HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-04-2003 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
March 4, 2003
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:05 p.m., Tuesday, March
4, 2003, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Colclough, Shepard,
Beard, Williams and Beard, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hon. Cheek, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
The Invocation was given by the Rev. Henry Holt.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, do we have any additions or deletions?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, as per our addendum agenda:
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
DELETION FROM THE AGENDA:
33. Adopt a Resolution of support calling for a state investigation of the recent
sex offender registry case. (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Richard Colclough)
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
1. Z-03-10 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) streetyard
conforms to the Augusta Richmond County Tree Ordinance with trees outside the
required fencing; 2) no access to Glass Factory Road; and 3) no variance to be
requested to the 50’ activity spacing requirement a petition by Lou Moore, on behalf
of CMC Augusta and Jean Hornsby Williams, et al., requesting a Special Exception
in a HI (Heavy Industry) Zone for the purpose of expanding an existing salvage
yard at 1752 Old Savannah Road as per Section 24-2 of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta Richmond County affecting property located at 1752 and
1890 Old Savannah Road and 7 additional parcels that total 1.41 acres on Glass
Factory Road. (existing yard Tax Map 73-1 Parcels 93 & 94, new parcels Tax Map
73-1 Parcels 96-100 and Tax Map 59-3 Parcels 577 and 578) (POSTPONED from
the January meeting) DISTRICT 2
1
2. Z-03-13 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions: that 7 parking
spaces in front of the building be reserve for customer parking; a petition by Ann
Colley, on behalf of Deans Bridge Road Sites, LLC, requesting a Special Exception
in a B-2 (General Business) zone to operate a paint and body shop per Section 22-
2(a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta Richmond County
affecting property located at 2403 Milledgeville Road and containing 1.94 acres (Tax
Map 71-4 Parcel 20). DISTRICT 5
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to deleting item 33 and adding items 1 and 2 to
the agenda? No objection. Go to the delegation.
The Clerk:
DELEGATION:
Mr. Barry Townsend, Owner
Detailing Plus Car Wash
11th and Laney-Walker Blvd.
RE: Laney-Walker Construction Project
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Townsend, please come forward. Give us your name and
address for the record, please, sir.
Mr. Townsend: My name is Barry Townsend, 1102 [inaudible] Trail, Hephzibah.
[inaudible] I’m handing up the Commissioners.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Townsend, under the Commission rules, you have five minutes.
Mr. Townsend: I’ll try to keep this brief. I’ve written down what you have, what
I’m going to say. The purpose of my asking to this forum is to share with you the plight
of our business at 1101 Laney Walker Boulevard. Before I go any further, I want to say
that I do welcome the improvements that are being done on Laney Walker. However, for
every cause there is an effect. The construction that is taking place on Laney Walker is
disrupting my business. We are in jeopardy of going out of business because a lot of lost
profits, which also affects my livelihood, as well as the livelihood of my employees who
most cannot find employment anywhere else. I first became aware of the improvements
on Laney Walker back on October 24, a letter brought to me by an inspector with the
th
Public Works Department. I had noticed the construction being started down on 8
Street about a week prior to getting that letter, which didn’t pose a problem at the time.
When it reached in front of my business, they was removing the asphalt. And again, I
th
own a car wash. I didn’t mention that earlier, but I do own a car wash at 11 and Laney
Walker. When the construction get in front of my shop, basically they removed the
asphalt and the asphalt is basically moved by a conveyor being shot into a dump truck in
2
front of it, creating a lot of dust, and again disrupting the business at my location there.
During the process, as they removed the asphalt, they left a cover of dust on the road, and
every time cars went back, the dust arose by the cars and trucks going by there. That was
back in November. Construction started back in October. My customers noticed by the
time they got their cars washed, as they were leaving, dust had settled back on their car,
th
where we had just washed the car. My real problem started on January 8 when a gas
line was being worked on without any notification to me. They began breaking up to
concrete on the driveway of the business and that created a powder like substance,
basically, the concrete was being pulverized and we had three cars up there being washed
and of course it got dust on the cars. I asked my employees what they were doing.
Basically they told me they were replacing the gas line. When I asked the crew how
come they didn’t give me any prior notification where I could have made some
arrangements, they just kind of shrugged their shoulders and continued to work. Again, I
was given a letter back in October, and that letter is the second sheet that you have there,
telling me to be aware of the construction coming along and there were going to be
inconveniences during the construction. And I realize the inconveniences, but again, my
business was disrupted. I kind of [inaudible] here, but when the people were doing my
driveway I got the letter. The letter had on top of it Ms. Teresa Smith as the Director.
I’m not going to try to read the whole letter, but basically it had Lee Beard and Marion
Williams at the bottom as the Commissioners. I called Ms. Smith with my concerns
about them doing the work out there. I called Ms. Smith for a total of about seven or
eight times and I never got a hold of her. Either she was out of the office, on the phone,
or in a meeting. I asked the person who answered the phone, I told her first of all what
my problem was, who I was, my location, and asked her to give me a call. Again, I never
received a call from her. I then went to the bottom. I seen the names Marion Williams,
Commissioner, and also Mr. Beard. I spoke to Mr. Beard, and Mr. Beard told me he
went to my shop to see what the problem was. The day he went there, he told me I
wasn’t there. I wasn’t there that day because my water was turned off that particular day.
So [inaudible] couldn’t wash any cars because my water was turned off through the
construction crew. I also spoke with Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams did give me a call back
and also came to my shop to find out what the problem was. The main thing of me being
here, again, there are other shops and businesses on Laney Walker Boulevard that I will
say have been inconvenienced. However my shop again is a car wash and my business
literally was being disrupted. There are too many times for me to really tell you how
many times they have disrupted my business over there. I would be here till tomorrow.
But they turn my water off, bursting water pipes. I mean just constantly, I mean I’m put
out of business through the construction over there. Again, unlike the [inaudible] they
can still perform. Again, my business is being put out of business. That is what I have to
say here. I do have some other stuff here. Diagrams. I did have a sheet up here, the last
sheet I gave y’all, [inaudible] last year. I been there for a year now. The first year any
business face is the most difficult time, and if you look at the last year it shows what I
made last year, and this is January and February and what my [inaudible] making this
3
year. And it’s definitely a loss from last year to this year. In between January and
February, I’ve lost about, from my calculation, about $2,298.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything specific you’re asking us to [inaudible]?
Mr. Townsend: Well, I’m of the belief that anybody that takes something apart
should be able to know how to put it back together. I mean there is no specific remedy
that I know of, that I can give. That’s why I come in here, to find out, you know, what
remedies I do have. I mean short of going to an attorney which would probably deplete
my finances I have already. Again, the main thing what I’m trying to say here, and I do
welcome the improvement down there. I mean [inaudible] but the main thing with me,
unlike other businesses down there, when my water is turned off, I’m out of business.
Everybody else can still perform. The schools can still perform, Gurley’s is still going to
get shoppers, and so forth and so on. But I really don’t have any particular remedy that I
can speak of. That’s why I’m here.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I understand, and I empathize with Mr.
Townsend. I know what it feel like to be a small business person, and you know, you
can’t get people to your place of business because of some things that are going on in the
neighborhood. I also realize that anytime we make progress there is a certain amount of
disruption. But at this point, I don’t know what we can do for him, and maybe someone
has an idea. I don’t think he’s asking for anything. I don’t know what he’s asking for, I
put it like that. But I would like to have the Utilities people and the Public Works person,
we need some kind of time line out there, and we need maybe from what he’s saying and
what I’ve seen out there, we need a little more communication between those two
agencies and Mr. Townsend, because I think his business is a little different from other
businesses out there. Other business, you can reroute them and get them to the place of
businesses, their customers to the place of business. Here there is a car wash, and I don’t
you or I would want to take our car there before it’s washed, cleaned up, and after it’s
cleaned up it look the same as it was before. So I think that if we could get some type of
time line from those agencies today to show Mr. Townsend that we are working with it,
and have some communication with him as far as helping him out, to get his customers to
his place of business, working out something with them.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays and then Mr. Williams. [inaudible] If the City had a
potential alternate location that you could use during the time of this construction and
made that available to you, would you be adverse to moving and relocating your business
for a temporary period while the construction is underway and move back after it’s
completed?
4
Mr. Townsend: That’s something that could definitely be entertained, but a lot of
my customers are coming from Beech Island and other locations, that come to me. I
guess I could leave a note on the door and tell them where I’m at. I mean that might
could work. Like I say, the main thing I said is that I totally appreciate them doing the
construction on the road. I’m just looking forward to getting it over with. And again,
just getting back to what I was saying earlier, I mean [inaudible] Aiken County and
Columbia County and business was basically being disrupted through construction and
they had some kind of funds available through HUD [inaudible]. I just couldn’t
remember exactly what they had said. But again, I mean, I’m a micro business.
[inaudible] nominated for top small business in Georgia. Okay? Top small business.
I’m definitely a very, very small business.
Mr. Mayor: We understand. Thank you.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Part of what you just asked, I was going to ask that in, in
some of what I was going to try and suggest. I guess I’ve got a couple of questions, first
not so much of Mr. Townsend, cause I can, I can pretty well see his plight daily. I talked
with Mr. Beard and Mr. Williams in reference to it in terms of the two single-District
Commissioners there. But let me just ask this, Mr. Mayor, of the Attorney or Public
Works or combination thereof. And if I can get an answer in short on this, I maybe
would like to make a motion that we do something to, to refer Mr. Townsend to another
situation to see if we can deal with another activity and help. He talked about South
Carolina just a minute ago in reference to construction. With this being a major project
that we are involved with and in working with DOT and all the utilities that we’ve got
that are there, Mr. Wall, is there – and what I’m looking at is that we are not looking at
finishing that project, and give or take, it’s going to be mid-summer, June, July at best,
that I’ve heard on finishing dates on Laney Walker, whether it’s in front of his place or
whether it’s down the street from it. There is still going to be a certain amount of
disruption, even if his area was finished first, possibly on one side. I mean people
wouldn’t want to travel, not to get a car washed and go back through it anyway. Is there
any way within, within DOT’s confines and the monies that are going into this project,
that – whether through the contingency of the project that there can be a conversation
that’s entertained in reference to doing exactly what he’s talking about in terms of
business disruption and because of the construction in terms of what you’ve got in there?
Because of the uniqueness of it, you are talking about a legitimate loss of income. He
makes money on getting other folks’ cars clean, and he can’t get them clean in the midst
of what’s going on there with construction. That’s dirt, that’s dust, and nobody is going
to pay him $10, $15, $20 to detail a vehicle and then ride right back through dirt and then
dust. If, if, if, if there is a means in terms of a source that this can be at least explored and
dealt with?
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] I’ll be glad to [inaudible] I don’t know of [inaudible]
whether or not it might fall within the parameters of [inaudible].
5
Mr. Mays: How many – who all’s money is in this project, might I ask, Ms.
Smith? What sources of funding?
Ms. Smith: We have funds, 1% sales tax funds, funds from the Georgia
Department of Transportation, and then HUD funds. HND funds.
Mr. Mays: Oh, boy. We’ve got some federal money in it then, right?
Ms. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Wall, I think you’ve got somewhere to start then. Now unlike me
and my situation, we dealt with sales tax money and I think there is a different rule of
thumb, but wouldn’t you kind of agree that we’ve got federal funds in a situation, that
that somewhat changes the complexity of the conversation to at least [inaudible]? If
you’ve got federal funds involved in a project, regardless of what percentage or how
much?
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] that’s correct, [inaudible].
Mr. Mays:
I guess what I’m looking for, Mr. Mayor, out of the Attorney, I’m not
looking for a way quite frankly of not how to do it. I’m looking for a way to try to do it.
I don’t need a road block. He’s got enough disruption as it is. What I’m trying to search
I’m going to go ahead and make a
for is a way that it can be worked out. What I’m –
motion that we authorize the Attorney, Administrator, Public Works, whatever
staffing that needs to be done, that they meet on a very immediate timetable with
Mr. Townsend and try to explore an opportunity based on his – obviously there are
some private things that he may have to bring, but an exploration of statements of
income of what you’ve got pretty much there in the past, the year that you’ve been
in business, the projected losses, time frame that go for this time, and at least look at
those numbers and be able to bring something back to us, either at -- I would hope
the next committee meeting to be able to at least have some means of doing it,
agencies are able to tell you, quite frankly, not in long or short whether you can be
able to qualify to do certain things or not. I make that in the form of a motion that
the information be brought back at the next Engineering Services Committee, but in
the meantime, that there be a meeting and Mr. Townsend be notified of it and to
meet with those following parties and that he provide them information that is
needed in order to try and expedite some movement in this particular situation.
Mr. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams?
6
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I did go out and talk with Mr. Townsend
and in fact, I visited his location about two weeks ago. And unfortunately I wasn’t able
to get my car washed because the construction crew had just broke a water line in the
street at that time. And I just politely told him I would have to come back later and that
was understandable. But what, what role does the construction crew play in all this? I
mean we heard number of time when the line been broken, and I guess it probably going
to be even more than that, [inaudible] intended, but does construction have any, any, any
role in this? I mean does the City, Jim, I guess the legal question for you?
Mr. Wall: No.
Mr. Williams: So the construction don’t have – I’m just asking a question cause I
mean we looking for some –
Mr. Wall: Well, as Commissioner Beard pointed out, any time there is a project
there are businesses that are disrupted. And as a general rule, business loss is not a
compensable item in any project. And the – what I think that this situation needs to be
looked at to be certain that there, you know, consideration is given to criteria, when
business loss can be considered, and I’m not sure that this meets the criteria. But once
the project is let, I mean, the contractor has an obligation to complete the project within
the time period that is specified.
Mr. Williams: And I’m glad you mentioned time period, Jim, and you’re talking
about a unique business with a car wash. It’s not like something else. But since October,
now here it is March already, it will be October before we know it again. And this
particular type business, you know, is a rarity, and I think we understand that. The
Mayor mentioned something about relocating Mr. Townsend to another location. Well,
the question comes to my mind is what’s going to happen to the, the rent – I don’t know
if you own that piece of property or not, Mr. Townsend.
Mr. Townsend: No, I rent it.
Mr. Williams: Okay, what will happen to the rent at that location while he’s gone
to another location to try to build the business at another location? Just another question
for the Attorney.
Mr. Wall: And I think that’s another question that’s got to be answered once we
get all the information. I can’t answer it in the abstract.
Mr. Williams: Okay. That’s, that’s all I got, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
7
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess I don’t really understand the
motion. Is the motion to ask, to reimburse this gentleman for losses or just to review and
see how we can alleviate the problem he’s got?
Mr. Wall: I think it’s to review and come back with a recommendation.
