HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-02-2003 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
June 2, 2003
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:03 p.m., Monday, June 2,
2003, the Honorable Bob Young, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Colclough, Shepard,
Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County
Commission.
The Invocation was given by the Rev. Silas Hawkins, Jr.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, let’s move along with recognitions, please.
The Clerk:
RECOGNITION:
Mr. George Kolb, City Administrator
Recently received the International City/County Management (ICMA) Credentialed
Manager designation. Mr. Kolb is one of 558 local government management
professionals worldwide to be credentialed through the ICMA Voluntary Credentialing
Program. Including Mr. Kolb, there are only nine credentialed managers in the state of
.
Georgia
Mr. Mayor: Congratulations to you, George. This represents, I know, a milestone
in your career and we want to commend you for that and acknowledge your receipt of
this credential, and also want to recognize your wife, Sandy, who is present in the
chambers today. Thank you.
Mr. Kolb: Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: The Mayor Pro Tem is calling for a speech from the Administrator
(Laughter)
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I’d like to just thank you
very much for your recognition of my receiving this most prestigious award. It’s
something that is the highlight of my career and I’m very proud of it, and I thank you
again for the recognition.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, George. Let’s move along to our consent agenda. Do
you have any of these that you need to read out, Madame Clerk?
1
The Clerk: Yes, sir, I think we have a couple of alcohol petitions.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk: The consent agenda consists of items 1 through 32A.
Alcohol
petitions, if there are any objectors to any of the alcohol petitions, would you please
signify your objection by raising your hand?
PUBLIC SERVICES:
3. Motion to approve a request by Felipe Mata for an on premise consumption
Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Milusos, Inc. DBA
Teresa’s Mexican Restaurant located at 4104 Windsor Spring Road. There will be
Sunday sales. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
May 27, 2003)
4. Motion to approve a request by Olanrewaju Johnson for a retail package
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Milestone Gas located at 3232
Deans Bridge Rd. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee May 27, 2003)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions?
Mr. Mayor: None are noted, Madame Clerk. We have a consent agenda of items
1 through 32A. Are there any items from the regular agenda or perhaps the addendum
agenda that we could add to the consent agenda? If there are, let’s try to add those. If
not, we’ll go ahead and entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: On item 32, 33, excuse me, if we’ve resolved all the issues that we
had, that our Attorney and DDA were going to work out, that may be one that we can add
if that’s been resolved.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anyone who would like to have discussion on item 33? If
not, we can add it to the consent agenda.
Mr. Colclough: I’d like to pull a couple of items.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll get to that in just a moment. Why don’t we add 33?
No one seems to have any discussion for that. Any others?
Mr. Bridges: What about 37, 38, 39? I see that was approved at previous Finance
Committee meetings.
2
Mr. Mayor: Did anybody want to have any discussion on those items? 37, 38,
and 39.
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Cheek: It’s my understanding that that was the intent, to resolve those and --
Mr. Wall: Oh, yes, that’s been resolved.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Cheek: Also, item 41, quite possibly could be added as well.
Mr. Mayor: Would anyone like to have discussion on item 41 or could we move
that to the consent agenda? Mr. Mays? Want to hold that out and discuss it? Leave it
where it is?
Mr. Mays: I just wanted to be clear on what the motion would be on 41, cause
there’s no recommendation from the committee. So I mean I’m just trying to find out
what would be the motion on it.
Mr. Mayor: Why don’t we hold that item out for discussion?
Mr. Mays: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Any others?
Mr. Bridges: I’ve got a question on number 29. When do we go out for bid again
on the trash pickup? I mean would this, would this nullify any plans for bidding this
process out again?
Mr. Kolb: No. This is just a renewal, optional renewals in the contract, so --
Mr. Bridges: I think it’s 2005 where we’re supposed to bid again.
Mr. Kolb: Exactly.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Kolb: And we’ll do it probably the year prior to the end of that contract.
Mr. Bridges: Okay. All right. That’s fine. I don’t need to pull it then.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I’d like to pull 29.
3
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Wait a minute. I’m going to get into pulling in just a
moment. Let me see if we can add anything else. Okay, do we have a motion then to
approve the consent agenda, 1-32A, 33, 37, 38 and 39?
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and second. Now we’ll get into pulling
items. What items would you like to pull? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, 6, 13, 29 and 30.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Mays: 6, 13, 29 and 30.
Mr. Mayor: Anyone else?
Mr. Colclough: 14A and 21.
Mr. Mayor: 14A and 21 for Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Bridges: What was that again, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: 14A and 21. Any others?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I’d like to pull item number 2.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Williams: Item 6 has already been pulled, I believe.
Mr. Mayor: That’s correct.
Mr. Williams: Item number 5.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Williams: 29 and 30.
4
Mr. Mayor: 29 and 30 have already been pulled.
Mr. Williams: Already been pulled? Okay. I had one more. Item number 24. I’d
like a little discussion on item number 24.
Mr. Mayor: 24. Okay. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Item 22.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, item 22 for Mr. Shepard. Any other items that you want to
pull?
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Motion to renew the Sec. 5311 Rural Transit grant application between the
Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) and Augusta, Georgia. (Approved
by Public Services Committee May 27, 2003)
2. Deleted from the consent agenda.
3. Motion to approve a request by Felipe Mata for an on premise consumption
Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Milusos, Inc. DBA
Teresa’s Mexican Restaurant located at 4104 Windsor Spring Road. There will be
Sunday sales. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
May 27, 2003)
4. Motion to approve a request by Olanrewaju Johnson for a retail package
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Milestone Gas located at 3232
Deans Bridge Rd. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee May 27, 2003)
5. Deleted from the consent agenda.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
6. Deleted from the consent agenda.
7. Motion to approve Resolution to observe June as National Homeownership
Month in Augusta. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 27, 2003)
8. Motion to approve a request from Shade Tree A’s, Model A Ford Club of
America, to use the pension property in the 500 block of Reynolds Street for their
regional meeting June 18-21 and the display of three hundred (300) Model A’s from
several states. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 27, 2003)
9. Motion to ratify changing the regular scheduled June 3rd Commission
meeting to Monday, June 2, 2003. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
May 27, 2003)
10. Motion to approve Grant Agreements between the City and the U.S.
Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) for Receipt of Year 2003
CDBG, ESG and HOME Funds. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
May 28, 2003)
5
11. Motion to authorize Public Works & Engineering to hire an Accountant I at
a salary of $40,000 to be funded from the One Percent Sales Tax Program.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 27, 2003)
12. Motion to approve the reprogramming of $10,847.05 in Year 2002
Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) funds and distribute on a pro rata basis to the
Year 2003 ESG sub-recipients. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
May 27, 2003)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
13. Deleted from the consent agenda.
14. Motion to approve Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG)
application for Richmond County Juvenile Court and The Children and Youth
Coordinating Council (CYCC). (Approved by Public Safety Committee May 27,
2003)
14A. Deleted from the consent agenda.
FINANCE:
15. Motion to renew the Sec. 5311 Rural Transit grant application between the
Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) and Augusta, Georgia. (Approved
by Finance Committee May 27, 2003)
16. Motion to approve a budget amendment for EMA for $7,526.00 for grant
received and deposited in General Fund. (Approved by Finance Committee May 27,
2003)
17. Motion to deny a request from East Coast Realty Investment Associates
regarding a waiver of penalties and fees in the total amount of $2,507.89 for
property at 1021, 1023 and 1025 Franke Industrial Blvd. (Approved by Finance
Committee May 27, 2003)
18. Motion to approve the appropriation from Commission Promotional
Account to purchase frames from Augusta Art and Frame Shop in the amount of
$1,600.00 (Approved by Finance Committee May 27, 2003)
19. Motion to approve the expenditure of funds from Legislative Interest
Account for members of the Augusta Commission who will be attending the CSRA
Leadership trip to Washington, DC June 3-4 and to defray costs associated with
Citizens SPLOST V Committee. (Approved by Finance Committee May 27, 2003)
20. Motion to approve amending the General Fund Engineering and
Administration Budget #101-04.1110 to include Brownfields Grant revenue and
related expenditures, which is mandatory to utilize the grant in accordance with
Federal guidelines. (Approved by Finance
Committee May 27, 2003)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
21. Deleted from the consent agenda.
22. Deleted from the consent agenda.
23. Motion to approve a proposal from ARCADIS G & M, Inc. in the amount of
$727,635 to develop a single, comprehensive system-wide hydraulic model of the
6
City of Augusta’s sanitary sewer collection system. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee May 27, 2003)
24. Deleted from the consent agenda.
25. Motion to approve the realignment of the street light at the entrance of
Lumpkin Road and Green Meadows Drive and create a Special Street Lighting
District based on safety reasons along Green Meadows Drive. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee May 27, 2003)
26. Motion to approve additional engineering services to Zimmerman Evans and
Leopold in the amount of $250,000 for the proposed additional engineering services
to support the Augusta Canal Licensing Process. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee May 27, 2003)
27. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget (CPB # 323-04-203823451) for the
Oates Creek Rehabilitation Project in the amount of $840,000 to be funded from
One Percent Sales Tax Phase III Recapture. Also execute Local Cooperation
Agreement with the Corps of Engineers committing the City of Augusta to
participate in the Oates Creek Rehabilitation Project with a cost share up to 65/35
in the amount of $780,000. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 27,
2003)
28. Motion to authorize Public Works & Engineering to hire an Accountant I at
a salary of $40,000 to be funded from the One Percent Sales Tax Program.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 27, 2003)
29. Deleted from the consent agenda.
30. Deleted from the consent agenda.
PLANNING:
31. ZA-R-158 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition to delete the existing Section 3-12 (W)
and amend it to state “nearer than 45 feet from the right-of-way line of Barton
Chapel Road from Wrightsboro Road to Gordon Highway”. (Approved by
Commission May 20, 2003 – second reading)
32. ZA-R-159 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta- Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition amending Sections 2, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of
the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and adding a new Section 28-D, entitled
“Conservation Subdivisions”. (Approved by Commission May 20, 2003 – second
reading)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
32A. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held
May 20, 2003.
PLANNING:
33. DOWNTOWN ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT – A request for concurrence
with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve the creation
of a Downtown Resource Panel.
7
37. Motion to approve a request for an appropriation from Commission
Promotional Account for payment to Fat Man’s Forest for purchase of yellow bows
for Augusta Common and Ft. Gordon (Gates 1 and 5) at a cost of $413.60.
th
(Approved by Finance Committee May 12, 2003 – deferred from May 20 meeting)
38. Motion to approve a request for an appropriation from Commission
Promotional Account for payment to The Pin Center for the purchase of lapel pins –
Office of the Mayor at a cost of $945.00. (Approved by Finance Committee May 12,
th
2003 – deferred from May 20 meeting)
39. Motion to approve a request for an appropriation from Commission’s
Promotional Account for payment to Augusta Golf & Framing for the purchase of
frames and framed keys to the City at a cost of $1,555.00. (Approved by Finance
th
Committee May 12, 2003 – deferred from May 20 meeting)
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve the consent agenda. All in favor,
please vote in the affirmative.
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1, 3-4, 7-12, 14, 15-20, 22-28, 31-32A, 33, 37-39]
Mr. Mayor: We have an addendum agenda, items 1, 2 and 3, which you have on
your handout. Is there any objection to adding any of those items to the agenda today?
Any objection to adding any of those three items?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Item 2 is supposed to go before the Finance Committee, was my
understanding from the substitute-committee, and item 1, I thought that was to -- I didn’t
know that was coming before the full Commission, either.
The Clerk: Yes, sir, in your Finance minutes, it was an oversight on our part.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
The Clerk: Your Finance minutes will indicate that the motion was to forward it
to the full Commission with no recommendation.
Mr. Bridges: Okay. I don’t have any trouble, if that was the motion in Finance,
just an oversight, I don’t have any trouble with 1 and 3. But I think we should go through
the proper procedure with item number 2.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I was going to agree with Mr. Bridges. The way I read these
minutes from the subcommittee, and I’d like Mr. Hankerson to respond. It looks like it’s
8
coming back to us for a policy determination. That’s what it says and you’ve got it here
on a [inaudible] agenda. What’s the --
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, doing some additional, doing some additional work I didn’t
get a chance to speak to you or Mr. Bridges. And from some calls that I received this
weekend. I think that it is important that at least we discuss this item today because of
the fact that some of the employees have already been told verbally that they need to look
for another job. And I think it need to be discussed because of the fact of the time frame
that we’re working in also. They were told that they need to look for another job by the
end of this month. And I know that it’s supposed to -- you’re correct -- go back to the
Finance Committee, but within the time limit that we have and the additional information
I received since then, I think we need to actually kind of look at this so we can be
prepared to decide what exactly, what are we going to do and give the senior citizens
some kind of answer because of the time frame. That’s the only reason I wanted to --
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Vice Chairman, won’t we have a Finance Committee
meeting next week and a full Commission before the end of the month, which would be
within June? I mean here this is laying up on my desk. I just really hadn’t had a chance
to talk to anybody, and I echo Mr. Bridges’ feelings, particularly when the subcommittee
report speaks in terms of it coming back to the Finance Committee. Seems like to me
we’ve got, we can take this material and study it today and then we’ll have time for
action in the committee next week and action the week after that in the full Commission.
I mean it’s not like an ordinance that has to be passed twice, is it, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Hankerson: That may be true, too, Mr. Shepard, but according to my
experience of how long we take to keep things in committee and the time frame, I
thought the more information you get ahead of time would be better for you to make a
more intelligent decision at the time we need because it’s a lot of things involved in this
and with the employees out there now thinking that they won’t have a job and upset, I
think -- my reason is just that we would have more information and a brief discussion on
thth
this today and we’ll be prepared in the 9, in the committee on the 9 also to follow up
on the discussion and decide what we are going to do.
Mr. Mayor: Well, it takes unanimous consent to add this to the agenda today.
Mr. Hankerson: And I would --
Mr. Mayor: And if there is any objection, then we’re not going to be able to
pursue the discussion.
Mr. Shepard: Well, I’m not going to withdraw my objection on this. I appreciate
getting the information ahead of time. I think we can make a decision before the end of
the month, Mr. Hankerson. But I mean when the, when the committee just met on the
th
28 and says it’s coming back to Finance, I have it laying up here when I got here today,
9
I mean it’s fine to get the information out, but I’m not ready for an action item on it
today.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Hankerson: Well, you have all this information here for you and I thought I
was really doing exceptional well by giving you more information on the investigation
that I made about it, and not about a decision to make, but I think, you know, I was still
saying is not that we trying to push anything on you because I didn’t know that the
meeting that was called for the employees and telling them that they did not have a job, I
think that’s a knee-jerk action and I think this Commission, as everything is directed that
we are the cause of what is happening with the Senior Citizens Council, I thought maybe
that with this package of information that you received today, at least we’d get a change
to just discuss something.
Mr. Mayor: Well, we have two Commissioners who have objected to discussing
this today, so under the Commission rules, without unanimous consent we cannot discuss
the item.
Mr. Hankerson: I mean I understand that, Mr. Mayor. That’s why I keep
discussing, because I’m trying to convince them.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Well, we need to move along with the items on the agenda. Thank
you, Rev. Hankerson. It’s an important item. Thank you for keeping it on the front
burner. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, might I, might I ask, and I fully agree with the objections
according to procedure, and I know exactly where both Steve and Ulmer are coming from
there. I do think there have been some changes that have occurred even since that
meeting that this City may need to deal with some action on. What I would hope is that
while it, while the unanimous consent is not there, I hope that they would reserve,
though, until the end of the day the right to maybe deal with considering a
reconsideration to do so to add at a later time, being that I think even prior to Finance it
may behoove us to possibly want to deal with dealing with some of our own internal
auditing forces because I think we may end up looking at something that’s going to end
up getting dropped in our lap, to have to deal with. And I just think that the time frame --
and I said the same thing, Steve, when I heard -- Bobby and I had a conversation in
reference to this. And it’s been only within the last hour-and-a-half. It just may be -- we
can’t solve it today, but it may be something we want to have for Finance in order to do
when Finance takes place. And it may be something that we can even deal with
administratively in order to do it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
10
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, I add to that, I don’t know whether my two
Commissioners are aware of it, and really what really prompted me, and I just called
today about 12 something to have this done. It was because of the fact when I heard, I
received a letter after we went on the trip to Columbus, that a town meeting is being
called with all the senior citizens Wednesday morning, and four Commissioners is going
to be in Washington, D.C., and my co-chairman of Finance and myself, we’ll be -- Steve,
aren’t you going to Washington, D.C.?
Mr. Shepard: I am, and --
Mr. Hankerson: And we’re going to be in Washington, D.C. and they’re calling a
senior citizen meeting Wednesday, and Tommy’s going to be there, Ulmer’s on the
committee, the subcommittee is going to be in D.C. We won’t even be able to even
defend ourselves.
Mr. Mayor: Well, it’s --
Mr. Hankerson: So you can do what you want to, but it’s record that I tried to
bring it.
Mr. Mayor: Well, it’s clear there’s an outside influence being brought to bear, to
put some pressure on this Commission to do something quickly, but this is not an item for
discussion today because we have objection to putting it on the agenda. Mr. Williams,
[inaudible]?
Mr. Williams: I just need some clarification, Mr. Mayor. And my clarification is
that was this an item to be voted on or was this a report or a summary to give out
information? That’s what I want to know. I can understand the objection to voting on --
Mr. Mayor: You’ll have to ask Commissioner Hankerson that and we can’t
discuss it because we’ve got two Commissioners who do not want to discuss it.
Mr. Williams: I just need clarification. I don’t want to discuss it.
Mr. Mayor: There’s nothing to clarify if it’s not being discussed.
Mr. Williams: If, if, if this item --
Mr. Mayor: We’re trying to move along.
Mr. Williams: I need to know whether this item is a item to be voted on, to, to do
something or this is a item to receive as information. And that’s all I’m asking.
Mr. Mayor: Are you asking for a vote today on something, Mr. Hankerson, if
your item were to be discussed? Would you ask for a vote on something today?
11
Mr. Hankerson: No, I wasn’t going to ask for a vote.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. So that answers the Commissioner’s questions. All right,
let’s move along. Have we voted on the consent agenda?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
1. Consider a request from Project Success of Augusta for funding in the
amount of $10,000 for the summer session.
2. Consider a request from the Senior Citizens Center for funding in the
amount of $150,000. (Requested by Commissioner Hankerson)
3. Consider purchase of tickets for “One Grand Night: IV Scholarship Gala”
sponsored by the Augusta Conference of African American Attorneys.
[No objection to adding item 1 and 3 to the agenda]
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Let’s move along then to item number 2. The first one that
was pulled.
The Clerk:
2. Motion to approve Memorandum of Understanding between Augusta
Housing Authority and Augusta Richmond County Recreation and Parks for
Summer Youth Program funded by the Housing Authority and implemented by the
Recreation Department in the amount of $35,000.00. (Approved by Public Services
Committee May 27, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m in total support of this coming
together, working together, but I’ve got some issues that I need to find out about the
Housing Authority and what programs have we been doing and what programs are we
th
going to be doing? Now we received these funds, I think this is the 9 year -- is that
right, Tom?
th
Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I believe it’s the 8.
th
Mr. Williams: 8 year.
th
Mr. Mayor: The backup says 9 year.
th
Mr. Williams: Okay. Even if in the 9 year with the Housing Authority and with
the inner city projects which have a serious problem with programs and stuff going on. I
12
don’t see any programs, and Tom, you and me had that long talk about some stuff around
the old Sunset Homes, Gilbert Manor, those areas. With this monies, what programs,
Tom, can you share with us or can you get us some information back that’s going to be
done? Because you know, we looked at W.T. Johnson and we had three programs going
on at one time. I think you created something with a swim stuff, with them outside, the
30901 was running the inside facility there. But with this money, I’d like to know what
outside programs going be affected and how will they be affected with the inner city
through the Housing Authority?
Mr. Beck: This program this year is scaled back. It is a grant program through
the Housing Authority. In past years it has been $50,000. [inaudible] drug elimination
program. The program was scaled back to $35,000 this year, so the funds are being used
to fund the Summer Fun Zone Day Camp program at W.T. Johnson Community Center
and also for the [inaudible] program at Collins Elementary School. That is where the
funds will be going to.
Mr. Williams: So it just be those two facilities, you’re saying, that’s going to be
affected?
Mr. Beck: That’s correct. In the past we have had three facilities [inaudible] but
due to the cutback in funds from $50,000 to $35,000 we’re scaling back.
Mr. Williams: And this grant, Tom, this is additional money that the grant is
bringing in, plus the City’s money that’s appropriated?
Mr. Beck: It’s totally funded by the Housing Authority. It’s a 100% grant from
the Housing Authority.
Mr. Williams: And there’s no City funds going into?
Mr. Beck: No, sir.
Mr. Williams:
Okay. Well, I just wanted to find out there. I have no problem
Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make a motion that we approve.
with it. But I’d liked to see
some of those things that have not been taking place up in the area, Tom, you know, we
talked about that quite a lot, with the inner city, the project, those type facilities need
those, that guidance and that structure in that area.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second to the motion to approve?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
13
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, if I could, the Planning Commission asked that we issue a
notice to any objectors or petitioners that may be in the Chambers for the Planning
th
Commission meeting, that meeting is being held on the 6 floor, room 605.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Madame Clerk. Okay, item 5, is that next?
The Clerk:
5. Motion to approve Bid Item # 03-074 for $27,813.95 to Contract Connection
as the low bidder to meet specifications. (Approved by Public Services Committee
May 27, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams’ item.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The backup said various parks and
projects. I need to know what parks, what projects, Tom, are going to affected with this
$27,000.
