HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-19-2003 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
August 19, 2003
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:15 p.m., Tuesday, August
19, 2003, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Colclough, Shepard,
Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County
Commission.
Also Present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator and Lena Bonner,
Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by the Rev. Earl Saxon.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Please be seated.
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we’ll do our employee recognition.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. McKinley Williams, Ms. Teresa Smith, Public Works
Director.
RECOGNITION:
Mr. McKinley Williams was presented the Employee of the Year Award by the
Georgia Chapter of the American Public Works Association.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, members of the Augusta Commission, on July 18, 2003,
Mr. McKinley Williams was named the American Public Works Association Georgia
Chapter Employee of the Year. Mr. Williams is an employee of the Augusta Public
Works & Engineering Department, Solid Waste Division. He is an operation field
manager at the 1,100 acres government owned landfill that has been servicing the
residents of Richmond County and the surrounding area since 1986. Mr. Williams is
involved with a variety of organizations to help create strategic solutions to improve the
lifespan of the landfill. As operations manager, he oversees the day-to-day operation of
the Subtitle [inaudible] Solid Waste Disposal Facility, which is a $6 million a year
operation. Mr. Williams has been an employee of the landfill for almost ten years. On
several occasions during the last five years, the landfill was without a site manager. On
each of these occasions, Mr. Williams has stepped forward and made contributions that
far exceeded those required of an operations manager and has done so willingly. He has
carried out many duties and activities required to ensure the continual operation of the
landfill within the guidelines of the Environmental Protection Division, perform
additional managerial and supervisory duties, and he has maintained a good
1
communication and an excellent working relationship with EPD and Augusta
management. Under his supervision, the Augusta landfill has received State recognition
during the Solid Waste Association of North America Equipment Rodeo by having heavy
stndrd
equipment operators place 1, 2 and 3 during competitions over the last two
consecutive years. Under Mr. Williams’ leadership, the Solid Waste Division has also,
was also recognized as the best in show for the open house displays during Augusta’s
2003 National Public Works Week celebration. Most importantly, Mr. Williams is a
team player. He has worked with Augusta management and staff on resolving issues
when they arise and has been instrumental in developing and implementing pro-active
strategies to avoid issues and has done so without complaint. Mr. Williams is indeed a
role model with respect to the professionalism with which he performs his duties, his
interest in his employees, his consistently positive attitude, and his dedication to customer
service. In addition, Mr. Williams was selected as Augusta Public Works Employee of
the Year for 2003. This award was developed to recognize an employee who is an
excellent performer on the job, has demonstrated excellence in the community, and
dedication to continued self improvement, thus representing a role model employee. He
was also nominated by several of his co-workers and subordinate employees and selected
as 2003 Augusta Public Works Outstanding Co-Worker of the Year. Raised in Augusta,
Georgia, Mr. Williams attended T.W. Josey High School. He continued his education at
Augusta Technical Institute and graduated in 1972. After his graduation, he joined the
Army and served in the U.S. Army for 20 years and retired. McKinley came back to
Augusta after his retirement to raise his two sons, Eric and Patrick Williams. Mr.
Williams is dedicated to his work, an asset to his community, and devoted to his family.
These are all attributes found in McKinley Williams. It is for these and the afore-
mentioned reasons that McKinley Williams was selected as the American Public Works
Association Georgia Chapter Employee of the Year.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk: Now, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we would like to
recognize Mr. Harvey West as the Augusta Richmond County Employee of the Month.
EMPLOYEE OF MONTH AWARD:
Mr. Harvey West
Augusta Utilities Department
The Clerk: His supervisor, Mr. Max Hicks. All right. The Employee
Recognition Committee has selected Mr. Harvey West with the Augusta Utilities
Department as Employee of the Month for July, 2003. Mr. West has worked for the City
of Augusta for over four years. Mr. West is employed as a Maintenance Worker I. His
duties include repairing and exchanging meters, checking for leaks, and performing
[inaudible] and accuracy tests. He was nominated by fellow employee Miriam
Streetman, who states: “Harvey West is a very hard worker who takes his job seriously.
He often goes above and beyond the call of duty to assist our customers. He is
dependable and reliable. You know with him the job will get done. Harvey works in the
Greene Street office and is consistently receiving accolades from Augusta citizens. Mr.
2
West’s other accomplishments include being awarded the Utilities Employee of the
Month for November, 2002. Mr. West received a rave in The Augusta Chronicle that
stated: ‘I would like to give a rave to Harvey with the Augusta Richmond County Water
Works Department. Thank you, Harvey, for your professional assistance and wonderful
courtesy during our minor emergency recently. You’re an asset to the Water Works
Department. Thank you again.’ Mr. West has also received similar praise from other
private citizens for a job well done.” The Committee felt that based on Ms. Streetman’s
recommendation and Mr. West’s attributes, he should be awarded Employee of the
Month. Mr. West is married and is the father of two boys. Congratulations, Harvey.
You are making a difference in the City of Augusta.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Hicks: Caught me by surprise. We certainly are proud of Harvey. We get
plenty of rants in the paper.