Mr. Bridges: But we’re not discussion –
Mr. Wall: What that recommendation is. I mean –
Mr. Bridges: Okay. All right.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, may I add?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Might I add, though, to my colleague, it’s not exclusive of not looking
at loss of income, though. On the other hand. It’s to bring back a recommendation, but
bringing that, that can be one of the options of doing so, because obviously let’s not fool
ourselves. We are talking about the loss of income of a business, so obviously that has to
be discussed. That’s why I said in terms of the Attorney asking Mr. Townsend to
produce such records and to bring in, in whatever conversation they have legally, that
they have that meeting prior to bringing that to Engineering Services. So it’s not a direct
of them to recommend how, how they deal with the money. But the money has got to be
considered. You know, we’re not talking about just going back and saying wetting the
property down around him to alleviate dust. If a business is going broke in this time of
economy, then obviously that’s what we are seriously talking about. And that’s why I
asked the funding source, because Mr. Wall said he would have to check the criteria.
And there are criteria under certain guidelines, depending on the funding sources that you
use, and the wider you go with the sources of funding, and particularly federal, that is
where you get into the use of loss, relocation, etc., that [inaudible] whether it’s business
or residential. And so that’s what I’m asking him to do. I’m, I’m, I’m just wishing,
though, that he would quit talking about how many times it might not be in there and just
say what can be done to be in there. I hate to start off things with a road block, cause
he’s got enough problems right now on his own.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Smith, we’re not doing this with our
own forces, are we? These are contractors exclusively or is it a combination contractors
and City forces?
8
Ms. Smith: It is contractors exclusively, with the exception of a water line break
that happened in some point during the night that the Utilities Department responded.
Mr. Shepard: I’m sure we want to look at our contractor’s [inaudible], too, Jim.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything further? We have a motion on the floor. All in
favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk: For the record, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, Mr. Cheek will not be
in attendance at today’s meeting. He’s still out with the flu bug.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Madame Clerk. Mr. Townsend, we’ll be in touch with
you.
Mr. Townsend: Thank you, Mayor and Commissioners.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. All right, let’s move along if we can now to the consent
agenda. Items 1 through –
The Clerk: 26.
Mr. Mayor: 26. Can we add to the consent agenda item number 27? Can we
consider that?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Williams: Items 1 and 2, I think was not on our agenda. I want them added
to the consent if possible.
Mr. Mayor: Can we take items 1 and 2 off the addendum agenda for the consent
agenda?
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: So we have a motion to approve the consent agenda, which will be
items 1 through 27, and including 1 and 2 from the addendum agenda.
9
Mr. Hankerson: Are we pulling at this time?
Mr. Mayor: We will in just one moment. I want to make sure we’ve got it
established first.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second on the consent agenda as modified.
And now, do you want to pull any items?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, you wanted to pull something?
Mr. Hankerson: 23B.
Mr. Mayor: 23B for Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Boyles: Did he say B or A?
The Clerk: B.
Mr. Mayor: B. All right.
Mr. Hankerson: 23B. Boy. Bobby.
Mr. Mayor: All right. You want to pull any other items? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull item number 12 and number 14 and 17,
just for a little discussion on them, please.
Mr. Mayor: 12, 14 and 17 for Mr. Williams. All right. Any others? Okay, all in
favor the consent agenda, minus –
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am?
The Clerk: [inaudible] alcohol petitions?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, I’m sorry. Go ahead.
10
The Clerk: For the benefit of any objectors to our alcohol petitions, would
you please signify your objection by raising your hand once the petition is read:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
4. Motion to approve a request by Brenda Johnson for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Club
Malibu located at 1511 North Leg Rd. There will be a dance hall. District 3. Super
District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 24, 2003)
5. Motion to approve a request by Paul M. Davis for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Coconut’s
located at 469 Highland Ave. There will be a dance hall. District 1. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee February 24, 2003)
6. Motion to approve a request by Michael L. Anglin for an on premise
consumption Liquor & Beer license to be used in connection with the Red Lion Pub
located at 1936 Walton Way. There will be a dance hall. District 2. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee February 24, 2003)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions?
Mr. Mayor: None are noted, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: Okay.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Motion to approve a request by Beth Wood for a Therapeutic Massage
License to be used in connection with D J & Co. located at 139 Davis Rd. District 7.
Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 24, 2003)
2. Motion to approve a request by Dwight J. Williams for a Massage Therapy
Operators License to be used in connection with D. J.’s Hair Studio located at 139
Davis Rd. District 7. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee February 24, 2003)
3. Motion to approve a request by Vicki Platt for a Therapeutic Massage
License to be used in connection with Vicki Platt Massage located at 813 Metcalf St.
District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 24,
2003)
4. Motion to approve a request by Brenda Johnson for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Club
Malibu located at 1511 North Leg Rd. There will be a dance hall. District 3. Super
District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 24, 2003)
5. Motion to approve a request by Paul M. Davis for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Coconut’s
located at 469 Highland Ave. There will be a dance hall. District 1. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee February 24, 2003)
11
6. Motion to approve a request by Michael L. Anglin for an on premise
consumption Liquor & Beer license to be used in connection with the Red Lion Pub
located at 1936 Walton Way. There will be a dance hall. District 2. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee February 24, 2003)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
7. Motion to approve Resolution authorizing Warren C. Smith and George R.
Kolb as the two approved signers of the Housing and Neighborhood Development
operating checking account at First Union. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee February 24, 2003)
8. Motion to approve early retirement of Mr. Edward Sealey under the 1977
Pension Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee February 24, 2003)
9. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain
unsafe and uninhabitable properties in the South Augusta Neighborhood: 2233
Bayvale Road (District 3, Super District 10); East Augusta Neighborhood: New
Savannah Road (Map 73, Parcel 23) (District 1, Super District 9); Turpin Hill
Neighborhood: 906 Eighth Avenue, 907 Eighth Avenue, 909 Eighth Avenue (District
2, Super District 9) and waive 2nd reading. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee February 24, 2003)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
10. Motion to approve purchase of equipment and implementation of VOIP
technology in Tax Commissioner and Tag Offices. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee February 24, 2003)
11. Motion to approve the replacement of obsolete computer equipment (laptops,
computers, printers) and purchase the required computer software upgrades.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee February 24, 2003)
12. Deleted from the consent agenda.
13. Motion to approve contract with Identix, Inc. in an amount not to exceed
$67,644.00 regarding the purchase, installation and software customization of an
upgrade and installation of the Live Scan Fingerprinting System in the Augusta
Richmond County Jail of its existing fingerprinting system. Funding is provided in
existing funds within the Sheriff’s Department. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee February 24, 2003)
FINANCE:
14. Deleted from the consent agenda.
15. Motion to approve Lease Agreement for calendar year 2003 for the Tag
Office of the Tax Commissioner at the Farmer’s Market. (Approved by Finance
Committee February 24, 2003)
16. Motion to approve Excess Workers Compensation Insurance with Midwest
Employers Casualty Company (an A rated insurer). (Approved by Finance
Committee February 24, 2003)
12
17. Deleted from the consent agenda.
17A. Motion to approve the 2003 Internal Auditor’s 2003 Work Plan.
(Approved by Finance Committee February 24, 2006)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
18. Motion to approve the permanent repairs of the Windsor Spring Road
sinkhole at an estimated cost of $500,000 funded from SPLOST Phase IV.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 24,
2003)
19. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 107, Parcel 24,
which is owned by Julian Franklin Davis, Jr. and the Estate of Watson Eugene
Davis for an easement in connection with the Butler Creek Interceptor Upgrade
Project, more particularly described as 10,666 square feet, more or less, of
permanent utility easement and 15,562 square feet of temporary construction
easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 24, 2003)
20. Motion to approve Change Order #2 to Eagle Utility Contracting, Inc. for
upgrading the water lines in Pineview Subdivision. (Funded by Account Number:
509043420-5425210/80150215-5425210) (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee February 24, 2003)
21. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering to award a contract to
Aqua Design Systems of Fayetteville, GA for design and construction of the
replacement of the fountain at the 8th Street Plaza on Riverwalk. As designed, the
cost is $114,700 to be funded from capital account 272-04-2260-54.12110. (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee February 24, 2003)
22. Motion to authorize the use of One Percent Sales Tax Phase III and Phase IV
Paving Dirt Roads Program Funds for improvements to the Belair Hills Estates
Subdivision. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 24, 2003)
23. Motion to approve the Residential Development Process. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee February 24, 2003)
23A. Motion to approve the purchase of seven (7) properties associated
with the Butler Creek Greenway in the amount of $205,400. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee February 24, 2003)
23B. Deleted from the consent agenda
PLANNING:
24. ZA-R-155 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve an amendment to Section 34, entitled Location
and Maintenance of Zoning Maps, of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County. The purpose of the amendment is to adopt the zoning
layer of the Augusta-Richmond County Geographic Information System as the
official zoning maps of Augusta. This action would not change the zoning
classification of any property, but rather it would convert existing paper maps to
13
computer based mapping. (Approved by the Commission February 18, 2003 –
second reading)
ATTORNEY:
25. Motion to approve Amendment to Augusta-Richmond County Code Title 2,
Chapter 1, Section 3 Subsection (a) to provide a $72.00 administrative fee.
(Approved by Commission February 18, 2003-second reading)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
26. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held February 18, 2003.
PLANNING:
27. FINAL PLAT – WALTON ACRES, SECTION IV & WALTON HILLS,
SECTION IV – S-630 & S-642 – A petition by James G. Swift & Associates, on
behalf of Southern Specialty Development Corp., requesting final plat approval for
Walton Acres Subdivision, Section IV and Walton Hills subdivision, Section IV.
This subdivision is located on Beaver Creek Lane, Deer Chase Lane and Brookstone
Road and containing 88 lots.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the consent agenda then, minus items 12, 14, 17, and
23B, please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0. [Items 1-11, 13, 15-16, 17-23A, 24-27, Addendum Items 1 and 2]
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, I would like to next take up, if we could jump ahead,
Harry Revell is here from the law firm, who needs to discuss with us items 28 and 32. If
we could take these two up, and I understand Mr. Revell is going to need some time to
present this to us. So if you will call the caption on those two we’ll go ahead.
The Clerk:
28. ZA-R-157 – A petition to amend Title 6, Chapter I of the Augusta-Richmond
County Code which regulates adult entertainment establishments, and also an
amendment to Section 28-C of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-
Richmond County which regulates the location of adult entertainment
establishments (ZA-R-156).
32. Motion to approve Amendment to Augusta-Richmond County Code Title 6,
Chapter 1 to provide Adult Entertainment Regulations.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Revell?
14
Mr. Revell: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission.
Mr. Mays: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: Might I ask a question on procedure before Mr. Revell begins? It’s
just a question of knowing what we’re operating under. On, on 28, I guess – well, let me
jump to 32 first, since we doing both of these at the same time. 32, are we dealing with,
with an ordinance changes in reference to what – if a motion is done and passed, are we
dealing with an ordinance change on an amendment that works totally like an ordinance?
Mr. Revell: It is an ordinance.
Mr. Mays: So we have to either take a vote with or without it on second readings,
or how is that done?
Mr. Wall: Well, you would have to have a second reading, yes. And at the
appropriate time I was going to ask you to waive the second reading. Whether you want
to do it or not [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: That’s on 32 then?
Mr. Wall: 32.
Mr. Mays: And the other question I have on 28, and it’s not so much with this
item, as it is with zoning requests that come from Planning & Zoning. I don’t necessarily
think we’ve got a rule, a rule or procedure, but what has been the given rule of thumb that
we have dealt with on the time frame of items that are handled through Planning &
Zoning and coming to this Commission and getting on the regular agenda. Are they, do
they go from Planning & Zoning directly to this Commission on the next meeting or is
there a time wave that we establish [inaudible] that they would [inaudible] to the next
meeting of the Commission, as opposed to being on the day after Planning & Zoning
meets? Now is that a rule that we set, that we voted on, because, and I’m asking that not
to, to be sarcastic but from the standpoint that if it’s a rule we established, if we are
moving ahead to change the ordinance, obviously this deals with the delicacy of a Court
case that we are in the middle of, and the last thing I think we need to be doing is to
violate our own rules and procedures, and I need to hear what our rules and procedures
are in reference to 28 and on zoning matters period. Because if I’m on the other side of
that [inaudible] that’s the first thing I’m going to throw at you. Now is this is supposed
to be on here today, or is this supposed to be on here two weeks from now?
15
Mr. Wall: Mr. Mays, you’re correct [inaudible] adopted by the Commission it
would not go directly from the [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: Can’t hear you, Jim. Can’t hear you down here.
Mr. Wall: I was saying that the policy that’s been adopted by the Commission
has been that things would not go directly from the Planning & Zoning Commission to
the meeting that follows, the meeting that followed, but that it would come before the
Commission two weeks later. Because of the need, I think, to move expeditiously with
this matter and because this was, of the briefings that I’ve had with the Commission
concerning the need to address this situation, I placed it on here with the idea that we
would move forward as expeditiously as possible, which means that it was considered by
the Planning Commission yesterday, to be taken up by the Commission today. That is
consistent with Georgia law. However, it is not in accordance with the policy that the
Commission has adopted, which has primarily been to deal with situations where
residents were involved, others were involved. And so I felt like it was appropriate in
this situation to carry this directly from the Planning Commission yesterday to the
Commission so that the Zoning portion of this, as well as the adult entertainment issue,
could be decided at the same time and dealt with at the same time.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? I’m not trying to jeopardize any case that we have before
us as a government, and that will be the last thing that this Commissioner would want to
do. However, I do think when you make rules and you make procedures, that in the
delicacy of a Court case or proceeding, while I’m not championing anybody’s brand of
business or whatever may be within the, the proceedings to deal with the rulings on 28
and 32, I think, though, that under any guise of even the remnants of due process, if you
are moving past those procedures to allow or not allow in any objectivity a person who
would be in the position of objecting, I think you place yourself seriously subject to being
dealt with with it, and I think it would be wise for the Attorney, if anything he wants to
discuss, would be to discuss this and make his case in legal and to a point make that
point, whether it’s at the end of this meeting or whether it’s at the beginning of this
meeting. But rules are rules, processes are processes. I think we can see by the rejection
of the current ordinance. I think we can see by the continued fine tuning of it, or the lack
of fine tuning of it and the continuance of being in Court, but to tie up both Mr. Wall,
Planning & Zoning, Mr. Revell, a noted attorney from, from, from our law firm here, the
District Attorney’s office, and all the parties that’s involved to come in and not dealing
with the due process of your own rules. Gentlemen, this is what we have been beat on.,
We’ve not been beat on somebody else’s rules. We’ve been beat on our own rules. And
if y’all want to allow that kind of process, or should I say circus procedure, to deal with it
and ignore rules, then I think while we’ve gone through all this mess in the last few
weeks of what was going to happen with The National and an ordinance and all of those
things, this could have been dealt with. That’s point 1. Second point is that’s why under
the guise of called meetings that you have them. If it’s a delicate legal situation then I
16
think the Attorney should have notified Mr. Patty’s office, there should have been a
called meeting of Planning & Zoning, they should have dealt with it on a particular day,
advertised it, went ahead with a called meeting and dealt with it during this time. I’m
hearing one week we’ve got an emergency about one ordinance, the next week we’ve got
an emergency about another ordinance, and what I’m finding out is two to three months
after we get into them, we go in Court for five minutes and get the devil beat out of us.