Mr. Beck: As the backup indicates, this is a bid for miscellaneous equipment
which includes picnic tables, park benches, grills and bicycle racks, and these -- also in
your backup, shows the areas that are being charged for this particular equipment. We
have had other bids within the last couple of years that have upgraded some of these other
facilities. We will have some other individual purchases that won’t be coming to the
Commission as far as the $10,000 bid award cap. But this was a multiple bid award, was
over $10,000, for those various parks for [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Go ahead, Andy.
Mr. Cheek: I was just go make a motion to approve.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges seconded?
Mr. Bridges: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? All in favor then please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: That brings us to item number 6.
The Clerk:
14
6. Motion to accept pre-payment of $150,000.00 for outstanding UDAG loan for
Landmark Apartments at 505 13th Street. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee May 27, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, you asked for this item.
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, let me say that first of all I have no problem with us
trying to help and to assist in public-private partnerships whenever we can. Oftentimes,
well not oftentimes, but sometimes when, where there is a problem and we may have to
work towards some changes in what may be in an original agreement, there are
precedents set where we have done that as a government, both as old city, the county, and
then in this new government as well. However, I do think that when we do these types of
things, I think that the disclosure element should be full in terms of what we are doing,
and I think that’s what got me to the point of pulling this one today. Now I understand by
contractual agreement that we basically to a certain extent must either do this, something
or nothing. There are some balances, I think, in there. I think our new Administrator of
that department has done a good fast-track job in terms of trying to bring us up to speed
on information and where this is. And to a point that this may be the only acceptable
means of doing something if we look at it from one side of this particular issue. Now
where my problem starts with it, and I may be the only Commissioner with this problem,
but since I’m the only Commissioner, I guess I’m like Garfield, I kind of resemble this
item. I was sitting right there when the rail was turned differently back in 1984, and I
remember when this project came along. Voted for it. It’s been an improvement to this
City. I think it was a very good project when it started and I think those are the type of
things that you like to see come along that the city can help and can assist with. But I
think I would not have a problem with it if when in 1997 that the city changed its position
and subordinated the agreement and basically changed to 2023, I believe, or 2022.
Twenty-some years difference in terms of when it would be finally paid. We have some
other situations or at least one other one I know that resembles that one, as well. But
what still bothers me, and I guess, Mr. Mayor, if the late Margaret Twiggs was still
living, to a point I’m concerned about whether or not this will pass the smell test. Now
I’m being very honest and to the point as I can be with it. It bothers me when I
researched the records back, even to 1997 and the committee action that was taken in
1997, that it was an add-on item that day. Now usually whenever we make a mistake,
either intentionally or accidentally, it’s when we get in a mad rush to do something. Now
this was an add-on that day. It was done and then forwarded on to the consent agenda,
when it was finally approved. Back almost at the beginning of this year, the end of last
year, this item popped up for the repayment. I was not on the committee that handled
this. However, I did lead the fight to question it at that time as to why we were going for
the repayment. The current Director of HND was not there at that time so there was not
really the detailed information that we got, that we’re having now. And it was basically
an add-on item that day, on which it was defeated. It came back again some six months
later as another add-on provision again in a committee. Now add-ons trouble me when
they start doing once, twice, and then three times, that you get the add-ons. I think the
integrity of the program is at stake to a point I raise the question, one, maybe it is a good
deal to receive the $150,000 if that’s all we’re going to get because the Commissioners
15
who are sitting here and four or five terms later it will change then before any payments
are made. But it just seems to me that the favor basically, to a certain extent, has already
been done. It was restructured to deal with it 20-some years prior. Now to come back a
few years later and to ask that you write this off at about 30% -- and the reason why I’m
saying 30% is according to Ms. Smith’s calculations from the department, when we were
looking at this we were talking about right now $150,000, taking $150,000 on the
prepayment out of $350,000-some dollars. But it’s been noted that we have $100,000-
some with the interest that was not counted. Well, now, $100,000-some with the interest
that has been counted, is it in the city’s best interest to take the $150,000 now or to deal
with a long-term investment of which the interest calculates and to a point that you are
owed something or it be worth something? I think in a compromising spirit at best what
we should do is at least allow the new Director to monitor this particular project and its
income basis for another 18 to 24 months and to see whether it makes money. Because,
you know, this is the type of situation where I just have the real funnies to a point if it
was sitting alone, to a certain extent, not bothering anybody, the contract basically
protected the people involved, it was not going to be called up, it could not be foreclosed
up, but all of a sudden a situation that’s in dire straits, that’s not making any money,
that’s losing a quarter of a million dollars a year according to its records, would come in
an offer to pay off $150,000 in cash. Well, then, do we start telling the Tax
Commissioner to go out and see can you get 40% payments on what’s owed? Do we
allow others to a point of saying that? Now we have forgiven individuals. But if we are
going to forgive, then it ought to come to the table, quite frankly, of forgiveness like
everybody else in this business has. It ought to be open and full disclosure and I think the
background of the information should have been done at that time. Through all the
records that I looked into. Sure, it’s detailed now in terms of the subordination
agreement of where it is, but of what was discussed in the original meeting of 1997, that
does not take place on that add-on item. Nor did the information when it came back the
first time to be added on. It was basically a routine situation of where we were going to
be getting this gift of $150,000. Then it lies dormant, I guess like [inaudible] to a point
somebody took the stake out of the vampire’s body, it popped up again, it’s back on the
agenda, when it got to an add-on a few weeks ago. Something in that scenario I think
needs a little bit more monitoring. I’ve heard of many sweetheart deals and I guess in
sweetheart deals, they say that’s kind of like a tie in football, where you kiss your sister.
But this one is a little bit, I think, than kissing your sister. I think to a point of where
you’re talking about walking away from this and the amount in which you want to
disclose, or in fact the lack of disclosure on it in terms of its discussion in a meeting of
which the point, I think, while we talk about foreclosing on other folks’ properties, are
talking about what we deal with with the collateral? I think the city paid its debt to go the
extra mile when it subordinated the agreement. Yet we come back now and we change
the different rules again. Well, then do we need to look at everybody’s agreement that’s
there? Do we need to move all of them up to 25 years from now to go with it and allow
them to come back in through the back door and to pay off 30% of what they’re dealing
with? I don’t think so. And I think that undermines the total integrity of the program.
While I sympathize with the partners in this group, I think that when you do things with
public money, then you deal with the public scrutiny and exposure of what’s there. I
think if it was in default in 1996, that should have been the highlight of what was dealt
16
with. But in retracing the minutes, that was not the highlight of what it was. So I just
have a problem in dealing with it. It may pass 8 or 9 to one, but for the record I have to
on principle oppose it because I think it undermines the program, and as far as it
resembling anything of kissing your sister, I think this one in the manner in which it’s
been held, with three add-ons to a committee, it’s a little deeper than kissing your sister.
It’s more like sleeping with your sister. And to walk away from it in this kind of manner
and to do it this way. And at the same time, we’re not feeding everybody else out of that
same trough. I think, Mr. Mayor, it deserves further monitoring by the Department and
to see whether or not those figures are in some way, shape or form correct, and to see
whether or not any profits have actually been made, and then we review it in 18 months,
24 months, and give the new Director an opportunity to see where it stands at that
particular time. And that’s just my personal feeling on it. I rest my case on it.
Mr. Mayor: Would you like to make a motion on it?
Mr. Mays: I sure will. I so move that we allow the new Director to do that for a
period of 18 to 24 months.
Mr. Colclough: I second it.
Mr. Mayor: The motion has been seconded. Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Beard.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, too, as my esteemed colleague, have had
concerns about the way some of the city loan programs have been run in the past. Wasn’t
around in ’97 when this came up. I’ve been amazed as we had a listen given us last week
of forgivable loans and the way things have been run in the past. This is today, though,
and it’s my understanding that on the several months now that this has been before us,
with the evidence presented by our Attorney, but our Director of Housing &
Neighborhood Development, that under the current contract language, which is the
governing document for actions governing this activity, is that this is a situation where
we either accept this, be it leaving a bad taste in people’s mouths as $150,000 to be used
on other programs, or based on my understanding of the contract language, have the
opportunity to get zero dollars now or 30 years from now. Is that a correct assumption?
Mr. Smith: I think you’re right on target, Mr. Commissioner. I think the issue
here is the regulatory agreement has stipulations that require that the only situation where
payment or repayment would be necessary would be where the borrowed accumulated
what they call surplus call. The last five or so years, the annual financial statements that
have been officially done by independent auditing show that there has been a deficit for
the project for each of those years. There has not been a profit, so we, based on that,
would not be the recipient of any kind of repayment and that does not seem to be
something that would change over the next several, many years.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, if I may complete my commentary here. Again, I am as
equally disgusted by some of the things I have seen before I was here, since I’ve been
here, about some of the apparently unequal approach to collections on loans and
17
forgivable loans and the whole nine yards. But this is situation where we have the
opportunity to have income to use in other areas or essentially pull out our own pocket
knifes and cut our own nose off to spite our face. I hope that we will consider, all of us
will consider -- we can remember history, we can learn from history, we cannot change
history. But we can change the future, and I have high hopes that our new Director of
Housing & Neighborhood Development is well on the way to doing that, and I urge the
Commission to support this and I will make a substitute motion that we approve the
acceptance of this pre-payment.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, my point was, I was going to ask Mr. Mays to put this in
the form of a motion, that’s the first thing. But since we’ve had further debate on this, I
was just wondering, and I don’t have quite an understanding of what’s going on here. I
know he, Mr. Mays asked for 18 to 20 months. I’m wondering if there could have been
some reconsideration in the time line so that maybe not that long, but giving everybody
on the Commission an opportunity to know what’s going on here and have an
understanding of that. And that’s what I’ve come up within that framework, that -- I
think that we need to look at this, maybe not for 18 months, but at some point in time.
That’s what I was going to ask the maker of the first motion.
Mr. Smith: Can I just make one other statement? Just to be real clear with what’s
going on here. We do have -- sorry, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s give Mr. Mays a chance to respond to that.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor, as far as that motion is concerned, I’m
flexible on that time line for review. The only reason I put that is in because they were
basically making yearly reports as such to the committee, to the department, and that was
why I initially said the, that time frame of it. It can be 12, it can be six. I guess one
question that I would like to ask is before the, before the Director assumes the mike back,
I realize what we cannot collect at this time according to those agreements, but are you
saying that when the total period is up, that we have granted, and the entire subordination
period -- now I realize they may be standing building that are in good shape, they may be
shacks at that point, but at that point on the interest that’s owed the City, at the end of that
long term period, would we still not be entitled to it then?
Mr. Smith: At this point, and Mr. Wall --
Mr. Mays: At 2023, 2022, whenever it is.
Mr. Smith: I’m going to say, I’m going to let Mr. Wall help me out, but my
understanding of this agreement, the regulatory agreement, is that for the time period
between now and the end of term, if there is no surplus cash, then no annual repayment is
18
necessary. At the end of term, the balance of the principal outstanding would be due and
payable in full at that point in time, but without accrued interest. That would be my
understanding. Jim, you help me out here.
Mr. Wall: The accrued interest is the problematic issue insofar as answering that
question. When requests were made by auditors and others to HND insofar as what the
outstanding principal balance was on the loan, HND responded with the principal
amount. They accrued no interest. And that is the way that the loan has been treated. In
addition, the -- apparently HUD’s understanding of the loan was that in the event that
payments were not made on a regular monthly basis, the loan basically was held in
abeyance, rather than interest being accumulated during that interim period of time. So
the interest did not continue to accrue while payments were not being made. And so the
answer to the question is without litigation I think that the amount we would get in year
2023 would be the principal amount, would not include any of the accrued interest on
payments that were not made between today’s date, let’s assume, or whatever the date the
last payment was and whatever year, 2020 or 2023, whatever year it is.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Might I ask Mr. Wall why are we into a contract that it’s
debatable in terms of litigation as to whether or not we will be owed interest or not? If
we subordinated the contract, if we gave up the basic rights to a second mortgage in that
agreement, then you say outside of litigation to deal with it, I would think that a contract
ought to spell it out specifically in terms of dealing with it. Because when it came back
from the department head, the amount of interest was calculated and accrued to deal with
it. Or was that a waste of time in order to get them to do that? Or why are we in to a
point of saying it would be debated? I think any contract, yeah, you’re right, if you got to
a point we could debate and have frivolous lawsuits on anything, but I think to a point a
contract specifically that we draw up from the city’s end ought to spell out whether or not
we are owed that at the end of 2023. Now I’ve read it, too. I’ve read it backwards and
forwards. I understand what occurs until 2023. I think where the gray area comes in is to
a point what happens after that. And I think if you’re saying that’s left up to litigation,
well, I mean, to a point do we turn around then and pay the attorney of record to
determine that, too? Cause I mean you are [inaudible] to giving it up, I mean, you
making it the assumption that it needs to be litigated to determine it, but you drew the
contract.
Mr. Wall: Well, you’re correct. There is nothing in the instrument that reflects
the fact that the interest would not continue to accrue and be due and payable in the year
2023. However, that being said, I was unaware of the fact, and until I met with Mr.
Krouse and Mr. Smith, that apparently Mr. Krouse has been told by the former HND
people, not any of the current people, that that’s the way in which the loan would be
handled and would be treated. And from an historical standpoint, insofar as the books
and records of HND are concerned, that is the way it was treated. So the way in which it
has been handled and treated is not consistent with the language of the instruments
themselves.
19
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I think it would be to a point, and I don’t mind shortening
Mr. Beard’s request for review, but to a point if we going to get into how a loan is to be
treated and whether a department handles it and we into an agreement that was drawn up
where the city’s position of rights was subordinated and presented to a Commission as an
add-on item, not once, twice, but three different times and occasions, no, I think that
that’s not to a point where a department determines that. If you have entered into a
contract, the contract ought to, Mr. Wall, spell that out. It ought to be where we get zero
other than what’s there or it ought to say what’s there. Now I’m concerned that on one
hand, cause contracts can’t, can’t, can’t, can’t just differ with Commissioners to
Commissioners. They can’t deviate from attorney to attorney, nor from director to a
director. They should pass on on their strength of their wording of what’s there. We
either have a leg to stand on of where we have something to deal with in 2023. If it’s
valuable property that’s over there, or we don’t have anything that’s over in there. But to
say in terms of how a department treats a particular case, I do not think that in any way
should be formed as a legal agreement that this Commission recognizes based on how
something is treated. Now I follow your school of law to a point of being specific, and I
know how hard you are in terms of keeping folk in line about the City’s money. But
now, Mr. Wall, I got to fundamentally disagree with you to a point that if this is debatable
at that point and somebody’s got to litigate it, then I say that there’s something, you may
say it doesn’t spell for it to be in there. But let me just pose this scenario, gentlemen. To
a point that of a government that’s so strapped with money, on one hand you say okay,
let’s take the $150,000, we can do something else with it. But also to a point that if you
did litigate it, I wonder how it would be with folk who were sitting there to a point that a,
a, an agreement was offered by the City one time. A second agreement changed it to give
the 25 years or 27 years of relief. And then you come back and you say that you
basically are not owed. If you going to litigate it, I think to a point that those folk who
are sitting there, that been waiting on some kind of sweetheart deal all their life, would
basically to a point, betting money says they’d want their money for their City. If you
going to deal with it like that. And judges are elected, too, but people in this community.
So I mean if you’re putting on a point that it’s up for grabs about litigation, and if it’s not
in the contract, then it should be. If it’s not. And that’s why I make my point of
argument. I think that to a point it’s clear that the agreement was made to subordinate the
position. I’m very clear on that. And obviously there is nothing that can be done. But I
think to a point that it’s mighty [inaudible]. I mean as I said once before about another
agreement, James Brown never had a hit record that was this funky, to a point to come
out and in 4 to 5 years after you subordinate agreements, somebody basically to a point in
a situation that is supposed to be going broke and making no money, comes in to offer
you $150,000. I think it was predetermined. I will make that on one man’s accusation
along that to a point it was predetermined, that if you come back in 4 to 5 years, most of
them will be gone, some of them will forget about it, and we’ll put it on as a routine
thing, we’ll pay the $150,000, and we’ll walk away from it. Now I could be absolutely
wrong, but I stand and make the same accusation. And that’s why I can’t support it. And
I say this, Mr. Mayor, in closing, to those who say that many times we should take the
money and run, I’m going to make the same argument that when we get in legal session
many times, and we stand to get into lawsuits that we pay money to defend us when we
know we don’t have a leg to stand on, we know we going to get beat, but we say it’s the
20
right thing to do, gentlemen, I remind you, those of you whose faces have lit up back
there in that room, to a point of telling me that, I want them to light up today to a point
that it’s about principle in this case, because if that’s the case, we just need to start having
a fire sale, a rummage sale, garage sale, and just let everybody come in to pay 35% to
40% of what they owe. Just run the deal that way. But I will accept that, Mr. Beard, to
go to six months to review that. If the seconder will agree.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First of all, I need to say that there’s two
sides to this thing, that we are not approaching. If I was coming in to get a loan such as
the one we discussing now, I be more than happy to have those, those terms and try to
meet those terms. Mr. Mays, I believe you’re right in what you just said. But on the
other side, Jim, I need to know is this a normal agreement, a normal contract with other
business in this area with federal dollars? Is this -- could you look at this contract and say
that this is a normal situation, this is what we do standard?
Mr. Wall: Well, subordination is something that we do on a regular basis.
Mr. Williams: Okay, but I’m talking --
Mr. Wall: Payment out of excess funds, in talking with Mr. Smith, this is a
provision that I think is unusual to him and is unusual -- I’m not familiar with another
agreement that uses the HUD form that was applicable in this where the payments only
come from excess funds.
Mr. Williams: The three changes that’s been made in here, the time length that’s
in here, the review of every year of the income coming into these businesses, and I
looked through this thing this weekend, and as I looked at these supposed to be federal
records, I guess these tax schedules, there’s no signature on those. I don’t whether that’s,
you know, I don’t what that is. There is no signature on any of this. My thing is, Jim,
that the attorney, and that’s you today. I don’t know who wrote this cause I wasn’t here
then. But somebody need to dance to this music other than the people who are coming in
here trying to pay off the $150,000. This was totally wrong. There was a small
businessperson came in here and we, we did what I thought was right. We nailed them to
the wall. We didn’t back them up. We nailed them to the wall. We threatened them with
everything within us to get everything they had and it was, it was five times less than
what, what we looking at here. And now when we have got these stipulations -- and
people in this town are tired of that kind of carrying on. We’re tired of looking at one
sidedness all over the city of Augusta. And as the Attorney we look to you for guidance.
Now if this thing was added on three times or two times or whenever it was added on,
anything of this magnitude should have been thought out very clearly, should have been
brought through every nick and cranny in this government so it come through the proper
changes. And everything that I seen is just the opposite of that. It went all around this
government and it may be legitimate but it don’t look like it. It look like we was trying
and we didn’t get away. And now we figure we’ll come back and give something rather
21
than say well, we got away with, with, with, with doing away with the whole thing or
forgiving it. But I just don’t understand. Any bank, any bank in this world has an
agreement like this, they’d of had somebody to follow up. Who followed up on contracts
such as this?
Mr. Wall: I mean I approved the contract, if that’s what you’re asking.
Mr. Williams: I wanted to know who following up.
Mr. Wall: As following up --
Mr. Williams: Whose job, after you approved the contract? Is it the Commission,
is it the Administrator, whose job is to make sure this kind of stuff don’t happen, because
this ain’t the first time now.
Mr. Wall: Well, insofar as the payments and whether or not payments were due
because of the excess funds, I mean that would be HND’s responsibility. And they
monitored the loan. But I think that not -- I think that a lot of the discussion took place
before Mr. Smith came on board there.
Mr. Williams: Well, disregard Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith wasn’t here when this was -
-
Mr. Wall: That’s right.
Mr. Williams: This, this, this got, this dog, I mean he don’t have a, I mean his
dog can’t hunt with these dogs here. It’s a whole different game. My thing is, Jim, that
we are not being accountable ourselves as Commissioners, we are not making sure that
those things that supposed to happen, happen. We sit here, we, we, we, we find stuff we
like and stuff we don’t like and we vote with or against it, but somebody should have
been holding somebody accountable all the time. Now Mr. Smith told us in the
committee meeting that he just reviewed the last -- I don’t know how many years, I want
to say five, whatever years of contract, income, which should have been done every year.
How can we sit here and tell a business that if you don’t make no money, you ain’t got to
pay us? I would never show a profit. And if you were honest, you would say the same
thing. If you can get $500,000 and never show a profit, never had to show a profit, the
only time you got to make payment --
Mr. Wall: Outside of personal guaranty, which was done in this case, I’d be sure
that there was an effort to make a profit, I can promise you that. Because otherwise I’m
on the hook at the end.
Mr. Williams: Nobody showed us anything until recently. Then we looked at all
of them. I mean you are a businessman yourself, you know how businesses operate, you
know a lot of businesses got two sets of books. Two sets.
22
Mr. Wall: No, sir.
Mr. Williams: You don’t know that? Well --
Mr. Wall: I don’t know anything about that.
Mr. Williams: Maybe, maybe because you’re an attorney you might not know
that, but a lot of business got two sets of books.
Mr. Wall: I, I --
Mr. Williams: And I’m not saying this business got two, but there a lot of
businesses that have two sets of books and they show you the one they need to show you.
My point is that we need to hold the person that wrote this contract accountable more so
than the person who trying to get out. Cause if I was them, I would be holding the City to
this. But we are in charge, we are responsible for federal dollars. They didn’t just send
this money down here and say do what you want with it. We got programs that need
assistance, need help right now and we done took monies like this and did stuff like we’re
looking at here today. You mentioned something, Jim, about they was told from HND
that they would be held accountable. I don’t remember what you said, so if you can
repeat that, because what’s written and what’s said is two different things. I can say
anything, but what’s written, what I signed, what the city’s name to and what the
company’s name to is what we should go by. For what they was told or how they was
told is going to be affected and how it was told it was going to be working, anybody was
talking, talk is so cheap till it’s free, so I want to know what the contract, if the contract
called for something. I been talking to you about it, I’ve talk to the Commission last
week in committee about all these contracts being written up. We sit up here and we
rubber stamp them and we don’t know what they, what they entail, we don’t discuss
them. We listen to the man who we pay the money to you, and that’s you, Jim Wall.