(Laughter)
Mr. Hicks: Every now and then, we’ll get a rave, and I’m glad for Harvey that he
has been the source of several of those. We appreciate the letters and we appreciate his
diligence and hard work and glad he can be recognized today as the City-wide Employee
of the Month. We’re very proud of him. Congratulations.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we’ll proceed with the delegation.
The Clerk:
DELEGATION:
Ms. Brenda Durant
Greater Augusta Arts Council
Plans for Arts in the Heart of Augusta
September 18, 19,20, 21, 2003
RE: Improvement, changes, street closings
Mr. Mayor: Brenda, welcome.
Ms. Durant: Thank you. Thank you very much, Mayor Young, Commissioners.
I’d like to introduce Sgt. Walter Ashley, who is with me today to talk about Arts in the
Heart of Augusta. We have been working hard for the past year to make Arts in the
Heart of Augusta a destination festival for the Southeast. With the completion of the
Augusta Common, we are very excited to be moving Arts in the Heart, utilizing the
Common and the surrounding area. I do, have included a very pretty colored map in your
folder, and if you’d like to follow along, I’ll give you a quick outline of what we’re
doing. The Global Village, which is the ethnic cookers that used to always been under
3
the trees in the dirt street [inaudible] will now be center stage on the Augusta Common.
Their tents will have the walls on either side of the Common behind them. The Global
Stage, where we will hold opening and closing ceremonies on Friday night and Sunday
night. So the Common certainly will be the heart of Arts in the Heart this year. With the
th
9 Street, will be our Fine Arts Center. We have divided our fine arts area into two areas.
The fine arts and the arts and crafts marketplace. We spent a day with an expert, the man
who writes the [inaudible] Guide to Craft Fairs, finding out how we could refine our
festival to entice and to retain more artists each year. The way to do that is to separate
fine artists from crafters, and so we have done that. Ninth Street will be our fine arts
th
area, and 8 street will be our arts and crafts marketplace, and our arts member booths
will also be located there. Again, we will feature our free hands-on children’s area. That
will be on Reynolds Street, under tents. There will be a children’s stage directly behind
the Global Stage pointing toward the river. Our Community Stage, a very popular stage,
will be on Eighth Street, close to the Riverwalk office, right in front of the beautiful new
th
fountain. I saw people swimming through it the other day. We also will have our 4
stage again in the Morris Museum of Art. This is a wonderful indoor stage where we
hold our Porter Fleming Literary Competition [inaudible] and our artists who are not
comfortable performing outside and need a closed environment to perform there. So this
is the basic layout of the festival. We have a lot to bring more people to Augusta this
year. We have, with a grant from the CVB, we will be running public ads on Georgia
Public Radio throughout the entire state of Georgia promoting Arts in the Heart. Georgia
Public Radio is talking about coming to Augusta during the festival and recording two of
our stages. Now this won’t impact on this year’s festival, but they will play that
recording through the rest of 2003 and 2004, bringing more people to the festival because
of what they’ve heard on the radio in 2004. We’ve enticed Bobby Flay -- if you watch
the Food Channel, he’s a very popular chef, he owns the Mesa Grille in New York and is
a big Food Channel person --Your Honor watches the Food Channel -- and Bobby Flay,
who always says “Go out and eat, America” is going to cutting promotional ads for Arts
in the Heart this year. We, Renee Williamson, our consultant [inaudible], to Columbia
and Charlotte and met with the tour planners, and has given them all badges to the
festival, we’ve given a prize for two of them to attend the festival and eat food there.
They are coming to the festival this year and will be planning on bringing conventions
and meetings to Arts in the Heart in 2004, based on what they see in 2003. We are
confident they will return. We have also worked with the professional tent company this
year to ensure the safest set-up, the best security, and the best layout possible for Arts in
the Heart. We are looking for a certain look, a very classy look for a festival. The entire
Arts in the Heart this year will be white tents. So when people walk in, they will not see
a funeral home tent -- no offense, as Mr. Mays is here -- but everything will be absolutely
gorgeous when they walk on site. We’re also supplying tents that artists can rent, so
when they walk in, they will actually walk up, unload their merchandise, and be ready to
sell. So we’re very excited about the changes we’ve made. And unfortunately I can’t
give you the name of the show, but we do have a sponsor that is so excited about Arts in
the Heart that they are bringing in themselves a national music show on Thursday night,
September 18, to the Augusta Common which will be filmed, which will be a music
show we can attend, and will be filmed for viewing on TV later. And as you know with
shows like that, they always talk about the city that they’re located, so this will be another
4
great promotion for Augusta, Georgia. We’re very excited about the changes, that we
have the full festival open for 2-1/2 days, so on Friday night when you go down, you will
be able to eat food, see all three stages, bring your kids and have them perform and make
a craft in the free children’s area, and shop in the arts and crafts market. So we’re very,
very excited about these changes. And I’m going to turn this over to Walter Ashley.