With our own rules. So, you know, whatever y’all decide. Majority rules. But I think
that it’s incumbent to at least somebody state what the rules are and that in the, in the
guise of due process that you follow them, or that if you choose to just ignore them, then
how can a government of that nature make rules, set rules and procedures for anybody
else to abide by if you don’t follow your own? And that’s the only point I’m bringing to
this, to this august body, Mr. Mayor, in order to do this.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, would you like to make a motion to put this off for two
weeks then, just to get it sent to the Commission?
Mr. Mays: Well, I don’t even – obviously we are going to hear what’s going to
be presented in here, and that’s why I was trying to give the Attorney the opportunity that
if there is such a desperate case of the County being in peril or everything going up in
smoke like World War III, that he make his case in legal since we already in litigation
and that he do that, and I don’t mind respecting his right to do that. But if we going to
continue this in an open procedure, I can tell you right now I’m going to vote against 28
and I’m going to vote against 32. And I probably will vote against them anyway.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Wall: Mr. Mayor, I’ll be glad, if they want to have a motion, we can go into
legal at this point, we can go back through the [inaudible] for the purpose of getting legal
advice and discuss it.
Mr. Mayor: As a procedural matter, you told me it was going to a half hour for
Mr. Revell to do his presentation, and I would hate to have members of the general public
who are here for specific items on the agenda to wait while we did that for some time. So
what I’d – if it’s the will of the Commission and we’ll find out, I guess, from discussion,
that we want to do this in legal, then we’ll defer it till later in the meeting. Mr. Williams
and Mr. Beard.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And what Commissioner Mays has said is
right. Serving on Planning & Zoning on yesterday this was presented to us from
yesterday. And I had some concerns about it then. But the last thing the chairman said of
Planning & Zoning to the constituents or to the people in this room was that this will be
th
heard again on the 18 of March. And, and, and that’s not true. Jim, I’m not going to
say anything about playing the same ball any more. That don’t, that don’t work. So ain’t
17
no [inaudible] me even discussing that. But if we going have a rule, I agree that a rule is
still a rule. It ought to be in effect all the time. We ought to do the same thing all the
time. But on yesterday we had a lot of discussions about these two items here. 28 and
32. We had a lot of discussion yesterday from this whole entire Planning Commission.
George Patty is here. He can attest to what, what all was said. But I don’t understand
how we do some things one way and some things another way another time. We need to
do the same things all the time and do the same things right. We may not like those
things. We may not agree with those things. But we ought to present those things and
bring them to this community the same way all the time. And I, I, I, Mr. Beard has
something to say. I’m not going to make a motion. I was going to make a motion but
I’m not. Just going –
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Beard and then Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Beard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m a little concerned about both of
these, and I am going to make a motion that we discuss 28 and 32 in legal whenever
we get there, at that point.
And I’m doing this simply because I think we need some
clarification. I do think that we should follow the rules, but there may be some
circumstances that can be told to us in legal that may be different from that. But we have
to understand that we’ve gotten into a lot of this. I know we got in such a bind here about
these ordinance from, you know, the last couple of months. Every time I look around
we’ve got an ordinance that we’ve got to deal with and we’ve got to deal with it legally,
and we must also remember that consolidation started in ’96, so it appears to me that a lot
of this stuff, I know that it’s popping up because of the size of our city, but we also have
to say a [inaudible] and deal with [inaudible] motion that the [inaudible] 28 and 32 in
legal.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Motion and second. Mr. Kuhlke and then Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Wall, would it be terribly bad to postpone this for
two weeks?
Mr. Wall: Why don’t we talk about it in legal and then let y’all decide whether
you want to postpone it, would be my suggestion. I mean obviously I felt like it was
important that we move ahead, the reason that I asked that it be put on today’s agenda
and put it on today’s agenda.
Mr. Kuhlke: Well, the only reason I asked that, Mr. Mayor, is that we’ve got 30
minutes with Mr. Revell explaining the two ordinances, and I get a feeling that we’re not
going to get a positive vote on this Commission today, and then we bring it back in two
18
more weeks and we go through the same process, and all we’re doing is spinning our
wheels. I don’t mind it going to legal, but I don’t think you’ve got a vote.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to refer this to the legal part to our agenda. All in
favor of that, please vote aye.
Mr. Mays votes No.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll take these two items up in our legal session. We’ll go back to
the deferred items from the consent agenda. First is item number 12.
The Clerk:
12. Motion to approve bid award item #03-051 to IntelliSystems, subject to final
contract approval from the County Attorney and Information Technology Director.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee February 24, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? You asked for this one?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And again, final contract to be
approved. I cannot support, I cannot vote for any, any more, and I have done it in the
past, but I will not do this again, vote for a contract, and I talked to the Attorney several
times, when we vote for something we ought to know what we are voting for. When the
Attorney and the other contractor or whoever that may be, the Director of Technology, sit
down and agree to something that I already done vote for and I don’t know what that is,
then I’m, I’m, I’m saying something that I don’t know what I’m saying. So I’m not
going to support that. I don’t have no problem with them doing this contract and then
bring the contract back to us and at least sharing that with us. We do that all the time. I
would not do it again. I’m not voting for something that somebody else going to write
down and put on paper. We got contracts on the books now that people are not following
and it’s supposed to be a written agreement, a document that we can go the Court with.
But we sign contracts, we vote on contracts, approving the Attorney. We just had a
discussion a few minutes ago, something that the Attorney had put together and expect
for us to vote on. He needs to share with us. We pay him for legal opinion, not to write
and to designate or to tell us what we going have. We either in agreement or not in
agreement. So, Mr. Mayor, I had this pulled because I can’t support the a motion to
approve a bid award with anybody, and I don’t know that is, that’s just my opinion, I
thought I would bring this to the table.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Shepard, then Mr. Kuhlke.
19
Mr. Shepard: I make a motion to approve the item as written by the Clerk.
Mr. Bridges: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve and second. Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Williams, I, I don’t know that I’m following you. If I look at
the back-up on that, it seems to me that the price is $89,894.50.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kuhlke: If I’m correct.
Mr. Williams: I [inaudible], Mr. Kuhlke, and I agree with you. This is one of
many where the price is, is here but the other part, and if all of this is in one package and
all, the price and all the other amenities was there and the Attorney said this what they
agreed on, I’m not voting to sign a contract after I done approved it. I mean that, that,
that’s not good business sense for none of us. I don’t think you do that, Mr. Kuhlke, in
your business. I don’t think you would sign something that hadn’t been agreed upon yet.
And I don’t think we ought to run the City’s business like that, either. We need to know
what we are voting on. We can’t know every word. I don’t expect for the Attorney to sit
there and give me word for word what’s going on, but we ought to now the price, the
agreement, the time. We’ve got contracts on the records, on the books, that we as
Commissioners and the Mayor have not seen through, but this will be binding documents.
And I’m not voting for it, Bill. It’s not the price that, that’s down here.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? All in favor of the motion then please vote aye.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 14, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
14. Motion to approve updating Resolutions and Signature Cards with
SouthTrust Bank. (Approved by Finance Committee February 24,
2003)
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Yes, Mr. Mayor, [inaudible] be simple. I just need to know when
we, how many more – I think that question was asked in Finance by Commissioner
20
Hankerson, but I’d like, to know is, how many more, have we determined how many
more signature cards have not been done yet, David?
Mr. Persaud: Commissioner Williams, the bank has requested that we have this
resolution approved. My name was not originally on this resolution, but we are in the
process and we almost through cleaning up all. So we are just adding one more name,
they requested we adopt a brand new resolution. That’s all this is.
Mr. Williams: So this resolution will, will – all of the other bank accounts, all of
the other cards, I think –
Mr. Persaud: For this particular account.
Mr. Williams: For this particular account?
Mr. Persaud: Yes.
Mr. Williams: My question, how many more accounts that, that, that we going
to have to get straightened out? Maybe not today, David, but how many more?
Mr. Persaud: We have a report coming in for the next meeting. All of them have
been cleaned up.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Persaud: But every so often, the bank will ask you to approve a new
resolution. It’s nothing uncommon with that.
Mr. Williams: Okay, David.
Mr. Mayor: Any –
Mr. Williams: I so move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. David, if I could ask you one question. I’m just
curious. What is the City Council of Augusta Office of Economic Development? It has a
money market account.
Mr. Persaud: It’s an investment account we have. Money sitting in there is being
invested.
21
Mr. Mayor: But what is that – I never heard of that office before. What is that?
Mr. Persaud: Just an old name on the account.
Mr. Mayor: Old name for what?
Mr. Persaud: I can find out more information.
Mr. Wall: It’s the predecessor to HND.
Mr. Mayor: Oh, okay. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
All in favor of the motion then please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next, number 17.
The Clerk:
17. Motion to approve award of a contract to Historic Augusta, Inc. in the
amount of $5,472.00 to complete a historic resources survey of the Pinch Gut
Historic District. (Approved by Finance Committee February 24, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, you asked for this one again.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, I understand the pricing. My question is are
we trying, are we looking at creating a history for the Pinch Gut after this, this, this, this
contract is approved to Augusta Historic, Inc., are we trying, are we headed in that
direction? And the reason why I’m asking that question is, Mr. Mayor, that we need to
look at some of those places that we are designating as historic. When you talk about
Pinch Gut or when you talk about some of the older neighborhoods in this county, there
are some places that, that we need to be careful with. We have a lot of, I say competition
is a good word, when it comes to making some changes in a lot of these areas that we
have designated historic, is this leading to that? This particular motion don’t say that but
I’m asking the question. Is this leading to creating a historic district in Pinch Gut?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, would you like to respond?
Mr. Patty: This is a survey of the property. It’s within the Pinch Gut
neighborhood to determine their historic – each property, whether it’s historic or not,
which [inaudible] historic contributing, historic or non-historic property. There has been
ongoing discussion about whether Pinch Gut should be historic designated under our
historic preservation ordinance, and this would – I guess you could say it would lead up
22
to that. You know, if the residents out here wanted to do it and they approached counsel
to take that action or the Commission to take that action, then this would be necessary in
order to do that.
Mr. Williams: I just think, George, that we need to really be careful when we,
when we take that route again. We’ve got some structures that what, what the historic
society may call history, is a disaster to a lot of people. And I just think we need to be
careful and that’s why I asked that question.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I move approval, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Is there a second?
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Have that. Any other discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next is 23B.
The Clerk:
23B. Motion to approve a six-month extension of professional services support for
BMS Enterprises in an amount not to exceed $70,000 to provide program
management to the Solid Waste Division. Funding for this extension is from unused
salaries in this program because of management positions being vacant. (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee February 24, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, you asked for this one.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. I pulled this one because I wanted some information
on this. Why are we extending this professional service contract at the cost of over
$11,000 a month when a new solid waste manager is coming March 17, 2003? And
another concern I have is these positions have been vacant for over two years. How
much have we been – the previous contract or the contract that is now in force, how much
have we already invested in that contract? And with the amount it seems, though, that if
we going into privatizing we need to say we are going to privatize. We need to fill these
positions, positions that been open for over two years. I think that’s getting a little bit
much and we keep extending contracts. It also says in the backup that we need an
assistant person. And then when that person comes on we need somebody to help them
in the transition. It seems, though, that we should get the best for our dollar if we have a
23
professional contract service coming in, that we should have somebody on board that will
be learning from this particular person, that we don’t have to continue to extend
contracts. Is there not someone there that now by this time that can carry on this job until
we get the person hired and the person supposed to be hired in March of 2003? This is
March now and we getting ready to extend this contract for six months at $70,000?
$11,000 a month? I’d like someone to explain that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, can you respond to that? You want Ms. Smith to? All
right.
Ms. Smith: The person – well, a couple of questions. The answer to the question
as to how much has been expended on this contract since it has been in place is $105,000.
The positions were vacant for a year because we, quite frankly, over the course of that
first year period spent about $4,000 on advertising and got in about eight applications,
one of which even met the minimum requirements, had not operated a sub-title
[inaudible] landfill and though he had operated a landfill it was a sub-title [inaudible].
The other applicants did not have any landfill operations experience. Once the salary
increase was put into place, we continued to attempt to attract qualified applicants for the
position and were not successful in doing so. It wasn’t until we regarded the positions in
October or November of this past year that we have found that we have an applicant pool
to be able to address the duties and responsibilities out at the landfill. The person that is
reporting on March – during the month of March, his primary duties are to oversee the
collections contract. That person will be working with the code enforcement officers,
will be working with the tax office, as well as the accounting and budget related activities
associated with the expansion of the collections contract, so that we have management
emphasis on a daily basis on the collections. The assistant director position, which is the
th
one that is advertised and we are planning to have interviews on the 10 of March, is the
position that is responsible for the overall operations of the landfill, will be interacting
with EPD, as well as overseeing the day-to-day operations for the waste that is coming
into the landfill. The reason that we have someone out there now in the contracting
capacity is because we needed to have someone out there day-to-day to work with EPD
who does doe site visits, site inspections, to follow up with them. This person is also
taking a look at – if you will recall, we came forward and recommended that the hours be
cut at the landfill and that there will be a decrease in our day-to-day operations at the
landfill as a result of some of the studies that this company has done with respect with
landfill operations. As we bring in the person that is reporting in March, he’s coming
from out-of-state, he has not worked with the Georgia Environmental Protection
Division, and so there is a learning curve that is associated with that. And the last thing
that we want to do is to find ourselves in a situation where there are any codes or
anything associated with our EPD operating requirements that cause is problems with the
day-to-day operations at the landfill. Because this company has been on board for
several months now, we felt that transition activities would be helpful as far as making
sure that the landfill continues to operate within the guidelines and requirements of the
24
Environmental Protection Division, as well as to ensure that the budgeting that had to be
done for the collection services and interactions with Finance and other day-to-day
operations are able to be taken care of.
Mr. Hankerson: Ms. Smith, the person that is coming on, this is March and it says
both persons, you’re expecting to get both positions filled this month; right?
Ms. Smith: No. We have one person coming on in March and we will be doing
interviews for the other position in March.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. So when – so if that’s successful then the other person
can come on as soon as what, since the interviews is in March?
Ms. Smith: Well, it is anticipated – well, it depends on where they’re coming
from. I mean if we hired a guy from Aiken, he could probably come within two weeks’
notice. If we hired a person from Texas or California, then I mean there’s a transition
time that is required for that. But if someone is coming in from out-of-state, then I’m
anticipating that once the decision is made, it’s probably going to be 60 to 90 days before
they actually report.
Mr. Hankerson: What’s the manager’s position that you are getting ready to fill
th
now? The person that’s supposed to be coming on on the 17?
Ms. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Hankerson: That’s the solid waste manager?
Ms. Smith: That’s the solid waste manager.
Mr. Hankerson: And that person would be responsible for –
Ms. Smith: Collections. Collections and – this person will have primary
oversight of the collections activities. That is correct. We have two code enforcement
officers currently that are doing that, neither of which are at a management level.
Mr. Hankerson: When you say collections, explain that to me.
