot of times under with a great savings. Everything
that you put out there in terms of money. So it’s incumbent upon us to make sure that the
safeguards are there, and if you say that they are there and that’s what you’ve got in place
to do it, that’s what we depend upon you to put that kind of language in the contract in
order to deal with and that’s the kind of thing I can live with. But, but I did want to raise
the question to make sure that before we get too far along on this deal, even if we, even if
we expend the $361,000 and we start seeing some things in there, that to a point we got
see how to say whoa, you know, stop this mule and change the direction in it, because I
just don’t want it to get away from us. But I can accept that in terms of where you are
with this at this point. The other question, Mr. Chairman, I have [inaudible] and I just
wanted to ask since we have basically nailed down in location and where everything is
going, and I know this is a little further down the road, I’m presuming then that we at
least tentatively have worked out our parking arrangements to deal with, with either
shared properties or some sort of that type of addition being on to this type of facility.
Because I mean, we, we, we right here looking at $400,000 today and that’s a nice size
engagement ring. May not be a full scale marriage, but you know, I want to make sure to
a point just coming in from meetings today, if we adding stuff on to it, you know, I, I
[inaudible] walked on down here from where I parked today, and that, and that is a
question. And I’m just wondering. It doesn’t have to be answered today, but I’m just,
I’m just throwing it out there from the standpoint that if that’s going back there,
[inaudible] whether it’s with the Civic Center, whether it’s with something new, have we
crossed that to a point as a means of discussing, you know, before we get involved in
saying okay, we spent $400,000 where we area, but if we got to redo something and we
going somewhere else and a cheaper piece of property or whatever, do, do we have that?
35
Have we nailed that down? Are we working on it? Are we 80%, 90% sure? You know,
kind of what’s the deal on it? That’s why I’d like to know, cause I want to vote for this to
get this, this ox out of the ditch and get it moving, but I also want to know the fact that
I’m going to vote to spend up [inaudible] close to $400,000 that to a point that, you
know, we got enough space to put folk that’s going to deal with this mega-complex in
terms of where we are. And that’s something I’d, I’d like to get an answer on.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Wall? You were smiling.
Mr. Wall: Yes. Do we have the answer as far as where all the parking is going?
No, we can’t. But that is part of the process that is being analyzed insofar as the project
definition that is going to be worked through. Has consideration been given to where the
parking? Yes. You mentioned the coliseum. That is one option that is being looked at.
Have funds --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me stop you, Mr. Wall. Maybe --
Mr. Wall: The funds --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Maybe the, maybe Mr. Acree can answer the question.
Mr. Wall: Well --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: He just walked over to you.
Mr. Wall: I mean this contract does not envision the construction of parking, and
the architect is not responsible for designing our parking.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me stop you.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] parking needs [inaudible], I have to be honest with you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me just stop you there. What about your ADA people?
Parking -- what are you going to do with your ADA people?
Mr. Wall: Well, we’re going to have to make some arrangements for it. But the
thing that has not been decided is whether or not the new building will go, for instance,
over where the existing Planning and Zoning building is concerned, or whether it will go
adjacent to that, or whether it will be T’d off the back where the elevators are or whether
it will be in the right hand side of the parking lot closest to the railroad tracks. And so the
actual location of the new construction has not been decided and it’s part of the process
that will be designed, considered and recommended back to the Commission for approval
in a subsequent work authorization. But we are not trying to build with this contract or
with the budget that is before us parking facilities. And yes, Mr. Mays, that is very much
36
being talked about and discussed, but can we tell you today where that is going to be?
No, sir, we can’t.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes?
Mr. Mays: And, and, and that explains a lot in there, Jim. The -- so, in other
words, the monies that go into this part of the contract that’s on the floor today, we’re
going to need to expend this money, I presume, in other words, in terms of planning for
whatever, with this one preferably being in mind, but we’re going to have to expend this
even if it’s changed, I presume. Cause what I’m looking at, when you -- see, we got, see,
we put some language in here that says a lump sum of money. And I guess what I’m just
getting to the point, and the reason why I asked about the parking, is because let’s just
say hypothetically you get into it and you’ve got the right building but then you don’t
have anywhere to put the people. And then you get to decision two, what you’ve spent, is
it an expense that deals with the planning of this particular facility that’s proposed to be
built or can it be money that’s expended to deal with this one or some other facility? It
would have to be with this one this year.
Mr. Wall: Yes.
Mr. Mays: And we work on that and so therefore we need to expend that in order
to get that done.
Mr. Wall: Yes.
Mr. Mays: Okay. And it carries, it’s itemized here in terms of those stages that
we, that we do go through. I, I brought that up because that, that has been an issue not
only of this building but of downtown period. And I think that even if this ox gets out the
ditch to get us going here, we are going to have seriously consider that if we are going to
spend $400,000 on a plan, and I think the group has worked real hard to get us this far in
order to do that, then we need to be seriously figuring out whether we going rent and
share, put a deck, deal with something because if not I think we are going look real crazy,
and if we already strapped with a, a situation where we’re talking about getting back to
what I said at first, building something that we do not have the money starting off to
complete if you deal with a wish list, then you are going to have to address where you are
talking about dealing with, I mean dealing with parking because you have a whole lot of
ideas floating about town, and I think quite frankly maybe there’s been a little bit too
many ideas floating about town to a point that the government is the one that’s having to
pay this through monies that are being collected from our citizens, whether it be sales tax
or some other form of revenue that may come up. If this thing gets over that pocket and I
think that if you’ve got one it can be the most modern, it can be the most state-of-the-art
judicial center that you’re putting up, but if the parking is, is going to be adequate, if
there’s a means to deal with that, then I really don’t, I don’t have a lot of questions per se.