Mr. Ashley: Good afternoon. What I’m looking at really is [inaudible] safety
th
issues. We want to be able to close the roads Wednesday night at midnight. Close 9
Street between Broad and Reynolds. Want to close Reynolds Street also Wednesday
night midnight, leaving one lane open for emergency traffic. That’s going to allow them
to start setting up the tents and get everything prepared for the event. Then we want to
th
close 8 Street midnight Thursday night. There will be some access for the parking deck
of SunTrust Bank. We’ve already made arrangement with them for that. And we’ll close
thth
it at noon time and have it closed for the remainder of the event, both 8 Street, 9 Street
and Reynolds Street, between Broad and Reynolds.
Mr. Mayor: Brenda, you’re expecting more than 5,000 people aren’t you?
Ms. Durant: In the past we’ve had between 50,000 and 70,000 at the festival. We
are planning for 100,000 people this year.
Mr. Mayor: Very good. Mr. Cheek.
r. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, if it’s appropriate I’d like to just make a motion that
M
we, I guess as a resolution of support for Arts in the Heart both the layout and the
concept, be put forth from the Mayor and the Commission.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor of the motion, you’re going to have to vote
by raising your hand because the electronic voting machine is not working today. So if
you would just raise your hand high so Ms. Bonner can see it.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Ms. Durant: Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, if we can take up the consent agenda. And I would
as the Commissioners, as the Clerk goes through the consent agenda, if there are any
items from the regular agenda we can move to the consent agenda and dispose of them, at
this time we’d like to try to do that.
5
The Clerk: The consent agenda consists of items 1 through 31A. That’s
items 1 through 31A.
For the benefit of any objectors to the Planning petitions, once I
read a petition, and if you’re objecting or opposing that particular petition, would you
please signify your objection by raising your hand? That will be done for the Planning
petitions, as well as the alcohol petitions.
PLANNING:
1. Z-03-66 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Mark Detchemendy, on behalf of the
Estate of Joe H. Collins, requesting a Special Exception in a P-1 (Professional) Zone
to utilize a building for residential purposes per Section 20-2 (b) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 410 Fourth Street and containing .07 acres. (Tax Map 47-4
Parcel 62) DISTRICT 1
2. Z-03-67 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Kim Park requesting a change of
zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business)
affecting property located at 2925 Peach Orchard Road and containing 1.9 acres.
(Tax Map 110-1 Parcel 34) DISTRICT 6
3. Z-03-68 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Glenn Brown requesting a change of
zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business)
affecting property located at 3149 Washington Road and containing .69 acres. (Tax
Map 11 Parcel 25.6) DISTRICT 7
4. Z-03-69 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) no vehicle access
be allowed to Oakdale Avenue; 2) a 50 foot undisturbed natural buffer be
maintained along the portion of the subject tract located over 300 feet from Mike
Padgett Highway; a petition by Matt Mills, on behalf of First Bank of Georgia
requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone LI (Light
Industry) to Zone LI (Light Industry) affecting property located at 3948
Mike Padgett Highway and containing approximately 18 acres. (Tax Map 184-2
Parcels 76.1, 77 & 77.1) DISTRICT 8
5. Z-03-70 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that any manufactured home
placed on the subject property be less than five years old and be placed on a
masonry foundation; a petition by John Attaway, on behalf of Dennis J. English,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone
RMH (Manufactured Home Residential) on property located at 2352 New McDuffie
Road and containing .91 acres. (Tax Map 83 Parcel 123) DISTRICT 5
6. Z-03-71 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Mark Senn, on behalf of Nixon
Trusts, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2
(General Business) affecting property recently addressed as 3744 Mike Padgett
Highway and containing 2.5 acres. (Part of Tax Map 158 Parcel 6.07) DISTRICT 8
6
7. Z-03-72 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) a solid board or
vinyl fence be erected and maintained along the east property line; 2) the only B-2
use of the property be the use described in the petition (sale of aluminum siding and
related products) and if that use ceases, the zoning reverts to B-1; a petition by Jill
A. Tompkins, on behalf of Mon Hong Wing, requesting a change of zoning from
Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) property located
at 3230 Washington Road and containing .50 acres. (Tax Map 11 Parcel 97)
DISTRICT 7
8. Z-03-73 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the site be brought into
compliance with the Augusta-Richmond County Tree Ordinance; a petition by
David Lucas requesting a Special Exception to operate an auto paint and body shop
in a B-2 (General Business) Zone per Section 22-2 (a) on property located at 3791
Peach Orchard Road and containing 2.63 acres. (Tax Map 168 Parcel 18)
DISTRICT 6
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those petitions, those planning petitions as
read?
Mr. Mayor: None are noted, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: Under our Public Services portion of the agenda:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
10. Motion to approve a request by Hyo Jung Cho for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Walton Way Supermarket located at
1931 Walton Way. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by the Public Services
Committee August 11, 2003)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to that alcohol petition?