And we have not got what we have been paying for. We have not got it by no stretch of
the imagination, Jim. This ain’t, this ain’t just today. You done heard this before. But I
agree with Commissioner Mays, [inaudible] I can’t support it. If you going to rob me,
take everything. Don’t leave me with my shorts on and that’s all. If you going to leave
me, leave me, take it all. I don’t think it’s right to take the money that you’re talking
about taking and let somebody else off the hook. Somebody in this government need to
be accountable for it. Now we been investigated from the Grand Jury for two years or
more and this kind of stuff here, ain’t nothing been said about it. And I think the
investigation ought to come back. If you want to do something, we ought to be
investigating this kind of stuff here. This doesn’t pass the smell test, and I think
somebody needs to address it. Mr. Mayor, that’s all I got to say.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Smith, let me ask this question. Assuming that the Commission
doesn’t approve this request, and it’s my understanding that the request was made
because they had been losing money for a number of years on this particular project up
23
there, and which they are providing a service to this community in providing housing for
low-income people, am I correct?
Mr. Smith: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kuhlke: If this particular corporation just can’t continue to operate, and they
walk away, what does the City lose in regard to UDAG grants?
Mr. Smith: What would happen is there will be a foreclosure. The --
Mr. Kuhlke: Just kind of getting specific. The $354,000 would probably walk, it
would be gone, right?
Mr. Smith: The exact amount would be the $354,000. We would --
Mr. Kuhlke: We would not get that.
Mr. Smith: Exactly.
Mr. Kuhlke: And if the foreclosure took place, would the City foreclose or would
HUD foreclose?
Mr. Smith: Well, actually the first, the lender would foreclose. HUD is the
insurer. So you have a, you have a private loan and that lender would foreclose.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay.
Mr. Smith: Debts would be paid off, but there would be, as far as I understand,
no guarantee that we would get a dime, probably at this point in time.
Mr. Kuhlke: And then who would operate the facility? Would it go on the block?
Mr. Smith: It would go on the block for resale and there would be some entity
that would pick it up and would provide low-income housing. Now we have a vested
interest because of the fact that we have targeted low income families that would be
tenants there, and that would no longer be the case in a new situation.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Tell me the difference between this request and the request
on the money that we put into Laney Walker for the expansion of the Galleria where we
spent well over $600,000, and I think we sold that to Laney Walker Development
Company for a dollar. What’s the difference?
Mr. Smith: The key thing that we always need to remember, as a public entity, is
that we are going to always be the lender of last resort. We are going to be provider of
funds to make projects work. We are going to be the provider of funds to close any gaps
in financing, because our target is always going to be helping low income people, helping
24
people that need that opportunity in the marketplace, to improve their lives, and that’s the
role of the public sector. Now there are going to be situations that we will have to walk
away from. But obviously what we want to do is to minimize those situations, make sure
that we can help the borrower to make good on their loan, but that’s not always going to
be the case. We are going to be, as I always say, the lender of last resort or the resource
of last resort to make deals work.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. And then I guess my last question is if the balance is
$354,000 and the borrower is asking to pay it off, $150,000 to pay it off, if you took that
$150,000 and invested it over the remaining term of the lease, if the City were able to do
that and get a certain return on that money, would not it come pretty close to --
Mr. Smith: You could do a very good job if you took the funds and invested them
in the whole variety of things that we could do with those funds, under the programs that
we have available right now.
Mr. Kuhlke: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to reiterate the point that I think most of us
up here are not pleased with the way things have been done in the past. We began taking
steps over a year ago to change the direction that HND was going in. I’m sure this puts
an exclamation point behind the fact that we are not going to do business like this in the
future, that we have a new director that is taking us in a more professional direction. We
are going to be more accountable for our money in the future, but the fact of the matter is
that we’re here and now with a contract that is written, which in any case if we waited 23
years we could have a building that is falling down or over that period of time becomes a
detriment to the neighborhood. There is no guarantee that we would get a dime. We’re
not even first lien holder, is my understanding. We can like it or not like it, but the fact
of the matter is we have the opportunity to gain $150,000 to help, to invest, or to help
many other agencies that have come to us in desperate need, worthy agencies that we
cannot afford at this time. This is definitely a bird in the hand that we can use. We do
need. I agree with my colleagues and many of the things they’ve said about the practices
of the past and holding people accountable for why and how we got in this position that
we’re in. But the bottom line is, let us not walk away today with empty pockets. Let us
try to return some funding back to this City to be used by others in need and get beyond
this. We have argued about this for over a month-and-a-half now at several different
meetings. I just urge and encourage people, even if you have to hold your nose to
support this today, and let’s move on.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like some clarification, please. From Mr. Smith.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Williams?
25
Mr. Williams: Mr. Smith, what will HUD do, if they call upon us to repay, if we,
if we are found wrong in our contract and the way thing was done, is there a possibility
we have to repay HUD for the money that we done in this contract mis-worded, is a good
way of putting it? Is there any possibility --
Mr. Smith: Actually, just to be real clear. In the refinance, the regulatory
agreement that we signed off on, this jurisdiction signed off on, was HUD’s agreement.
The agreement has been implemented to the liking of HUD. They would not have any
concern over what transpires here on out in terms of the way the loan is dealt with at this
point.
Mr. Wall: HUD is the one who insisted on this provision in there as far as the
refinancing. This is not something we dreamed up at the local level.
Mr. Smith: Let me say one other thing.
Mr. Wall: It was imposed on us.
Mr. Smith: The interest that I talked about was something that in my experience
and my background, I thought that somehow that interest needed to be calculated and
kept in this loan. But as we looked at this thing and in view of the standards set by the
regulatory agreement, that is something that we cannot push for. We don’t have a leg, in
your words, to stand on.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I need you to answer this for me. What are we going
to do to make sure that this type of agreement that’s crippling this city in the minds of the
people of this city in the past, what are we going to do to prevent this from happening
again, and what’s going to happen to the people? And I’m speaking about our Attorney
now, who we, we depend on for legal guidance, that we pay very well. I mean there’s a
serious problem. Like I said, this ain’t just one sided. This ain’t about the lender coming
in. But we have been misled to the point, to the tune of a lot of money. And Jim, you
can raise your hand, if you got an explanation I want to hear it. This, this is something
we need to know. I would never vote on a contract, and I told y’all, unless I know what
the contract consists of for nobody no more, cause we done done that too many times, not
just on this type of contract, but all the contracts, we want to approve the contract, then
let the Attorney go back and write them.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Wall, do you want to respond to that, and then Mr.
Shepard has his hand up, he wants to be heard.
Mr. Wall: Well, yes, sir, I do. The Commission has not been misled. And the
agenda item from 1997, and I understand Mr. Mays’ comment about it being an add-on
item, I don’t remember the circumstances of that. I bear responsibility even though
someone in my office handled it. But it is clearly spelled out in that agenda item that the
payments come from surplus cash only. And so there was no misleading of the
Commission insofar as what happened. The agenda item spells out exactly the terms.
26
And insofar as holding people accountable, and you’re going to have a vote in January,
2004 --
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Wall: You can have a vote before them.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Wall: So that’s easy to hold me accountable.
Mr. Williams: I agree. And the same document that you’re speaking of here in
the back is signed by Jim B. Wall, I believe, but there is no Administrator, there is no
Finance person signed, and there is no committee. But in that same agenda --
Mr. Wall: This is the agenda item that came out of my file. I don’t know what
you’re --
Mr. Williams: That’s the only way I can go, that’s all I have here. But there is no
signature from the Administrator, there is no signature from Finance, there is no
signature, action from the committee.
Mr. Wall: But if you look at the original documents that were approved, they
were initialed by the Administrator.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s move along to Commissioner Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: The question for you, Jim, the note is not the problem, it’s the HUD
regulations, the regulatory agreement?
Mr. Wall: The regulatory agreement.
Mr. Shepard: That Mr. Smith was --
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Shepard: And you know, I think we’ve got to look to see what our
professionals in these two areas recommend, and the rule basically is the Golden Rule.
It’s not the one you preach, Mr. Williams, but it’s -- in finance, it’s he who’s got the gold
makes the rules. And so isn’t everything we do, Jim, subordinate to the rules and
regulations of HUD?
Mr. Wall: Like Mr. Smith said, we are the lender of last resort. And so most of
these people that are investing in projects need to get the HUD loan subordinated in order
that they can get other financing. And then yes, we are subject to the requirements of
27
HUD if they are going to guarantee another loan, what they are going to require the City
insofar as that subordination is concerned.
Mr. Shepard: And the point back in the past was to get the project in the ground,
was it not?
Mr. Wall: Well, it’s to get it upgraded, to get the improvements to the project. I
mean as far as the ’97 agreement is concerned.
Mr. Shepard: And it’s your opinion now, both you and Mr. Smith, that the loan is
not at a payoff point? I mean it’s not like they’ve come to us and want to refinance
[inaudible] refinance it [inaudible], but it’s something we cannot compel. It’s an offer
we’re being made; is that --
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Shepard: So we can’t insist on a payoff of $300,000-something?
Mr. Wall: Correct.
Mr. Shepard: So it’s take this, take this or leave is; is that right?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, you want to call the question?
Mr. Beard: I’m calling for the question, and the reason -- I want to make a
statement before I call for the question, cause I think we need to move on from this. I
gave the time line because I thought that six months is not too long to wait, and it looks
like it would satisfy most of the Commissioners up here if that was done, and that was my
reason for injecting the time line on this, so that we could move forward on this. I think
most of us understand that we are in a predicament here, that we’re going to have to
accept at some point in time, but maybe today is not that time to accept it, and that was
my reason for doing that, and I call for the question.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: And I’ll be very quick with this, but, and I only make this statement
inasmuch as Laney Walker has not been the only place that has had financial dealings
with the City of Augusta, Georgia. And I realize, Mr. Smith, in terms of just getting here,
would not be able to put all the implications in words in terms of what happens or why
one situation differs from another. But I might point out to a point that it was not the
only one. There were several reasons and Mr. Kuhlke raised the question about Laney
Walker and I presume because it seems as though that’s the only one that maybe some
28
folk might have a problem with. But one of the reasons that that was raised because,
number one, is that it was thoroughly eligible in terms of its area in order for us to do
that. Secondly, I think if you will look at the area that Mr. Smith brought out in terms of
notes that are out there and in terms of those that the Laney Walker Development
Corporation did that are tied to Summerville [inaudible], I believe that your statement
said that they were current, that were on there, Mr. Smith, and it’s been one of those
projects that’s in one of the worst areas that was there but still managed to make its
payments and did not ask for forgiveness. HUD was very critical of this city, to answer
Mr. Kuhlke’s question further, that we even charged what we did on the first round in
going [inaudible] old city, that’s why it made it very easy and acceptable for us to do
what we did on the Laney Walker project. And in closing, I might add, that it’s no more
different in terms of where you’re forgiving and I’m sure if he remembers the river front
partnership of where we walked away from $7.5 million of what we did, then you’ll
remember how we did that and why we did that. So it’s no different than whether it
occurs on that side of town as what it did on the river front. So just to refresh the
memory in case he forgot.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Thank you for doing that, Mr. Mays. The
question has been called. The Chair will rule there has been adequate debate. We’ll vote
on the substitute motion from Commissioner Cheek and that is to approve the
prepayment of $150,000 on the outstanding UDAG loan. All in favor of the substitute
motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Williams abstain.
Mr. Mays not voting.
Motion fails 5-2-2.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to the motion from Mr. Mays then as amended, that’s
to reject the offer. All in favor of the original motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Bridges, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Motion ties 5-5.
Mr. Mayor: As much as there is distaste in my mouth to accept a settlement on a
loan like this, the Chair is going to have to vote no on the motion.
The Mayor votes No.
Motion fails 5-6.
Mr. Mayor: So the motion fails.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, a motion to reconsider the item.
29
Mr. Mayor: All right. Well, we’re still considering it. And the floor is open for
another motion if you’d like to make another motion.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make another motion that we accept this
settlement and not have the same argument six months, two months, one month from
now. We all know this is something that’s distasteful, but I just make a motion that we
approve this and move forward.
Mr. Bridges: Second it.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second on the floor to accept the settlement.
Any further discussion before we move along with the vote? Yes, Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, thank you. Let me just be certain that -- in simple terms
for me. There’s a $354,000 loan that was put out some time ago. I wasn’t here so I don’t
have the dates --
Mr. Smith: $500,000 was the original UDAG loan amount.
Mr. Boyles: And that was to be paid, the loan payments to the City were to be
made from surplus cash only so we’ve been receiving no payments at all?
Mr. Smith: Since the refinance, that is actually absolutely correct. We have no
payments -- actually that is correct, yes.
Mr. Boyles: So we could go into the year, I think 2023 and never receive a dime
as it is?
Mr. Smith: If we are very optimistic and things turn around and there is a profit
made or surplus cash that is accumulated, then we would get funds back. But that is --
Mr. Boyles: That is being optimistic, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith: -- absolutely not being realistic.
Mr. Boyles: That is not being realistic. So we can take $150,000 and basically
walk away from what happened in 1997?
Mr. Smith: That’s correct.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, a question to Mr. Smith.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
30
Mr. Mays: For the public’s record, because they did not have privy to all the
things we’re doing, would you give us the information that prior to 1997 when we
subordinated the agreement, what monies had we received prior to them, and I guess to
make it shorter, how long had the loan been in default when it was brought up for the
subordination agreement. Because obviously there was no money being paid on it prior
to it being subordinated, either.
Mr. Smith: There were, there were many payment that were made over the period
of time since I think, Jim, 1984. There were missed payments. My understanding is that
those missed payments, the interest did accrue and went forward, but there were several
missed payments. So there were the -- the project sponsor was behind in their payments
at the time that they came to request for refinance.
Mr. Mays: So it was in a default stage when it came to us?
Mr. Smith: Well, it was in a delinquency stage. That may be a little different,
maybe that’s some kind of --
Mr. Mays: I guess in common language, when you owe the bank, it could have
been called?
Mr. Smith: That’s --
Mr. Mays: On the previous agreement that’s there.
Mr. Smith: That’s --
Mr. Mays: So when it came to us subordinated, it was already behind at that
point, as are many of those and some of those that we foreclosed on other folks with. I
just wanted that out for the public’s record and so that they could understand that this is
not a jam on a particular small business or family to deal with it, that to a point of how
these things are being handled at to a point that this was not one that just came up in ’97
to do it or one that had been perfectly repaid.
Mr. Smith: You are correct.
Mr. Mays: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I need to ask Mr. Smith another question
while he’s there. Mr. Smith, is this going to set a precedent for other loans that we’ve
gotten that may be in default, that may be in trouble, that may need some assistance? Are
we saying to the general public if this passes that you just can default on your loan and
you come back to us and we -- I mean what are we saying? I understand about the
money now. I know it was your recommendation and you saying that we ought to take
31
this to keep from not getting anything. But I’m asking for other business people who
have came through these doors and asked for grants and loans and have not had this same
privilege. Nobody sit down and negotiate, nobody sit down and talk with them and they
lost everything. They had to close their business, they lost personal property and
everything else. So are we setting a precedent here now what we do this?
Mr. Smith: I think what we’re saying is that we are going to continue to service
loans, we’re going to continue to work with borrowers, we’re going to be a businesslike
entity that requires repayment, but that we will work with you. But again, we need to
look at these things on an individual basis, we need to keep good records, we need to be
very careful and diligent about the kind of agreements that we enter into. We need to
have good, sound underwriting practices in terms of what we know is brought to the
table, in terms of the loan and the collateral for the loan. And all these things, in terms of
how we move forward in the future will be in place.
Mr. Mayor: If you’ll look at the backup on item number 10, you’ll see that we
have $100,000 budgeted in the Community Development Block Grant program for
economic development loan program, and I certainly hope that those loans are made, Mr.
Smith, that you all will be judicious with those. We’re not here forgiving those amounts.
Mr. Smith: That is absolutely correct. If we’re going to give loans, then they
need to be loans. They need to be well thought through, everyone needs to know what
their responsibilities are, so that’s the case.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I guess for my peace of mind, how many -- do we have any more
instruments out like this that we’re going to have to deal with in the future, or is this the
last one of the old regime?
Mr. Smith: I really believe in terms of the original UDAG funds -- first of all,
let’s be real clear. The UDAG program is long gone. There are no new monies in
UDAG. Urban Development Action Grant program was a program to serve as an
economic engine for economic development. We have a few loans left. They are rapidly
moving toward extinction. What we do have control over is when we get repayment,
what we do with the repayment amount, and that’s called recaptured UDAG, as you all
are aware. We can, we have flexibility with those funds.
Mr. Cheek: So but this is the last, I guess, one written in this particular form to
allow us to get absolutely nothing back?
Mr. Smith: That is my total understanding at this point. This was, I believe, one
of very few that was done this way. And again, this was a unique situation in the
refinance, also.
32
Mr. Cheek: Could we also just request, and this may be handled administratively,
do away with the term and concept of forgivable loans, which this City has a couple on
the books right now?
Mr. Smith: We are in the process of writing detailed operating policies and
procedures for every single thing that the housing and development, Housing &
Neighborhood Development Department does. In that, we will describe exactly the types
of assistance that we will provide. I have no intention of having vague language when
we talk about forgivable loans. I don’t believe that there is such a thing if you are
forthright and are working to help people, you either make a loan or grants. You can
forgive a loan, but a forgivable loan, our documentation is not going to -- unless my boss
says or you all have disagreement with that, I believe that we need to be very clear and
track a direction that allows folks to know where they stand. Loans, grants, period.
Mr. Cheek: It just appears to me [inaudible] before I was elected and I remember
a gentleman that had acquired a $100,000 forgivable loan, he’d spent that and was down
to ask for another forgivable loan, and anyplace but Augusta I think this is unheard of.
We have some really strange creatures that lurk in our past. It sounds to me like we’ve
got some corrections that have been made or are being made to our process. God bless
you in your efforts to codify this process to bring the policies and procedures in. Again, I
really believe we can argue about this now, six months from now, two months from now,
ten weeks from now. This is one that we can pass, correct the problems for the future and
not fight about it again, and I just urge passage.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will call the question on the motion from Commissioner
Cheek. All in favor of the motion, please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Beard and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Mr. Colclough, Mr. Williams and Mr. Mays abstain.
Motion fails 5-2-3.
Mr. Mayor: Move along now to item 13, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
13. Motion to approve Intergovernmental Agreement between the State of
Georgia and Augusta for the old Crime Lab property for use by the Sheriff and
Coroner. (Approved by Public Safety Committee May 27,2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, you ask this be pulled.
Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I mainly pulled this just on an information basis to
see what, if they had anything that they could enlighten us on publicly at this point with
it. I’m not against it and will vote for the motion but just wanted to know what was being
done with it per se.
33
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mays, what we’re looking at there is the space for
the Coroner’s office. As you might know, they were having some issues with the
Regional Lab, which you don’t have any body storage space. That would give us some
of that. In addition to that, it would give us some office space for the Coroner. The
Sheriff had initially wanted a great deal of space down there where -- I was speaking this
morning with the Sheriff and the Coroner to determine the allocation of that particular
space. [inaudible] as far as the Coroner’s office through the next ten years or so, the
space that we need.
Mr. Mays: Let me just ask this, Mr. Mayor. And I have no problem with them
th
utilizing it and I assume that we’re talking about the old 8 Street location.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: Has anything been determined, and I guess what I’m looking at to a
point of county, our neighboring county half our size but growing and we’re growing
maybe not at the same rate. But in terms of the type of deaths we have and even though
the Crime Lab that’s been built out at Phinizy Road, there will still be local situations that
the Coroner’s office has to deal with that have nothing to do with any violent nature of
foul play situations. In the office space scenario, are they looking at utilizing the morgue
space that was there, in terms of being able to give the Coroner --
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: -- a county morgue per se?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: Just as the morgue that was built there for Tommy King there in
Columbia County?
Mr. Russell: Right, and that’s exactly what we’re looking at. We’re obviously --
the State with similar cutbacks is looking at only violent deaths and stuff like that, so we
do need some space. That space is available. They do have an autopsy room there. And
it sort of fits our needs.
Mr. Mays: That was what I mainly wanted to find out, Mr. Mayor, cause I think
the space should be utilized, but I just wanted to make sure that we had a need obviously,
but I didn’t want us to abandon a space that had some specific uses that could be dealt
with that would fit our needs and that we used all of it for office space per se. And if
you’ve got a morgue over and obviously we don’t have one per se that’s Richmond
County’s morgue, then we need to, if they’ve abandoned one, then we need to deal with
whatever else we need to do with it and equip it and that type of thing.
Mr. Russell: That’s the direction we’re going in, Commissioner.
34
Mr. Mays: I move it be approved.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, if you’d come back, I just had a couple of questions.
Number one, with respect to the environmental remediation, is there, does that pose any
issue with any people that might be working there during this cleanup? Are they going to
be exposed to anything?
Mr. Russell: Not to my knowledge, sir.
Mr. Mayor: George, can you speak to the contamination on the property, George?
Is this part of the AGL --
Mr. Kolb: That’s one of the reasons why we are, I guess, [inaudible] right now.
The State has, the State has agreed to clean up the contamination before they turn it over
to Augusta. However, the contamination has nothing to do, to my understanding, with
AGL.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, but as far as cleanup, the ongoing cleanup, there’s no hazard
to any county employees that might be working there during cleanup?
Mr. Kolb: No, no.