Ms. Smith: The curbside collections that our contractors are doing.
Mr. Hankerson: So the assistant –
Ms. Smith: Assistant director.
25
Mr. Hankerson: The assistant director –
Ms. Smith: Uh-huh [yes].
Mr. Hankerson: -- that you will be interviewing for –
Ms. Smith: Yes?
Mr. Hankerson: -- it seems that that person’s job is more essential to us than the
solid waste manager then.
Ms. Smith: Well, that person – that person is responsible for overall management
of the landfill, yes.
Mr. Hankerson: That’s going to be more important than, than the collections,
seem like, seem like, it appear to me that if the person, the manager is coming to, for
collections –
Ms. Smith: Sounds like we’re doing them backwards?
Mr. Hankerson: -- and the other person, the assistant manager is the most
important, codes and [inaudible] and all of that, you know, it seems, it seems to me that, I
mean, why is it so hard to get someone to, to come for – if that’s their duties in
collections and so forth, to find somebody qualified to that?
Ms. Smith: To, to – I’m sorry, I didn’t understand you.
Mr. Hankerson: With the manger’s –
Ms. Smith: Assistant director position?
Mr. Hankerson: No, the manager, the solid waste manager.
Ms. Smith: Because the solid waste, the solid waste manager is also the person
that would be in charge in of the landfill in the absence of an assistant director of solid
waste, so it is also important that the solid waste manager have some knowledge and
background on collections. Not as extensive as the person that will be fully in charge of
the landfill, but he needs to be familiar with and have some background because if the
assistant director isn’t there and EPD shows up, someone has to be able to work and to
interact with them when they come in for the inspection.
Mr. Hankerson: What’s the salary for the solid waste manager?
26
Ms. Smith: Um, I believe it’s $57,000. And entry level for the assistant director
position is $64,000. But those are both only after the two positions were upgraded at the
end of last year.
Mr. Hankerson: So you need to extend this contract because this company that is
doing this, they are taking care of the collections and also the other work of the –
Ms. Smith: They’re doing – they’re doing both jobs right now on a day-to-day
basis, yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: But do we have employees that when we bring people in like this
and pay $105,000 for the last year, for a year?
Ms. Smith: I’m sorry?
Mr. Hankerson: $105,000 you said, that’s how much we paid already?
Ms. Smith: Uh-huh [yes]. What was your question? Do we have employees --
Mr. Hankerson: Is that for the last year?
Ms. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Hankerson: And we don’t have –
Ms. Smith: And part of this year.
Mr. Hankerson: Right. When contractors come in like this and we’re paying this
kind of money to get the best for the buck, we don’t have other people there that can
learn from these particular contractors to carry on, like now we wouldn’t have to extend
the contract for $11,000, over $11,000 a month and you’ve got somebody coming on this
month?
Ms. Smith: We don’t have – the contractor there that has been working with the
code enforcement officers that are working on the contracts, that helped them to put in
place customer service tracking techniques, some contract monitoring activities and skills
so he has been working with those employees. However with respect to, we’ll say on-
the-job training for someone at the landfill that could step into one of these two positions,
we don’t have anybody at the landfill that has the background to be able to fill in for
either the solid waste manager or the assistant director of solid waste.
Mr. Hankerson: You don’t have anybody in your department that can do that? I
mean we’re talking about saving $100,000. I mean there may not be anybody right at the
27
landfill with that kind of background, but it appears to me, I’ve seen a lot of non-
professional people that operates on jobs and do the work until the professionals come in,
and sometimes even do a better job than the professionals. It seem like that we need to
better utilize. If we going to contract a service and make sure that we contract them and
have somebody else there that we can carry on so when we get down to this point we
won’t have to renew a contract. Cause to me it seems, again, that we just spending
excessively and not utilizing the staff that we have.
Ms. Smith: If the question is, does Public Works have staff that we could put out
at the landfill that have the knowledge, skills, and expertise to run it –
Mr. Hankerson: You don’t have nobody in Public Works that can come in and
under a professional contract and learn the skills to operate this until you get somebody
on board?
Ms. Smith: Under a professional contract? You mean working with this same
company?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes. We have a professional contractor here, you’re asking to
extend the service. You don’t have anybody that can, that you can put in place that
would learn what they need to do if – we don’t know whether we are going to get an
employee this month or whether you hire the manager or not. It’s been two years. We
don’t know whether we going to hire the assistant manager. So we’re not planning to
have anybody in place that can operate the landfill until, until we get someone? If we are
paying this kind of money, it seems though that someone should be able to learn from
them.
Ms. Smith: Well, I don’t have anybody that I could transfer without bringing
someone in to backfill the position of the person that I was transferring.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. I just think that extending contracts for $70,000, over
$11,000 a month, and a position, two positions have been vacant for over two years, it
seems though something, and I don’t know what it is, that we are not doing. We need to
expand the search or we’ve already increased the salaries or we need to expand the
search. It’s somewhere, somebody somewhere in the radius that will come for the kind
of money that we are offering. It’s been over two years these positions been open.
Ms. Smith: As I, as the agenda item states, the new solid waste manager reports
th
on the 17 of March. So unless he doesn’t pass his drug screening or changes his mind at
this point, he has accepted the position. So we are anticipating that we will have that one
position filled during the four or five months since the salary has been increased. As for
the other one, we haven’t done the interviews yet.
28
Mr. Hankerson: So when are those interviews going to start?
th
Ms. Smith: March 10.
Mr. Mayor: Is that all, Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to move for approval and I’m doing so
because I think we all understand the need out there at the landfill and how we can
easily get in trouble with EPD, so I’m going to move for approval at this time.
Mr. Mayor: Second?
Mr. Bridges: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Bridges. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don’t have any problem with approving
this, but I do have a problem with the length of time. Commissioner Hankerson was on
it, that somebody has dropped the ball, Jim. Two years, we been talking about national
[inaudible] and how many people you brought into this government from out of town and
we wasn’t paying enough. We raised salary for everybody but chickens around here.
And we, we still been waiting around. We going to extend a contract for six months and
pay $70,000 and $105,000 I believe it was the previous year, well, some of this year, too.
But last year. And we can’t, I mean we done come to the national average now and I
keep saying when you look at the national average don’t just look at the national average,
what they paying, look what the national average is doing just I mean all over in this
community. This government start to paying some top dollars. So why did it take, or
why has it took, and why is it still taking so long if you got monies and people? Most
people wants money, and if we are paying the monies, why haven’t we got someone? I
mean, that [inaudible] that’s a lot of money to extend a contract. Richard Colclough
[inaudible] saying something cause we been extending contracts for the last four years
with a change order. Folks come in here and give us a low bid and we extend that and we
extend that and we extend that. I don’t know what the bid was on this. I’m not saying
it’s a low bid, but it’s another extension. We been extending and extending and
extending. If a person doing the job, they ought to be paid. If they ain’t doing the job,
they ought to be down the road with a lunch box in their hand. And I think we, we will
get some results, I think, if you handle it that way. That’s all I got, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
29
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I ask the Administrator and the Public Works Director
would it be possible to extend the contract up to six months, or is the contractor looking
for a set period of time to be here, I mean to recover overhead, this kind of thing? In
other words, if the learning curve of our new folks is shorter than six months, we could
get out of this extension in a shorter period of time; is that not an option that we could
consider or is it pretty much six months or nothing?
Ms. Smith: That is, that is certainly an option.
Mr. Shepard: Well, not –
Mr. Mayor: Is that a motion?
Mr. Shepard: Well, I’m wondering then if Mr. Beard would accept a
friendly amendment that we extend it up to six months so that if we could save some
money by getting out say in the third month, or the fourth month or fifth month, we
could save some money.
I think that’s what Mr. Hankerson – would you accept that
amendment, Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Yes. I don’t have a problem with that.
Mr. Shepard: I think that was a yes, Madame Clerk. Seconder, will you accept
that?
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection –
Mr. Bridges: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: -- to amending the motion? Mr. Bridges, are you objecting to it?
Mr. Bridges: No.
Mr. Mayor: All right. So we’ll add that to the motion.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, and I seconded this to get it out of committee, and I’m
glad to see us with the substitute six months provision in there, Steve, cause I asked in the
committee meeting that they – and I knew the Public Works Director was not prepared to
say what could be accepted in the contract on the day of the committee, but I remember
30
mentioning in there that I’d feel a lot more comfortable, quite frankly, if it was 90 days.
Because that would then push the hiring procedure, to go ahead and get done. But I think
either satisfies it, the 90 days or the up to. But I think when you, it’s kind of like
telegraphing your [inaudible], you put it out there to say you’re going to put it for six
months, they going to be here for five months, 29 days, 23 hours, if you put it out there to
deal with it for six months. So I can live with that.
Mr. Shepard: 59 minutes and 59 seconds.
Mr. Mays: Dead on.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? All in favor of the motion as amended, please
vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item 29, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
29. Consider a request from the Human Relations Commission regarding a
change in its ordinance, Title 1, Chapter 4, Article 9. (No recommendation from
Administrative Services Committee February 24, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Who is going to speak to this? Mr. Chairman, you want to speak to
this? Who is the spokesman for the Commission today? You are?
Mr. Spruill: I guess I am, Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Spruill: This, this item went before the Administrative Services Committee
last week with no recommendation, and I just want to explain it a little bit. For several
years, a couple of years we’ve been discussing in our Human Relations Commission
meetings that if we get a complaint from a City employee or a complaint from the public
against a City department dealing with race that we can investigate it per se. Because
there is an exemption in the ordinance that prevents us from doing that. And what the
Commission wanted to do was to have that exemption removed to allow us to do that,
and there has been a lot of discussion, including the Sheriff’s Department, which I think
everybody understands that, and Jim has explained it, that by law this would not have any
effect on the Sheriff’s Department anyway, that he does not have to cooperate with us
coming in. Other than that, unless you have any questions.
31
Mr. Mayor: I’ll be there in just one second. In the backup information, there is
not any specific language that would be requested for this amendment.
Mr. Spruill: What we asked for was that the attorney reword that, that article in a
way that it would allow the board itself to look at the departments or City employees.
Mr. Mayor: So we’re not amending the ordinance today, we’re just being asked
to take up your request to do that? Is that correct?
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] correct.
Mr. Spruill: Correct.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: [inaudible], let me, let me just ask you this question, because it’s a
little perplexing to me that this Commission funds the Human Relations Commission; am
I correct?
Mr. Spruill: That’s correct.
Mr. Kuhlke: And if the Human Relations Commission was given the authority to
accept complaints from county employees, and the complaint was a valid complaint, and
there was an action taken by the person of, of, of – that brought the complaint, then that
means that the Commission would then have to defend the complaint and the Human
Relations Commission would have to side with that particular individual, and it seems to
me like we’re cutting our nose off to spite our face. And maybe that’s not right, but
that’s like it sounds like to me.
Mr. Spruill: I’ve had a couple of discussions with the Attorney and that’s the way
he explained it to us, is that you have a City, a City department looking at a City
department, but we also in that same wording did not want to make it the HRC itself.
The investigators are full time staff. And this was strictly an informal investigation or
inquiry by the HRC Board members that you appointed to look at complaints and from
there I guess we would make a recommendation to you, you know, as to what we found.
Mr. Kuhlke: But even if you did make a recommendation to us, if the person that
had the complaint wanted to carry it further, carry it to Atlanta or somewhere like that,
whatever information you had in your files would have to be turned over to a State
agency or a Federal agency that would come back to this Commission for some type of
restitution.
32
Mr. Spruill: According to the information I have from the Attorney, that’s
correct.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I guess I need some clarification here, because in 29, it said consider
request from the Human Relations Commission regarding a change in its ordinance.
What is that ordinance?
Mr. Spruill: The ordinance is an exemption that will prevent the HRC from
investigating City employees or departments. And the HRC board is asking for that
exemption to be removed.
Mr. Beard: Okay. And if that is given today then that would be removed; right?
I heard you say a few minutes ago that it – maybe I misunderstood you.
Mr. Spruill: Well, our request or our letter to you from the committee meeting
was to ask the Attorney to rewrite that portion of the ordinance to remove the exemption.
Mr. Beard: So what we would be doing today, Jim, is what? Giving you
authority to rewrite this?
Mr. Wall: Instructing me to rewrite this and bring it back [inaudible].
Mr. Beard: [inaudible]
Mr. Wall: You are not being asked to vote on the ordinance today. You’re being
asked to instruct me to bring back that as a change in the ordinance.
Mr. Beard: Okay. I don’t quite follow you, but I’m going to go to another thing
here. This means we would have to go through this whole dialog again.
Mr. Wall: That’s correct. And I mean I can’t answer you why it was done this
way but that’s the way the item was put on the agenda, was to instruct me to revise the
ordinance.
Mr. Beard: 29 just doesn’t give me that, that reading, Jim.
Mr. Wall: Well, and I don’t know whether it’s in this agenda book or not.
Mr. Mayor: There’s a letter from the HRC in the backup, making the request.
33
Mr. Wall: Therefore, the Human Relations Commission respectfully requests that
the City Attorney put forth to the Augusta Commission a revision of this article that
would allow the HRC to conduct inquiries. And that’s the request that has been put on
the agenda.
Mr. Beard: Okay. We’ll go with that. Why are you excluding the Sheriff from
this?
Mr. Spruill: We’re not excluding the Sheriff. I guess the Sheriff is a City
department. The only conversation that we have had about it with the Attorney is
because he’s a constitutional officer, even if we change this ordinance, we still would not
be able to look at his department without his approval. That’s my understanding from the
Attorney.
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Spruill: That’s what we need clarification on.
Mr. Beard: Well, it just appears to me that I would think that the Sheriff would
want to go along with something like, and I think the whole government agency would
want to go along with something like this. Why not let someone – you know, I don’t
think we can really police ourselves in any department. And that’s a given as far as I’m
concerned. I – and while I have the floor, I’m just going to say, I support what you are
trying to do, because I think it is necessary, and I know there will be others who, who feel
differently about this, but I think I’ve seen too many people come in here, wanting to talk
to us about not only the Sheriff’s Department but other departments, and I think if we
have that [inaudible] there, with the Human Relations there, that they feel comfortable in
going to, I think would be a step forward in equalizing the playing field for everybody.
So I do support that, and I was under the impression from reading the caption here that if
this passed today there would be change in that ordinance as is in the caption here. But if
that’s different [inaudible] go at it at another time. But I thought that’s what –
Mr. Spruill: I think our intentions were to do that. I guess from the way the letter
read, it may have been misunderstood. You know, we were asking that wording be forth
to the Commission we [inaudible] the exemption.
Mr. Beard: And this is what you’re asking us –
Mr. Spruill: That’s what we’re asking for.
Mr. Beard: This is what you’re asking for? That this be –
Mr. Spruill: [inaudible]
34
Mr. Beard: Be given that exemption.
Mr. Mayor: You through, Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: All right, let’s go down to the other end down here. Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. [inaudible], if I could ask you, in my former
days there were times that when an employee had a grievance or an employee had a
problem that there was a standard operating procedure to go through the Human
Resource Department. I think there was a grievance procedure put into effect for
employees. Another item, too, I want to ask you about, but is that not working now?