Mr. Mayor: None are noted? Could we also add to the consent agenda item
number 42, which is an appointment? Is there any objection to that? Are there any other
items from the regular agenda we can add? Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Well, it’s not on the regular agenda, but as I discussed with
some members of the Commission today, from Columbus, Evelyn Turner Pugh is
now offering herself, I think they call them Counselors over there, she’s a
nd
Commissioner Counselor. She is running for the 2 Vice Presidency of the National
League of Cities and I wondered if, I think we should at the earliest moment, which
is now, that we should endorse her candidacy from the State of Georgia, to that
office. She’s been a 15 year member of the first consolidated government in
Georgia, Columbus, Georgia, and she was prominent in advising us when we went
over for the SPLOST trip. So if we, it’s not on the agenda but if the Clerk offered to
draw a suitable resolution, I think that we should be among the first, if not the first,
7
government in Georgia to support her candidacy. So I would offer a resolution of
support of Ms. Pugh’s candidacy to be both added and approved as part of the
consent agenda.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, no objection to that. Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, if there’s no objection from members of the committee
and the Commission, look at adding 39, 40 and 41 to the consent agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection?
Mr. Speaker: Yes
Mr. Mayor: Mr. [inaudible], you’ve got objection?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Mayor: All of them or one of them?
Mr. Speaker: All of them.
Mr. Mayor: There is objection.
Mr. Cheek: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything else you’d like to add to the consent agenda? All
right, so we’ll take a motion then on the consent agenda as constructed.
Mr. Shepard: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any items you’d like to pull from the consent agenda?
Mr. Hankerson: 5, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: 5 for Rev. Hankerson. Okay.
Mr. Williams: Pull number 7, Mr. Mayor. 7, 12, 24 --
The Clerk: Just a moment. 7, 12, 24?
Mr. Williams: Yes, ma’am.
8
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Do we want to pull any other items?
Mr. Beard: 13.
Mr. Mayor: 13 for Mr. Beard. Any others?
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
PLANNING:
1. Z-03-66 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Mark Detchemendy, on behalf of the
Estate of Joe H. Collins, requesting a Special Exception in a P-1 (Professional) Zone
to utilize a building for residential purposes per Section 20-2 (b) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 410 Fourth Street and containing .07 acres.. (Tax Map 47-4
Parcel 62) DISTRICT 1
2. Z-03-67 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Kim Park requesting a change of
zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business)
affecting property located at 2925 Peach Orchard Road and containing 1.9 acres.
(Tax Map 110-1 Parcel 34) DISTRICT 6
3. Z-03-68 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Glenn Brown requesting a change of
zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business)
affecting property located at 3149 Washington Road and containing .69 acres. (Tax
Map 11 Parcel 25.6) DISTRICT 7
4. Z-03-69 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) no vehicle access
be allowed to Oakdale Avenue; 2) a 50 foot undisturbed natural buffer be
maintained along the portion of the subject tract located over 300 feet from Mike
Padgett Highway; a petition by Matt Mills, on behalf of First Bank of Georgia
requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone LI (Light
Industry) to Zone LI (Light Industry) affecting property located at 3948
Mike Padgett Highway and containing approximately 18 acres. (Tax Map 184-2
Parcels 76.1, 77 & 77.1) DISTRICT 8
5. Deleted from the consent agenda.
6. Z-03-71 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Mark Senn, on behalf of Nixon
Trusts, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2
(General Business) affecting property recently addressed as 3744 Mike Padgett
Highway and containing 2.5 acres. (Part of Tax Map 158 Parcel 6.07) DISTRICT 8
7. Deleted from the consent agenda.
8. Z-03-73 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the site be brought into
compliance with the Augusta-Richmond County Tree Ordinance; a petition by
9
David Lucas requesting a Special Exception to operate an auto paint and body shop
in a B-2 (General Business) Zone per Section 22-2 (a) on property located at 3791
Peach Orchard Road and containing 2.63 acres. (Tax Map 168 Parcel 18)
DISTRICT 6
PUBLIC SERVICES:
10. Motion to approve a request by Hyo Jung Cho for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Walton Way Supermarket located at
1931 Walton Way. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by the Public Services
Committee August 11, 2003)
11. Motion to approve the extension of an employment agreement for Richard
Hatfield, Newman Tennis Center Manager. (Approved by the Public Services
Committee August 11, 2003)