Mr. Mayor: On the backup, there, it makes reference at which time the property
can be sold to Augusta, and then the agreement says the GBI will proceed with
negotiations to deed the property back to Richmond County. Now is there some
discussion about a sales price? What are we looking at down the road here? What are we
encumbering here?
Mr. Kolb: I guess Mr. Wall is going to have to answer that detail. It’s my
understanding that they would turn the property over to Augusta at the time the property
is certified as being “clean.” In the meantime, however, and while that process is going
on, they are going to rent it to us for $1.
Mr. Mayor: Right.
Mr. Kolb: [inaudible] all the maintenance and other responsibilities for the
facility.
Mr. Wall: And the State Properties Commission is the one that would have to
approve the transfer.
Mr. Mayor: What would they do, get an appraisal and then you’d have the
opportunity to purchase it at the appraised price, or how does that work, Jim?
35
Mr. Wall: Well, it’s my understanding, and I have not checked the deed and I
don’t think that there’s anything in the deed, from what I’ve been told, that the property
was given to the State with the understanding that when it ceased to be used as a crime
lab, that it would be deeded back to the county, back to Augusta. And so that’s the
reason that initially the terms were to turn it back over to the county because the
environmental contamination, obviously we didn’t want it until it had been cleaned up,
and so it’s our expectation that we’re not going to have to pay fair market value for it.
Mr. Mayor: All right, thank you. Is there a question?
Mr. Mays: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Any other costs associated with this that we hadn’t heard about,
Fred, I mean other than --
Mr. Kolb: Yes.
Mr. Wall: Operations.
Mr. Kolb: Operations. We are -- and I understand this very weekend the freezers
went out. So they were not able to use the morgue facility. So we’re going to be
responsible for repairing those. So there are operation and maintenance costs associated
with the, with the facility. Now I should advise the Commission also that due to the
State’s fiscal crisis that they’re in right now, that they have made unofficial requests that
we participate with them in the cleanup. I don’t know how we’re going to do that, but
that is something that they want to talk about.
Mr. Mays: Is that money, George, that’s coming from the Sheriff’s budget? Is
that money that you’re looking for [inaudible] come up with?
Mr. Kolb: It would have to be a part of the facilities maintenance budget and
we’re in the process of attempting to identify what that is.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: What are the contaminants that we’ll be dealing with?
Mr. Wall: A lot of it is lead from gunshots. I mean testing them, firing range,
that sort of stuff.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion on this?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
36
Mr. Mayor: We do have a motion. Any further discussion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I guess to back up a second, even though I made the
motion, to follow up on what your question was, George, other than the regular
operational costs or maintenance cleanup and I realize we got to deal with that. But in
the lease agreement, there is nothing in here in the lease agreement, and I’m asking you
and Jim, there is nothing in that lease agreement, though, that locks us into any
participation on the State’s cleanup of property in any way, is there? I didn’t see that in
there no where but I just wanted to make sure in terms of where we lease the property and
we not assuming as a tenant that we’ve got some responsibility in terms of dealing with
AGL situation, the State situation or anybody else on environmental cleanup.
Mr. Kolb: To my knowledge and from my reading of the contract and from what
I’m being told from both parties, we have no responsibility for the cleanup.
Mr. Wall: That’s is correct.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’ll amend my motion that the lease agreement does
not require us to do that, just in case if it’s not in there.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to amending the motion? The amendment will stand.
Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, I want to ask Fred another question, Mr. Mayor. Would the
new facility that we built on Phinizy Road, Fred, and that’s up and running now, is that
right?
Mr. Russell: The State facility.
Mr. Williams: The State facility on Phinizy Road.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Will we be doing our own what now in this -- I mean the old
facility if we, this passes? Exactly what would that do for our local departments since
our State agency is going to be that close to us, what will be doing? Will we be
duplicating anything? Why do we need to --
Mr. Russell: No, sir, it’s my understanding the State of Georgia at this particular
point, they’re only dealing with violent felonies, so if we have a natural death or
something like that, we would have to deal with that internally without taking it to the
State crime lab. In addition to that, the hours of the State crime lab are basically 8 to 5,
Monday through Friday. We need the storage space to be able to provide storage if
something happened to somebody at 5:30 or so on a Friday, we need to be able to provide
that storage space until the Monday morning when we could do the transport and taken
them out there. So I don’t see a duplication of effort. I see a need for us to have a facility
37
that can do non-violent death and provide the storage space until we can actually taken
them to the lab.
Mr. Williams: I understand. Just asking question. I’m taking Mr. Mays’ job
here. He usually do this. But what, what will we do if we didn’t have the new State
facility here and the rules changed like they changed. I mean what was the process?
Mr. Russell: Prior to this, we were taking people to Atlanta is my understanding.
In addition to that, the State was paying some mileage fees and stuff like that. We were
notified last week that they’re going to be reducing that mileage fee, too, so we’re getting
to be pretty much in a bind at this particular point in time. This facility coming open at
this time and us being able to deal with it in this way is actually in my estimation going to
be very cost productive, as opposed to having to look for something else at this moment.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I think, I think it gives us an excellent reprieve.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, it does.
Mr. Mays: At the very worst, because with those new laws changing you
mentioned about that transporting. A lot in the responsibility of 159 coroners, well, at
least not 159, those counties big enough to have a medical examiner, those corners, that
formula has changed to where the State is putting a lot of that responsibility as of like
right now back on those coroners for transportation and for everything else. So it gives
th
us at very worst a three year timetable to say if we don’t want to be on 8 Street to a
point that we can get ready to build a facility as such in order to do it. But the facility at
Phinizy Road basically would be what it is. It will belong to the State and will continue
to belong to them. No matter what. So at some point the county is going to either have
to address dealing with being there or being somewhere else.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s move along. We have a motion on the floor to approve the
agreement. All in favor of the motion, please vote in the affirmative. Of course, I’ll
remind you the motion was amended by Commissioner Mays to exclude any City
participation in the environmental cleanup.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go to 14A.
The Clerk:
14A. Motion to approve agreement with Georgia Department of Corrections for
housing of 215 State inmates at RCCI. (Approved by Public Safety Committee May
27, 2003)
38
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I just needed some information on this. these State
inmates coming to our facility, are they going to be able to be put on work details or we
got to keep them in the jail?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Colclough, they are the inmates that are in the work -- State
inmates who are coming back to the work detail.
Mr. Colclough: These inmates who are coming in can be put on work details?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: Okay. I just needed to know that.
Mr. Russell: They’re not new. They’re just a continuation of our standard --
Mr. Colclough: Right. I just needed to know that. Didn’t want to have some
sitting over there doing nothing. I just needed to know if these would be working.
Mr. Russell: These are working inmates, yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough:I move for approval.
Thank you, sir. That’s all I needed.
Mr. Mayor: Motion. Is there a second?
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Cheek: I have a quick question.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I often hear about the overcrowding at our current jail
facilities. Is this not displacing bed space that we could use to alleviate crowding at our
jails?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Cheek, I think, I guess you could look at it in that
way. I think, what I think [inaudible] better used. We are taking -- we’ve got about 50
inmates from the jail at RCCI right now. The balance are State inmates that are actually
doing for work for us. I think it’s more cost -- we cannot work the inmates from the jail
in a similar manner, so I think it’s more cost effective for us to use these inmates, get the
stipend that the State pays, and actually have them do some work, than anything else at
this particular point in time.
Mr. Wall: There is other space for county inmates but there is cost associated
with moving them out there as far as guards, etc.
39
Mr. Cheek: I know that there’s also the request for an additional jail pod or two
which has significant costs with it. Just seems to me the longer we can put that off or
utilize space that we have, that we’re doing the people a favor, the city, by not taking
their tax money unnecessarily if we can’t house them out there, and that’s why I asked
the question.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? All in favor of the motion then to approve, please
vote in the affirmative.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next item by my count, Madame Clerk, is item number 22. 21. I’m
sorry, 21. 21.
The Clerk:
21. Motion to approve Resolution authorizing Mayor and Clerk to execute such
document as necessary to release restriction on access to certain properties on
Tobacco Road. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 27, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough, you [inaudible] this item.
Mr. Colclough: We had the same discussion at our last meeting, and I still feel
the same way as that. You have opened up access on Tobacco Road to many of the
subdivisions, which is going to cause a hardship, I think, to open up a floodgate for
people that’s coming out looking for access to Tobacco Road. And I think we should
leave this item up for the Commission to approve where they have been done
administratively. I move that this item be deleted.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second? That motion does for lack of a second. Is there
another motion?
Mr. Kuhlke: I move we approve.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve. Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion has been seconded. Discussion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, we looked this over, and I do share Commissioner
Colclough’s concern about the traffic problems we have around the neighborhoods,
particularly on the western end of Tobacco Road. This is an administrative oversight in
the contract. In reviewing the entrance ways to the subdivisions along the western
portion of Tobacco Road, they pretty much face each other. But basically this is an
40
administrative oversight that should have never been placed in the contract to begin with
and it corrects it and keeps people from having to come in and apply for each curb cut
and it having to come to Commission for approval. This expedites people’s ability to do
business with this city.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, many of the citizens out on Tobacco Road now are
clamoring because they cannot get in and out of their subdivisions without running an
gauntlet, and if we can open up this area here, we are going to start -- people are going to
start getting killed out there, and I think it’s okay if people want a curb cut to come
before us. They come before us for everything else. And I think we need to kind of
protect our neighborhoods on the western end out there to make it safe for them to come
in and out. If it’s an oversight, then it should still be there.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We have a motion to approve this. all in favor of
that motion, please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 22.
The Clerk:
22.Motion to approve expenditure from General Fund contingency in the
amount of $59,500 to expedite coming into compliance with Federal Regulations the
Public Works Department Traffic Striping Program. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee May 27, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In the past we’ve co-listed items that have
to go onto the General Fund contingency in Engineering and Finance, and I’m just
wondering how are we going to keep up with the contingency account, Mr.
Administrator, if we’re going to have to take this from the General Fund contingency,
and [inaudible]. I mean I think if you’re going to suggest General Fund contingency
funding, we’re going to have to have some awareness of it in the Finance Committee
cause we won’t be able to keep up with it otherwise. And I’m, I’m trying to determine
here from the backup, and I really can’t determine it, if, is this a half of what’s outlined
here on the second page of backup? I don’t see the usual financial impact signed off here
by anybody. I mean I have to go back to the minutes, which we have the action minutes.
It showed that the items was -- two motions and finally it was approved in the second
motion and sent forward. But how are we going to keep up with this as a matter of
policy?
41
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, Commissioner Shepard has
a good point, and for this year we have implemented an administrative directive. It has
not been written yet, but we have made it a budget policy that anytime we use any
contingency funds we will bring back a budget resolution to you amending the budget,
appropriating from contingency to whatever it’s supposed to go. We will do this
probably next round of committee meetings, and we need to do it for two amendments
that you’ve made. One is for the initiative on Fort Gordon and the second one would be
for this particular project. Now the answer to your second question, this was a report that
was requested by the Engineering Services Committee and it was submitted at that time
and not submitted through your normal course of agenda items. So it did not require or it
did not take an agenda write-up for it. It was submitted as this report in your packet
today, rather than through the normal agenda process.
Mr. Shepard: Well, I mean it’s kind of hard to tell from this action if there would
be a cheaper alternative. I mean it looks like this is just one scenario, and if we had
alternatives to choose from, I think particularly since we didn’t put as much in
contingency this year as we have in previous years, that we don’t have the cushion that
we’ve had in previous years and we’re certainly having State governments with problems
and other governments, other agencies with problems, that I think we’ve got to be
unusually vigilant with this contingency fund this year, just because we don’t have what
we have had in the past. So I don’t want -- I mean I understanding this is a safety matter,
but I certainly hope we’ll see those budgetary amendments in the next round and have
them filed on all committees that need to have it. I mean oftentimes due to the sequence
in which the committees meet, there’s been a discussion say in Administrative Services
which we’ve been privy to and we’ve signed off as the Finance Committee, but if you
want to route this through the Finance Committee, well, let’s route things through the
Finance Committee. Or if we want to forget the Finance Committee, I don’t want to and
I don’t think my colleagues do, but we’re the ones that have the responsibility to see that
this budget is supervised during the year. And I’d make a motion to approve this item.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve. Is there a second?
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Under discussion, Mr. Kolb, one thing that concerns me in
addition to the comments from Commissioner Shepard, the fact that we seem to be
making a permanent adjustment in compensation of people who work on this crew.
We’re increasing their hours from 37.5 to 40 for two years to get caught up and then that
would continue as a permanent fixture, a 40 hours work week, for these four employees
in that department. And that’s inconsistent with what we do with other employees in this
organization.
Mr. Kolb: First of all, this item, the $59,000 that you’re looking at is only for the
rest of this year. You will have to consider it during your budget year. If you do not
continue it in your next budget cycle, then the employees would go back to their normal
37.5 hours per week. I guess I’m going to have to turn it over to Ms. Smith to give you
42
the details on how she plans on doing that, whether it’s through overtime or through a
permanent schedule adjustment.
Mr. Mayor: If you do it through overtime, then you are getting down -- I don’t
think you can pay overtime less than 40, can you, Jim? It’s regular time less than 40.
Mr. Wall: I assume most of these are hourly workers or all of these are hourly
workers?
Mr. Kolb: That’s correct.
Ms. Smith: They are hourly workers and currently they work 37.5 hours a week.
It would increase their work schedule to 40 hours with their being additional
compensation. However, their positions would not be revised to be 40 hour positions at
this time. We recognize that there is a much larger problem throughout the city with the
37.5 and 40 hours and we’re not trying to fix that with this particular issue as far as these
employees are concerned. However, we recognize that if we are able to increase the
amount of time that they are available to work that we’d be able to do some things with
their schedule that would allow us to be able to expedite the striping activities for the rest
of this year.
Mr. Mayor: In my limited experience here, I haven’t, I’ve seen things change
where somebody benefited from something and when it was over, things were to go back
to where they were and that’s not always the case. Once you add value to something, the
value seems to stay there and comes back year after year in the budget, and that’s my
concern with my aspect of it.
Mr. Kolb: I can appreciate that concern and I have seen that a lot in my career.
But we have made sure that when things change they do go back to the way they are.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles, I think you brought this whole issue up, didn’t you?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I’m afraid I did. I simply asked that Skinner Mill Road
be striped because of the additional usage because of the work along I-20 there and
people are using Pleasant Home and Skinner Mill. I didn’t ever have any intention of
getting it into people working overtime and people working extra. I think it’s just
something that totally ballooned and snowballed out of something that was a very simple
request and I almost regret making that request because I’m like the Finance Chairman,
I’m concerned about going into contingency. And --
Ms. Smith: Mr. Mayor, if I may.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, if I may, as Chairman of Engineering Services, please.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, go ahead.
43
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, it would be really nice if all of us could get our pet
projects done and neglect to complete the rest of the city. This report came to us as a
result of deficiencies within the road striping program overall. We have got a situation
where we have -- correct me if I’m wrong -- over 1600 miles of road to be striped in this
city. We are grossly behind because we have four people to operate, in the staff, to
operate a four-person machine. We will never catch up at the current rate that we are
going. This is a stop-gap measure to help us catch the projects, the high traffic areas, the
danger areas, and other things that need to be taken care of first and foremost. We are not
-- we learned a lesson with Utilities. We put staffing and funding in place that helped
them turn the corner in the water works. Sure, this is $50,000-some-odd coming out,
$59,500 coming out of contingency. It is not intended to be a permanent fix, but a pilot
fix to see if we can increase productivity and get some of the roads striped that need to be
striped. I thank Commissioner Boyles for bringing this up because we’ve got a full and
in depth report of the deficiencies, lack of manpower, and so forth that are occurring in
Public Works. We want 40 hours of work out of people but we’re only working them 37
hours. We’re not going to get the productivity until we put the people in the field to do
the job. Now we have undercut Public Works in many areas and then we gripe about the
fact that I ain’t getting my job done. I don’t have a right to get anything done any sooner
than any citizen in this county does. If I put it on a list, it should be worked the same as
any citizen, and when the whole system works that well, then it’s working well for all of
us. This is a measure to get the ball rolling in the right direction. It is out of our
contingency fund, but we have given the Courts people when they need it, we have given
Sheriff people and money when they need it, we have given Fire Department, we have
given everybody people and funding when they need it. This is a pilot program to help us
get the 1600 -- Teresa, correct me if I’m wrong -- 1600-some-odd miles of road done
with an improved technology on a machine that admittedly hasn’t worked well, but it is
now functioning properly, with a crew of people. Now what we do if one of the four is
out? We stop. We may need part-time people to come in to keep that thing going and
keep it working five days a week. But this is a well-thought-out plan, and as I’ve said
before and I’ll say it again, if we’re panning for gold and find a diamond, I’m not going
to throw the diamond out because I wasn’t looking for -- I’m only looking for gold. This
is an opportunity to improve an existing problem. I have heard from everyone on how
we need to improve the way Public Works performs. We cannot be scared to step up to
the plate and tell the public that we are understaffed, we are under funded in Public
Works. If you want your road striped, I don’t expect to be number one in line because
I’m a Commissioner, I don’t expect, I don’t think it’s right for any of us to think my pet
project should be taken care of. We should expect the same level of performance for us
that we expect for every citizen in this city. And the only way to accomplish that is to
have a staff on hand to do the job, to create a schedule, and to work a schedule, not work
a pet project. All this is doing is helping us move in the right direction. It’s a pilot
program that terminates at the end of the year. Don’t expect to get 40 hours’ worth of
work out of people that work 37.5. We’ve got some dad gum institutional problems with
the way we staff our Public Works Department and some of our other departments. We
have problems with the way we pay them overtime. We are not going to be more cost
effective and more efficient in the way we do business if we continue to do it the way
we’re doing it. Don’t expect miracles if you’re not going to pray. And the bottom line is
44
right now we are expecting miracles and productivity and quality and all this out of
people but we’re not willing to invest in it. This is a small step in that direction. We’re
going to continue to get more reports, and Mr. Chairman, Mr. Shepard, these will, and I
apologize, this is my fault for it not coming before Finance, but everything that comes up
like this will be coming to Finance for your review, but I just ask the courtesy if we go
through the study in Engineering Services, we do look for the best, most effective, cost
effective method of doing things. We are not going to come into Finance and ask if
we’re getting the cheapest financial services. I would just ask the question, come to
Engineering Services and ask the questions. I just appreciate not being second-guessed,
that we do go through the steps. But it will come to your committee from now on, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Smith, Commissioner Cheek touched
on an issue that I was going to ask, and that is piece of equipment that we’re using.
Striping is definitely a problem throughout the city. I see it and I get calls from
constituents, and the answer I get is we’ve sent the machine back to the shop again. You
know, I hear this continuously. Is that an issue we need to address? I understand that it’s
working properly now. How long will it be working properly, cause I know it’s done that
before after it’s been fixed? What’s the issue with that, in that regard?
Ms. Smith: Actually, it’s working, it’s been working longer consistently,
continually now than it has in the past. There were some issues as the -- apparently with
-- the companies in the manufacturing process changed hands. We have been working
with Fleet on the piece of equipment, who has been trying to make sure that the
manufacturer either made some design changes or replaced some parts. We have pretty
well been assured that most of the kinks -- I can’t say all -- have been worked out. I
don’t know how long it’s going to run, but it’s doing a good job of functioning now. And
that’s about as much as I can tell you. It did take us about nine months to get this piece
of equipment in, which also added to the delays because the paint truck that we had at the
time that was putting down standard paint finally broke to the point of being ir-repairable.
And so we also have that time frame that we are, that contributed to the backlog.
Mr. Bridges: What about the striping on the state highways like Peach Orchard,
Deans Bridge? Are we working with the State, for them to do that?
Ms. Smith: Actually, on the State contract, with the exception of LARP, well,
actually included in LARP, they stripe LARP. On the State contract, they do the striping.
And one of the questions that was asked in committee meeting was about what it would
cost to contract striping out. Of course, we haven’t had an opportunity to go out and talk
with consultants about contracting it out, but we do of course include the striping in our
contracts, as well as, as I indicated before, D.O.T. does in their contracts. And based on
some in-house calculations, it would cost us about $1.5 million to get 1000 lane miles
striped.
45
Mr. Bridges: Okay. And I’m, you know, I’m aware of the importance of striping
and the need for it. I get a call from elderly people that will not drive down Windsor
Spring Road at night because they depend on the white lines on the right side to guide
them and they can’t see them. They’re gone and they just won’t drive at night. I don’t,
Mr. Mayor, I don’t have a real problem. I know we’re dipping into contingency here.
But the purpose of contingency is for situations where we need the funding to operate this
government for the services we provide as a government, to utilize those funds. And I
see those funds being utilized here. I’m just as concerned as anybody else about the
decline in the contingency and we’re not near the end of the year yet. But it is being used
in this case for the purpose that it was intended, and that is for the functions of this
government and the services that it provides. We’re going to see -- we get continuous
requests and we got some today for funding that the only source we could fund it from is
from contingency but it’s for funding not for services we provide but services another
entity provides. And I have a problem with funding out of contingency in that regard. So
I’m going to support this motion and I think it’s a good motion. I think it’s a need that
we need to do.
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. I don’t have a big problem with the request, but my
understanding, I thought I heard my Co-Chairman of Finance say that he approved this; is
that right?
Mr. Shepard: That’s correct.