37
I know sometimes anywhere can run out of parking that you deal, I mean, you know,
Georgia Dome, going to games is a good example of that, particular when they have the
little parking lots up everywhere. But I think for the most part, if we going to get past the
$361,000 in the planning, then we get to spending at least another dime, we need to know
whether or not that’s going to be adequate and we don’t need to be just talking about it.
Cause we don’t need to have a colossal facility that’s sitting out there where the parking
lot used to be and then we still trying to figure out whether or not we going to bump
heads with the Civic Center or not because I mean there may be a mindset or thought
process that the Civic Center wouldn’t be there to talk about it. But at this point, the
Civic Center is where it is, so I mean that’s something that has to be legitimately
considered and so I just wanted to throw that out early to a point with, with, with no
disrespect to where the committee has on the floor today in terms of moving, but I, I just
think as we move along and start getting into delving into money that gets to be six
figures and soon into seven figures, we need to have a general idea of how this thing is
going, going to really be completed, because that’s a little scary.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams and then Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I just back up just for a minute,
the $360,280. Commissioner Mays brought up a couple of points. Jim, you know how I
am about these contracts. I need to know, since we don’t have that person in Rick’s
office or with Teresa who’s going to hold who accountable? How will we know that the
monies that being spent is being spent the way the contract calls for? I mean would that
be something you handle or would Rick or Teresa or somebody since we don’t have the
engineering person and, and we do all these contracts and we leave it up to the contractor
and the contractor is in business to make money. But if we don’t have somebody, and I
know we don’t just turn them a loose per se, but who can I go to to find out? Would that
be the Administrator’s position? I need to know -- this first page, and I got no problem, I
think this is a good first event that they come off, and I salute Bill for all of the hard work
and the stuff that they’ve put together. But I need to know when we do these contracts
who is going to hold who accountable for what they supposed to do?
Mr. Wall: All right, you are going to have several layers. First of all, it would be
Mr. Acree. He is the one who will be responsible for carrying out the contract. You’ve
got the committee that Mr. Kuhlke is Chairman of that is also going to be following the
work, looking at the work, actively involved in the process. I assure you that there are
some members of that committee going to be sure they get their money’s worth. And the
-- and of course the Administrator.
Mr. Williams: Okay. You answered my question, but I told you before how we,
we sign contracts and once we sign the contract, and a lot of times we vote on contract,
we don’t even know what’s in there until the contract been signed. In this case we see
what’s going to be coming out. But if we going, we got somebody in place to make sure
that the $361,000 is being spent, the money’s been saved or the things been not done
that’s been not done or the things that supposed to been done have been done. I mean
38
that, that, that, that’s my concern right now. I mean I don’t care who we get, we need to
have somebody on this side. Commissioner Cheek talked about the School Board. They
had somebody who was trying to save money in order to make more money.
Mr. Wall: Mr. Acree is the one primarily responsible for that.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Wall: Ultimately -- you’ve got the committee and then ultimately it’s the
Administrator, so you’ve got several layers there.
Mr. Williams: Okay, you answered my question. That’s what I needed to know.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, all I wanted to say is the project definition
phase of the work is basically to identify what we are going to do for the judicial part of
it. Part of that process, if you go down to item number 20 and 22 is the cost estimates we
go through. So when we get through with the project definition phase, we are going to
know where the facility is going to go, we’re going to know what it’s going to cost, and
obviously when you get to some of that stuff in there is when you begin to do some
massaging from the standpoint of making sure we are going to be able to stay in the
budget. So I’m sure y’all have got more experience than I have cause I haven’t been in
construction but 40 years, but on a project this size, I can tell you if you don’t go through
this process -- and I think Mr. Mays is absolutely right, we do need to pay attention to
parking. But until we know what we are going to build and how we are going to build it,
we don’t know how much parking we are going need. So this is something that’s
essential to do on a project this size, and everything on here, this big sheet is a schedule
of everything that’s going to take place in the project definition stage. And it’s laid out in
a bar chart and it shows when things are going to happen. To give you -- the committee
that I chair, we’ve got good people on there, we’ve got architects on there, we’ve got
other contractors on there, we’ve got business people on there, and I can assure you that
they are going to watch every dollar that goes through. So what I’m saying is that we
can’t begin this process unless we go through the project definition phase.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, thank you. The last, number 41, Bill, number
41, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and members of the Commission, the last bar on the chart as I
read it with or without these glasses says owner review and approval. And so that’s the
ultimate accountability, is it not?
Mr. Kuhlke: Exactly. And then that’s when we go to work the authorization
number 2, I believe, isn’t it, Jim?
39
Mr. Wall: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: And the time for that, as I read over on the left hand side, is from
Tuesday, May 6, until Monday, May 26?
Mr. Kuhlke: Exactly.
Mr. Shepard: And so, Mr. Williams, that’s when they’ll back to this body, as I
understand it. There is your accountability.
Mr. Williams: Okay, so what you’re saying, Steve, is we won’t pay nothing until
we’re satisfied, is that right?
Mr. Kuhlke: No, they’ll have progressive payments as they do work, but I mean
we aren’t going to pay $360,000 up front. As they do phases of the work, they’ll issue
invoices to us on a monthly basis.
Mr. Williams: I understand that. And my point is, Bill, and I’m not against it,
I’m in support, I was in your committee.
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes.