12. Deleted from the consent agenda.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
13. Deleted from the consent agenda.
14. Motion to approve award of the paint contract to Richmond Supply
Company for the Housing Rehabilitation Paint Improvement Program. (Approved
by Administrative Services Committee August 11, 2003)
15. Motion to approve demonstration funding in the amount of $10,000 from
Recaptured UDAG funds for Downtown Farmers Market Economic Development
Project. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 11, 2003)
16. Motion to approve disability retirement of Mr. David Reeves under the 1977
Pension Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 11, 2003)
17. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain
unsafe and uninhabitable properties in the Bethlehem Neighborhood: 1125 Maxwell
Street, 1432 Forest Street, 1420 Picquet Avenue, (District 2, Super District 9);
Summerville Neighborhood: 2474 East Avenue, (District 3, Super District 10); and
waive 2nd reading. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 11,
2003)
18. Motion to approve a resolution transmitting the draft Augusta-Richmond
County Comprehensive Plan to the CSRA Regional Development Center.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 11, 2003)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
19. Motion to approve transferring of funds to satisfy Pet Smart grants
requirements. (Approved by Public Safety Committee August 11, 2003)
20. Motion to approve a letter of request to the Georgia Department of
Transportation requesting a permit for use of radar surveillance on additional city
streets and that the Sheriff and Public Works Departments prioritize which streets
will be suggested for the use of radar surveillance. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee August 11, 2003)
FINANCE:
10
21. Motion to deny a request to abate penalty for Account #2040824, Map 111,
Parcels 10.01 and 29 and Map 122-1, Parcel 103. (Approved by Finance Committee
August 11, 2003)
22. Motion to approve a contract with the Georgia Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) for a Historic Preservation Fund grant of $6,000.00 to help pay
for a Historic Structure Report of the brick outbuilding on the Appleby Library
property at 2260 Walton Way. (Approved by Finance Committee August 11, 2003)
23. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Easement Machine for the
Utilities Department – Construction Division from Adams Equipment Company of
White Plains, Georgia for $25,758.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 03-108). (Approved by
Finance Committee August 11, 2003)
24. Deleted from the consent agenda.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
25. Motion to approve purchase of equipment and implementation of VOIP
technology in Utilities Customer Service locations. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee August 11, 2003)
26. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget #323-04-203823261 in the amount
of $125,000 to be funded from One Percent Sales Tax Phase III Recapture for the
Richmond Hill Road Sidewalk Project. Also authorize the project to be let.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 11, 2003)
27. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering to award a contract in
the amount of $90,050 to the low bidder, Advance Outdoor Services of Columbia,
SC for Walkway and General Repairs to the Augusta Riverwalk to be funded from
capital account 272-04-2260-54.12110. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee August 11, 2003)
28. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget Number 323-04-203823122 in the
amount of $15,000 for the S.R. 4/15th Street @ CR 2207 (Central Avenue)
Intersection Improvement Project to be funded from One Percent Sales Tax Phase
III Recapture. Also execute Local Government Project Agreement with the Georgia
Department of Transportation accepting responsibility for all public and private
utility relocations currently estimated to cost $9,100. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee August 11, 2003)
29. Motion to authorize condemnation of portions of Tax Map 151, Parcel 164
and Tax Map 151, Parcel 10.11 which are owned by Harrison F. Sears and
Hannelore M. Sears for easements on the Horsepen Sanitary Sewer Project, more
particularly described as: 6,998.60 square feet, more or less, of permanent utility
and maintenance easement on Tax Map 151, Parcel 164 and 16,788.13 square feet,
more or less, of permanent utility and maintenance easement on Tax Map 151,
Parcel 10.11. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 11, 2003)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
30. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Augusta
Commission held August 5, 2003
APPOINTMENTS:
11
31. Motion to approve the appointment of Ms. Phyllis M. Cochran to the
Augusta Port Authority representing District 5.
31A. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Bo Bovard to the Augusta
Aviation Commission due to the resignation of Mr. Whitney O’Keefe.
APPOINTMENT:
42. Consider the appointment of Ms. Cathy Green as the Tenth District of
Georgia Nurses Association representative to the Richmond County Board of
Health.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve the consent agenda, minus items
number 5, 7, 12, 13 and 24. All in favor of that motion, please raise your hand for the
Clerk to see it. We’re approving the consent agenda, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, did we get this addition to the agenda added?
The Clerk: [inaudible] objection.
Mr. Mayor: Not this, we’ll get to that in just a moment.
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-4, 6, 8-11, 14-23, 25-31A, 42, Resolution of support for
Ms. Pugh]
Mr. Mayor: We want to move to the regular agenda and take up a couple of items
for which a number of people are in the Chambers today. The first item we’ll take up is
item number 43.
The Clerk:
JUDICIAL CENTER ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
43. Select site for Judicial Center. (Requested by Commissioner Bill Kuhlke).
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I wonder if we could include 43 and 44, since they
are tied together?
Mr. Mayor: That will be fine.
44. Authorize City Attorney to negotiate amendment to Work Authorization No.
1 under the Architect’s contract for the design of the new Judicial Center and
necessary amendment to Architect’s contract, with the amendments to be brought
back to the Commission for approval. (Requested by Commissioner Bill Kuhlke).
12
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, yes, we had a presentation this morning from our
consultants on the [inaudible] site locations of the proposed Judicial Center, and we’ve
got a total of five sites. Of those five, our consultants chose or preferred the site on
Reynolds Street, on the river, and the other site was -- preference was Telfair Street. This
is something we’ve been working on for quite a long time and what I would like to do is
to make a motion that we accept the recommendation of the consultants on the two site
locations. I don’t want to step in and make the selection on either site, but I think that for
the purpose of moving ahead, that we might pick a primary site and then a secondary site,
because in both cases there is going to have to be some environmental work looked into.