Mr. Hankerson: And I heard Ulmer’s comments here and we’re talking about
providing services and I’m very concerned about whether we care more about stripes on
the street than we do about our thousands of senior citizens. If we go, where I’m going
with that, because of the fact that I wanted this information to come forward so we can
make -- I know that we are going to have to make some kind of decision and it seems
though, and it appears though that from the answers that I, from the, the forward
movement of the Senior Citizens Council to tell people to look for jobs, that a decision
has already been made. And I know the subcommittee has not made a decision. We said
deny, but we know and I know Ulmer know as well as I know, when we come back to the
Finance Committee and it gets shuffled around for about two hours, as we always, that’s
not the voice of eight more Commissioners, but what I’m hearing you now, we’re going
to use and utilize and reserve the contingency. We have $580,000 now left in
contingency. We have $141,000 in UDAG, recaptured UDAG funds. I know that’s the
amount that was given to me. But we’re saying here that it’s all right, we are, you know,
seem to be fine, to go in contingency for this, because this is a service. But Augusta
Richmond County do owe our senior citizens a service, as well as our youth department.
The youth, we owe all the citizens a service and I think that’s a service, too. And the
reason I’m saying this is I think that we need to hold this and to wait and see until after
our next committee meeting how the Senior Citizens Council is going to pan out.
Because I don’t think it’s going to pan out the way somebody has instructed the Director
over there at the Senior Citizens Council that it’s going to go. And somebody have
46
th
already told him that we’re going to move all of those sites to 15 Street. That wasn’t
our recommendation, and I say it to you, Ulmer, in the committee, that I was very
concerned, what will we tell our senior citizens. It’s easy to say we’re going to deny the
$150,000 but it’s not easy to say to all of the senior citizens that we not going to give you
no kind of service. And we know that [inaudible] services comes from sites in McBean,
Georgia, Hephzibah, Blythe, Georgia, Henry Brigham Center, whether or not those
th
particular senior citizens going to be able to come to 15 Street site and provide that
service. Now let’s get real with it. I didn’t want to go there, but I’m hearing this now
that I’m hearing this non-compassionate attitudes about human beings, and I’m more
compassionate about human being services than I am about stripes. Our senior citizens,
we need to consider that before we make any kind of decision today on this. I don’t have
a problem with it. I know we need striping, but we talking about contingency fund.
What we want to pull out of contingency fund. And if we going to do that, I think we
ought to wait and see whether or not, what we going to have to do, because six votes
going to determine whether we go in contingency of not. Whether we want to or whether
that’s our idea or not. So I think that we need to wait on this as well and make that
consideration because I smell something.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Since I was addressed, I’d like to respond.
Mr. Mayor: You may.
Mr. Bridges: I don’t know how we got into an item that was not supposed to be
on the agenda. I was strictly talking about using, about the striping program using
contingency for services we provide. The item I was talking about that we’re going to
come up on later is on the agenda today and involves $10,000. So I don’t know how that
all got into the seniors and the senior citizens and all that. I got confused on that. But
since I was addressed directly, I wanted to respond to it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, if I may ask this question with respect to the source of
funding. If you do striping of city streets and low and moderate income areas, would that
be an eligible expense from Community Development Block Grant funds?
Mr. Kolb: I think the answer is yes.
Mr. Mayor: And is there some recaptured CDBG money that could be used to
offset some of the $59,500 that would be needed to do the striping program this year?
Mr. Kolb: You can use UDAG for anything you want.
Mr. Mayor: I’m talking about CDBG, not UDAG.
47
Mr. Kolb: Okay. I thought I understood UDAG. In terms of CDBG funding, no,
there are no monies to do it for this year since the monies have already been allocated and
approved in a budget by the Commission.
Mr. Mayor: There’s no reprogrammed money from a previous year that hasn’t
been used?
Mr. Kolb: To my knowledge --
Mr. Mayor: What I’m trying to do is see if there’s a way to minimize the impact
on the contingency. That’s all.
Mr. Hankerson: I’d like to finish up. I wanted to --
Mr. Mayor: Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t know you weren’t through.
Mr. Hankerson
: And I wasn’t, and I wasn’t just slam-dunking Ulmer for it, but
I’m just reminding of some of the questions we ask because it’s definitely, you know, I’m
very concerned with how we handle it. I don’t mind, if we not going into contingency, I
I
don’t mind that, if we going in it, but let’s just look at everything that we need to do.
wantedto put it in the form of a substitute motion that we just hold this until our
next committee meeting when the Senior Citizens Council will be discussed and also
this will be discussed, anything containing or concerning, rather, contingency.
Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Boyles, you had your hand up?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mayor, thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: I don’t know if we’re going to get your road striping done.
Mr. Boyles: Well, I just wanted to let, I just wanted to let the honorable
Chairman of Engineering Services know, I think he made a reference I might have lived
on Skinner Mill Road, I was simply making a request for the citizens that live on Skinner
Mill Road.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Boyles: I do not live on Skinner Mill Road.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: And there was no reference to that. I think the term was pet project,
which we all have. And Commissioner Boyles, if at all, you are a very faithful and great
public servant, sir.
48
Mr. Mayor: Let’s call --
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m not through yet.
Mr. Mayor: Oh, I’m sorry. We’re going to take here in a just a moment.
Mr. Cheek: I just want, I just want -- I’m going to keep this very brief. We
continue to look for ways to improve services provided. I will match giving Public
Works -- if we give them the tools to do the job like we did Utilities, we will see a
department of excellence unrivaled in the State, but if we continue to piecemeal our
support of Public Works and expect more out of them, then we are going to always be
disappointed because these are the folks that are in the rain, in the snow, in the heat,
understaffed and underpaid. And if I have to be the lone voice in the wilderness saying
that to this city, then I will be. But the bottom line is we have life safety issues dealing
with this that could have been brought before this body through Finance, which the rest
of them should. But if I seem to remember correctly, the report given to us on the
aforementioned other group that’s in need of funds, they have got a lot of housekeeping
to do to get their house in order before they come requesting funds in this
Commissioner’s book. I will match the performance per dollar of what we’ll get out of
Public Works with anybody, and I just urge that we go ahead and move forward with this.
We have got a lot of streets that need, that need to be paved, excuse, me, striped. And
let’s just move forward with this and give Public Works the tools they need, just like we
have Utilities, and you’ll be amazed and proud.
Mr. Mayor: All right, let’s move along with the vote on the substitute motion,
and that is to hold this over for the next meeting. All in favor of the substitute motion,
please vote aye.
(Vote on the substitute motion)
Mr. Cheek, Mr. Shepard, Mr. Beard, Mr. Williams and Mr. Bridges vote No.
Motion ties 5-5.
The Clerk: It’s a tie.
Mr. Mayor: Somebody made a mistake again.
(Laughter)
The Mayor votes Yes.
Mr. Mayor: I don’t think a two week delay is going to kill the program, Andy,
and I understand where you’re trying to go and I fully support you on this, but I think two
weeks is reasonable.
49
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I don’t think two weeks will kill us either and might
improve upon it.
Mr. Mayor: If it would bring a unanimous vote, I’m willing to wait two weeks.
Let’s see, in view of the hour, let’s take a five minute recess and then we’ll come back
and continue with our agenda.
(Recess)
Mr. Mayor: Let’s proceed with item number 24.
The Clerk:
24. Motion to approve Amendment No. 6 to existing Program Management
Services Contract with CH2M Hill, Inc. to provide additional and special services
for an additional cost not to exceed $496,000. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee May 27, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: All right, Commissioner Williams, you asked for this.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, thank you, sir. I had this item pulled because
I’ve got a great concern when we amend, I think this is amendment number 6. I’ve got
no problem with the firm. I think this firm has done an excellent job with us, but when
you talking about program managers and I spoke with Max earlier, I just needed to get
some information on what we’re doing here. We have extended contracts and I voted
against last year, several million dollars of contracts, several million dollar extension.
When we got other vendors who come in and want to bid, I’d like to see, I’d like to make
sure that everything is done fair. I think the reason we got a bid process is so everybody
can have a chance to come to the table. If you win the bid, you win the bid. Mr. Kolb, or
maybe Max, may have another reason for extending, but why are we extending a contract
of this amount to -- Max, I see [inaudible], maybe you can tell me.
Mr. Hicks: Mayor and Commissioners, there are three items, there are three
projects that are included in this recommended program management amendment. First
one is the Fort Gordon privatization effort. As we explained in the committee meeting,
that was an effort that had about a seven week time frame where normally it has a seven
month to a year time frame to pull together a privatization proposal. We did indeed enlist
CH2MHILL to help us and in effect put together the Fort Gordon privatization proposal
that we submitted because they had already been successful in about three other
privatization efforts in the U.S. And so they knew exactly how to put it together. There
was no time for a learning curve and we did not have time to go out and solicit anyone to
help us with this. We just had to go in and do it. Now there was a question asked in the
committee meeting. Okay, now, if we are indeed the one selected to provide the
privatization of the Fort Gordon utilities, how would we then do the due diligence?
Would we use this same firm [inaudible] no. We would then solicit proposals for that
work, Commissioner, and we would have someone else come in and help us because then
50
that would give a better feel for everybody all around. Then we would have time. If we
were the select firm, we would have time to do the due diligence. We would advertise,
interview, select and then we’d have someone else do all the assessment of all of the
water and sewer lines and the features that are out on --
Mr. Williams: Okay, Max, let me ask this. How long, I mean when, when did
CH2MHILL start with this program managing?
Mr. Hicks: They started with us on our ’96 bond issue. We actually brought
them on board about 1998, I want to say. Late ’97 and early ’98 that we brought them on
board.
Mr. Williams: And they been in process in this government since then doing this
type work; is that right?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, they have. They’ve been doing, they did the initial master plan
for the extension of the water and sewer system and they have been the central force in
continuing to guide the efforts of the water and sewer update.
Mr. Williams: Then how will other program managers or people who do this type
work, I mean if we talk about Fort Gordon and how we need to get a, a experienced
group there. Well, how will other companies -- I’m not in that business, I wouldn’t know
anything about program management, but I’m speaking of businesses who come and look
at Augusta because we are in my mind at the point of exploding with growth, but then
when you got a firm that’s been here in that position for that length of time, what does
that say to the next firm that comes in that want to bid? I mean, you know, that’s a
complete turn off. That’s saying I will not even approach that. So I mean and that my
only reason for bringing it out. Because we looking at Fort Gordon and you said that was
a qualified group and they done that kind of experience and you know they had that
experience, is that why we extending the contract?
Mr. Hicks: That’s why this -- that $216,000 of this particular $496,000
amendment -- the reason that we have extended with CH2MHILL to the 2000 bond issue
and the 2002 bond issue is for continuity. In keeping the program moving ahead with the
same continuity that it’s had all along, in dealing with the lending agencies, with every
facet of this program there has been a need for continuity, and so we have dealt with
them. The original competition for the bond program management was considerably. It
was rather acute and we had probably the top firms in the nation who applied and who we
interviewed. We narrowed it down to the top three, interviewed them again, and then
selected CH2MHILL to provide the program management, and then we have stuck with
that firm throughout the bond program thus far. It’s necessary to have that for continuity.
Now insofar as other programs like this, for instance the Fort Gordon privatization, that
was an item that came up completely unforeseen, of course, when we were doing the
2002 bond issue.
51
Mr. Williams: I understand that. And just talking about the program manager
part, not the other parts, and I hear you say that they are not allowed to work on or do any
other work, if they’re program managers. But I mean that’s something, if we going hire
somebody to do, I think this government needs to hire a person or persons to do that,
rather than to keep extending and extending and extending. It looks like that, you know,
it’s locked in. I mean if anybody from the outside be looking, they [inaudible]. I don’t
have anything else, Mr. Mayor. I can’t support it because I think that we need to have
this government open to everybody to come in. Continuity is very important. We know
that, so we need to start early. We got another situation coming up where we have people
coming in bidding and finding out whether or not they’re capable. That’s going to keep
the price down. Competition is good. But when you don’t have no competition, then we
don’t have no way of controlling. I mean we at the mercy of whoever. That’s my
comment.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges, I’ll get to you in just a moment, but let me do this, Mr.
Hicks, if I may. Could you just prepare for the Commission and send each one of us a
copy of the listing of the value of the original contract with CH2MHILL, and then the
value of each one of these change orders to that contract [inaudible] six of them, so we
can see the total value of the work that CH2MHILL has been doing?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, would that include a list of services provided [inaudible]?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, each one of the change orders, yes. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I’m going to shift gears a little bit
from what the previous speaker had to address. But this item here, and I can appreciate
not -- the concern of not bidding on this. However, given the circumstances of just a few
weeks’ time as opposed to a few months’ time, you know, a decision has got to be made
and I think Max made the right decision. And I applaud him for moving forward on this
project because this is a very critical project. It involved Fort Gordon, it involves the
privatization of the water, waste water system at Fort Gordon. And this has come up
years before when the old city, I think, was going to provide at least water, and maybe
waste water. That fell apart during the period that we had the water shortages after
consolidation. Naturally with not being able to supply our own customers, we -- Fort
Gordon could not, you know, trust that we’d be able to supply them additionally. So that
kind of fell apart. But after we ran the 18” water line and I think a 20” water line on
either side of Fort Gordon, this has come back up. The Defense Department is trying to
privatize a lot of their utility services. I know they’re doing the electrical hardware. In
fact, it preceded this one, and this was sort of an add-on to the electricity hardware that
they were trying to privatize and that’s why it had such a short time period involved. So I
think Max did the right thing in pursuing this. I think we should approve this. I think it’s
important that we send a message as a Commission at this time when there is a concern
of the BRAT closing on Fort Gordon that hey, Fort Gordon is a part of this community,
we are, we are tied in together, we’re one, we’re -- the community provides water and
sewer to this area, not only to Fort Gordon, and it’s an important, Fort Gordon is
important to the community and the community is important to Fort Gordon. I think we
52
need to send that message to Washington, the Pentagon, the Department of Defense at
this period under the potential of a BRAT closing at Fort Gordon, and I think this is an
And so I’m going to make
important motion here and I think it’s critical that we do this.
the motion that we approve this item as printed, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yeah, Max, my comments are probably premature, and I’m for the
motion on the floor. I just want to make this statement, cause chances are I won’t be here
when this takes place, but as you go through your due diligence, when you look at Fort
Gordon, if we negotiate with them, I think that’s a very, very important phase as you go
through that. We all know the age of Fort Gordon, we all are pretty sure that we’ve got
some aged infrastructure out there, and I just throw that out to Andy so that he can keep
that in the back of his mind when this comes up later.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. Anything further? We have a motion to
approve this item. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, first let me say I’m going to vote for the motion. I
voted for it in committee and I’m going to vote for it on the floor. I guess to back up
what Commissioner Kuhlke is saying a little bit further. This was discussed in
committee, and particularly as it relates to Fort Gordon. And probably backing up in
both ways Ulmer and Bill. While I agree wholeheartedly that [inaudible] the decision
was right to make in terms of going ahead, to get us in the ballpark, not only on the
concern of where we should be, but also particularly with the recent discussion about
base closings, to show that particular support that’s there. But while doing that, that
sends, I think, the right message in the motion that we may send away from home, but I
think that there’s a message that we need to understand at home, and that is -- and Mr.
Hicks knows where I’m coming from -- that I emphasize that so that it gets on these
particular minutes. I made them in committee and these are verbatim and I want to make
sure that it stays on course. Bill mentioned that he might not be here and I might not be
here, either. But the point is, I think that as it relates to Fort Gordon, when we get into
the due diligence portion of it, this gets back to what Commissioner Williams brought
into the conversation. I think at that point, that would be the time then that an
independent firm that does nothing but the analysis of systems, that has nothing to gain,
has its independent analysis, that it is not a spin-off company by another name that’s
related to anybody else that’s doing work that we currently would have under contract,
and I think that is a part of what needs to be done at that portion. That does not
undermine the city’s efforts to stay in support of Fort Gordon, and also in terms of
supporting this community, cause just as the Fort goes, so goes Augusta. But I think
when we get down to a point that if we are selected, then that is the point that I think the
independence needs to come in and that needs to be up front almost as a must that that’s
done at that time. I know that would have to be voted on by this Commission, but I just
wanted that to be a part of these records. The other question that I would have, in the, in
53
the Article VII of Amendment 6, now this is totally on an independent contract, I
presume, Mr. Wall, because I’m reading in there, the one little part in there, it’s down to
the last line. I got these [inaudible] to pick it up with that. But I want to make sure that
where it says this supersedes all other amendments and contracts, now can you define for
me that? Is that something that relates only to this article or when we start talking about
superseding, I want to make sure that we aren’t redrawing the scope of another contract
and that adding on an article and changing this by one [inaudible] of it does not get us
into another contractual agreement. This totally deals with separate and independent.
Because I’m only reading what’s there in front of me, that it supersedes what’s there.
And normally when I read something that supersedes, it means that something that you
do in June supersedes what you’ve done in May, and I just need an explanation for that.
Mr. Wall: What that means is any correspondence or any discussions about what
this work would entail, how it is to be done, what is being paid for, etc., this contract
would supersede those communications. It does not supersede the prior contracts. In
effect, this is an amendment to those previous contracts. Those remain [inaudible] up to
this point [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: So therefore that’s covered in all prior written and oral
understandings?
Mr. Wall: Correct.
Mr. Mays: That is only about the amendment, nothing about the previous
contract?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Mays: Okay. I just wanted that straight on the minutes where we are. That’s
the only thing I needed an understanding on. I’m clear with it and I plan to vote for it, as
I did in committee.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I need some clarification, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. First of all, let me explain that this is not anything
about Fort Gordon as far as not supporting it, not being in favor of keeping the Fort open.
I think all of us in this city know how important Fort Gordon is to us and what it does for
this community. We go hand in hand. But that’s not on the table today and all I’m trying
to do and trying to say is that we need to make sure that everything is laid out for
competition for everybody. Competition is good. But when we keep amending and
extending contracts from ’96 to here it now 2003 and half a year at that, when are we
going ever come to terms of opening it up for other businesses? And that what brought it
to my attention. I think they do a really good job for us. I’ve got no complaints against
them. I don’t care who it is. If anybody come in, it ought to be done fair where we had a
54
bid, because that’s going to keep the taxpayers with better service, better companies, and
better employees when we make it a competition thing where we had to go by the bid.
So Max, I think you did the right thing as far as what you done. And this is not anything
against you. But like Commissioner Mays said, we got a firm, been doing with this
company for a long time, have got another firm in this same area that doing work in
another name. I don’t want to give the perception that we agree or that we even know or
thinking that [inaudible] been fair. So this is no put down, Max, I take my hat off to you
and your job and what you do. When you look at our system and how things been
running, we look at who run our system, thank you, Mr. Mayor, for what you said about
bringing those reports back, as to how much money we have paid out, how much money
has been going out in those area. With this, just this one particular firm. And I think we
going find, once we look at the records, once we look at the figures, we’ll be surprised at
how much money we have spent and that’s why other businesses ought to have the
opportunity to come in and bid on it. We wouldn’t want just get somebody to do it just to
fill in. We want some qualified people. But let us start early, Max, on what we need to
do for the additional work and the additional things that need to be done. Let’s don’t wait
until we got six weeks instead of six months.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion on the floor to approve. All in favor of
that motion, please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Mr. Beard and Mr. Shepard out.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor: I might add that it is consistent, Max, with the work that y’all have
done in getting that prospectus together for the Department of Defense and we’ll be
meeting at the Pentagon this Wednesday with one of Donald Rumsfeld’s assistants to
push the case of our takeover of that system out there.
Mr. Hicks: Did you get the recommended comments?
Mr. Mayor: If you sent it over, I’ve got that.
Mr. Hicks: Okay. They should be there.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much, Max. Okay, if we can, since both items are
similar, if we could take up for discussion purposes items 29 and 30, Madame Clerk.
29.Motion to approve the renewal of two successive one-year terms (extensions)
with Augusta Disposal Services in the amount of $991,149 for year 3 (August 3, 2003
to August 3, 2004) and $1,031,581 for year 4 (August 3, 2004 to August 3, 2005) for
the collection of solid waste, yard waste, recycling and bulky waste in Section III
(Bid #00-119). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 27, 2003)
30. Motion to approve the renewal of two successive one-year terms (extensions)
with Inland Waste Services in the amount of $1,312,400 for year 3 (August 3, 2003
55
to August 3, 2004) and $1,318,900 for year 4 (August 3, 2004 to August 3, 2005) for
the collection of solid waste, yard waste, recycling and bulky waste in Section II (Bid
#00-119). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 27, 2003)
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve.
Mr. Bridges: Second it.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Mr. Mays, you asked for some
discussion of these items?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. And it’s just a quick discussion I had in committee
[inaudible] the previous one. I wanted to make sure that in this one since everybody on
this Commission has had to I think work through what has turned into a much better
situation since the sanitation service has been contracted to what it is, but when it’s come
up, it’s one that’s been outside of the committee. Each Commissioner is concerned about
it. And the question I asked the committee, and I voted for it and plan to vote for it here.
But I wanted to give the opportunity at least to address it from the standpoint that those
kinks, per se, that we were working out in the system, in a contract, and since we’re
extending the contract on 29 and 30, as they are, are we comfortable with these
extensions and those things in which various Commissioners had brought up and we
basically were told from time to time that we couldn’t do certain things because it was
not in the contract or that we couldn’t order certain companies to do things a certain way.
Now I want to make sure that if we are going to extend these, with these special
extensions, that we are satisfied with those questions being answered, and I think we got
an answer for that in committee. There were certain things that were addressed, but I just
wanted it for the record to be out here in this full Commission meeting, because I think
that when those type of things have arisen in the past, it’s been one that was not just
discussed in committee. They have been situations that were brought to an entire
Commission as we worked through the process of getting it into a smooth running
system, and certain things are going to go wrong from time to time. That’s human
nature. But I just want to make sure before we start extending that we have it in a
contractual situation that we deem at least under reasonable control that we won’t be
faced with situations to say we can’t get a company to do certain things because it’s not
in the contract. And that’s what I want us to elaborate on. And I think, George, you had
some things you all worked with them on that the companies readily accepted and I just
think that needs to be discussed in public because that was a high point of what we were
dealing with.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let Teresa respond. Ms. Smith, go ahead.