Mr. Williams: I want, I want the thing to get off the floor but I do want to say
while we’re talking about it that if we don’t put a handle on things, then there won’t be a
handle. If, if, if we’re the ultimate responsibility or the responsibility of this Commission
to say they did or did not, you know, the that’s fine but I just want to be sure, and Mr.
Acree and Administrator and all his help, I think, you know, we got enough folks here to
make sure everything goes right.
Mr. Kuhlke: Bear in mind, now, we also have a local architect involved on this
thing whose reputation is at stake in this community, and he’s got a good reputation. So
he’s part of the team.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you. I just, just for the record, where there is no doubt about
where I’m coming from on this, I support the project. I understand the sequence of work.
From my recollection and my history in Augusta government, my concerns were on the
jail tower project we had architects and all these other people involved and the project
nearly doubled in less than a year, and I promised my people in my District that I would
not allow that type of thing to repeat itself again, and that’s why this, I consider this work
here to be the foundation for the entire project, and in the interest of quality it’s better to
get all of these questions out and answered now than to wait until we’re in the middle of
something and then start asking questions and turn it around if there is a problem. So
that’s where I’m coming from. I have certain expectations based on my experience. And
40
I’m going to ask some of these hard questions. But from an historical perspective, this
city has had experts involved in projects before and that has not necessarily guaranteed us
great quality at the lowest possible price, and that’s one thing I’m here, I promised that I
would do for my constituents and for this city, and I intend to do it. And also I would
also like to formally request a copy of the contract as well.
Mr. Wall: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussion? Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Very quick one, Mr. Mayor, thank you. Do I understand, I just want
to be clear in my own mind on this work, the long sheet, the work authorization, and the
project definition sheet that you’ve given us --
Mr. Kuhlke: Work authorization number 1?
Mr. Boyles: Number 1.
Mr. Wall: That’s the simplified version.
Mr. Boyles: Same one?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Same one.
Mr. Boyles: And we will get each time we begin a new phase, we will get
another sheet such as this so that we can in our own minds keep up with financially what
we’re doing with it?
Mr. Kuhlke: And a schedule. You’ll have a lot of paper.
Mr. Boyles: I just wanted to be clear. I’ve got it now. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No further discussion? All in favor of the motion, please
signify by the sign of voting.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item?
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS:
36. Discuss surcharges to general public regarding assistance requests from
Public Safety entities within Augusta-Richmond County Government. (Requested
by Commissioner Marion Williams)
41
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner?
Mr. Williams:
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, thank you. I did ask to be on. After
[inaudible] what Mr. Mays said earlier and not all he said but when he was talking about
getting together and get some things done, I’m going to defer this to the Public Safety
meeting. I do want to talk about. There are some things. I’ve received a list of charges
I’d like to just defer this to
and stuff that we are doing that I didn’t know about and
Public Safety, our next Public Safety Committee meeting,
Madame Clerk, if we can.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is that in the form of a motion?
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a motion and second on the floor. Any further
discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion, please signify by voting.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, please.
The Clerk:
37. Discuss personnel matter. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams)
Mr. Williams: I’d like to defer this personnel matter
Madame Clerk, again,
into the legal session. When we go into legal.
I may have some comments when I
come out of there. I don’t know, but I do want to defer this to legal.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion?
Deferring this to legal. Hearing none, all in favor of the motion, please signify by the
sign of voting.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
ATTORNEY:
38. Motion to approve agreement with Republic/Payne Parking System for
operation of the Radisson and Convention Center Parking Facility for the term
from January 15, 2003 through January 31, 2004.
42
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Discussion? Mr.
Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’d like to know why did we have
to or why did we wait until now and we had a lot of discussion on this. There was a time
when you didn’t have anybody on the watch, but now we seem to come up with a, a, a, a,
a firm that would be able to do that, and is that the same firm that we got at the airport? I
think that that’s two questions, but I need to know that.
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir, it is the same firm that we have at the airport, and just to recap
what has transpired. Back, I’m going to say during the spring, perhaps winter, we want
out for requests for proposals. There was only one submitter, and that being Republic
Parking. The budget that they had in there was much greater than the amount that you
are approving today. There was very little information in there as far as how we could
save costs, how we could generate additional revenues, what than plan was, etc. As a
result of that, the Commission approved the hiring of a consultant who came in, looked at
the parking facility, made certain recommendations. A lot of those recommendations
involved buying additional equipment and going out. As a result of the information that
we received from the consultant, we started negotiations with Republic Parking.
Unfortunately, the gentleman with Republic Parking that had dealt with the proposal had
left the company. We submitted contracts, and this is essentially the same contract with
some minor modifications that we have at Bush Field that the Commission has previously
approved and that process bogged down. There is no other way to say it. And it was, we
were sending emails but we were not getting responses. And that was the only proposer
that we had, was Republic Parking. And they expressed interest in contracting with us.
th
Originally they committed they would be up and operating by November 15, but the
contract was not reviewed, did not come back. It was my recommendation to the
Administrator that we not keep extending the contract with McLaurin Parking because it
was a losing proposing. We were spending more money paying McLaurin, who was not
doing a quality job, than we were generating in revenues. And there was no incentive on
their part to maximize revenues or to do anything differently, because they knew they did
not have the long-term contract. And unfortunately, whereas they had originally said that
th
they could be in and operating by November 15, that date came and went without our
getting responses to the contract. When this came before the committee -- is that where it
came up last time? Or Commission? Committee? When it came up before the
committee, we had already set up a meeting with Republic Parking for them to come in
th
and to finalize the contract, and that occurred on December 31, if I recall, or 30.
th
December 30, they came in and we were able to finalize the contract and get it where
we could present it to ya’ll for approval.