So I’d like to make that motion, and also along with that motion in regards to the item
number 45 (sic), if a site is selected today, so that we can proceed with the Judicial
Center, that we allow the Attorney to -- this is item number 44 -- for the Attorney to
revise the master contract and Work Authorization #1.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke, since we were in a work session this morning and were
not recording minutes of that meeting, I think you probably need to enumerate which two
sites you’re speaking of.
Mr. Kuhlke: I’m sorry, I thought I said that. But the two sites, one is on the river.
It’s property that the Pension Fund owns. It’s a very prominent site. It’s got one existing
th
structure on it. The other site faces on Telfair Street, partially on 9 Street, all the way
th
over to 10 Street, and on Walker Street. The Telfair site would be very close to where
the existing federal courthouse is, where the new federal bankruptcy courthouse is going
to be constructed. The other three sites that were presented to us, one was at Regency
Mall, one was at May Park, and the other one was --
The Clerk: The Municipal Building.
Mr. Kuhlke: -- here, in this location here. For your information, as we move
forward on this, we have a master contract with the architectural firm, with roughly 12
work authorizations. That means that we’ve got to go through one step before we get to
another, and those work authorizations have to come back to this Commission for
approval. So -- do I need to say anything else?
Mr. Mayor: Did we get a second to that motion?
Mr. Williams: I second that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a second to the motion. We’re open for discussion.
Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Kuhlke and myself have
been a part of this I guess for over a year working with different individuals on this. I
agree with him in one aspect, that we need to move forward on this, and I am in
agreement with recommending two sites, although the site that he mentioned does not
agree with my sites. So -- and I’m going to enumerate on that a little bit. I agree with the
13
first site, the Telfair Street site. I think that would do a number of things. That would
clear up some of the area there. I think this would be helpful there. It would also bring
business into that area down there across from the Post Office and that area. It’s a very
desolate area, and I think we need something there. I think it also offers the opportunity
for land space that you can expand at some point in time. That’s another thing that I
agree with. In coming to the second site, I do not agree with the Reynolds Street site.
That is something, as I said this morning, that you can only use it five days a week, and
although I know the people talked about traditional area down there, but I just don’t see
it, what they’re talking about down there. If that was something that was used seven days
a week, 24 hours a day, then I think I could go along with that. But it would be a nice
courthouse down there, I have no objection to that, the location is fine. You don’t have,
. So I’m going to make a
in my mind, you don’t have the room to expand down there
substitute motion at this time and offer the sites of Telfair Street and the present site
here.
Mr. Mayor: All right, is there a second to Mr. Beard’s motion?
Mr. Shepard: I’ll second that for purposes of discussion.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. The floor is open for continued discussion.
Mr. Hankerson had his hand up, and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think it was, I thought it was a good
presentation this morning, but I just don’t, I wasn’t pleased with all the answers I
received about Regency Mall. I think that, personally I believe that Regency Mall would
be just the location for this Augusta Judicial Center. We do not experience all the other
problems of parking and ingress and egress that the other locations -- also, it provides the
opportunity for revitalization of the south Augusta area, Deans Bridge Road, Gordon
Highway. The citizens in south Augusta, I’m quite sure, would support this 100%.
We’ve been long waiting for some expansion or some development on that particular
location. I do agree that we need to move forward, but I think that Regency Mall should
be in the process, not left out. We’re saying eliminate it to two locations, but I think that
the citizens of south Augusta, in the suburban area, they want to be included in this
process, this process we’re talking about, not only the Judicial Center but other projects
that has been named, but it appeared that all the projects are targeted for downtown area.
It is time now as we are a consolidated government to consider that we must extend the
boundaries of Augusta. It’s Augusta the whole city now. It’s not -- I know the
importance of bringing businesses and keeping businesses downtown, I support that. We
have the School Board coming down with two new buildings, some other things are
happening downtown, a lot of things are happening downtown, but we have one part of
the City that’s drying up. Regency Mall has been a negative impact for a long time. I
think this is an opportunity that we can do something. So what I see is that if, if we
renovate this building here, the current building that we are in, for the Judicial Center,
move the non-judicial staff, that is even a possibility. But I’m not even hearing that. I
mean we just excluding Regency Mall altogether. I think that the downtown and also the
14
suburban areas should be included in this process, so so far I can’t support either one of
the motions.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to follow up. I and Rev. Hankerson -- the
perception both in words and in actions that this government has, has shown the public, is
that the downtown area should be the sole recipient of all major capital improvements.
The truth is, we are going back to the citizens to ask for $60 million additional, plus or
minus a few, to cover the cost of this project. What Rev. Hankerson said is quite correct,
in that there was a gentleman’s agreement among members of this board that we would
take the additional non-judicial administrative staff and locate them in a point central to
the population and geographic center of this City, which would make it both convenient,
with five lanes of traffic in both directions, easy to get to, and provide economic stimulus,
which has been the center of this debate for keeping the judicial functions downtown.