Mr. Spruill: I could not answer that question. I think –
Mr. Thomas: Good afternoon, gentlemen. In response to your question, I am sure
that Human Resources does the job that it’s supposed to do. However, there are a lot of
governmental employees that hesitate in going to Human Resources and would rather
pursue whatever complaint they have through our office and we don’t turn them away,
we ask them have they gone to Human Resources, but they still insist on coming to us.
Mr. Boyles: Well, Mr. Thomas, I know, I can recall from times that there were
people who had a problem that may not be a grievable problem, and there was, outside of
their own department head sometimes there was no one to listen to that.
Mr. Thomas: Right.
Mr. Boyles: And also, are we talking about citizens in this ordinance or we
talking about the online rank and file employees?
Mr. Thomas: It’s my understanding that the Commission board itself wants to
investigate either citizens or employees. I was just trying to respond to –
Mr. Boyles: Right.
Mr. Thomas: -- these people who come to me.
Mr. Spruill: Mr. Boyles, it was both. The Board members felt like that the
employees of Augusta are also citizens of Augusta.
Mr. Boyles: [inaudible].
35
Mr. Spruill: Right. And they felt that their hands were being tied and that we
could not represent all citizens because they were employees.
Mr. Boyles: Would this be more so – I’m curious about the teeth in this, or would
this be more so such as a sounding board since you’re taking it away from -- not taking it
away, but not using the staff but you’re using the members that we appoint to the Human
Relations Commission to hear that grievance or hear that problem? Sometimes in my
mind grievances are more so would you just please listen to me, I just wanted to talk to
somebody, and there’s nobody listening. Is that what you’re trying to get to and we’re
trying to do it through this form or this method?
Mr. Spruill: I’m not sure that I can really answer for the Board on that one right
now, Mr. Boyles. Like I say, it was a unanimous vote on the HRC to bring this item to
do this, so, and their main reasoning, and some of them are here today, is that they felt
like they really cannot represent all the citizens because of this exemption.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, can you lend some clarification here?
Mr. Wall: Well, I don’t know that I can lend some clarification. I’d like to speak
to it, though. To follow up, you’ve really got two different situations. One is where
you’ve got, as Commissioner Boyles was talking about, where you’ve got a complaint
from an employee of Augusta, and currently you’ve got an EEO person within the
government and you’ve got an active one now there has been a committee that’s been
formed to recruit and hire a permanent person for that position. And so if you go forward
with an ordinance, the scenario that you could have is you would have the EEO officer
making one decision, one recommendation, one finding, insofar as that person’s
investigation is concerned, and then simultaneously or if the individual is dissatisfied
with that, could then go to the HRC and request the same thing be investigated and you
may wind up with a second result. So you’ve got a conflict there. The other scenario that
you possibly may have if this is implemented is that you’ve got a citizen who has a
complaint against something that happened involving a government employee. You’ve
got Risk Management currently involved in it if there is any harm done to the individual,
which is typically what the complaints are. So Risk Management investigates it,
determines that there is no fault, no liability, that it shouldn’t be a compensable claim.
They’re dissatisfied with that, they then go to HRC and HRC investigates it. And let’s
assume that they make some determination that they thing it ought to be compensable.
First of all, I mean, as I understand it, they’re not going to utilize staff so you’re dealing
with citizen-appointees that may or may not have training insofar investigating that
matter. Then, you know, what, what do you do with that? They take it to a lawyer, an
individual goes to a lawyer and they say, well, HRC agrees with us, you know, we need
36
to – and introduces that in the subsequent litigation that the HRC investigator that it’s
fault. So there are processes in place for complaints for employees. You’ve got an EEO
officer. There are processes in place for complaints for citizens against employees.
That’s Risk Management. There are complaints in place for complaints against Sheriff’s
Department, you’ve got your Internal Affairs, you’ve got your CID. So this is creating
another layer out there that could expose the County the additional liability. And I urge
the Commission not to do it. I’ve spoken against it before, I’ve urged the HRC
Commission, I’ve expressed my reservations about it and the potential for additional
liability to the County as a result of this, and I see nothing but harm that can come out of
amending the ordinance to extend it to those situations.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, if the Commission were going to extend this to HRC,
Would it be appropriate to preclude any City employee from serving as an appointed
member of that Commission? You’ve got somebody drawing a salary from the
organization.
Mr. Wall: That’s something that you could add in.
Mr. Mayor: Would that be a conflict of interest?
Mr. Wall: Well, I mean if you’re talking about somebody that may work for
Recreation investigating somebody that may work for Public Works, they’re not in the
line of command, and so I don’t know that it’s necessarily a per se violation. I think it
puts them in a difficult situation.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Mayor, can’t – this is follow-up on Tommy’s question.
If there is such a complaint, and I quote “racial disharmony or injustices due to race,”
how are we handling these now? Is this through the HR process? If there is a pay
problem or disciplinary problem, how is, how is this handled?
Mr. Wall: The EEO officer is supposed to bring those matters to the attention of
the Commission. The EEO officer works directly for the Commission, so that it bypasses
the Administrator, bypasses the hierarchy so that it comes straight to you in the event that
there is a problem so that it can be corrected.
Mr. Shepard: Well, you know, Mr. Mayor, it sounds like to me that there is a law
that kind of hangs around every, every legislative body, I mean, the Congress of the
United States, the State Legislatures, and even probably bodies like us that pass
ordinances, and that’s the law of unintended consequences. And I just don’t see how we
are doing anything other than mucking the water up today with potential unintended
consequences, so the way it’s coming here, with no backup and very little clarity in it, I
37
don’t have the necessary clarity to vote on this today, and I just don’t see that we are
doing anything other than making a process more complicated and more problematic and
probably more litigated than it already is.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Listening to our Attorney, sounds like we
don’t need a HRC [inaudible], just disband, listen to the sound of our Attorney. But
when a grievance come from an, an employee I think EAO or somebody in this office,
when you got a grievance about a salary or about even being fired or whatever and I think
we got a process that goes there with. But I think there’s got to be something. Now in
the United States of America, the City of Augusta have never shown where they have
been negligent in injustices, regardless of what kind. Everything that happened
downtown was always the other person’s fault. I have never seen yet where this City
come forth and said, you know, we was wrong. We really don’t need no investigation,
we don’t need nobody to check anything. If you ain’t got a fox watching the hen house,
then somebody going to come in and do some things that’s not, not straight. I mean that,
that’s, that’s easy way of putting it. But from what I’m hearing now if we don’t need
this, I think Jim said, and I don’t want to quote you, Jim, cause I’m not sure, but I think
Jim said that they couldn’t do that and do it fairly because if they did they would be
biased in some kind of way or another, being that board. We trust our Sheriff’s
Department not to be biased, we trust our Public Works Department not to be biased, we
trust our Attorney not to be biased, but we got a group here now that we saying if we put,
if we give them the authority to look at situations that they going to be one-sided. I, I, I
don’t agree with that. We got to trust people. And I think we as elected officials going to
have to make some decision down the road when they come back with whatever they
come back with. I just think that something needed. I don’t know if this the exact tool,
but we need a tool, that something need to be put in place so folks will know. In the
same Commission I say it every week, we do not do the same things every time. On one
side of the railroad tracks, certain things happen. On the other side of the railroad tracks,
other things happen. But this, this group here is going to be the wrong group, we’re
already saying that now. [inaudible] if we change the wording, if we make a change in
the wording, [inaudible] they have the option to look at cases or look at scenarios. And
yet the employees, the taxpayers – we been criticized up here for talking to employees,
but employees pay taxes. I represent employees just like I represent people who don’t
work here. And I’m not going to be any less respectful or less a Commissioner for folks
who work in this government than folks who don’t work in this government. We keep
talking about that. That’s [inaudible] we’re not doing it. I’m in support of the change, I
think we got the power if they’re not doing their job we can come back and change again.
We done changed stuff four or five times. But that’s all I got, Mr. Mayor. I don’t have a
motion, either.
38
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we don’t have a motion yet. Mr. Beard and then the Mayor
Pro Tem.
Mr. Beard: Since I’ve spoken, I would yield today, and down there first and then
come back to me.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll come back to you then. Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Yes. If the HRC is given this authority, how will the authority be
trained to do investigations? Who will train them to do the investigations?
Mr. Spruill: Currently, Mr. Colclough, we do have paid staff that are
investigators, but my understanding with the HRC Commissioners, the board that you
appointed, they do not want to involve them. And it would require some training to do
that. We do understand that, and that portion we have not talked about.
Mr. Colclough: So you’re saying that you do have paid staff who are
investigators or board members?
Mr. Spruill: No, we have paid staff that are investigators. They’re not board
members. Now you do have a City employee on the board. I just wanted to make that
clear.
Mr. Colclough: I’m trying to clarify in my mind that if the board members are
going to do the investigation of the complaints, who are going train them to do that?
Mr. Spruill: We have not gotten that far in our planning with this yet.
Mr. Colclough: So what you need to do is go back and do a little more talking
before we can do something for you. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I think the intentions of the board are very good and
I think what’s probably prompted them to some of this is, I would think not just where
we’re looking at one department but an overall situation. I do need to clarify something.
This is not in any way a dispute with what the Attorney has said, but I think we need to
clear something for the present time. Jim is correct in so stating what the City has
available to it in reference to the EEO position, and what it details. I think where
probably some of this falls on our shoulders, gentleman, and it’s hitting square to a point
where three of us on a subcommittee, and I’ll get to a little of that in a second, Mr. Mayor
Pro Tem, but we do need to be mindful of the fact that while the legislation calls for us to
have such a position to be in place with City government, as we operate as of this
39
moment and probably, quite frankly speaking, for the next few months, we do not have
that in a true sense of the word in terms of an EEO person handling that and handling that
specifically in an independent fashion in terms of doing those duties. Now that is not to
say that a person or office has not provided a, a, an opportunity for our employees to
come to, but it does not set what is described in the legislation. Because currently that
position is vacant. We have a subcommittee that’s just been appointed to, to deal with
that. Hopefully we’ll have a meeting next week. I met with HR Director last week in
reference to just simply putting together paperwork and I’m not going to try to paperwork
the subcommittee to death, but gentlemen, there’s going to be a lot that’s going to be
there contained from both subcommittee members, media and other interested persons,
because what we’ve got is that we’ve got a position that I think is almost going to have be
redesigned because it’s basically, I picked up on it out of the Mayor’s State of the City
address, but we’re talking about EEO officer, as well as dealing with HR and small
business. There’s a lot we are going to have to define. Whether or not even to a point
that those two situation may conflict [inaudible]. We may find an excellent person
[inaudible] small business but may not know one thing about running an EEO office, or
vice versa. May find an excellent person to hire for one job that does not know anything
about the other. It may be where we come back to you, and I don’t want to say this
prematurely, but we may be looking at something totally different than what you are
thinking about right now. Then [inaudible] talks about money. So in the meantime,
you’ve got situations being handled by HR and one of the Deputy Administrators. I
would welcome really, even though they are not a part of that committee, I think there is
going to have to be some dialog with Mr. Thomas and with HRC folk for this reason.
Particularly if nothing comes out our vote today. If you hired somebody tomorrow to
deal with that, the independent position there, we are going to have to determine whether
or not that person is going to have staff, whose staff, if they don’t have it, or what person
they are going to piggy-back on, whether they going to have to stretch the resources out
of the Administrator’s office and assistants, whether they are going to have to stretch
them out of HR. That’s something that has never been properly defined, really since
we’ve consolidated on how to really run that and how to do that. All of those things the
committee is going to have to look at, and quite frankly, we are going to be searching for
input from everybody that is interested in it. But in the meantime, I don’t think you are
going to have, if you’re talking about an independent office doing that, in that sense of
the word, I don’t necessarily think you’re going to be seeing that in the next 30, 60 or
even 90 days, to have that done and to have that up and running, and depending on what
directions you all finally give us when it gets to you, and quite frankly we’ve not dealt
with our first meeting. The HR Director is out of the City right now, but we’re probably
going to meet next week to do it, and hopefully to have information in the committee
members’ hands and media hands and Administrator’s hands and the Attorney so that
we’ve got something there to start with that we won’t have to go into a meeting starting
blank. Why do I mention all of those things, is to a point that we have two situations that
I think are close to the heart. Position 1 needs to be filled and it needs to be done
immediately. The Mayor, and not just the Mayor, but the Mayor has taken the leadership
40
in doing it in terms of how do we address the situation [inaudible] minority business and
dealing with [inaudible] there. We may need to get creative in there. He’s not a member
of that committee, but I’m going to be soliciting his input in terms of how we do that,
how we carve it out. Because that’s one that’s still far away from getting resolved. Now
Steve asked, I think, the best question out here on the floor. We brought this up in
committee the other day, Steve. How are the situations being handled right now? It
probably would help maybe if we knew what numbers exist without getting into any
description of case, how many persons that maybe say have blank faces, blank numbers
for the existing case load, of where it is, how many complaints, regardless of department,
but internally, from within. That’s something that we are going to address in the
committee. But I think today, since we’ve kind of got a whole lot, Mr. Mayor,
interwoven here together, from HRC over to us, and a department, quite frankly, that in
reality is not really a department because there is no person running it, there are no staff
designed for it, and currently we are going to have to even to a point of $49,500 that’s
there, and I have my doubts and druthers as to whether or not that is going to finance
what you really need in this City to do what you got to get done. Whether or not all of
that’s there. If we start tomorrow, we’d probably have to go into Contingency to finish
funding out the salary, cause all that money is not there. So while Jim is correct in theory
that that position is provided for, in reality that situation just doesn’t exist. Cause it’s not
there. We are operating with what we have, and I think it would be interesting maybe if
we going to have this discussion to really know what we have, what kind of case load. I
don’t know whether anybody is here from HR to answer that or whether Mr. Hornsby can
answer that. How many cases you’ve got over in there. Or how they backlogged. How
you getting to them. Those are the type of things I think that the Commission and
probably HRC’s folk need to know in terms of whether or not we might have to even,
Mr. Thomas, piggy-back on you all for a while of some help in establishing what we do
independently. Because there are no hearing officers that are provided in terms of where
this government deals with that in an independent basis. So we really are going to be
starting from scratch to get up and running and doing it, and that was one of the reasons
why I didn’t really have an objection to, to changing the wording in where we are in the
ordinance because if, if we need to get some help now to deal with some of this, I think
the key question gets back to what Steve was saying, how are we handling it, how are we
doing, and where are we? Cause, Mr. Mayor, I really don’t know whether or not that’s
something where they are getting zero complaints or an hundred complaint. I don’t
know, you know, quite frankly, how y’all are doing there. I mean it would be helpful, I
think, to some of us know, Mr. Hornsby. And no names have to be revealed, but you
know, what’s really taking place on the complaint basis. And that’s not just dealing with
what say comes through on the Sheriff’s Department. I think it’s throughout 2700
employees. Because I really don’t know.
Mr. Mayor: Do you have that information, Mr. Hornsby and can provide that to
us?