43
Mr. Williams: Jim, how long were we without a contract or somebody over
there? I mean because this, what you making it seem like it was a 30-day breakdown in
there and there was a longer period than that and we couldn’t find nobody and we just left
-- I say we can’t find nobody, that may be a wrong statement. We didn’t have anybody
over there and nobody was on, on, on the post. Since then, Commissioner Boyles had
somebody to approach him and I think the last thing we said that we would look at a firm
or in-house doing it. And the Administrator was supposed to bring back something with
a firm, not a firm, bring back two proposals, one from in-house and a possibility of even
out source doing it. But it sounding now with all of the names that been mentioned and
all the stuff that we run together that Steve cause he kind of throwed me off, Steve. But I
don’t, I don’t understand. We was without somebody on the gate for how long?
st
Mr. Wall: From November 1, and we still do not have anyone on the gate. If we
th
execute the contract, we’ll have somebody on the gate January 15.
Mr. Williams: Okay, and I think in committee meeting we talked about since we
didn’t have anybody, nobody said anything, we had a firm that was doing it that we was
losing money with, we renewed it with them twice so we wasn’t going to renew them
again, and we talked about we should have put a bus driver or water meter reader or
somebody. We should have somebody over there. And I think the instruction was for the
Administrator to bring back two proposals, one from out source and even one from the
inside to see how we could do this.
Mr. Wall: And he has -- he can address it. We have that information.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Well, and I think my next question to you, Jim, is that
Republic, who is able to do this and we only got one and that should have fell through
lack of time in my mind, I don’t know what the contract stated, but Commissioner Boyles
had a firm to approach him or he talked with somebody who could possibly handle it,
which is a local firm inside, too. But we, we didn’t talk to those people. And I don’t
understand why we had not sit down with somebody and put somebody over there. To
say that because we emailed and didn’t get the email back, what happened to the
telephone? I mean the old-fashioned way?
Mr. Wall: I had several telephone conversations and promises were made about
when they would have it reviewed by their legal staff and get it back to me.
Mr. Williams: Well, then we should not be doing business with this contract, the
contractor then if that’s who the breakdown was with. Or did we have the breakdown or
did they have the breakdown? I better clarify that first. Who broke down?
Mr. Wall: Well --
Mr. Williams: We did or they did?
44
thth
Mr. Wall: From November 15 until December 30, I’ll say they did because
when I contacted them at the end of October and November trying to make a decision
about what recommendation about extending the contract with McLaurin, I specifically
th
asked that question could they be up and running by November 15, and I was assured
that they could.
Mr. Williams: But now here you --
Mr. Wall: That, that contract, I mean I didn’t get any feedback from the contract
that was, was there. Now as why we didn’t go out and deal with anyone else, I mean we
had gone through and RFP process, and Republic Parking was the only one who had
proposed. And --
Mr. Williams: But that where the breakdown came in. Is that right?
Mr. Wall: The break -- when you say the breakdown, are you talking about in
response to the contract?
Mr. Williams: It was the only that came in but something happened between that
and we didn’t do anything with, but now we going back to them and there, there --
Mr. Wall: Well, they were still under the proposal that they submitted, I mean.
It’s, it’s a different contract and the budget is substantially different, but it was still the
RFP process that was utilized to select them. I mean we just didn’t go out and pick them
because they were out at the airport. And I think we would have had to have gone back
through an RFP process to choose anyone other than Republic.
Mr. Williams: I mean I though that what we would have done, I thought we
would have been fair in this government and went out for addition --
Mr. Wall: I think we were fair because we stuck with Republic who is the only
one who responded. We had another company who came in and wanted to make a
proposition, but they didn’t bid on it, and we stuck with the one who bid, and the one
who went through the process with us and responded.
Mr. Williams: How much money you think we lost, Jim?
Mr. Wall: Actually, I think you saved money.
Mr. Williams: We saved money? How much you think we saved?
Mr. Wall: Let me think here. $170,000 a year is what is was costing us, and we
were generating roughly $130,000, so you were saving $40,000 a year, and divided by
12, roughly $6,000.
45
Mr. Williams: So we don’t need to be putting anybody over there cause it going
to cost us money, is that right?
Mr. Wall: Well, the, the contract is for $195,000. There is an incentive for them
to generate additional income. This is a company that has the incentive because they
have a contract that is for a one-year term that can be renewed. In the event that they
generate additional revenues, they make more money. So, yes, sir, this is a contract we
do need to approve.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You finished, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yeah, I just one comment. I mean I don’t understand how come
now it’s, it’s a money maker. Two months ago it was a losing deal.
Mr. Wall: There’s no assurance it’s going to be a money maker. I don’t want to
mislead you. No assurance that it will be.
Mr. Williams: That’s what it sound like. That’s all.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles, Mr. Shepard, Mr. Cheek, and then Mr.
Hankerson.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a couple of questions and a comment.
th
First of all, a comment. I did have a person who is a resident of the 7 Commission
District call about this as it appeared in the newspaper [inaudible] committee meeting. I
didn’t realize we had gotten this far with it until I got my agenda package. But be that
what it may. I probably missed it, Jim, but in here when a ticket is validated by the
Radisson, do we back charge the Radisson for that? They’re back charged?
Mr. Wall: You say back charged? I mean we actually get a check from the
Radisson for the amount of parking.
Mr. Boyles: That’s used by their guests?
Mr. Wall: Yes.