Right now, I’m hearing that in actions we are neglecting that or forgetting all about it and
going to keep everybody downtown and not provide the economic stimulus that is so
desperately needed in that area, as well as the convenience for our citizens. Augusta, I
remind everybody, is more than just the downtown area. We have to go to the public and
ask them for their support for the sales tax necessary to complete this project, and quite
frankly, what I’m hearing from the public is they’re quite tired of seeing all of the major
capital improvements come to the downtown area. I support, too, the location of the
Judicial Center in the downtown area, because to relocate the judiciary to another
location would create a problem in the efforts to solve a problem. So I think we should
keep the judicial functions down here, while relocating the administrative staff to another
site central to the population of this City. Regency Mall would be an excellent choice in
that there is a great need for economic stimulus in that area. Also, the School Board is
planning on doing some major construction work on the opposite end of that facility,
which would anchor it nicely and perhaps cause some fill-in to occur by retail. But to go
with the two sites downtown leaves this building partially occupied when the judicial
segment moves out and therefore would tend to cause other departments to gravitate back
to this building, consolidating the working side of the City in an area that is at best
inconvenient to most of its citizens. Here again, that brings me to the point that we can
look for a compromise in all of this and not get into another year-long, protracted
argument, debate, whatever you want to call it, over this. I strongly recommend that we
look at locating things here and keep the promise of moving, taking the $20 million that
was allocated in the plan, and renovating and relocating the other administrative staff
persons to a site central to the rest of the City. That would strengthen our position in the
SPLOST, it would help us all to live up to the gentleman’s agreement that we had, and it
would show the rest of this City that yeah, there’s other parts of town that need some
economic improvement and support other than just downtown. I just urge, I just offer
that for consideration. I cannot support either measure today until we work out the
gentleman’s agreement and have that aired before the public and get committed to it
before the public.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams and then Mr. Shepard.
15
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I disagree wholeheartedly with my
colleagues on the statement they made. I’m in support of Regency Mall and that area of
south Augusta. I do think we need to do something in that area to extend the economic
growth of this community. But we’ve got to be reasonable and we’ve got to realize that
certain projects, without some background or without some assistance, it’s going to be
spending good money after bad money, I would say. I think that area need reviving. It’s
something that need to be there, but this is not the project for that. The lawyers, not just
the lawyers, but the downtown business segment has always been in this area, and when
you talking about the Courts, you talking about the facility such as this one, which is
closest to the jail, closest to the federal Court, I mean I understand and I think there ought
to be some [inaudible] go in there, but this is not the project for that area. I mean I just
can’t say it any plainer than that. This, this is a project that should be put in another
location and not just downtown. We need to forget about downtown. We are a
consolidated government, like Commissioner Cheek said. The whole City is downtown,
the whole City of the City of Augusta, but we need to understand how important this is.
This is something we’ve got to do. This is something that is necessary. This is
something we been working on. We can kick the ball around all day long until we put it
in somebody’s goal, until we put it in somebody’s glove, I mean until we get it in
somebody’s racket, even with a golf club, we got to go ahead and hit this ball and do
something with it. And this proposal, these two sites, this present building here, if we
move the Courts out of this building that’s going to free up a lot of space that we
probably be able to put a lot of our rental places that we are renting now into this facility,
and we may have to still do some other work, but we ought to pick and choose sides, we
ought not be talking about whether or not we support south Augusta or downtown.
Really, what we saying here, [inaudible] it’s not about south Augusta, it’s not about
downtown, it’s not about Regency Mall. It’s about the best location for this building.
And out of all the sites we looked at, that location is blighted there, it’s close to
everything. The School Board that Commissioner Cheek mentioned is coming on Broad.
When the City grows, it’s going to grown when people get open minded. Other things
going to come. There is some things that will go in that area. We need to hold the
owners of that property accountable, Commissioner Cheek, Commissioner Hankerson,
where we make them do something with it. They done purchased that building. It just
sitting there. The building is going to deteriorate, going [inaudible], we need to get
aggressive and have them to say what are they going to do. And then at the same time,
maybe try to get something else to come in that area. But I’m in support of
Commissioner Kuhlke and even Commissioner Beard. I second one motion, I wanted to
second both of them. I think that we need to go ahead and make a decision today, bite
the bullet and do whatever is right. You are not going to please everybody, but you ought
to do what you believe is right. Now I think the right thing is to put this in a facility
where it’s going to be convenient to everybody, not just downtown. It’s going to be
convenient for everybody. And to put it in this building is going to cost us some money
that we wouldn’t be able to afford, so let’s do two things. Let’s clean up this blighted
th
area which is there, Telfair Street. In my mind, we’re looking at it between 9 Street to
th
11 Street and from Walker Street all the way over to Fenwick Street. And that area
back in there, we’ve got enough room to do anything we need to do. And still have a
16
vibrant City downtown. There’s nowhere you looking at, when you come to Augusta,
see skyline. Everything [inaudible] you can see the top of it. We need to build some
buildings in this town where other business will want to come and locate here. If we
build a nice building, I mean we be able to lease some spaces, we be able to do some
things that will bring revenue and economics, too, to this City. But we keep doing the
same thing and we keep fighting among ourselves about south Augusta and downtown. I
live out that way. I want something to come out that way. But this is not the, this is not
the facility to go out there. Mr. Mayor, I know I took a lot of time, but after
Commissioner Shepard speaks, I was going to call for the question, but I want to give
everyone an opportunity to go ahead and voice his opinion, but we need to go ahead and
make a decision today.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Mays had his hand up, and Mr.