41
Mr. Hornsby: I don’t have the numbers, but I can tell you now there have been
one or two cases only which are EEO claims, or claiming EEO. Those have been
investigated and the process is still ongoing somewhat as far as trying to make, take
corrective action. One of the issues with respect to EEO and implementation is to try to
make it a better situation in which employees [inaudible] and also there are some
additional things that have been done and still ongoing and schedules for the future. That
is, to have some [inaudible] type training, have sessions within departments. Without
getting into names or details. We’ve had sessions. The material that we have developed
was developed and it’s available. We use a PowerPoint presentation in trying to go
through it. We have also discussed and we’ve been talking about putting forth an effort
of having the same type of – it was sexual harassment training – throughout the whole
system, as far as starting with the Directors, [inaudible] Directors on down. All of that
has been done while taking on other duties. As far as the regular grievance process that
you were talking about, Commissioner Boyles, that process is in place. It is working.
Grievances are being heard. I had one yesterday. I couldn’t tell you how many it is.
That process is in place. If the individual does not like what has, what the decision of the
Administrator’s office is, that individual is always advised in writing and verbally to go
before the Personnel Board and appeal that decision to the Personnel Board that you all
appointed. That is a process that is in place. Not only do I hear grievances, Fred hears
grievances from employees of issues. And if they’re not satisfied with those particular
issues, then they go to the Personnel Board. The Personnel Board met one day last week.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Hornsby. We have a number of hands up from
Commissioners who would like to speak. The Chair would next like to recognize any
Commissioner who would like to make a motion so we can try to move this in some
direction. We’re all over the map with conversation. Mr. Beard, would you like to make
a motion? I’ll recognize you for that purpose.
Mr. Beard: Yes, sir. In making this motion, I’m going to say that with all due
respect to our present EEO person, we do know that he’s wearing two hats and it’s very
difficult for people to come to him and with an EEO complaint, and he’s also their boss.
So you don’t to – sometimes you don’t go to your boss. In this instance, you have to go
to a neutral person. My -- I think my motion would be, and I don’t know where we’re
going with this, but I’m trying to find some medium here. And my motion would be that
the – that we bring back the ordinance. I think that’s where we are now. We don’t have
an ordinance. We’ve been talking about it, but we don’t have anything that we can look
at. And my motion would be that the Attorney and the HRC people get together and
bring back an ordinance that we can discuss and get all those things that we’ve talked
th
about into that at the next regular Commission meeting, which would be about the 17 or
thth
18 -- the 18 of this month. That would be my motion at this particular time.
Mr. Williams: Second, Mr. Mayor.
42
Mr. Mayor: Second that motion? Okay. Is there any discussion on the motion?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir, I want to make a substitute motion that we deny the request
of the Human Relations Commission.
Mr. Bridges: I’ll second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Substitute motion is to deny. Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. It’s been a great discussion about this. I
think one of the worst things we could do, a person can do is release attack on the wrong
individual or someone that they don’t intend to attack. A lot of things – the reason I said
that is because of the fact that I heard some concerns about who can do, what
departments they can investigate. And we’re saying that elected officials such as the
Sheriff’s Department, we need, I need to know, and I don’t think that we need to approve
the HRC to go out there and they don’t know who they can investigate and why they
cannot, because the Sheriff is not the only one that is elected official. You’ve got the
Marshal’s Department that has employees, City employees. Also you have the Tax
Commissioner is also. So there are some other departments there that we really need to
know, have a clarity. And I think if we commission them to do something, they need to
know their rights, because it’s going to come up. Because if they do not have the right to
investigate one of those departments, then they are going to be met with maybe, perhaps
with resistance, and we are creating a problem. Another thing I would need to know is
the duties – I’d like to see in writing, as Mr. Beard said, and also the writing of the duties
of the EEO and also the ordinance. Then another question came up. We need to know,
too, can a City employee sit on that particular board and investigate another City
employee? Is that legal, can they do that? I heard, you said that you have a City
employee sitting on the, on the Board. I don’t know. Maybe you can. I guess we have –
I don’t know that, because I was going to say that we also have another board in place but
I don’t know whether any City employee sits on that that can investigate other
employees. Is that legal? Can we do that or can’t? I just need to know those answers.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I know we’ve discussed a lot about
rules out here and the Commission following rules. So I’ll do my best to follow our rules
of order and will limit my speech to two minutes on any one topic.
Mr. Mayor: Any one minute for rebuttal.
43
Mr. Bridges: Anyway, just a little levity there. Anyway there are several things
that have been thrown out here that I’d like to speak to. One is during the committee
meeting in the previous week when this issue first began to be discussed, it eventually
came out that the real issue, the real crux behind this willingness or this desire to change
the ordinance was because of the Sheriff’s Department. I think Ken stated that eventually
during the meeting. And now we find out that the real driving force behind this we
cannot legally require the Sheriff to participate in that. He’s a constitutional officer. So
that, to me, gets rid of the original move for what we’re trying to do here. And the – you
know, the desire to continue that ordinance change to me, if the initial issue is gone away
because we can’t do it legally, all we’re doing then is growing a department or a
bureaucracy or what you want to call it. We’re actually giving more power to the Human
Relations Commission and actually growing that bureaucracy and I don’t think we need
to be in the business as Commissioners in response, responsible for taxpayers’ dollars
that we grow the bureaucracy. Particularly as we found out it will be duplicating services
that already exist out there through the EEO, Risk Management, Personnel Department,
and other things. So I don’t think this is a positive, good move forward to increase the
powers of this agency. And let me say at this point, too, I understand the issue today was
thrown out that we disband the Human Relations Commission. The [inaudible] didn’t
support that. He just, he just threw it out. And I just want to say that I understand why
some of the Commissioners desire to support this agency, and one of them explained it to
me, it gives him an area that when somebody feels like they’ve been mistreated on racial
or personal grounds that they go to complain, and maybe the individual doesn’t have the
means to initiate a lawsuit and gives them a place that they can go, and the Commissioner
[inaudible] go over here and have your complaint checked out. So I understand that. But
it, you know, growing up to $250,000 and $300,000 a year for this department is
something that we have to look at. I want to address the issue of, that came up of
potentially disbanding Human Relations and the changes that Mr. Mays mentioned that
may be coming in EEOC. That’s, what’s been discussed in the past, particularly around
budget time every year, is when we, you know I’ve asked the question why do we have
the EEOC position as a separate position, and I’ve had more than one official or
Administrator tell me that really the duties of the EEOC office do not constitute a full-
time job. But, so therefore there is the move in some instances to put those duties over
into another office like we’ve got now and move forward with that. But if we are having
an EEOC office and we are duplicating or speaking of duplicating some of the duties that
Human Relations does, maybe we need to combine the two into one. You are making a
move on another, to hire a full-time person and my concern is right now the duties don’t
require a full-time person. Maybe you need to combine the two. Maybe they will at that
time. Maybe you’ll have the staff for it. You know, I’m not even opposed to some of the
duties that Purchasing is doing now. Maybe that should be under EEOC as well. So I
mean, I don’t know, but I think those are things that we can discuss. But I don’t think
that we, that this is a positive move forward to increase the powers or duties of Human
44
Relations, duplicate services and just further compound or create issues that we already
have out there, and I would not support increasing those, increasing those duties.
Mr. Beard: A long two minutes.
(Laughter)
Mr. Bridges: Just one more thing.
(Laughter)
Mr. Bridges: We’re talking about trains on the, what happens on one side of the
track might not happen on the other, but when that train comes by it blocks both sides,
Mr. Williams.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Anything further? Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles and then Mr.
Colclough.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was just going to come back and say that I
think I understand the intent of what they’re trying to do. I like the intent of what you are
attempting. But what bothers me, and it bothered me my first year on the Commission
down here, was when we gave raises to one group of employees and had the other wait.
That never did really set in with me because I had had that experience years and years
ago. But when I look down and see the Marshal standing behind Mr. Williams down
there and think about the Clerk of Court and you think about the Judges and you think
over probably ¾ of the employees of this government do not work directly for this
Commission, then we’re only talking about ones that we can be responsible for. What I
would like to see you do, and I know the motions are already on the floor, but I’d like to
see us come back to some form of ordinance, some form of whatever it takes to try to
make this government all inclusive, because if an employee from the judiciary or an
employee in the Sheriff’s office or Marshal’s office or anyone has a problem, then it
reflects back on the full Commission, because – there was an article I think in this
morning’s paper about MCG and University of Georgia and Fort Gordon and something
that didn’t get together. The little caption down there said the City can’t get its act
together, and as far as I know, maybe the Mayor knows, but I don’t think any member of
this Commission knew, that something of that magnitude was going to happen before it
occurred. So I would like to see us come back with something that could include all of
our employees and sit down with our elected officials, be it Sheriff Strength, Marshal
Smith, whoever, and work towards that end, rather than just come back and say okay,
we’re going to take this little 25% and this other 75% can [inaudible]. That’s what’s I’d
like to see us come back and do.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Pro Tem?
45
Mr. Colclough: Let me just address the EEO officer for a moment. Once you get
your EEO officer on board, I’ll guarantee you he, he or she will have enough work to last
them a lifetime. And I think if Ken’s group is really looking at complaints from citizens,
I think they should rolling in like 20 or 30 month. I do the same thing out where I work
at. And when I started off it was like two or three per month. Now I can pull up a folder
with complaints all day long. So I mean they’re out there, if the employees or citizens
had someone to complain to.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard and then Mr. Mays.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I just want to qualify one thing in reference to what
Commissioner Boyles was talking about. The – all of our people, you know, the 2700
people that we have working for us, they in the Marshal’s Department, they’re in the
Sheriff’s Department, they in the judicial part of this government, so you know, to me it
was kind of misleading to say that you know this is the Sheriff, this is the Marshal, we
have no control over those people. I think that those are our employees. We are
ultimately responsible for those people, and we pay their salaries, and I think that need to
be understood. And constitutional officer or not, they ought to understand that.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, can I get a clarification?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays:
Mr. Mayor, to follow up on what Tommy was just saying, and I go
back to the original statement that I made about a [inaudible] group of people I think
wanting to really see something done and about bringing harmony whether it’s dealing
with forces outside of the City workforce or within. I think that we probably are not
going to pass either motion that’s out there, and I think the signal maybe that it sends that
it may be in some quarters that the HRC may be unappreciated, it may be where on one
side that the clarity is not there in order to establish what we need. I think that in two
weeks’ time it will not cure all of Augusta’s situations, but I think in two weeks some
things will happen. One, hopefully our first subcommittee will have met before this
Commission meets again. I think it gives people an opportunity to talk, not necessarily in
an official capacity about an ordinance per se, but the opportunity to talk, for
Commissioners to exchange with their Board members that they’ve appointed, to be able
to talk with the Director there, to be talk with even elected officials that would be
Therefore, Mr.
affected by what would be being proposed in the dialog that we do.
Mayor, I make a motion that this item be tabled for two weeks until the next
Commission meeting and it be placed back on at that time for discussion.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
46
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion to table. It’s been seconded. It takes
precedence – I’m sorry?
Mr. Wall: He said tabled, but it should be postponed.
Mr. Mayor: Does that do the same thing as table? Okay. And it’s not debatable,
is it?
Mr. Williams: Well, now, tabled and postponed, Mr. Mayor, I need some
clarification now. Now postponed and tabled is two different things. Are we tabling it
and, and, and that’s the end?
Mr. Mayor: The intent of the Commissioner who made the motion –
Mr. Williams: Intent, intent –
Mr. Mays: If I can clear, Mr. Mayor, I’ll change it and table it and my intention is
going to be I’m going to put it back on in two weeks.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion to table and it’s been seconded. And
we’ll move to vote on the motion to table. All in favor of tabling this item please vote
aye.
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion carries 6-2-1.
Mr. Mayor: So that moves us along then to item number 30.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
30. Recommendation from the Deputy Administrator/Public Works Director
regarding the request by Ms. Pearline Franklin for a second trash can for trash
pickup. No Recommendation from Engineering Services Committee February 24,
2003)
Mr. Mayor: I thought that was taken care of it. Where is the Administrator? Ms.
Smith, can you – did we not handle her situation?
Ms. Smith: I believe her request – we gave her a trash can two days after the
request came in.
47
Mr. Mayor: So this is settled?
Ms. Smith: Taken care of.
Mr. Mayor: She has the cans?
Ms. Smith: She has the cans.
Mr. Mayor: Taken care of?
Mr. Shepard: I move we delete it, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to deleting this item?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, I’ve got a question about that.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Hankerson: When did, when did this take place? Maybe I was out. I thought
it came up and we were going to have the opportunity to decide whether – what action
took place, first of all? What was the action took place? Was she getting another can
with no cost or with the cost? What action has taken place here? And did we vote on
that action to take place?
Ms. Smith: You want to speak to that, Jim?
Mr. Wall: She was provided a second at no cost. The resolution that set up the
special [inaudible] set up the [inaudible] per residential unit. It is not per trash can. So if
the residential unit needs two trash cans and demonstrates it to Public Works, then there
are two trash cans. There cannot be a second charge. There is no provision in the
resolution setting up a special tax district for second charge for a second trash can.
Mr. Hankerson: Well, this is new gospel to me. This is new gospel to me. I
think we are opening up a can of worms here. Are these contractors aware that now I can
put out four cans? Cause I got another 96-gallon can back there in the back and I been
just transferring mine to one can and obeying what I thought was the law, was putting out
one can, no bags on the side, just one can. Now we are saying that we can, I can put out
as many cans as I want to. People have been calling to my house complaining about that
and I been telling them what I thought the law was on this and the rule on this, and now
that I’m hearing that we’ve already given permission here, and I thought I was going to
have the opportunity to address my opinion and we vote on this thing. Now, now I think
48
that we need to go back and revisit the whole contract, because now I’m understanding
that we can give many cans, after a while we going to be going up roads and off roads, I
mean we’re not clear on this. And I’ve had people that I told them exactly when they
called me and they didn’t want to hear it. And as a new Commissioner, they didn’t want
to hear it, but I told them no, you can’t do that, you have to abide by what your contract
says and you can’t have two cans, you can’t put bags down. Now we are not being
consistent here. I just don’t think that. And, and because I’ve asked the question myself
and something came up, I believe, Ms. Smith, and you told me that no, they are going to
have pay $195 for each can, and now I’m hearing something different.
Ms. Smith: And Commissioner Hankerson, you are absolutely correct that that’s
the information that I gave you, because that is the understanding that I have, I had.
That’s the same answer that we have given everyone that has asked the question of Public
Works. When this lady came forward and she presented her case to the Commission, and
it was told that we needed to go back and have a discussion with the County Attorney, the
County Attorney informed us that, basically he shared with us the same information that
he just shared with you. The question being are the contractors aware of this? The
contract that we have with the contractors does not stipulate that they are required to
service multiple cans.