Mr. Boyles: And then the other -- I saw Peggy here a few minutes ago, and I can
remember back when the Commission [inaudible], when we would go out and compete
against other cities to get a conference. I think Tom Beck knows that well, too, cause we
tried to get recreation conferences here. A lot of the kickers, the thing that threw it across
was sometimes being able to offer free parking. I can remember in the early days, before
consolidation, that the Mayor of Augusta [inaudible] that he waived the parking over
there so that we could bring a convention in here, a three or four day convention. I see
46
you shaking your head, but that did happen. I mean, I mean it happened. And sometimes
that is, is a just a plain kicker, I guess, to get a convention here. I was just wondering -- I
read through the contract all the way and I didn’t see any of that we would have some
option to [inaudible] whatever [inaudible] may and Peggy probably knows more about
that than all of us, being from the Convention and Visitors Bureau, how important that is.
But I was just wondering if there was anything in here like that.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
Mr. Boyles: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Jim, during the time that you
were giving those figures as far as expense and revenue, wasn’t that the construction time
over there for the second hotel? This will be an agreement that has two hotels potentially
as generators of parking space utilization; am I right? This is only for a year, too, is that
right?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Shepard: So if it’s, if we save money by not manning the gates, we can pretty
much determine that in this year and then it may be more cost effective not to have the
parking expense, is that right?
Mr. Wall: It certainly was -- not on a long term. I think we need to have an
operator, we need to encourage somebody to go in and maximize the revenue and try to,
to make money and that’s the way this contract is designed. Unfortunately, when you
had a contractor in there that knew he was not going to be there, there was no incentive
on his part, and we have lost money with that parking operator for the last several years.
We’ve been paying more than we have been raising in revenues. But again, I mean you
you’ve got a situation where you needed to control parking, because of the parking
facility and the, and the guests of the hotel, the use of the convention center, etc. But so
yes, it’s something we need to do [inaudible] contract and we need to have a contractor
who is encouraged to make it a revenue producer, an income producer. But during the
particular period of time, you know, it was not. And again, at the time that the contract
was terminated, I thought we were going to be dealing with a 15 day period, which turned
out to be much longer than that.
Mr. Shepard: Well, Jim, this will be back before us basically in January of ’04
because this contract runs out January 31, ’04.
Mr. Wall: Right.
47
Mr. Shepard: And it wouldn’t be that difficult to be able to give this body the
expense computations and the revenue numbers for the contract we’re approving today a
year from now; correct?
Mr. Wall: Correct.
Mr. Shepard: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek, Mr. Hankerson and then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Cheek: I defer.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Williams.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. I brought this, I placed this on the agenda the last
time. I still have some questions, if Mr. Kolb or the Attorney could answer them. How
much was the previous contract? This one is for $195,845. What was the previous
contract? Is this one more than the previous one?
Mr. Wall: This one has a total budget [inaudible]. I don’t know what the budget
was on the other one [inaudible]. [inaudible] reimburse them for certain costs
[inaudible].
Mr. Hankerson: But this one is more than the previous one?
Mr. Wall: About $25,000 more, but recognize that one of the problems that we
had [inaudible] period of time when [inaudible].
Mr. Speaker: I do not believe they were covering all the gates, because if you will
recall, I don’t believe the new hotel opened until the spring of this year or October of last
year. Their contract, for all intents and purposes, began to run out January or February of
last year. They went through a period where it was a fairly short term contract and then it
even went to 30-day extensions. They were unable to attract anyone to work on those
terms, so no, I don’t believe that all three had been manned at any one time.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. Okay. So this contract is more than the last one? The
last one we were losing money on, so this one is more. I understand that you say you
have the incentives in this particular contract for the contractor to market the facility, but
my take on that is that we can’t make money off of selling train tickets if trains are not
coming through. So how is the contractor going to market if it his job to market and we
are going to gain off of that by him marketing, my question is and maybe it’s a dumb
question, what can he do, no more than put a sign up “parking”? I mean, I think, isn’t it
based on the activities that we have coming in the city or who are going to use the facility
over there at the Radisson? Isn’t it based on that? How would we expect him for
incentives to market that?
48
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, one of the aspects -
- and first of all, let me address Commissioner Williams’ response about in-house versus
out-house.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Kolb, if you could just answer my question, I could be
finished with it.
Mr. Kolb: The two are related. I believe the directive was for us to bring it up at
the next committee meeting, and we will do that. We are prepared to do that. We have
numbers here tonight. One of the problems we have with the previous contractor is the
amount of available, for lack of a better word, techniques or methods for us to manage
and control ingress, egress out of the parking facility. We were concerned about that, and
there are some other things that we believe could have been implemented by the
contractor that would have increased the amount of revenue that we receive at the gate.
One of the most simplest is to determine whether or not the parking rates that we are
charging are appropriate for the market that we’re in, and that was never done during the
life of the last agreement. We have built in incentives into the contract, and through
hiring the consultant last spring, have learned some of the things that are possible in
terms of operating a parking deck and making it at least break even in our particular
situation, and we feel very comfortable that Republic has the capacity and the
management skills to make that happen. So if that answers your question.
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, I heard you say about increasing the cost, and as I read the
contract, and it states in here, I mean that’s up to us, that would have to come before us to
change any cost of the parking, right?
Mr. Kolb: Yes.
Mr. Hankerson: So that’s not something that the contractor could market to bring
more money. The reason I asked that, I’m trying to see where we are going to benefit
and why are we pushing this if we’re not going to benefit from it? And we asked that last
time to bring back a proposal. We’d like to know what it would cost us if we operate it
ourselves versus having somebody else, a contractor, to come in. What would this cost?