Ms. Smith: Commissioners, there were actually three major areas where we had
the majority of concerns, one of which dealt with elderly or special needs within the
initial contract that was written. We have added a clause in special conditions section 27
regarding collection impediments that identifies that any physical or mental impairment
that would prevent a resident from moving a 90-to-95 gallon container to and from the
56
curb or a designated collection point, the contractor would be required to put them on the
special needs list and to collect the waste from that designated point. The other items
deal with, primarily with bulky waste. There was no a specific or designated bulky waste
route such that all of the haulers were running a route in the initial contract. We’ve added
that the contractor shall provide collection of bulky wastes placed at the curbside on a
weekly basis on the days determined by a schedule approved by the owner. So we’ve
added that. The other items which was probably even a larger item had to do with missed
pickups in general and the fact that we were not able to apply any penalty associated with
that. And we’ve added a clause in general condition number 15 under time for
completion and liquidated damages that indicates the parameters associated with missed
pickups and the point at which liquidated damages would be assessed against the monthly
payments that are requested.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if I can just add in general to what Commissioner
Mays is saying. Yes, I think we are -- the renegotiated contract is better than the current
or the original contract that we did, and we believe that we do have more reasonable
control of the contract in areas where we were having some problems. As in any
situation, there are lessons learned. It is not a perfect contract. We will have to go to bid
to implement some of the other improvements that we think will be necessary for
continuously improving the service, but for right now we think that we have an amended
contract that is improved over the original contract that we signed.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, let me say this. I think that the Public Works
Director, along with the Administrator, they’ve worked diligently. There was a lot of
criticism across the board when this thing was in its infancy and starting up and it had its
growing pains and different folk from across the city came down and in most cases
lodged reasonable complaints. And I think we tried to respond to those. I think that the
answers that they’ve given, and this is what I wanted brought out in public because this is
where a lot of the discussion was held prior to so that people will know that those are
things that you’ve tried to address and to put in. You’re right, it cannot be foolproof and
at some times human error or deliberate situations that you may have to go in and correct.
But those things happen. The other thing that I’d like to just ask on the tail end of that,
you mentioned and I think that covered, pretty much I think a lot of the complaint areas
you had, but one area that you had that dealt with the types of equipment that some of
these haulers were using, that might not be say the best type of equipment, truck, per se,
and I guess that dealt more with your bulk load and that kind of thing. Whether that’s in
contract or not, is that something that we pretty much have worked on as well, because I
think as some of them found out some things they needed to do, some of the trucks that
they had, say for instance that may have been more suitable, say to go into a subdivision
with wide streets, as opposed to say a densely populated area with lanes or narrow streets.
And equipment in there on some of the same contractors. Is that something that has been
addressed as well? Because I think if not, then I think that that’s something that
obviously you’re going to have to deal with, and I might as well bring it here rather than
it coming up to where you got folk signing on and it being a delegation. And it may be
something you’ve already addressed, but I think this is the proper time to ask the question
as to whether or not that has been addressed or looked at.
57
Ms. Smith: Commissioner, we have some equipment changes that we’ve had
some discussions with them about. And some of those changes are in the process of
being made. But what we also have is we have some operational changes that are also in
the process of being made. For instance, in some of the alleys in the downtown area, in
order for them to be productive in picking up the items in those alleys, the size truck that
they need to carry the waste that needs to be picked up, because many of them do have
multiple cans, is such that it is more operationally efficient for them to have a larger truck
and to have maybe two men working that truck to bring those cans to the end of the alley
instead of trying to get a vehicle that’s small enough to fit in the alley. But we have been
working on those operational issues and where equipment was, equipment changes was
the most effective way to address those issues, we’ve talked with them about equipment
changes. For those areas where there were operational issues or manpower issues that
needed to be revised. We’ve also worked with them on those.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Ms. Smith, my problem is that
when we extend these contracts, what about the small haulers? I’m very much concerned
about those who, who [inaudible] may not be in this contract, and I have not read it so I
can’t really comment too much. That’s why I need to ask some questions. We made
some serious mistakes when we put out anything you put on the street we’ll pick it up. I
think we do the haulers a injustice when we make those statements. People have cut
down trees themselves, they have even paid people to cut down trees. People have pulled
engines out of cars and set them out and we have said anything you put out, they’ll pick it
up. Well, and I thought once we amended it, once we went back and looked at our
contract that we would do something a little bit different. I think we need to be fair with
our taxpayers but we also need to be fair with the, with the vendors that’s doing the
picking up. The small haulers as well as the large ones. What’s in here now for the small
haulers? We, we, we, we waited a long time before we did anything else because of the
small haulers, you know, was being, you know, question as to how long [inaudible]
contract. Are they extended as well with this? How this extension going to affect them?
Ms. Smith: Actually, these two extensions do not have any small haulers that are
participating. The small haulers are actually in the contract that was extended by the
Commission a year ago when it was awarded to Advance Disposal in lieu of the original
contract hauler. So all of those small haulers are in that original contract, and that
contract has been extended for the full four year period.
Mr. Williams: So this would not affect them at all?
Ms. Smith: At all, no.
Mr. Williams: Okay. The other thing is when we talked about anything you put
on the street, was any, did we revise anything at all about what we put on the street? We
are told that --
58
Ms. Smith: Commissioner, we are picking up engines, we are picking up
transmissions, we are picking up rims.
Mr. Williams: I understanding.
Ms. Smith: We are picking up whatever is put out there.
Mr. Williams: I understand, but I think that’s unfair to the haulers, though.
Cause we, we, we, we, we said that we would pick up anything and then you said they’re
doing it. But I, I said before and I say it again, that I think that’s unfair to the haulers
when we say anything. There ought to be a limit to what we, you know, what we pick up
out there, with the equipment that we’ve got. You can’t compact an engine. I mean
when you put it in a compactor and try to, to do some things, you going to tear up some
equipment. So I just ask the question was, was anything in here revised, anything change
or everything the same, and, and, and I know we doing a good job and I think the garbage
situation is probably the best thing we could have done. I see people cleaning and putting
stuff out that never did it before, so I’m, I’m sure enough in support now, but I just want
to ask was anything revised at all in the contract cause I have not, not read it.
Ms. Smith: Our original contract identified what those items were that would be
included. That is what the haulers bid on, so we have not made any changes in the
provisions of the contract with respect to those items that you’re referring to. When
bulky waste items are picked up, if there are items that are not compactable it is
anticipated that in the work operations sequence that the hauler would not put items into a
compactor that would cause harm or disrepair to his equipment.
Mr. Williams: My last question, Ms. Smith, is that I have had calls from
constituents about the haulers picking up limbs but would not pick up the base of the
trees. In other words, and I asked this question did you cut eh tree down yourself cause,
you know, I contend that if you pay somebody to cut it down, you need to pay that person
to haul it off. But I have gotten calls that the limbs were picked up and, and, and the
answer was yes, I cut down my own tree. Whether that’s true or not, I mean, I can only
go by what they, what I was told, but have not picked up those bases of the tree and they
supposed to be in those length, in those sizes, cause I know there is a size. They can’t
just be, you know --
Ms. Smith: If they will cut those bases into the required size limits, they will also
pick up those bases. It turns out that we are looking at less than 4” in diameter, not
longer than 5’, and picked in piles not exceed 5’ in height. Tree trunks larger than 4” in
diameter will not be collected unless they are cut to the appropriate sizes.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Ms. Smith: And there is also a clause in the contract that indicates that the
contractor shall have the authority to decline to collect any tree or tree limbs where
59
service has been performed for a fee by persons other than the property owner, and that is
in the handout sheet that we give to the property owners. All of this information. This
information is, that I’ve just read.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Appreciate it. One question I have, when I was reading the
contract. Is it possible or do we have any kind of performance rate or something that
could be attached to the contractors to make sure from the customers’ complaints and so
forth that this particular company may have had 100 legitimate complaints, I’m not
talking about the ones that, you know, they are just complaining, that the customer is not
doing correctly, to approve a contract or if we had something like that in place. I know
this particular company, or their rating is real good or quality assurance. Something like
that. Is, do we have that before we approve the contract? I read the things that you, the
revisions that you made, but it’s not saying what kind of company is this, is this one that
had a lot of complaints, cause in years to come we’re going to come to that where we’re
going to have to consider not approving a new contract on this particular company
because this the kind of rating they have.
Ms. Smith: We actually do have data on the complaints that are received, as well
as how responsive the companies are to those complaints that are legitimate complaints.
That information is not included in this particular document, but it is something that will
be considered when we are able to go out to rebid the contract.
Mr. Hankerson: I would like to have that considered, that information before me
before I vote on a new contract if possible.
Ms. Smith: Actually these two contractors have a much lower percentage of
complaints, be they legitimate complaints or not, than the contractor whose contract was
previously extended and turned over to the other contractor.
Mr. Hankerson: That’s [inaudible], I don’t have anything here to substantiate
what you just said, cause I don’t have a score sheet or anything to go by. I mean I’m not
complaining about the company or anything, but I know that we do get calls that are from
the consumer saying, you know, this company didn’t do this or they leave the leaves or
you know, different kinds of complaints. I think we ought to have something that we can
look at and say well, this company is rated well and we, I don’t have a problem of
renewing the contract. Mr. Kolb, you have something you were going to say to it?
[inaudible] place, I’m sorry.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I was just going to add to
that that we have had, we do keep a tally of the complaints that we received, and the last
time I looked at it, based on the size and the amount of customers each hauler had, they
were pretty much uniform and consistent across the board. The second indicator that we
use is our customer satisfaction survey, and the last time we did one our solid waste
collection program was number 1 in terms of customer satisfaction.
60
Mr. Hankerson: Okay, that would be helpful to have in the backup.
Mr. Kolb: And we will have that kind of information next time we review our
contracts.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Commissioner Hankerson asked a lot of the questions I was going to
ask. We are doing, we are statistically tracking complaints?
Ms. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Cheek: And we are generating a lessons learned program that will be
incorporated in our next contract?
Ms. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Cheek: A lot of places in the country call that total quality. Congratulations.
Ms. Smith: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion?
The Clerk: We already have one.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have one? Okay. I have a question. I happened to put
out some stuff. Stuff. Not tree limbs, not tree trunks or anything, and I had a little notice
left on my pile saying it was too much and I’ll come back and pick it up the next time. I
mean I hauled all this stuff out to the street and he picked up half of it and left the other
half, that I had more than 50 pounds. My question was, am I supposed to weigh the stuff
we put out there or what?
Mr. Kolb: We can’t move half houses.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: This wasn’t a house, sir.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If I could have picked up the house, I would have taken it
all the way to the landfill myself. But it’s a question of you know, how do that -- you
know, he leaves a notice on my pile. And I got it moved. But how do you measure 50
pounds of stuff? [inaudible]
Ms. Smith: Correct.
61
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: But this was bulky waste that I put out. The ladies at the
landfill did a good job of getting it moved but, but [inaudible]
Ms. Smith: Actually the tags that get put on the items, if there is an item that is
considered to be out of compliance, an out-of-compliance tag is to be left on that item
and the hauler had, I believe, 24 hours to notify the folks at the landfill that an out-of-
compliance tag has been left. If they determine that those items are actually in
compliance, the hauler has 24 hours to come back out and pick it up. So we do have a
mechanism in place such that if the driver that’s driving by decides he’s tired, he’s just
not going to pick all that stuff up and he leaves an out-of-compliance tag, then we do
have a mechanism in place to cause that to go back and get picked up.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you.
Ms. Smith: And that is in the contract, that’s [inaudible] in the contract.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And we do have a motion and a second on the floor. Any
further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion please signify by the sign of
voting.
Mr. Beard and Mr. Shepard out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. I believe we’ve already dealt with item 33 so item 34,
Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
34. Approve the award of $10,000 in Recaptured Urban Development Action
Grant (R-UDAG) funds for Augusta Youth Center, Inc. (No recommendation from
Administrative Services Committee May 28, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure? Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, I think this item has been on the agenda before. We
discussed it. A motion that we approve the $10,000 in recaptured UDAG funds to
Augusta Youth Center, and that argument about the repay-back that we disapproved that,
approve the funding of the $10,000. Youth Center.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second to approve this. Discussion? Mr.
Bridges?
62
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Smith, what’s your thoughts on this,
and what’s your recommendation on this motion?
Mr. Smith: I took a very active role in going to sit down with the executive
director of the Augusta Youth Center to look at ways that -- I think that overall we’re
trying to provide direction for folks that are in non-profits to come up with alternative
ways to support their activities, versus having to come back every year for the same kind
of request. I sat down with her, and I use this term, entrepreneurial, going after new
things -- I brought up the idea to the executive director to go after some stipend positions
funded through another federal agency for foster grandparents. They’re paid. I said,
well, hey, this would be, knowing that you need staff, this would be perfect staffing for
you. She said that was a great idea. We helped her get her application in, she was only
requesting two, she got three of these positions. That’s going to help her overall and
defrays some of the cost that she had. I know that the concern here is, you know, not
getting the $10,000 back, putting it back into UDAG. This is a 2003 CDGB grantee that
will be getting funds, so I guess I just feel kind of strongly that we should move in a
direction of encouraging organizations to come up with some other funding sources. We
did that. I believe that this funding advance with recapturing the $10,000 when she does
get the CDBG funds under her grant would significantly help, be responsive to need, but
also point in the direction as to what we’re trying to do overall.
Mr. Bridges: So what you’re saying is that you would not recommend us
approving the $10,000?
Mr. Smith: I said all that without saying that I would recommend that we approve
the $10,000.
Mr. Bridges: You’re recommending approval --
Mr. Smith: I’m recommending that we get the funds back -- release the funds,
and when she gets her CDBG funds, get the $10,000 back, put it back into UDAG for the
purposes we’ve set for UDAG, and that is for --
Mr. Bridges: I’m still lost. Are you recommending approval of the motion that’s
on the floor?
Mr. Smith: I am recommending not to approve the motion that’s on the floor.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Smith: Sorry.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Kuhlke?
63
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to make a substitute motion that we
approve the funding of the $10,000 but that the $10,000 be repaid once the ’03 funds are
disbursed to the Augusta Youth Center.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Bridges: I’ll second it based on the recommendation of the department head.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Smith, maybe I didn’t understand you quite well. You were
saying that you spoke to the director, was giving her some directions of maybe getting
other funds, and did you say that consider foster grandparents, funding for foster
grandparents, to have them employed through -- work at the Youth Center to do that
service for those teenagers, those children?
Mr. Smith: The need that the executive director had was for staffing. The
federally funded foster grandparent program is a program that provides stipends for foster
grandparents to work in human service agencies to do a whole variety of things
throughout the community. This would be a perfect opportunity, and is a perfect
opportunity, in these lives to utilize that resource. The application was made, it was
approved, and in fact, instead of getting two foster grandparents, the Youth Center got
three, to work starting this summer.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Anything further? We have a substitute motion from
Commissioner Kuhlke. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote in the
affirmative.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Mays and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Williams abstain.
Mr. Beard and Mr. Shepard out.
Motion fails 4-2-2.
Mr. Mayor: All right. That takes us to the original motion. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, you know, I’ve had discussions about this particular
thing before. I know that these folks work very hard for their money and do a very good
job. The likelihood of them being able to repay based on the income and their outlay and
so forth are pretty slim. For the life of me, I just still am amazed that we turn down 15
times this amount earlier this meeting to cut off our own nose to spite our own face, and
then want to give this money to them. It’s just inconsistent, and if it were not for hurting
this worthy organization, I would be one of the first to vote against this until we get
ourselves consistent across this board.
64
Mr. Mayor: All right. Anything further? That takes us back to the original
motion. All in favor of the original motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Bridges, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Mr. Beard and Mr. Shepard out.
Motion fails 5-3.
Mr. Mayor: All right. This takes us to item number 35.
35. Communication from the Director recommending department head
authorization to fully administer the Housing & Neighborhood Development
Department Emergency Home Repair Grant Program. (No recommendation from
Administrative Services Committee May 28,
2003)
Mr. Smith: I’ll be real quick with this one. We have a $50,000 emergency shelter
grant, component to the CDGB program, that’s approved annually by this Commission.
Again $50,000 under an emergency home repair program. We usually do about six
emergency repairs each year. Basically, the situation is that there’s a $5000 maximum on
repairs we can do. If it’s over that, again in this economy, costs are skyrocketing, so
seems like more and more, the repair costs are increasing. I thought it might make sense
in terms of efficiency and effectiveness and maintaining the emergency response feature
of this program, that the director of HND could manage the program wherein we have
policies, guidelines, to work with them such that we can make decisions to do repairs,
maybe go above the $5000 as needed, based on requirements, but be able to expedite
repairs, emergency repairs, within a timely fashion, hopefully a two-week period of time
and no longer than that, versus a longer period of time if the approval for basically going
beyond or above the $5000 cap would have to come before this Commission. I’m trying
to be a little more efficient and take responsibility in house, to make good decisions based
on professional judgment. So that was the nature of this, and I just wanted to see if the
Commission would authorize it that.
Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, in discussion in committee, it was brought forth that this
would cut an average of, I think, three to four weeks from the turnaround time of getting
monies in the hands of those in emergency situations. It is really a process improvement,
now, that our director has brought to us. I applaud you for that, and I look forward to
other process improvements to help get money in the hands of those in need sooner.
65
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, I thought that we could -- and this sort of little early to
make these kind of changes that would give our director a little bit more time to look at
this program, maybe about a year, and then come back, and after this position here, not to
come back to the Commission. Maybe we need to look at just increasing the amount
from the $5000 that he has to work with. If we increase the amount, maybe to $10,000,
then he’d have more to work with. He said most of the requests was coming in, was
anywhere ranging from $5000 to $7500. I think everybody should have a limited amount
of money that they can spend without coming back to this Commission. I’d like to make
a substitute motion that we just approve increasing the amount from $5,000 to $10,000.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Would that motion also include allowing the Administrator to
administratively manage that? I think that’s part of what he’s requesting.
Mr. Hankerson: What I’m saying --
Mr. Mayor: It’s kind of a two-tiered thing, the increase to the ceiling and also to
let them have the discretion to manage the program. Is that right, Warren?
Mr. Smith: That’s right.
Mr. Mayor: I just want to make sure that Mr. Hankerson’s motion delivers what
you’re looking for.
Mr. Hankerson: What I’m saying -- we have $10,000, up to $10,000 to do the
emergencies and the requests, and when it’s over $10,000, to bring the request back to the
Commission, and if it’s a legitimate request, it will be approved, but I just think that we
should have some limits in spending, how much we can just spend. $5000 was originally
put in there, and it was put there for a purpose.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor -- Warren, please correct me if I’m wrong. The issue at
hand is, one, that it does cost more to do things these days. We all recognize that.
Mr. Smith: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: The reason this process improvement was brought to us in the first
place is it takes four to six weeks to turn around an application, to get money in the hands
66
of the people who have an emergency, a declared emergency. What you’re
recommending is, you’re asking for the authority to make that disbursement yourself,
giving you jurisdiction to make that disbursement and eliminate the week for committee,
the week for commission, plus whatever administrative time necessary to fill out the
documents. It would essentially take a month off of the time from which a person applies
to the time they get the money. Is that --
Mr. Smith: To expedite the process. That’s exactly right. To help the individual
that has an emergency survive that emergency that could be life-threatening, too, so --
Mr. Cheek: So if we do it, now that is my understanding of this. I understand
that there may be a need for larger disbursements from time to time, but if we -- we only
have, what, $50,000?
Mr. Smith: $50,000. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: So if we increase that amount, then we’re going to be able to help
less people who are in need of emergency monies, if we increase that amount, per capita,
right?
Mr. Smith: Every year, we take a look at that program, and we use the previous
year as a way to evaluate, so we have the option every year to increase the amount, but
you’re right. If we go with a lot more, than you’re going to do fewer repairs, fewer
emergency repairs.
Mr. Cheek: I know that you’ve only been with us for a short time, but this is one
of those areas that you have studied and seen a need for?
Mr. Smith: Well, the thing is, I wrote the program design for a statewide program
of this nature in the State of Virginia, so I’m very well aware, very well-versed in the
need for these kinds of programs. I administered them across the state. So I do have the
experience. I do have the wherewithal to get this thing done properly, and that’s all I’m
asking for right now, is to have that extended to me.
Mr. Cheek: I guess, last question is, throwing more money at it is not going to
solve this process deficiency, it’s just going to throw more money at it. Is that correct?
Mr. Smith: I think that’s right.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I’m not sure whether Mr. Cheek understands what I said. I’m
not throwing more money at the program. Just giving him more flexibility with the
amount of money now that he currently has to work with. Now, I think, it’s $5000. If
it’s over $5000, he has to bring it back to the Commission. I said increase it to $10,000.
He can work up to $10,000 without bringing it back to the Commission. The other
67
reason that I just think that we need to look at this because the question is, how many
times have you been back to the Commission or the department been back to the
Commission to approve an amount over $5000? We’re saying, well it may be a problem,
but have we had requests from HND, numerous amount of requests that it was over
$5000 and need our approval? I don’t think so.
Mr. Smith: I’m not going to speak to experiences we’ve had over an extended
period of time. What I will say is that our principles of efficiency and effectiveness --
I’m saying if something had come up, if we had the ability to respond quickly, we should
make sure we take advantage of that. There are definitely auditing, compliance,
monitoring, and other kinds of constraints that the director is under to make sure that the
US Housing and Urban Development sees that we’re doing things proper, and in proper
perspective in terms of their oversight. So it’s not like there’s going to be this
freewheeling or poor use of funds. We will definitely continue to have, and one of things
that we will be putting in place is a stricter set of guidelines as to how we will be using
those funds. So that would tighten things up even further.