Mr. Hankerson: I know that the little slip that they pass out to customers plainly
states how they are going to collect trash. They been leaving it on the ground and
whatever, and constituents have been complaining about it. Now I put in -- I’d like to
make a motion that we continue with the rule and when we withdraw the contract up next
year that these things will be considered. I’d like to put that in the form of a motion that
we continue with the rule that we were going by that each can that is placed there, that
the constituent would have to pay $195.00, that we would not -- or in the form that we
deny this request.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Hankerson, I don’t want to ignore what you just said,
but I need to ask Mr. Wall. It sounds like we need to amend the ordinance; is that right,
Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: It’s not the ordinance. You need to amend the resolution setting up the
special tax districts to authorize the charge to be per trash can as opposed to per
residential unit, the way it’s currently phrased.
Mr. Bridges: I second the motion.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion and a second. The Public Works
Director advises me the contracts are currently set to expire 2005.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
49
Ms. Smith: The advance contract was awarded out through 2005.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: My question is, is there any more constituents or residents with
more than one can now, Mr. Mayor?
Ms. Smith: There is – other than in the old city where –
Mr. Williams: Anywhere. I mean it doesn’t matter. I want to know is there any
more, because if we do this then that means we going to have to go back and charge them
same people and I guess it should, should not have been done but I just need to know is
there any more.
Ms. Smith: The simple answer to the question is yes.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Ms. Smith: However, the businesses that are down here where we have the
service of the alleys, those areas have multiples because they can’t get dumpsters back
there. So they do have service. You remember when we first started, we had the
problems in the alley? They do have multiple cans in those areas. Other than that, as far
as residents are concerned, she is the only one that currently has more than one can.
Mr. Mayor: And has she been led to believe she has multiple cans at no
additional cost?
Ms. Smith: Correct.
Mr. Mayor: So we’re going to go back and tell her something different if we
change this; is that correct?
Ms. Smith: If, if, if that’s what the decision is.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, I think we going back and telling hundreds of
constituents out there something different.
Mr. Mayor: Well, we’re going to save them $195.00 for each additional can. It
doesn’t cost them anything.
Mr. Hankerson: I think that’s going to create a problem with the contractors. If
they, if they were told and they were under the understanding that they only pick up one
50
can and tomorrow they come by my house and I have three, then we are going to create a
problem cause they going to leave two. And I think that we are going to have a lot of
complaints.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I seconded this motion. I do think it’s a
good motion. Like Commissioner Hankerson, I think we ought to go out there and
correct this while we’ve just one person to correct it with before we get a slew of people
out there that we’ll be discussing with. And it was my understanding that we do have
established plans and guidelines for these and it was to be one and that’s what we were
working on from that regard. I think that’s what we need to continue with, unless we’re
prepared to make some financial arrangements otherwise. Jim, you got a comment on it?
Mr. Wall: I’ve got several comments. I think you’re opening a door for the next
argument that’s going to be made, and that is I don’t need a can, and so what are you
going to do with that individual? You set it up per residential unit, and that $195.00
charge was based upon the number of residential units. It was not based upon the number
of cans. And so you have, for every second can that you may have out there, I will just
about bet that you are going to have a residence that is paying a $195.00 charge that there
is no one living there and the trash truck doesn’t stop there, because if it’s connected to
the utilities, the property owner pays $195.00. And so if you start charging an additional
$195.00 for a charge – I mean first of all, that’s too much. I mean if you are going to
charge some surplus charge for a second can, you ought to go through some type of
analysis of what that charge should be. But then you are going to have to confront the
situation in my opinion of the property owner that’s out there that’s paying for a can that
never gets used. And you know, what are you going to do with that individual? Or you
deal with an elderly person who couldn’t fill up a 90-gallon trash can in a month. And so
– I realize that there is some inequity as a result of an individual having a second can, but
there is also some inequity as a result of a person having to pay for the can, but we looked
at it as a special tax district, looking at everybody in the district and treating everybody
the same, and the resolution is clear. I mean I was never asked the question. I didn’t
realize it was an issue until this thing came forward about whether or not an individual
had to pay for a second can, so I don’t know where the misinformation got started.
Mr. Bridges: What concerns me, though, Jim, that can work the other way. If
one neighbor has got two cans paying the same amount of money as the next neighbor
that has just one can, the one that’s got one can is going to want their price cut, because
they only have one can and can only use one can. So I think that can work both ways.
Mr. Wall: And I think it’s opening up a door. I think you are going to have a lot
of requests for changing the price structure come down.
51
Mr. Hankerson: We have [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: All right, the Mayor Pro Tem has had his hand up. I’d like to
recognize him.
Mr. Colclough: You know, we, I mean most people were comfortable, had
accepted the fact that, you know, the cost of $195.00 per can was what it was. I mean
you talking a second can. I mean you are going to have garbage cans all up and down the
street, cause everybody is going to want a can. It takes quite a big of garbage to fill up a
95-gallon container, Jim, and for someone to have [inaudible]. But I do believe Rev.
Hankerson have a good idea, because number one, if you don’t have enough garbage, you
can just put it in the can and leave it in the backyard until you get it full. You’re not
strewing it all up and down the street. But this second can thing is really going to cause a
problem for the people who the people who sit up on the dais up here, because the
constituents are going to start calling and wanting a second can. I think it open up a can
of nails and I think people were kind of comfortable and understood that the garbage
service, of cleaning up the city, and you don’t have to worry about somebody dumping
garbage bags along the City. As least you’ve got a can you can put them in. But I’m
thinking you’re opening up a can of nails with that second can. And I was under the
impression that when we did this thing, and I was the last hold-out, that once you got this
95-gallon can for $195.00 per year, that was it, and everybody had to abide by those
rules. But then you brought something different into the equation.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Mayor, I’m not sure we understand all the consequences
of what this might play out today, I’d make the motion that we postpone this to the next
meeting.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to postpone, just as we did a few moments ago. Is
that, Jim, that takes precedence? Do we have a second to the motion to postpone? All
right, we don’t have a second to that motion. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to ask a question, too. In any single-
family that need more than one can, I question what else they doing besides living in that
house. But I mean there are some people that feel that they need two. Commissioner
Colclough said a 95-gallon can, and it’s quite a lot to fill up, if you got two pick-ups a
week. But something else was drawn into the picture and Jim brought out, and Ms.
Smith, you might need to help me, that a vacant home where there is no utilities, a house
that’s not rented out or not being used don’t pay the $195.00 and I think – Ms. Smith, I
need –
Mr. Wall: If it’s got utilities, it does. If it’s not connect, it doesn’t.
52
Mr. Williams: Okay. Well, and, and, and if I rent out a piece of property, and I
got one or two of those, but if I rent out a piece a property and it doesn’t have utilities
now, then I put somebody in that piece of property, am I going to come downtown and
tell the Public Works Director to bring me a can out there? Am I going to get a can so
[inaudible] pick it up? I think that’s a mistake we made cause there are a lot of homes
that has been abandoned or [inaudible] down that’s not being charged garbage service.
Every house, every house on the tax record ought to be charged that service. Every
house. Whether it be District 2 Historic Preservation situation or Tommy Boyles’ area in
west Augusta. Every house on the tax roll ought to be charged that same garbage fee.
And that’s not being done, if I’m not mistaken, Ms. Smith, you need to correct me on
that.
Ms. Smith: You are correct.
Mr. Williams: Okay. So if we going to look at anything, we look at not only just
a can. Let’s open up the whole can of worms and put them all back on the table because
there are some things we did not do ourselves when we did this, and if we going to
change one thing, let’s change everything. Let’s do it right or let’s don’t do it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays and then Rev. Hankerson.
Mr. Mays: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I probably would have seconded Commissioner
Shepard’s motion, and the only reason I didn’t was because I thought the Public Works
Director to a certain extend needed to be taken off this yo-yo today. You have got a
citizen that a decision has been made in somewhat way, that I think needs to be, you
know, what do we direct her to do today? I think that, that’s a question that the Director
is asking us indirectly to a point when she [inaudible] cans supposed to be provided and
the person told that they’re not paying or they are to be told something different and to
deal with the $195.00. I asked this question in committee, Mr. Mayor, and when – and I
can see partially where Jim is coming from. But I asked this committee. Did we not
need to allow some time to involve some contact with Public Works and the haulers?
Two reasons. The first, and particularly on the, on the suburban side of where we’ve
added all this, in terms of it being new. You, you, you, you put her and the department
to a certain degree of making a decision and, and Jim made the ruling it was based on
residence, not on [inaudible]. But now if that’s going to the ruling, then I thought, and I
still think that some interaction needed to be between the department and the haulers so
that if you did something like that, you have a way of determining from a hauler’s
standpoint whether there was an emergency situation of where there was a need for a
second can at a particular residence, that it was a true residence. It might be a residence
that has a large family. And I remind some of my colleagues about a 95-gallon can. I
can go through some densely populated areas that are in both District 2 and District 1
where those cans can get filled up regardless of the size of them on both pickups per
53
week. And nothing [inaudible] had to be going on to fill it. A lot of people who may
have a lot of kids in a small place generate a lot of trash. The other side of that coin, and
I’ll be finished, and that the other thing you open up is this. In the old City, in the urban
district, you have quite frankly, and I’m not knocking any other haulers that y’all put on
out there in the suburban district. Commissioner Colclough said he was the last hold-out.
I didn’t go [inaudible] to deal with a hearing period cause I told y’all I wasn’t going to
get cussed out. I got cussed out on the first round. Y’all got it passed and folk wanted it.
Fine. I’ll abide it. That’s what I did. But all the kinks are still not out of this doggone
system. Now you got some folk exercising common sense inside what is the old City.
Now are you going to tell them to where they go in those areas and where the can gets to
be, unlike what Commissioner Hankerson is talking about and unlike what Commissioner
Bridges is talking about, where you have a two-man truck and the person still picks up
from that little old lady’s house the 95-gallon can and doesn’t get out there and walk
away and leave the small can sitting there. They get out of the back of the truck and they
empty both of them. Now you fixing to send a signal to leave that trash sitting out there?
And primarily, Commissioner Williams, Commissioner Beard, a lot of that’s taking place
in 1 and 2, where you’ve got two cans out there. One of the regulation cans, and in some
cases of an irregular can that’s out there. But the drivers and haulers have enough sense
to pick it up because it’s trash and they keep going. Now if you’re sending the signal that
nothing is to be picked up other than the regulated can, do you want that other can not to
go out there? Do you want them to leave it out there? I think y’all need to think about
what you fixing to say what you want the haulers to do. That was why I asked the
question in committee the other day, if Public Works, if there was going to be some
dialog with the haulers where you could get a feedback that they have places where you
had constant buildup of trash and somebody legitimately needed the second can. You
could make conditions for it, and if they met the requirements, just like you would with a
disabled person of somebody coming to the back or coming into an area to get the can,
you could do the same thing for a person who may have eight or nine kids that’s in there
or the large family who fills it up and it overflows. Be we put out, Commissioner
Williams, remember, we were the ones who sent out that big advertisement that we, like
the Statue of Liberty, we would pick up all trash, whatever you put out we will get it.
Everything from a refrigerator to a car motor, we’d get it. Now, you know, what are we
to say to those folk [inaudible] some of it’s going to be left behind? So I think y’all need
to think about it and before you leave you need to tell the lady in, in, in, that’s sitting
back there behind the Attorney, what you want her to do. Because the Attorney is saying
he’s ruled and given us the ruling in that. We can reject it. But it’s just a matter of
telling that person over there. But in some of those densely populated areas, I think you
need to think about that signal that you sending because you could end up with some
trash still left on the street that’s currently being picked up by common sense. And if you
want that to happen, then vote for it and deal with it that way. But I think you’ve got
some mixed things that are going on. You’ve got some in the suburban areas that are out
in the old County where trash is being picked up one way by a certain set of haulers,
regardless of what’s written in the rules, and you’ve got some that’s being picked up on
54
the Hill and in the old City by a difference [inaudible] and it depends on who is picking
the trash up. And what judgment factors they’re using. So when you make this, this
uniform rule and say okay, fine, it’s going to be one can [inaudible] for it, then I think
where you may cure it in one are to do it, I think you are going to end up with something
else starting up in another area that you don’t have a problem in right now, and that’s
why I said in committee meeting, and I’m saying it today, there needed to be dialog
between the Public Works Director and the haulers on what Mr. Wall is proposing and
that there gets to be some clarity on what is a necessity to deal with two cans, and I think
they would be able to define, particularly if they are doing their job, if they know their
routes and they know their folk who are there and what they pick up from those areas,
who can better ask for it and we set some type of, of, of, of, of, of guidelines which
would qualify you in order to do that if you going to do it. But you do have two different
ways that trash is being picked up in the City, and it depends on who is hauling it.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I’m going to brief. Mr. Mays is correct. I go by what is written.
In the extended area, I know it may be one way that they’re doing it in the inner City, but
the extended area specifically said what they would pick up. Now I don’t think we would
be discussing this today and the Director wouldn’t have to go back telling anybody
anything because what I see on the agenda, it said there was no recommendation from the
Engineering Committee. Now if that’s the case, then it was brought here for the
Commissioners to make the decision. But when it got here, the decision is already made.
So we didn’t create the problem. If we supposed to make the decision, what we were
going to do about it, so I don’t think, are we, I mean are we making decisions between
time? We’re not operating like that. It says recommendations – it came to this
Commission –
Mr. Mayor: I think, Mr. Hankerson, that the staff was just trying to solve the
problem.
Mr. Hankerson: But we can’t, but Mr. Mayor, we can’t do that because if we start
doing that, it will be a lot of things on the agenda leaving the committee with no
recommendation and by the time we get here, somebody else have already decided what
they going to do, and that’s not business. So I don’t think we need to start like that today.
We need to follow, like Mr. Mays once said, that if you don’t want me to have a part of
it, don’t put it on the agenda for me to discuss it. But this says, it says here that the
Commission is supposed to make the decision about this, no one individual, whether it’s
the Attorney or anyone, but it says no recommendation from the committee. So we
supposed to make that decision, so we shouldn’t have, have to go back to a constituent
and tell them no, that’s not proper. But what we should have said, be here today and see
what the Commissioners decide on that. So I hope that the motion will be supported and
we don’t need to be adding more. As the Attorney has said, I think, I think it’s creating
55
more confusion now. I think we were going smooth, and I think we need to wait until the
end of the contract when we rewrite the contract. All of these things that have come up,
then we can add it in there. But anything else now is going to open up a lot of telephone
calls to Commissioners, and I’m going to give them the Attorney’s telephone number
myself when they call me.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’re going to call the question on the substitute motion
that came from Commissioner Hankerson. What I’d like to do is get the Clerk, if she
would, to read the motion again, to refresh our memory of what it says.
The Clerk: The substitute motion?
Mr. Mayor: Right. The one from Commissioner Hankerson. The original motion
was to remove it from the agenda.
The Clerk: To change the resolution to state that it would be one can per
residential unit at a cost of – an additional cans would be at a cost of $195.00.
Mr. Mayor: That is the motion that is on the floor.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of that motion, please vote.
Mr. Hankerson: What the substitute motion was?
Mr. Mayor: That’s your motion.
Mr. Hankerson: The motion was? Read that again.