Would not this be cheaper, then, for us to operate this ourselves, to place people there
ourselves, employees, since we are losing money on it and we are just going to gamble,
increasing the contract and gambling on putting incentives in there that we are going to
make more money, and I keep hearing the Attorney saying this is not a money making
animal but we need it. It’s not a money making animal, but we don’t need to lose money
in operating. Why can’t we operate this facility since we’re not making any money, and
we lost last year, I kept hearing the three or four year figures of how much came in, and
each year we were losing, and last year, as I recall, that was probably the least amount
that we lost, but still yet, we are losing, but then you’re increasing the contract so to me
we are still going to be losing a substantial amount of revenue. I need to know whether it
49
would be more cost efficient to operate this facility ourselves, rather than to gamble on
another year’s contract, and I can’t see anything getting any better here.
Mr. Kolb: We are passing out now our cost analysis if we were to undertake it in-
house, and as you can see, the cost for us to do it, because we would have to fund the cost
ourselves totally, as an organization, rather than participate in cost savings by a national
parking firm, it would cost us more. Part of the reasons why parking decks in general
lose money is because of the debt that is attached to that facility. Now we still are paying
for our parking facility in downtown and that has to be included in the cost of the
operation of the deck. Now if you look at the difference, the $65,000 difference between
what we would have to pay and what a contractor would have to pay, then you add that to
the deficit that we already have of somewhere between $20,000 and $30,000, $40,000 per
year, it’s beginning to grow. So it’s our, it’s our recommendation that we continue to
privatize and outsource the parking garage management fee. They have much more
expertise, they stay up with the market, that is what they’re in business to do. And the
incentives that we have put in the contract for them to put us in a net positive position I
think is incentive enough for them to work hard and to look for ways to improve on the
operation, implement methods for increasing our revenue, and making this a successful
venture.
Mr. Hankerson: It just appear to me that the money that we know we are losing is
enough to use some of our own employees to operate this. According to the agreement
that -- we are responsible for most, we are responsible for the upkeep of the facility. If
I’m wrong, correct me. And the things that the operator was asked to do is the insurance
of the employees and that sort of thing. The liability, I think that, if this is our facility, to
me it seems we have to, if we place people over there, employees that we hire our own
employees there, or we have some employees now that maybe we need to be shifting
around perhaps, and that we can operate it instead of losing on it. And when, when the
city get booming and you get your performing arts theater and you get the arena people
coming in and then we can look at it then offering it out to a contractor. But right now,
we just need to -- seem to me we need to stay where we are with this or just let it remain
as it is if we can’t put our own people over there.
Mr. Kolb: If I can explain the sheet that was passed around, if you’ll note, it will
require an equivalent 10-1/2 employees in order to do, staff that operation. It is a seven-
day-a-week operation. It’s open from 6 until approximately 10 or 11 o’clock at night,
which would require either paying enough overtime or employees to cover those, other
than 8 hours. You would have to pay the overtime, the holiday pay, all those benefits that
we are having to pay now, and we cannot absorb this operation into our existing budget.
This would have to be additional employees. And currently it’s being subsidized, so we
would subsidize it even more with the addition of 10-1/2 new employees. We believe
that it’s, it’s leaking now, you’ll increase the leak.
Mr. Hankerson: Well, we have $195,000 here that we can just have every year to
do any kind of repair on it over there and just keep the gates open and let the people come
50
in, instead of spending [inaudible] $195,000, over, almost, about $196,000. And know
what we’re losing.
Mr. Kolb: That’s expense. That is expense. That is not revenue. And you’re
looking as -
Mr. Hankerson: I understand that’s an expense, but we could save that expense.
Because we’re not getting any revenue. Revenue is out of the question. So we can save
the $195,000.
Mr. Kolb: But you do need revenue because you still have an ongoing debt on the
garage, and I, if I’m not mistaken, part of the covenants of the bond is that you do collect
some revenues off of it.
Mr. Hankerson: But y’all haven’t showed me no revenue in the last five years.
We been losing. There’s no revenue. There’s none.
Mr. Kolb: There is revenue that comes to the garage as a result of the operation.
I think last, when we discussed this in committee meeting, we showed you a document of
the last three or four years of revenues that we received on the garage. If you don’t
operate it at all, that drops to zero.
Mr. Hankerson: Well, my final statement, my fellow Commissioners, I think we
are poor stewards to allow a contract like this to go through and know that we are losing
money. I think we are poor stewards of government money.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams and then Mr. Mays.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. My first question, George, why
would you come back to committee when this was on the floor to be voted on, with
Republic for a contract, then you bring it to committee to show the difference between a
in-house and out-house, so to speak? That, that, that, that my first question. I mean had
we not got to this point, you were not going to present this today, you going to bring it to
committee for us to look at after we done approved this?
Mr. Kolb: That’s correct.
Mr. Williams: For what reason? I mean why would you even bring that then?
Mr. Kolb: You asked for the information. We did not recommend at that time
that it be brought in-house, but you asked for a comparison between what it would cost.
That’s what you wanted.