Mr. Hankerson: I just don’t think that it’s been a problem, that we have to ask for
the ability to spend more money. If we can’t substantiate the complaints on the times that
you’ve been back to the Commission. To say that’s it’s more time-consuming, then I
think it’s just to move more control over it. I can’t see that. You just have to show me
that we’ve been back to you five times this year, my department. But I haven’t seen that.
I’m just only hearing that, give me permission to spend more. I think in this government,
we going to have to get some kind of control, some kind of limits because everything
now is to spend more, and that’s only my reasoning for saying, we increase it to $10,000.
Let you work with that for a year, and if you’re coming back with emergency requests
over $10,000 in the next year, then we address that.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: I got one question, Mr. Mayor. Warren, the original motion, my
understanding, covers what you’re asking for. Is that right?
Mr. Smith: I’ve kind of lost track of motions.
Mr. Bridges: Which is what’s in the book, which is what’s on the agenda.
Mr. Smith: Yes, yes.
Mr. Mayor: That’s it? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Yeah, I’m asking. That covers what you came to request, doesn’t
it?
Mr. Smith: Yes. Yes, it does.
68
Mr. Bridges: The original motion?
Mr. Smith: Item 34, 35.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Smith: So, yes, it does.
Mr. Bridges: Are you asking for what the substitute motion offers, generously
offers?
Mr. Smith: Am I asking to --
Mr. Bridges: Yes. Is that something you would like? I mean, is that something
that would make you more efficient, an answer to your problems, or does the original
motion deal with everything you need?
Mr. Smith: I personally just believe that it’s just a different way, you know, to
not approve the request that I’m making, and I personally don’t think that it’s --
Mr. Bridges: George, you got any comments on it? Because I’m looking for
answers here, and this isn’t an area that I claim to have any kind of background or
knowledge in, or anything. I’m following the professional’s recommendation.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, the original motion, which
was to approve the recommendation of the director to have complete oversight and
administrative control over the emergency program is what we are looking for. Where
Commissioner Hankerson’s substitute would provide an improvement, and we appreciate
that, it does not give us the flexibility would have, and so we would prefer the original
motion.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s go ahead and call the question, then, on the substitute
motion from Commissioner Hankerson. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote
in the affirmative.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Bridges, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Mr. Beard, Mr. Mays and Mr. Shepard out.
Motion fails 1-5-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to the original motion. Any discussion on the original
motion? Okay. All in favor of the original motion, please vote in the affirmative.
69
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Hankerson votes No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Mr. Beard, Mr. Mays and Mr. Shepard out.
Motion fails 5-1-1.
Mr. Bridges: Point of information, Mr. Mayor. My understanding is that this will
come back to the next Commission meeting.
Mr. Mayor: It’s a no-action item, so it should come back.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Our next item is 35A.
35A. Motion to approve implementation of DemandStar to enable automated and
online posting and management of bid documentation. (Deferred from the May 20th
meeting).
Mr. Bridges: I move for approval
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion is seconded. Mr. Kolb, I just had a question about this. To
encourage participation -- who wants to answer this -- I’m just thinking out loud -- to
encourage participation in this by our minority and disadvantaged businesses, which
we’re trying to get more of, let them get more of the pie than we have here, I wondered
would it be possible if there’s some way we could waive that $30 fee for minority and
disadvantaged businesses. Is there some way we could pay that to encourage them to
participate online, and that would reduce the number of printed copies of bids and
solicitations we’d have to send out?
Mr. Kolb: We can probably make that a part of the rules, Mr. Mayor, members of
the Commission. We could also probably look at providing some type of a hardship
grant or a waiver of some type like that, so that it would give them an opportunity to get
into the program, but then waive it for hardship the first year, but due to success the
second and third year and thereafter, they would pay some fee or some reduced fee. Yes.
The answer is yes.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, most states don’t charge.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I -- it wasn’t clear to me, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, whether we’re
charging the fee or if DemandStar is charging the fee.
Mr. Colclough: I mean, you can go online, go to www --
70
Mr. Mayor: Who collects the $30.
Mr. Speaker: I can answer that question, sir. The fee is actually charged by
[inaudible], which is the company that runs the DemandStar program. That’s their fee
that they use to, essentially, to pay for their costs, since it’s provided to us at no charge.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible]
Mr. Speaker: What the $30 fee is for is for DemandStar to notify the vendor that
there are bids waiting out there in certain areas, but everybody can download, anybody
can download, for nothing.
Mr. Speaker: Well, technically, that’s correct. They can download the actual bid
notification, and then they can download for a fee all the documentation that pertains to
that, or they can contact our Purchasing Department through our normal channels.
Mr. Colclough: I can go out right now and go to my email, and I guarantee you I
have about five bids on that computer sent to me from states that I just named, without
any cost to me whatsoever.
Mr. Speaker: Those are state programs?
Mr. Colclough: State programs. [inaudible]
Mr. Speaker: Well, that’s essentially what this service does. That’s what our
vendors are paying for, for the service.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] I do it every day.
Mr. Speaker: Well, this is not subsidized by the State, sir, with all due respect.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible]
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, Commissioner Colclough is probably correct. However,
somebody in the background, which is what I was talking about, a hardship fee of some
type, is really underwriting that cost, or it may be an in-house program that those states
were able to put together themselves. Someday, I’m hoping, we’ll be able to do the same
thing, but right now we have to use a vendor or contractor to provide that service, and it’s
got to be paid.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion on the floor to approve this. Is there
any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, then please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Colclough votes No.
Mr. Beard, Mr. Mays and Mr. Shepard out.
Motion carries 6-1.
71
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, could you follow up with a memorandum to us on how
you’re going to implement the assistance for minority and disadvantaged business for
that, please? All right. That takes to item number 36.
FINANCE:
36. Consider abatement of tax penalty to Dana Folsom for condominium located
on property at Port Royal. (No recommendation from Finance Committee May 28,
2003)
Mr. Mayor: Whose item is this?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: I move that we send this back to the Finance Committee.
Last
meeting of the Committee, there were three members there, one had a conflict. So maybe
if we send it back, we could come back with a recommendation out of the committee, and
I’d so move.
Mr. Mayor: All right. A motion to send it back to Finance. Is that seconded?
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Any discussion? All in favor of sending this back -- yes,
Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I just wanted to ask for clarification. When you were saying we had
three members that had a conflict, would it be the same -- was it on Finance where the
conflict was?
Mr. Bridges: Hopefully the same won’t show up. We’ll have four next time, and
maybe three that don’t have a conflict can send a recommendation on. And the backup
that’s in here’s just not real clear, so I, you know --
Mr. Mayor: There were only three members there, and one of them had a
conflict.
Mr. Mays: Oh. Three members of their board.
Mr. Mayor: Yeah.
Mr. Mays: Okay. Okay, I got it. I just needed some clarification.
72
Mr. Mayor: So we have a motion to send it back to the Finance Committee. All
in favor of that motion, please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Beard and Mr. Shepard out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 40. Madame Clerk?
PUBLIC SAFETY:
40. Consider a request from Patrick R. Lay regarding an increase in the number
of taxi cab passengers they are allowed to transport. (No recommendation from
Public Safety Committee May 28, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Lay, would you like to come forward for the benefit of those
members not at the committee meeting, just restate your request to the Commission,
please.
Mr. Lay: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Just come up and speak into the microphone, please, so we can all
hear you and get it in the notes.
Mr. Lay: We’re trying to get a seating capacity increase of up to ten people.
We’re hoping to get 11, counting the driver. And we really need these vehicles because
the ones we got now are, we can’t hardly find any more like them. I’ve been here, I’ve
explained this to you all several times, and I’m sure you all know what’s going on, so I
guess I just -- I got somebody here to talk for me, too.
Mr. Mayor: In essence, you’re asking the Commission to amend the taxicab
ordinance to allow for ten passengers and one driver to be in a vehicle at any given time?
Mr. Lay: No. 11 counting the driver.
Mr. Mayor: 11 counting the driver. Okay.
Mr. Lay: And we got something else here to read to you.
Mr. Mayor: Well, is it -- does it pertain to that, or is it something else?
Mr. Lay: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All right. And give us your name and address for the record.
Mr. Griffin: Michael Griffin.
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry?
73
Mr. Griffin: Michael Griffin.
Mr. Mayor: And your address?
Mr. Griffin: 412 Greene Street ??. Research [inaudible]. Athens has this already.
Most cities with a port like ours are already at this point around the nation. We are trying
to save Fort Gordon or at least let everyone know we’re very interested in the military.
The reason why Mr. Lay had me here today is I’m part of the Army and National
Guardsman of the Year. I personally had this problem when I was [inaudible] platoon
leader. Right now if the Commission were to break down, Mr. Lay couldn’t give you a
ride cause you couldn’t get the Commissioners to ride. So he’s asking for things that
have already been done in cities of our size. There are already other people here in the
city doing this. And he’s been here several times so we’d like to try to get a decision for
him.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Last week at the Public Safety Committee
there was a subcommittee established to review the existing ordinance, and this would be
a part of that. The subcommittee, because of the time frame, has not had a chance to
meet you. I think I’m on that subcommittee, along with Rev. Hankerson, maybe chairing
it, but I think that’s where we left it when it came out of Public Safety last week because
we had said we would meet back and do the public hearing, the public notices, the input
from the taxi operators, and I think that’s probably the best place that it should be right
now. You’re probably talking a week or so to get it back to a subcommittee.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams and then Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As Chairman of Public Safety, let me
clear something up for Mr. Boyles, when we left the Public Safety meeting, I asked the
Clerk to put this on the agenda. I said that this would not be a part of that study. This is
a businessman, something we’re already doing. When you look at the local cabs around
Augusta and the Augusta [inaudible], I can’t think of the cab company, along with Radio
Cab is already doing this. When you look at Athens Clarke County who is another
consolidated government, they are doing it, they allow up to 14 passenger vans.
Columbus Muskogee allow up to 13, I believe. Augusta is still dragging along, coming
up the rear. And we going to continue to drag the rear as long as we thinking the way we
been thinking. Now there are other vans, and this [inaudible], Jim, I need some
clarification from you, and we have a lot of other stuff that’s out there that’s not being
addressed, but other vans are already in place, if I’m not mistaken. The Augusta -- Rob,
can you give me the name of the cab company? Augusta Net, is that?
Mr. Speaker: Augusta Net.
Mr. Williams: Along with your cab and --
74
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] subsidiary of Radio Cab. It’s not operated as a taxi cab
company. I think it’s regulated by the State. It’s for Medicare patients. It’s not a taxi
cab company.
Mr. Williams: Not a taxi cab. Well, I seen these vans in operation. Someone
made the suggestion that Mr. Lay you could go to a limousine service and get him a van
and use for a limousine. Our ordinance says clearly that you cannot use vans for
limousines, you have to have a limousine. Commissioner Cheek brought up a point and I
won’t speak for him. He gave me that authority but I won’t do it today. He mentioned,
though, that if we had seatbelts for the number of passengers in the van -- Mr. Lay
wanted a ten passenger and Commissioner Cheek mentioned about a 15. That’s when the
whole ball of wax starting to rolling. As if we give him [inaudible] the handle 15
[inaudible] helping Fort Gordon, you’re talking about helping small business, you’re
talking about people needing getting started. How will a small businessman be able to
progress and get on his feet or to get more than one vehicle if we keep holding them
down? Now nobody has shown yet a good reason for not having -- if anybody got a good
reason, Mr. Mayor, I’m going to yield to them cause I want to hear a good reason why we
cannot or should not have a van with the proper seat belts, with the proper inspection,
with all the other proper things to be done. We been going on here for months about taxi
business. A lady [inaudible] I mentioned this in committee, I’m going to mention it
again. We wanted her to have a sign attached to her car. She had a magnet, she had
documents proving that this sign would hold up under a 200-mph wind. If that’s not
attached, I don’t know what attached is. But no, we wanted her to drill through her
automobile and put a bolt in it. Attached is attached. We are still doing the same old
thing in Augusta that we been doing for a long time. It’s time for people to get out of the
box. I may want to go in the taxi business, and I think that would be a good business.
Mr. Lay have some more competition. I think we ought to be able to open the door for
people to get in business and show them how to get in business rather than show them
how to stay out of business. Now I’m waiting on somebody, from Rob Sherman’s office,
from the Administrator, Mr. Mayor, anybody on this Commission that can tell me a good
reason why we should not extend the courtesy to this man who other citizens doing it.
We [inaudible] unique, but we’re not. We are not even a good follower cause [inaudible]
already done this. Tell me something why we should not have a businessman who is
going to be under the guise of regulations of our city [inaudible] ordinance,
Commissioner Boyles, we going to look at the taxi cab ordinance, with the airport and
everything else, this city of Augusta ought to be fair for everybody. When we go to the
airport, we ought not see just one brand of taxis. If the company meets the guidelines,
they ought to be able to park out there, too. I heard the craziest thing I ever heard in my
life about a taxi cab driver go to the movies, sit there, and fill up a taxi before he leaves.
Anybody dumb enough to sit in a cab until it gets filled, then say take off, they don’t need
to [inaudible]. So if Mr. Lay can sit there and we got a customer that wait or if I get in
the business and a customer get in my car and sit there and wait until I fill it up, then they
need to sit there. But ain’t nobody said yet, Mr. Mayor. I want to hear an explanation of
why we should not do this.
75
Mr. Mayor: Well, I’ll offer an alternative, Mr. Williams. Since the discussion
seems to in some way relate to the future of Fort Gordon and convenience to the soldiers
at Fort Gordon, and we have to carry loads of 11 people or 15 people, you know, it’s very
obvious to me we ought to reconsider transit bus service to Fort Gordon. We’re running
a bus company that can carry dozens of people on our vehicles, we’re losing money with
our transit system, and perhaps we ought to take another look at having transit busses
work on the weekends and stop by the theaters and pick up these soldiers who don’t want
to travel individually or in small groups, but since they travel in large groups, perhaps we
have a way to reduce the deficit in our transit department.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I agree with you. We got all the busses we can haul
folks on. In fact, we got busses sitting still. Our problem [inaudible] we can’t get
drivers. We got plenty of busses. If that the case, Mr. Mayor, there shouldn’t be no
problem. The reason we’re not making any money now, people are going to a better way
of service. Our bus line has not been directed or been on the course that will bring us any
revenue, I think. That just an observation on my side. But we need to know why our taxi
cab service cannot be afforded the opportunity to be a businessman and have a 10 or 15
passenger van if that’s what he’s going to pay for.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think it’s a good thing that this
subcommittee has been formed, and I commend Commissioner Williams as Chairman for
establishing that. And I think they’ll come back with the proper recommendation. I
think we saw at the last committee meeting, too, that there is no agreement among the
taxi cab companies that this item before us should be done. And my understanding is that
previously -- Rob, correct me if I’m wrong -- but previously with our taxi cab ordinance
it was agreed to among the various services that are in the city, and that’s why we have
the one that we have today because there was an agreement among those that actually do
that. Am I wrong in that?
Mr. Sherman: No, you’re correct. That was in ’99, I believe, that we met with
the cab companies. A subcommittee was formed. We took it back to all the cab
companies. We had a meeting. At the time there were three cabs that were over
passenger limit that’s allowed by the ordinance. And the agreement was at that time that
once those cabs have broken, can’t be repaired, they will be put aside and the new ones
replacing, the cabs they purchase to replace those, would be in, will meet the guidelines,
no more than seven passengers. So at this time there are two cabs out there that have,
that can be used that have more passengers than the ordinance allows. Several cabs out
there that were originally purchased and they could carry more passengers than the seven.
The Sheriff’s Department, in doing their inspection, required that they take out the
number of seats that needed to be taken out in order to have the limit in compliance with
the code, and they [inaudible].
Mr. Bridges: And I appreciate that, but I think the important thing is when we
came up with it, we went to the cab companies, they were part and parcel to the
76
ordinance and they agreed to the ordinance. Now we have a gentleman that has, you
know, has an interest in changing that. I hope the subcommittee will once again bring in
the various companies that are involved here and hear what they have to say and
hopefully they’ll, you know, come up with some agreement that they’ll, that everyone
can adhere to and that’s the one that we’ll have. So Mr. Mayor, I’m not going to vote for
the motion or the item here. I don’t think a motion has been made, but the item to
increase this, those that can be in the cab up to11 until we hear -- if the committee comes
back and recommends that and the cab companies are in agreement, that’s fine, that’s a
different matter. But to go out here and approve this one item for this one business
without the other participants being involved and without the subcommittee meeting and
coming back with a recommendation, I can’t support that. That’s my stance on it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank God the Wright Brothers didn’t try to
fly an aircraft in Augusta, Georgia. You know, it’s amazing to me, I always hear about
privatizing and how important it is, and yet we want to expand the bus services, when in
fact if we allow 15 passenger vehicles they could probably run the run to Fort Gordon
without government support. I always hear about the conservative values, the market
forces at work, and allowing competition to prevail. Here we have a gentleman coming
before us saying they need to grow their markets here based on the potential market that
does exist apparently, that is successful in all these other cities. We have some arbitrary
[inaudible] because a committee came up with it. The last time I looked at it these
companies are all in the same business, but they’re in business to compete against each
other and thereby put each other out of business and control the market. That’s the very
nature of business. This is not something that is designed to give them sole access to 14
passenger vehicles. After all, Underwriters Laboratories says a vehicle can hold 15
safely. Who are we to second guess that? We’re Augusta, Georgia, only about ten years
behind the times. Gentlemen, we can send this to committee, and the committee needs to
look at a lot of things dealing with taxi cabs. This is a request from a businessman who is
trying to not take money from the city of Augusta, but the last time I looked the more
passengers they carry, the more income they generate, the more money that comes back
to the city of Augusta. This is an issue separate from [inaudible] aspects and the other
things that this [inaudible] a request by a businessman for a very simple thing.
[inaudible] vehicle is designed to carry. We really need to study that a lot, don’t we?
Why don’t we second guess everything? Gentlemen, this is a very simple thing that we
need to do. We need to look at and we need to vote on it today.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Lay?
Mr. Lay: I’ve got one thing to say. We’re not trying to hurt any other taxi cab
business. We’re trying to help ourselves and we’re trying to grow and we hope that you
all will vote accordingly to help us grow.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? We need a motion from somebody.
77
Mr. Cheek: A motion to allow them to carry the number of passengers the vehicle
is designed to carry.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Go ahead, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I just need to know, I mean from day one we been, we
been up here as if we have blinders on, from telephone to taxis to taxi signs to parking at
the airport, it’s always been something back and forth with taxis. And I think everybody
ought to be eating from the same bowl. I mean we got some doing this and some doing
that. That’s why I appointed a subcommittee. Not for this [inaudible] part of it but to me
every aspect of it, there’s a lot of things that we need to be doing. But like Commissioner
Cheek said, we sitting here and acting like we behind time and if the man had a safety
violation, there something wrong, not just with him but with anybody that would meet the
requirements, they ought to be able to be allowed to [inaudible] city of Augusta. So I’m
going to call for the question, Mr. Mayor, but I can guarantee you that if this does not
pass today, Mr. Lay, I’m going to keep it on the agenda. We going to eventually get
something done. So I’m going to call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. Mr. Mays had his hand up [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me say first I am, I am glad that this is finally over in
Public Safety, cause it’s one that can carry on for months. I know about it real well. It
left Public Services and then it’s in Public Safety, so that’s good. And I say that
[inaudible] to [inaudible] length of the day and the lateness of the hour. I can, I can vote
to support the motion that’s on the floor in terms of doing that. I do also think that the
subcommittee can serve a good purpose cause I think the ordinance there, there are other
things in the ordinance that need to be looked at. Ulmer raised the question in reference
to, and I kind of looked at Rob and Jim and laughed, I think it’s an understatement of the
year to say that when this came up before and that what the cab companies agreed on.
Let me just tell you something, gentlemen, cab companies have never agreed. You’ll
find that out. When you get to the first or second reading on whatever ordinance is put
together, you’ll find out that there’s not an agreement per se. So I think that kind of
needs to be cleared up. They didn’t craft something and then they all agreed. You had a
situation that to really cut to the chase, you had a situation of established companies
inside the old inner city on one hand, you had independents primarily that developed in
the suburban areas of the county. And when we consolidated you could see the clash
even more at that time. So there has never been an agreement where everybody sat down
and said okay, fine, we’re going to live with this happily ever after. I don’t think we
should think that that happened now, cause that didn’t. The raw truth was then, as it is
now, whatever you put together, change the ordinance, [inaudible], six votes will just
decide what you’re going to end up doing. That’s what happened before [inaudible] this
time to a point of where it does. I can support it, but I think that we’ve gone through
changes that Rob and those inherited, quite frankly, that were archaic, for lack of a better
word. You had circumstances that, where we argued back and forth for weeks on
78
companies being listed in the yellow pages and whose yellow pages were the right pages
and how do you determine that then [inaudible] versus [inaudible]. We been through
that. I remember making that argument years ago that the important thing that we needed
to make sure was that first of all that the cabs were safe and that they were insured, that
they were clean, that their personnel who operated them were also clean and practiced
good personal hygiene, and that people didn’t have to come into town and ride with their
heads sticking out the window [inaudible] in the cab and then smell the smoke that was
coming outside the cab and didn’t know whether to stick their head in or out. So, you
know, those are the things that I thought we should have been concentrating on and it got
Rob and those at least out of that box of where they were. But, you know, cab stories can
go far back as to when people were buying up [inaudible] in the old city, sitting on them,
and [inaudible] just bought the tags, had them, and so that he kept down competition.