The Clerk: To change the resolution stating that it would be one per residential
unit and any additional cans will be at cost of $195.00.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] between Augusta and the hauler. The resolution is between
y’all and the property owner on how much you are going to charge that property owner.
When the contract expires doesn’t have anything to do with it.
Mr. Mayor: So we are – we have called the question and we’re voting on the
substitute motion. And if you’ve in favor of Rev. Hankerson’s motion, please vote aye.
That’s where we are. We’re voting on your motion, Rev. Hankerson. Your motion is up
now.
56
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Shepard votes No.
Mr. Mays and Mr. Williams abstain.
Motion fails 5-1-2.
Mr. Mayor: Unless there is another motion, we will go back to the original
motion.
Mr. Bridges: Which is?
Mr. Mayor: To remove this from the agenda. [inaudible] we’ve already
discussed it.
Mr. Bridges: Can we speak to the original motion then?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, you may. Or you may make another substitute motion.
Mr. Kuhlke: Did it have a second? I thought the original motion didn’t have a
second.
Mr. Wall: It didn’t.
The Clerk: [inaudible] postponement.
Mr. Shepard: That was my postponement.
Mr. Mayor: The original motion that was made after representation that this
situation had been taken care of, the motion came, I believe it was from Mr. Shepard, to
remove it from the agenda. There was a second. And then Mr. Hankerson, as we were
getting ready to vote, was recognized and he made the substitute motion.
Mr. Shepard: Then I made a motion to postpone.
Mr. Mayor: Then he made a motion to postpone during debate, which was not
seconded.
Mr. Kuhlke: Well, I’ll second it now.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Too late now, Mr. Kuhlke.
57
Mr. Shepard: You ain’t going to hang me out there like that, Kuhlke. You make
the motion.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges has the floor.
Mr. Bridges: And I’m speaking to the original motion, and I think Mr. Hankerson
has a point. When something is passed up from one of the committees, it needs to be
voted on or not voted on here. It doesn’t need to be – well, I hate to use the word, but it
doesn’t need to solved before it gets here, you know, I guess you would be saying. But I
think this issue probably needs some more discussion among the Commission before we
finalize it. I hope we’ll just vote against the motion that’s on the floor and discuss it the
next two weeks for it to come back again.
Mr. Mayor: Are you ready to vote on the original motion or would anybody like
to make a substitute?
Mr. Kuhlke: What is this original motion?
Mr. Mayor: To remove this item from the agenda.
Mr. Bridges: I’ll make a substitute, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Bridges: I just make the motion that we continue as we have in the past, that
there be just one garbage can per household with no increased charges or anything. Just
our previous practice which we’ve told our constituents be maintained and there be no
change from that.
Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll second. Y’all don’t want to do that? Creating a mess.
Mr. Mayor: Why don’t you share that with everybody, Mr. Wall? You don’t
need a bench conference on sharing a mess. [inaudible] be heard on the substitute
motion.
Mr. Wall: Well, first of all, I mean insofar as charging an additional $195.00, that
would be contrary to –
Mr. Bridges: We’re not doing that. That’s not the motion.
58
Mr. Wall: I understand that. I understand that. But you made the comment
earlier that it shouldn’t be solved administratively. It would be illegal and contrary to the
motion to assess a property owner an additional $195.00 for a second can under the
ordinance. Now if you want to limit the property owner to a single can, then you can do
that.
Mr. Bridges: That’s what the motion –
Mr. Wall: But what you’re going to do is, as Commissioner Mays said, you’re
going to have trash that’s not picked up. You are going to have trash that’s on the street,
or you are going to have bags that are on the street that are not picked up. You have
represented to the community that you are going to provide trash pickup. The haulers are
not, to my knowledge, complaining about it, because for every two can residence that’s
out there, you have an empty can out there. And I think that if you are going to tell the
property owners to put it on the ground or wait until the next week, pile it up in the back
yard or whatever, because we’re only going to give you one can, I think you’re creating a
trash situation on the streets that this whole program was designed to prevent.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Bridges: Here’s the issue, though, Jim. We told our constituents one thing
based on information we were given, based on our practice at the time, and now we’re
changing it.
Mr. Hankerson: That’s right.
Mr. Bridges: I mean –
Mr. Mayor: The resolution hasn’t change. The practice has changed.
Mr. Wall: I don’t know where this information came from.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I’d like to make a motion that we postpone this item until our
next meeting.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second to postpone. It takes precedence and
it’s not debatable, so all in favor of postponing this item until the next meeting, please
vote in the affirmative.
59
(Vote on motion to postpone)
Mr. Beard abstains.
Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 7-0-1.
Mr. Beard: I abstained because I wasn’t in for any of the [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: The next item is item number 31.
The Clerk:
ATTORNEY:
31. Motion to approve permit for grave relocation by Atlanta Gas Light
Company, pursuant to an amended grave relocation application.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, you want to speak to this?
Mr. Wall: Yes. As a part of the process for issuing a permit, a public hearing was
required after y’all approved earlier in January a plan notification. That public hearing
was held at 1 o’clock today. There was no opposition expressed to issuing the permit.
And everyone seemed to be satisfied. I recommend approval of issuing the permit.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Boyles: So move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? All in favor of the motion, please
vote aye.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 7-0-1.
Mr. Mayor: Item number 31A.
31A. Motion to approve permit for Natural Gas Pipeline Encroachment for DSM
Chemical North America, Inc for an annual fee of $5.00 per linear foot.
Mr. Wall: This is something I asked to go on the agenda because it has been
floating around for some time, and it’s to issue a natural gas line, gas pipeline
60
encroachment permit across Columbia Nitrogen Boulevard at the annual fee of $5.00 per
linear foot, which is a standard fee.
Mr. Boyles: So move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion?
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible]
Mr. Wall: 60’ right-of-way. $300.
Mr. Colclough: Per year?
Mr. Wall: Per year.
Mr. Bridges: I’ve got a question.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Yes. Jim, you say that’s a standard fee. Something similar to this
issue came up a year or two ago in regard to how much we’re charging per linear foot.
You say standard fee, is that what we charge everybody for this same thing and there’s no
difference?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Wall: I think the issue you had was where – at one time there was talk about
building a bridge, a pipe bridge over and the question was whether or not should we
charge $5.00 for the bridge or $5.00 for each utility that was on the bridge.
Mr. Bridges: I can’t remember.
Mr. Wall: The bridge was never built, so –
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? All in favor then please vote in the affirmative.
61
Mr. Mays and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: All right, that takes us to item number 34.
The Clerk:
34. Discuss personnel. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams)
Mr. Mayor: That’s you, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, this is an item that I been
having on the agenda for the last three, maybe four Commission meetings. Personnel.
And I have been discussing the issue of the Administrator’s contract and his agreement
that we have. Have not been able to get much input in this. We talk about contracts and
how they are supposed to be binding and how they are supposed to be a legal document.
That’s why we write those. The Mayor and the Commissioners and the Attorney advised
us on last week, last Commission meeting, that it is the responsibility of the Commission
and the Mayor to uphold or to make sure that a contract that we negotiate and sign, that
we uphold our end, as well as those people that got the contract with. And the
Administrator contract calls for several things, and this contract calls for a yearly physical
that he has not had the pleasure of undergoing for whatever reason I don’t know. I been
requesting this. We even, I even made a substitution to the contract to say that we would
allow him to use his own personal doctor. I think in the agreement, and I’ve got a copy
in my bag, say that we would select the physician to do that. How can we expect to hold
other people accountable, how can we hold other contacts accountable when we are not
doing what we are supposed to do? I mean that’s like telling somebody else, that’s like
the traffic officer speeding down the road in his personal car, even if it’s the Sheriff’s car,
but he see you and give you a ticket. I mean that’s not right. And all I’m asking for is
that we uphold what we are legally bound to. And I think any court of law would say
that, that, that, that’s is binding because it is a contract. This is something that his
attorney, as well as our Attorney agreed to. That has been brought out in several
meetings, so I’m going to make a motion again that we advise the Administrator to go
have the physical that he’s been requested, he’s been contracted to perform so we can be
about the City’s business and not have to have this issue put on the agenda each
Commission meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the Commissioner’s motion? The motion does
for lack of a second.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Be back on here next Commission
meeting.
62
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Next up is our legal meeting. Mr. Wall,
do you have – of course we have items 28 and 32.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: 28 and 32. Just a moment, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Wall: Motion for reconsideration needs to be made.
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear that.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I was trying to get your attention.
Mr. Mayor: Oh, I’m sorry.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I’d like to have Item 1 on the consent agenda, not
item 1, but the add-on. Item 1 on the add-on –
Mr. Mayor: Right.
Mr. Williams: -- be reconsidered. The parties in agreement that we add
some stipulations in there for the Savannah Road area and CMC junk yard area.
Mr. Mayor: All right, these are in addition to the stipulations that are on the
agenda?
The Clerk: 1, 2 and 3 are already listed. 4 and 5 are additional.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. The Chair will entertain a motion to reconsider this item.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you’re making that?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there any objection to reconsideration? None is heard.
The vote is unanimous for reconsideration.
63
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, if you want to make a motion, then.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, we all got a copy of the consideration,
and I’d like to add #4 and #5 for reconsideration. 1, 2 and 3 have already been
approved. We talked with the petitioners out there. They in agreement. They was
here earlier and I had already went out and looked at the area and they have no
problem with this.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second. Any discussion?
The Clerk: For the record, let me just read them in.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk:
1. Z-03-10 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) streetyard
conforms to the Augusta Richmond County Tree Ordinance with trees outside the
required fencing; 2) no access to Glass Factory Road; and 3) no variance to be
requested to the 50’ activity spacing requirement a petition by Lou Moore, on behalf
of CMC Augusta and Jean Hornsby Williams, et al., requesting a Special Exception
in a HI (Heavy Industry) Zone for the purpose of expanding an existing salvage
yard at 1752 Old Savannah Road as per Section 24-2 of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta Richmond County affecting property located at 1752 and
1890 Old Savannah Road and 7 additional parcels that total 1.41 acres on Glass
Factory Road. (existing yard Tax Map 73-1 Parcels 93 & 94, new parcels Tax Map
73-1 Parcels 96-100 and Tax Map 59-3 Parcels 577 and 578) (POSTPONED from
the January meeting) DISTRICT 2
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes. And I had no problem with this being added, you know, back
on. My only question is on number 5, just how is number 5 on there to be done and is
there going to be any cleanup prior to them doing this? I mean when you say to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Department, is there some monthly monitorization, is
there some standard that it’s to be kept clean? Exactly how are they to do this in terms of
so that the debris, the mud, the other stuff is not left out there?
64
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mays, if I can address that.
Mr. Mays: Sure.
Mr. Williams: I talked, I talked with the manager there. They have a sweeper
that they will use with the mud and stuff on the outside. I talked to them about that.
They have also continually been trying to fill it in with crush and run so it won’t create a
mud position coming in and out. I very strongly suggested that they, they get on that
right away. He was in agreement, even redirecting the trucks from coming through the
th
inner city part of Savannah Road at 12 Street. He would have them routed to come in
off of Gordon Highway and Molly Pond, I believe that is. Is that Molly Pond? Yeah.
Have them come in on that side of the thing. And he knows it’s going to be monitored by
our Public Works to make sure that if it’s out of compliance, you know, somebody is
going to not just walk away from it, we will address that with him.
Mr. Shepard: Call for the question.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything further?
Mr. Mays: Is that something – I mean Public Works is here. Do y’all have a plan
of how you are going to monitor? And I mean, I guess more so than the Public Works,
do we need some signs, Mr. Wall, to a point of trucks to a certain size that shouldn’t be
used on that road to deal with it? I know you got state highway situation through there,
but I’m just still concerned about spending seven figures of money to deal with Savannah
Road out there and then we saying we going to monitor it, but you know, do we need
something up there to say do exactly what Commissioner Williams is saying to get them
to come down Molly Pond Road so that they can make that turn and go in there, as
opposed to coming straight through and down Savannah Road, because they may take the
sweeper, but I don’t think that they are going [inaudible]. If they coming in muddy, I
don’t think they are going to take the sweeper and go down and clean all of Savannah
Road. Now they may do that if they do exactly like Commissioner Williams is saying,
come up Molly Pond Road, make the little hook turn and go in there, then that only
leaves them that route to clean. And I realize every truck that comes on Savannah Road,
to their credit, doesn’t go in that place either, cause there are trucks coming down there
that, that, that are not necessarily going to that business. But I was just curious as to how
they plan to do that since we got an ordinance on the books that –
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mays, what I addressed is the trucks coming in, not the
condition of the mud. In other words, the trucks coming is relative dry. It’s the inside of
the plant there where they are that create the hazard with the mud and they are working
now to build a road or to build a basin in there where when it gets to the road it won’t
have the mud on it. Right now, it’s, it’s a situation from the inside of the plant that’s
65
coming out. The trucks coming in, that come from wherever the come from, by the time
they get to that facility, probably wouldn’t have any mud on them unless they came from
across the street or next door, so it’s not coming in. I think the problem been going out. I
think I created a good working relationship with the manager. He knows that I’m in that
area and we agreed to meet periodically. We supposed to meet again. I’m going to be
watching it closely and hopefully that somebody from either the Inspection or Public
Works will be watching it as well. But I don’t think we have any problems. In fact, he
supposed to do some improvements with just the trees and the outer area in that area, so
I’m going to see that all that be done.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We’ll vote on the motion then. All in favor,
please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Mr. Boyles out.
Motion carries 7-0-1.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, you have any agenda for us for the legal meeting?
Mr. Wall:
35. LEGAL MEETING.
•
Discuss real estate matters.
•
Discuss potential and pending litigation.
Mr. Wall: And items 28 and 32.
Mr. Mayor: And the Mayor has two personnel issues to add to that.
Do we
have a motion to go into legal meeting for the stated purposes?
Mr. Shepard: So move.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection? None heard.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: We will take a five minute recess and reconvene in legal.
[LEGAL MEETING]
Mr. Mayor: We’ll call the meeting back to order.
66
36. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will entertain a motion authorizing the Mayor to sign the
affidavit.
Mr. Kuhlke: So move.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have any items we need to add, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Yes, I would ask that you add to the agenda and to approve the
transfer of 501 Ninth Street, 506 through 516 Ninth Street, 518, 520 Ninth Street,
524 Ninth Street, 855 Walker Street and 514 Ford Street to Richmond County
Public Facilities, Inc. to approve the expenditure of $238,013.34 received from
Anderson Equipment and Rental Company for the differences in the exchange value
of the Richmond Bonded property and the Ninth Street properties, to approve the
transfer of $25,486.66 from the Walker Street parking lot account to fund the
additional cost of completing the transaction and to approve the execution of
Memorandum of Understanding between Augusta and GSA for the Federal Court
Annex.
Mr. Kuhlke: I move we add and approve.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to add and approve. Discussion? Any objection? None
heard.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: The items are approved. Added and approved. Anything else, Mr.
Wall?
Mr. Wall: That’s it.
Mr. Mayor: We are adjourned.
67
[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 March 4, 2003.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
68