Mr. Williams: And that because we didn’t have anybody on the door. It was
wide open then and we was trying to find a way to get somebody to the door to work on
51
this. And, and, and that’s not very smart, but that, that, that’s another, another issue. I
can’t support it, either Commissioner Hankerson. I’m in agreement with you. We got
personnel on, on light duty, and, and, and leave time and all kind of other things. We
ought to be, get creative and find a way to use this, this simple thing as collecting monies
on a gate. When you come in that gate, that arm will move up and that tab will come out
and count the cars. So there ought not be no problem in counting how many cars. If we
know how much per car we charging, that be very simple to do. Now a lot of stuff we do
up here may be complicated, but counting cars that going in and out of the parking lot
ought to be the simplest thing this government ever did. And if we can’t do that, then,
then we seriously have a problem. I’m thinking that an employee, whether it be
[inaudible] part of this government, even if we shut it down at four o’clock, and anything
after 12 maybe we don’t make, but we ought to be able to do just that. We didn’t have
nobody over there and nobody said a word until it got to, to the committee. Didn’t
nobody come in here and say we don’t have a person on the [inaudible], we don’t have a
firm to deal with, we, we, we trying to find one. Nobody said nothing. Once we brought
it to the table, now here we are again, we done backed up against the wall, Jim, and when
we get our backs against the wall we got to come out, and we going to come out with the
first [inaudible]. $195,000 a year we losing. If I’m going lose it, I rather lose it with the
employees that we got already on staff, already getting the benefits. If you talking about
part-time employees, a lot of these benefits they won’t even get. And it’s not a hard job.
You ain’t got to stand out in the rain with no flashlight. You sit in the booth with a heater
and probably a radio and maybe a telephone. But that ought to be easy to do, to get
somebody to work on that gate. I’m not going to support this contract with my little vote.
I think we be doing the citizens of Augusta a injustice to know we been losing money,
then go up $25,000 more additional, thinking they can advertise or do something and we
can’t do the [inaudible]. Now unless they going to valet park, and it’s not going to be any
additional charge, and then pick people up from the terminals and all that kind of stuff,
something different that we are not going to be responsible for, I don’t see how they can
do anything, not even advertise. So I’m not going to support it. That’s all I got to say,
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I yield to Mr. Wall. He was trying to say something but I did want to
speak after he finished.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I didn’t catch his hand. I’m sorry, Mr. Wall. Go ahead.
Mr. Wall: Well, first of all, let me address -- it is a Commission decision as to
whether or not they operate the parking. If you open up a parking lot on a long-term
basis and do not have any control over the parking, on a long-term basis, then it is going
to become known as free parking. And as a result of that, you are going to have the free
parking, parkers who are going to come in and utilize that space when you are trying to
market a hotel and a convention center. And people who attend a convention center and
who attend the hotel that is being operated in conjunction with that expect to be able to
52
find a place to park. And whereas on a short-term basis it has not created any problems
that I’m aware of, at some point you’ve got to operate it. Now looking at why I think that
it is more cost efficient to, to use a contractor. If the decision is made to go operate and
control the parking, then, then I think it is more efficient to use a contractor than city
personnel as demonstrated by these numbers and primarily because you’re dealing with a
lot of temporary workers, you’re dealing with a lot of lower paid workers, you’re dealing
with a situation where the Republic Parking has the training and the expertise insofar as
accounting for tickets. You mentioned counting cars. And while yes, to some extent, it
would seem that it is that simple, we got into a whole discussion about that. Since you’re
not operating it 24 hours, 7 days a week -- you’re operating it 7 days a week but not 24
hours, then somebody can come in and get a ticket at 10 o’clock, the parking facility
operator goes home -- I think it’s 11 o’clock -- and then they leave at 12 or 1 o’clock. I
mean you, you have, you’ve got a ticket that’s unaccounted for.
Mr. Williams: That’s no problem, Jim. Let me interrupt you there. That’s no
problem because if somebody comes in at a certain time --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, let me ask the Attorney.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: If somebody comes in earlier, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, all he’s got to
have a simple [inaudible] that you pay when you come in at that rate. That, that, that’s no
excuse, now I can’t accept that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams. Go ahead.
Mr. Wall: Well, that doesn’t work because you don’t know whether the
individual is going to be parking there for one hour or whether he’s going to be parking
there three days while he’s staying at the hotel. You don’t know whether or not he’s
going to be a guest in the hotel, where the hotel pays it. So, so it is, and, and the
financing, the reporting, and all of those things that frankly, you know, we don’t have the
personnel in place to do the -- that are trained to deal with that. And so, I mean, I think
dealing with an operator who is familiar with the parking operation, and I recommend
that the Commission control the parking because I think that’s something that’s needed. I
think it’s for the long-term benefit of the convention center and the hotel which, you
know, benefits this community.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays, [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, happy new year again. I’m [inaudible] I’m
going to try to bring a little friendliness to this discussion. [inaudible] white piece of
paper over here. It wasn’t necessarily a surrender flag but it was to get us to a different
53
point on this same discussion. Is there an official motion on the floor to approve the
contract?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make a substitute motion, but I’m going to
make a comment first. I’ve heard a lot of varying discussion which I think has led to a
certain layer again of confusion. We’re in the first meeting of this year. We were
moving along real quick. It was going to be a day that we basically beat the employees
out the building. That probably is not going to happen today. Because I think this is
another classic example that when we do rush to deal with something and we get it on an
emergency basis and then we start moving, we don’t deal with all the details that we are
supposed to deal with. Now whether official action out of a committee stands as what
you deal with with this full Commission I don’t think should be dealt with in terms of the
total spirit of what has been intended. What I think, when it came before committee to be
discussed was that you get back with two proposals. Now we’ve gotten today into
discussing the proposal about what it would take us to deal with it in-house. That
proposal came about as a Commissioner asking about how that was going to be done. If
that had not become a part of the discussion, we would have basically approved a
contract, which may be a very good contract. But if the direction of the committee was to
deal with bringing back two different situations, this again is getting back into some