And I remember prior to Jim even coming on, where I thought I had left it in the old city,
I inherited in the old county. I walked over and found out we had a limit on how many
cabs could run. And so that if somebody wanted to go into business new, that was
insured, that had a fleet of brand new cabs, we had a limit on the amount that could be
opened up. Didn’t have a limit on liquor stores but we had a limit on cabs. And who
determined that was people somewhat who dominated the cab business. So now I think
we ought to get real about what’s controlled the market, how it’s been. So I think it’s
good that the subcommittee [inaudible] function. I can give you a piece of old school
advice, it will not be a unanimous agreement, there will be discord among them that’s
there, but I think the main point is that people that they serve will be well served, they
can be served with a quality of service. I don’t think it will probably pass today. I don’t
have a problem voting for it, but I do hope that the committee will address this and other
st
issues that need to be brought up to the 21 century and that it will give then Rob and
those some freedom to do some things creatively out there and to work along with it.
And so I just wanted to add that to a point, Mr. Mayor, whatever we doing and in
conjunction with that subcommittee, take on whatever other means of transportation we
want to discuss, but I think the [inaudible] we looking at two weeks down the road or
further than that cause it’s going to have to be drafted, put together, and then brought
back here, and if it passes a second reading [inaudible] waived to do that with, but I don’t
have a problem in voting for the motion that’s on the floor or another one that might
come up, but I [inaudible] in terms of allowing him to deal with that increase. Because
he’s not the only one and you [inaudible] people scaled back because they basically lost
the vote of the Commission at that time when they got out of it and would have had other
vehicles that were there, but the vote support was not there and that’s why they did it. It
was not any type of happy agreement among cab companies. You had independents on
one side and traditional on the other side and that’s what the fight was about.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called by Commissioner Williams. The Chair
rules there has been adequate debate. We’ll have a vote on the motion now. All in favor
of that motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Bridges, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Mr. Boyles abstains.
Mr. Beard and Mr. Shepard out.
79
Motion fails 3-4-1.
Mr. Williams: Madame Clerk, I want to put it back on the regular agenda for our
next Commission meeting, and not only that one, but every meeting.
Mr. Mayor: It will come back, Mr. Williams, because it’s a no action item.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Wall: Let me clarify that, Mayor, if I can. These actions -- where there’s no
action, in order for it to get back on the agenda, somebody needs to request that they do.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I’m requesting then, that all no actions be put on the agenda.
Mr. Cheek: I’m going to second that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: I mean we’ve just traditionally done that.
The Clerk: No, they’ve been requested.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, put them all back on there.
The Clerk: This item and from now on?
Mr. Mayor: All no action items today be on the next Commission.
Mr. Williams: But this item for sure, Madame Clerk.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to the next item, number 41.
The Clerk:
41. Motion to approve Commission’s notification of city sponsored events when
more than 5,000 people are expected to attend. (No recommendation from Public
Safety Committee May 28, 2003)
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
80
Mr. Mays: What is the, in the content of that particular motion? Was it going
with the notification?
Mr. Mayor: Let’s ask the motion maker for clarification then. What’s your
intent, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, this is just a notification for the Commission to know
about any, any group that’s going to be more than 5,000. 5,000 or more that’s going to
be gathering in this city. It’s not to get approval from us, but I think we need to be
notified, we need to know of an event before it takes place. There ought to be some way
of at least seeing that type information. And the reason I coming back with this because
the crows that we have at Diamond Lakes and also the crowd we had, the same crowd we
had, different year, out at Lock and Dam. And as a Commissioner, as Chairman of
Public Safety, I didn’t know anything about it until probably three or four days before the
event. And I think we ought to have an opportunity at least to know what’s going on.
And if we got any problems, if there anything that we need to bring, that we have time to
discuss that with whatever parties or whatever groups is doing it. So it just information,
and I don’t see why it been fought so hard. But this another one to go back if we don’t
pass it today, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: My only reason for just asking for clarification on the motion is that
my comments are the same as they were at committee the other day and Commission two
weeks ago. I thought that, and I respected the Chairman of Public Safety’s right to want
to know and to have those on there in terms of the safety parts of it, however, most of
those for the public safety parts of it are, I won’t deem the terms secondary, but they are
co-part of what happens that’s already in place. And I thought that Rec & Parks, which is
usually the primary co-sponsor of those type of events, whether they’re with Coke,
whether they’re with Nike, or other forms of the media, had agreed to do that and to send
that information out. My only point is that [inaudible] reaffirming or is it moot issue?
Because if we agreed on it in our committee [inaudible] why are we still dealing with it?
You say you’re going to put it back on, but I thought it already been dealt with, done
with, and finished. That’s why I asked the question in reference of to a point why is it
still here? And I’m not arguing with anybody about it. I think we agreed to do that
through the [inaudible], that those things that we worked with, that all the Commissioners
would be notified of that, and since it was not something we had to approve, that that
would come out through normal PR measures. So is it reaffirming what we’ve already
done? Or just why are we dealing with it? That’s my [inaudible] there. I have no
problem in voting for it, but I thought again this was over two to three weeks ago.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, can you respond?
81
Mr. Williams: Well, any my response to Mr. Mays is we’ve got in our package
something from the Riverwalk Special Events and that the Administrator put together
showing about different events. Well, and I think that’s good. About different events.
But the facility that we had at Diamond Lakes, or the Diamond Lakes facility that had the
Power Fest and then the same Power Fest was put out at Lock & Dam, was not included
in that report. This was only to let us know that if we got an event downtown, and we
don’t have to be notified, in my mind, of every little event. If 5,000 people that we
responsible for, if something happens, they going to look at this government for it, and I
don’t see anything wrong with letting us know. Not getting our permission, but letting us
know. Now the stuff at the Riverwalk is public information and everybody knows it.
And the Administrator has said that we would receive a letter of some kind showing us.
But nobody mentioned about this type of facility. And I disagreed, I told the Director,
Mr. Beck, that I disagreed, that that should not have took place out there and we not
know anything about it. We was blessed not to have anything to happen. Had something
happened, we look like mules eating sand sitting up here cause we wouldn’t have known
nothing until it was too late. So in my mind, I wanted to be assured that we knew or we
will know about events that going to host 5,000 people or more. What harm is that?
Mr. Mays: I don’t see any, Commissioner, at all. In fact, what I suggested and
what I thought our committee had agreed to do was not only to give the information on
5,000 events, but from an informative standpoint and to increase Commissioner
participation in events that we do, that we would notify you, quite frankly, on all of them
that we were dealing, the 500 to 5,000 to 15,000 to 20,000. Anything that bears Augusta
Richmond County’s name as a co-sponsor, that comes out of the department, that will be
communicated to everybody. That’s what I wanted to see done. Because sometimes to a
point just hypothetically speaking suppose [inaudible], suppose it’s 4,000 folk. 4,000 to a
point, if you get technical, could have just as much a problem as 5,000 or better
[inaudible] anything we had a sponsorship of was to provide information, that it was
coming, the location of it, estimate the crowd of what we would have, and those things of
things. Am I correct on that, Mr. Director?
Mr. Beck: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: And that’s the way [inaudible] provide all of that. That’s why I kept
asking to a point why are we still dealing with it. We want to give you all of it. 5,000.
500. 10,000. 20,000. Everything that we’ve got our name on and a sponsorship, we
want to give it to you. To this whole Commission. And that will come out of that
committee.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor we need to dispose of. All in favor of
that motion, please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Bridges, Mr. Boyles and Mr. Kuhlke vote No.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Mays abstain.
Mr. Beard and Mr. Shepard out.
Motion fails 3-3-2.
82
Mr. Mays: Madame Clerk, Mr. Mayor, if I might add, could I do this? I may
forget it. Madame Clerk, on the committee agenda, would you put back on Public
Services Committee just what I’ve talked about to reaffirm that, where we can do that,
take action on it? I think I can get the committee to pass it again and we’ll have that
coming out of Public Services as a recommendation to do that?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: Thank you, ma’am.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, we’re going to get to your item, but we’re in danger of
losing a quorum, what I would like to do is go to the addendum agenda and let’s see if we
can dispose of those two items. I think we can do that fairly quickly. We’ll take up item
number 1 on the addendum agenda, Madame Clerk, want to read that?
The Clerk:
Addendum Item 1. Consider a request from Project Success of Augusta for funding
in the amount of $10,000 for the summer session.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure?
Mr. Bridges: Question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. Mr. Colclough, you had a motion?
Mr. Colclough: So move.
Mr. Mayor: To approve. Is there a second? Is there a second to the motion?
Mr. Mays: I’ll second it to get it on the floor for discussion.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Ms. Bonner, what was, did this not come out of committee with a
recommendation? I don’t remember.
The Clerk: No, [inaudible].
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
The Clerk: [inaudible] forwarded it on with no recommendation.
Mr. Bridges: Okay. And I’m on Finance and I couldn’t even remember what we
did. That shows you how old you’re getting.
83
The Clerk: [inaudible] item.
Mr. Bridges: I don’t have any comments at this time, Mr. Mayor, I might as
discussion goes.
Mr. Cheek: What was the funding source? Was it contingency?
Mr. Mayor: Well, there’s absolutely no backup, just a request from somebody to
be on the agenda.
The Clerk: [inaudible] he had asked Mr. Adams to submit the request to my
office with the intent of it going to Administrative Services, looking for possible funding
through CDBG or contingency, but I don’t know if those sources were to be [inaudible].
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mayor: You want to amend the motion to approve it subject to the
Administrator identifying funding for that?
Mr. Colclough: So amended.
Mr. Mayor: Does that make sense? Is that okay, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I’ll accept that.
Mr. Mayor: Was there another hand up somewhere? Mr. Cheek and then back to
Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor. George, as far as a funding source for this, I mean I’m
scared to vote for something that says subject to the Administrator identifying funding
and then he identifies contingency as funding source, and then, you know, it’s approved.
And once again, this gets into the discussion that we had earlier about contingency is a,
there is a very limited amount we have in there right now and it is something that is for
emergency services or necessary services that we provide as a city. And while you know,
Project Success is a great organization, you know, we served on this Commission with
Commissioner Henry Brigham, and he did a great work with it, and you know, I
commend him for it. However, that’s not a service that the city provides and I have a
problem with going into contingency to fund it as a result of that. I don’t necessarily
have a problem with funding it can a source be identified, you know, outside of
contingency and hope that CDBG of something like that is where we usually look for
funding for this. But let me say this. We’ve already seen these services, these
organizations. Everybody is being cut back by the State. Everybody is being cut back by
the federal government. And where are they coming to for the funding? They’re coming
to the government that’s the least able to meet the shortfall in their funding needs.
They’re coming back to the county government. And it’s not just the senior citizens, it’s
84
not just Project Success. But at the last, I do remember at the last committee meetings
when we were discussing, when the gentleman from Project Success made his
presentation, there was a gentleman in the audience that has a boys’ home in south
Richmond County on Brown Road. He caught me outside the hallway and said hey, I
didn’t know you could come here and ask the Commission for money. Said I’m working
with CDBG to get some, but I have to go through a long process. I’m going to apply for
money, too. And I understand, I think it’s Commissioner Shepard or one of the other
Commissioners got a call from one of the services that’s been cut $35,000 and they’re
asking us to make up $20,000 -- will be asking or at least approach this Commission to
make up $20,000 of the $35,000. And once you begin meeting these shortfalling funds
for these organizations, it’s only natural, it’s only right that they, every other organization
thinks they should be funded, too, and we just simply do not have the funds and it should
not come out of contingency. And as good as the projects are and as much as I admire
the gentleman that started this, I can’t support this coming out of contingency, if that’s
the recommendation of the Administrator.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Cheek: I wanted to hear if that was the recommendation first before I made
my comments.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, if that is the
recommendation or if that is the directive, yes, that’s where I recommend that they are
coming from. I can’t think of any other source other than possibly UDAG that it would
come out of. However, I have to endorse what Commissioner Bridges is saying. I think
that’s the conversation that we actually had in the Finance Committee is that we would be
recommending no -- regardless of how well or how good the organizations are that are
requesting the funds, the Commission is stepping on a slippery slope by approving some
of these agencies that are coming in because they’ve been cut somewhere else. You can’t
say yes to all of the agencies. You don’t have the money, nor the capacity to handle these
programs, and my recommendation is generally no across the board.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I respect the founder of Project Success. I’ve seen the
work. But this Commission already said today that we don’t need $150,000 to pay for
these things, you know, we don’t need to stripe the lines for the elderly people and other
people to improve the city out of contingency, so how in good conscience can any of us
support $10,000 out of contingency or anywhere else? There must be a pocket of money
some place I don’t know about. But we didn’t need that $150,000 earlier, and now more
and more of these requests come in, and it’s quite obvious that we don’t have the money
that was a funding source and we did in fact, I guess I may be a bit of a prophet, we have
cut off our own nose to spite our own face in this. I cannot support this, either.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough and then Mr. Mays.
Mr. Colclough: Gentleman, I made no recommendation that this money comes
out of contingency. That was not my recommendation. But if we are sitting here and
85
saying that we don’t have any money, why don’t we just send out a public notice to all of
the agencies and say that the Commission is not funding any other agencies that come
forth? If we feel so broke, I think we need to let the public know that we’re-- instead of
sitting here for four to five years talking about where the money is coming from, we send
out a public notice saying we’re no longer funding agencies. But that was not my
recommendation to take the money out of contingency. That was our Administrator’s
recommendation. I would amend that we get the money from somewhere else, if we
have it. But we could just send out a notice saying that we are no longer funding any
other social service agencies, and let’s don’t sit here for four to five years and go back
and forth on this stuff.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I’d like to make a substitute motion, and I think Mr. Colclough
hit it on the head, but I’d like to make a substitute motion that we defer any action
on this particular item as well as we have on other items that have been on the
agenda today. And very frankly, you know, I think we have a responsibility to the
citizens of this community from a fiduciary standpoint. If the Administrator would
like to come back to us with a recommendation, to the Finance Committee in
regards to all these agencies coming before us, then I think we ought to lump them
all together and take a look at it. Otherwise, I think it’s something we need to look
at in the budget process this year. So I’d like to make that in the form of a motion, a
substitute motion.
Mr. Colclough: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a question. Has this Commission
funded this program before at any point?
Mr. Bridges: I remember us purchasing tickets to the banquets and I think --
unless it’s been done through CDBG somehow, I think that’s the only time.
Mr. Boyles: I know in all the years that I worked with Mr. Brigham as Recreation
Director and the program, I was never involved in how he arrived at his funding except
through the sales of tables to businesses at his banquet. But what concerns me about this,
whatever decision we make is that the longer we delay it, that program should have
already started, and it is not starting because we do not have an answer for him. And I
agree with everyone else that we don’t need to be funding these things, but at some point
we’ve got to let them know yes or no, because if we wait another, another committee
meeting, another Commission meeting, it’s going to be the end of June, and by that time,
the program, any chance of a decent program is going to be gone.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
86
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We have several of these projects and
programs throughout the city that have been caught by budget shortfalls from the state
and federal government. They have not, they have not had the grace period to make the
transition to become self-sufficient. They are coming to us now for us to help them get
through these hard times until they can become self-sufficient. They have a lot of the
expertise to do that, they have the willingness to do that. I don’t think these are
permanent recipients of government aid. In a lot of cases, they would rather stand on
their own feet and take care of their own business. But again, we frankly do not have the
funding right now to support that. We did have a funding source, we did not want it. But
these groups that have stood on their own two feet for so many years who are finding
themselves short due to budget shortfalls, due to no fault of their own, we do need to try
to help them through these tough times until they can get back on their feet. The trick is
going to be the funding mechanism. And it’s just a shame that when we had an
opportunity, cause I read the book, I know how many requests were here for money, for
money for very worthy causes, but apparently we’re just going to let them do without,
just because, and that’s a shame.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Mays, is your finger up to speak?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, just quickly, just a point of clarification. I think
we’re going to end up having to, if we’re going to look at these, we are going to have to
look at a lot of stuff that’s going to first hit through Finance cause of the item, big item,
one that we didn’t discuss which I won’t discuss cause it would be illegal to discuss. But
the fact of the matter, when I was on that phone break out there, I was with two different
center folk that are in our recreation system that folk are already [inaudible] in reference
to Senior Centers. And that’s going to be there. But I think it should be clarified to a
point that just because this at this point, [inaudible] good friend, at this point we’ve not
voted to accept certain monies. If we had accepted those certain monies, that does not
coincide with a guarantee that any of these things would have been funded. That would
have taken a separate vote at a separate time, which means that that’s a fight you’ve got
to fight for another day. And I think in that spirit, that may be something that all of us
can live to compromise and to work with. So sometimes saying there’s a dollar in the
[inaudible] pocket doesn’t mean it will be spent by the right hand. So I think there’s a
time and a place that we can possibly have to re-look at all of that and to deal with it
because it may be the only source that we’ve got. But I think just because we have it, it
doesn’t mean unless six folk want to say something else that we are going to have funds
to deal with Senior Centers and to deal with those other things. Cause it’s coming. It’s
coming like a tornado watch [inaudible] and just as soon as that meeting goes over on
Wednesday that the Council is having, you’ll get the calls everywhere from the Burke
County line out on Ulmer’s side down through 8, and it will go through me and Bill in 10
and 9 and to the Mayor’s office, probably get to ringing early in the morning. So it’s
going to be there. So it’s a lot there with different programs. But that’s going to be your
big ticket item. I’m sure all of that can fall probably under the guise of reconsideration
but it’s going to have to also go with some compromising and some reprogramming. I
just wanted to make that clear to a point that just because we got it or could have it
87
doesn’t mean necessarily that that’s what we’d be doing with this, cause I’ve seen us save
money from time to time [inaudible] with it.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s take up the substitute motion then from Commissioner Kuhlke.
All in favor of that motion --
Mr. Bridges: Could I hear that one again, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Could you read that back, Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. That motion was to defer any action and refer all similar --
this request and all similar requests to the Administrator for recommendation for funding
to be presented to the Finance Committee.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of that motion, please vote in the affirmative.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. Shepard and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: And then let’s take up item number 3 on the addendum agenda.
Addendum Item 3. Consider purchase of tickets for “One Grand Night: IV
Scholarship Gala” sponsored by the Augusta Conference of African American
Attorneys. (Requested by Commissioner Mays)
Mr. ??: Move for approval.
Mr. Kuhlke: Is, that, Mr. Mayor, is that motion to approve the table?
Mr. Mayor: I think it’s the individual.
Mr. Kuhlke: Are you including the dance, too?
Mr. Bridges: No, and no drinking either.
Mr. Mayor: Well, it’s something about a $10 opening bid for any bachelor on
here, too.
Bridges: I make a motion we do this in consistency with our previous
Mr.
practice.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor, please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Beard, Mr. Shepard and Mr. Williams out.
88
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 42.
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS:
42. Discuss Commission’s response of the Special Grand Jury presentments and
the submission of it to the State Attorney General’s Office. (Requested by
Commissioner Willie Mays)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I was not looking for anything [inaudible] this item. I
thought I wanted to get it on because of the time frame of what had been already
forwarded by the District Attorney and wasn’t any need to bring Mr. Craig back at this
time today. But I thought since we had had various responses on behalf of the City, to
findings and things that the Grand Jury asked us to deal with on more than one occasion,
not just the Purchasing Department, but others that where the Administrator’s staff and
others have looked into it as well as the Commission, there are findings that are there,
there are also things that we did in terms of those recommendations, whether those things
were valid, whether they were things that we could do, whether they were things that we
couldn’t do. I think we have records compiling those things. And what I basically
wanted us to do, those that the Commission had taken action on as a group in terms of
initiating those findings, I wanted at least to start the process so that we could at least
whatever the protocol channels would be, Mr. Mayor, that Mr. Wall could notify the
Attorney General’s office that we would be forwarding that type of material so that there
would not be a time gap or that we would meet a time period if there was one as such,
since there was information that had already been sent. And that’s the only thing that I
really just wanted to get that out so that I know that’s not necessarily compiled and ready
to go at this point, but I thought that we needed to go on records so that that stuff could
be sent. There are findings that we have and that we’ve done and I think in fairness if
that’s being sent on to the Attorney General’s office then whatever findings we have and
whatever those things are they’ve found, that information needs to go to the Attorney
General’s office as well. And that was my reason for putting it on.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, can you take care of forwarding that information?
Mr. Wall: I’ll send the notice that we will be forwarding it and when it’s ready
see that it’s forwarded.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays:
I have no problem with that. Mr. Kuhlke and I, Mr. [inaudible] law
firm, sidebar [inaudible] that that information would come to us and I’m sure you will
have that read. I mainly wanted the notice and such to go out at this point, Bill, so that if
89
there was a time deadline that we need to meet, we could at least file that with them so
that they would know that there would be information that’s forthcoming. And I
purposefully put in so that it could be something we could do in a harmonious fashion
from the standpoint that it’s information that we’ve dealt with, that we’ve answered to. If
there are individual findings that are there, if we want to deal with that, I think that’s
something that individuals can deal with as individuals but I think there are certain things
that are referred to in terms of departments or the city, the city government itself that we
So
need to respond to and how we’ve reacted to those findings. And forward that on.
that’s my motion that we authorize Mr. Wall to notify the Attorney General’s Office
in his protocol fashion of getting that information to them.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall has already indicated he will do that. We’ll take a vote on
the motion. All in favor, please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Williams, Mr. Beard and Mr. Shepard out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, do you have any items for our legal meeting today?
43. LEGAL MEETING.
Mr. Wall: Real estate items and pending litigation. Pending and potential
litigation.
Mr. Colclough: I move we go into legal meeting for the items outlined by the
Attorney.
Mr. Wall: There are a couple of things I need to take up tonight. Some of it I can
defer.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s try to do it as quickly as we can. We have a motion to go into
legal session, is there a --
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Williams, Mr. Beard and Mr. Shepard out.
Motion carries 7-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
Mr. Mayor: Call the meeting back to order.
90
44. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Mayor: The Mayor will entertain a motion to authorize the Mayor to sign the
affidavit.
Mr. Colclough: So move.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Objection? None heard.
Mr. Beard, Mr. Williams and Mr. Shepard out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any other business to come before the Commission this
afternoon?
[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 June 2, 2003.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
91