classic 2002 baggage -- that was a good sermon my pastor did, I tell you. Some of it
needs to go into that garbage bag in 2003. If we are going to have protocol, then let’s
have protocol. If we are going to have something for the committee to discuss, to peruse,
to ask questions, because I’m hearing on one hand, number one, that it’s a losing
proposition. But then I’m hearing, answer given to Commissioner Hankerson, that we
are going to go up $20,000 more in the expense on [inaudible] losing proposition. I do
agree with the Attorney that it needs to be supervised, but then have we spent the
adequate time prior to the contract running out in the first place to deal with how we can
maximize our money? I’m looking, for instance, on here, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, at the
number of people that it takes to run it. Part time. Full time. I would first even ask the
question in terms of the fact about revenue, what was done even to the contract holder
that’s not there anymore, whether or not you asked about the exits over there. You can
have two on automatic of coming in, maybe you only want to man one place that’s there
and have a central exiting point, where you have two places to enter. That’s just
hypothetical to a point of asking a question. Those are the type of things that have not
been on the table. [inaudible] since November and I’m hearing it’s losing, it certainly
would be worth the while to adequately discuss it, to talk about how you can possibly
make some money. I do think it’s a good idea that incentives were put in. Another
asterisk point, when you negotiate any contract and you negotiate all of it, the difference
from what the RFP says, then if you have it open to negotiation then you may get some
other takers. But if you do all the negotiation after you get you a general RFP, then
you’ve limited the discussion on what you may have in the first place on revenue that you
possibly could make. That’s a bad step in anybody’s business. The second one is that if
it’s going to be supervised, and I agree, it may not be just hotel traffic. I agree with Jim
54
on that point that you invite [inaudible] free parking space. But one of the selling steps
for those who voted to deal with the $7.5 million was that we were going to be getting
this windfall of money, one of the areas was going to be out of the parking lot. Well,
then, we need to decide how we are going to make some money out of the parking lot. Is
Mr. Beck still in the building? Okay, Tom always knows I load him up with something
after he’s gone. But, you know, I heard a similar argument about the golf course and
when it couldn’t make it, how it would go broke, when we weren’t getting anything, and
there were those of us that argued to make that and keep it a public facility. May be
talking about apples and oranges, but you won’t know what you can make until you
thoroughly analyze it, bring it back, and talk about it. I have a real problem if the
committee sends us out to have two sets of direction and we come back with one already
ready, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, to be voted on as a contract, but then we were going to get
the information on what it took to do in-house at the committee the next time we met.
[inaudible] backwards as hell there to do that that way. I know [inaudible]. But to a
point if you going do that, then you do all of it at one time. And you discuss it
intelligently. This has not been a real intelligent conversation. We’ve spent a go-around
to a point the only thing I’ve heard is, is that we basically going to be in more debt than
we were. I asked about Mr. Beck, for example, because we put folk on special to deal
with our buildings and all the facilities we’ve got. We ought to be able to deal with
something creative in the whole spirit of Riverwalk and this is just a thought process of
throwing it out there, that if you going to manage the parking lot -- we talk about, I mean
we do everything almost to take the skills of a rocket scientist to deal with government to
a point of people not being able to man a parking booth that we might pay. Ms. Bonner,
you may want to help me with this a little bit. I can’t remember the young man’s name
that used to sit in the wheelchair in the lobby of the courthouse that gave out information
that was here for some time.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays:
Okay. Yeah. And he, he was one of the most valuable people that
this government had. He knew where every office was on every floor. I make that
example to say this. There are a lot of [inaudible] out there who are employable, who
need some form of gainful employment [inaudible]. If we’re dealing with the
maintenance of it on one level, and we’re talking about how you put somebody there to
collect the money, I don’t see how we need to get into the high figures of what this costs
if we really buckle down to a point we are going to have to pay somebody. We say we
can’t add this on to our payroll, we are going to pay the contractor. If the folk don’t park
[inaudible] contract, they are going to get a face amount of this some kind of way. With
that much confusion that’s centered around that, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’m going to make
a substitute motion that this item, since it’s determined that we wasn’t losing a million
I’m going to make a substitute motion
dollars by it being vacant from the first place,
that this goes back to the committee that it was intended to go to, have a thorough
discussion not only about the contract but about what we may be able to do on a
serious creative basis other than just throwing some numbers together very quickly
in terms of how we may be able to manage this parking lot and have a fruitful
55
discussion of it so that we’re not getting off on another situation of the wrong foot.
Because I think this is where this whole last 30-to-45 minutes has put us, put us nowhere
other than the fact that we were going to spend some more money that we have amongst
our citizens. It’s gotten very confusing and I think it needs to be back in the committee
where it belongs, and that’s my substitute motion.
Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll second the motion and call the question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second and question been called.
Mr. Cheek: I’ll defer my debate until committee meeting.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of
voting.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Motion carries 10-0l.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item?
The Clerk:
39. LEGAL MEETING:
• Discuss personnel matter.
• Discuss pending and potential litigation.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion to go into legal?
Mr. Shepard: So move.
Mr. Beard: Second.
Mr. Wall: For purposes listed, personnel and pending and potential litigation.
Mr. Shepard: For purposes stated by the Attorney.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of
voting.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We do have one item on the agenda to take care of.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I move that we elect Mr. Wall as our
Attorney for the next year.
56
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion? All in
favor of the motion, please signify by voting.
Mr. Boyles and Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item? Mr. Wall?
40. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Wall: Need to approve the execution of the closed meeting affidavit.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. All in favor of the motion,
please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Boyles and Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 8-0.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on January 7, 2003.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
57