Bridges. Still got some folks who want to speak, Mr. Williams, who haven’t been heard
from yet.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I thought I was about to get cut off the
pass myself. But I think there is value in both motions, and I think that the three sites that
we limit ourselves to are the Telfair site, the Reynolds site, and also this Municipal
Building site. And I say that we include all three of them because I think that there is a
lot of creativity about the Telfair site which I want to compliment Mr. Williams for
bringing to our attention. It does create a Courts district because we know that the
federal Court is already located in that area, the Bankruptcy Court will locate in that area,
and I think that site, as well as the other two sites, will continue the economic
development aspect of the courthouse as we know it today, which is the fact that the
attorney community has invested significantly in mortgages and those that haven’t
invested in mortgages are paying rent to folks that do have sizeable investments in this
part of town and downtown. So I would hope that one of the makers of the motion would
accept a friendly amendment that either the Municipal Building be added to the first
motion or that all three sites are added in the first motion or the second motion. I say that
because there are unresolved questions about the site, remediation at the Telfair site,
possible commercial use as opposed to all government use at the river, and then this
Municipal Building is the historic center of the Courts and it has perpetuated economic
development in the form of attorneys’ offices here. I think that we are not competing so
much with another site in this county for the future investment of the legal profession,
we’re competing against the Evans Town Center, and we’ll stand a possibility of losing
that economic investment that attorneys are presently making in this part of town. So I
would hope most of all that we have a consideration of all those three sites and I would
ask that one of the makers of the motion to ahead and make it so that we consider all
downtown possibilities. And finally, I want to address the gentleman’s agreement. I’m
standing by my part of it, which we worked out and I remember that we had hearings
earlier this year. Rev. Hankerson and I conducted them at the church. I think it was the
Bayvale Baptist Church. And we looked at what was called the campus concept in that
area. And we were looking at a site on Bayvale Road and we were looking at a use of the
Regency Mall. And I think this Commission has already gone on record and also
committed itself to a south side campus, which would include the Department of Public
17
Works, the Utilities Department, Planning & Zoning, License & Inspection, and Traffic,
the Regional Traffic Control Center. That’s going to happen and that’s going to spread
some development out that way. So I think that you consider all three of these sites is a
furtherance of that bargain. We are not forgetting anybody. But let’s try to get on with it
today, and I see that if the makers of the motion would see fit to amend it, I would see
this is a continuation of that bargain we made here that would bring economic
development to all of those areas. And I would ask that that be considered, either by the
primary maker of the motion or the maker of the substitute motion. Thank you, Mr.
Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’ll yield for ten seconds if any one of the makers of the
motion wants to accept what Steve has proposed.
Mr. Mayor: I was going to give them a moment to digest it and then come back
to them after you spoke.
Mr. Mays: Okay. Mr. Mayor --
Mr. Mayor: Give them about 20 minutes to digest it.
Mr. Mays: I don’t want them to digest it and then throw it back up.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mays: You know, Mr. Mayor, I guess I kind of feel like my good friend,
Kenny Rogers, today in The Gambler. Sometimes you got to know when to hold them,
know when to fold them, and sometimes just to know when to walk away. I still have to
express this for the record. I do want to thank the Chairman and the Co-Chairman,
Commissioners Kuhlke and Beard. They worked hard on this particular proposal. This is
not going to meet with -- wherever the site is, it’s not going to please everybody on this
Commission, it’s not going to please everybody in the community. We were just
discussing on this end, Mr. Mayor, a minute ago whether or not it might even be a good
idea since there won’t be a sales tax election this year, if we really wanted to find out
how people felt about some of it, was dealing with a non-binding straw poll in
November, during the Commission race that would deal with some of the ideas that
we’ve gotten in terms of proposals and then that would give the general public a chance
to have some real honest feedback, if we really want to seek input from the people that
we are going to ask to have to pay for this particular item. Because currently, and I said
this this morning and I’ve said it historically and I’ve said it at every meeting we talking
about on the jail proposal, we’ve got $20 million and every proposal I’ve seen, this $20
million is basically covering 25% to 30% of what we are being asked to spend. If we put
it in the middle of Phinizy Swamp, we still do not have but the money we proposed. So
money is the real overriding factor, gentlemen. We can argue and deal with a location
from now until next Christmas or Christmas after next, but money -- and you’re going to
18
have to get the money from the people out there that are going to make that decision. So
wherever you decide to put it, just keep in mind that it’s arbitrary to the folk that you’re
asking to pay for it, then you may still be stuck with the money that you are holding. So
you’ve got to know where your real players are. They are not the 11 of us who sit here.
They are composed of that voting populace who will make a decision in terms of where
this goes. Now I said I kind of felt like Kenny Rogers, cause I have to put this on for the
record. I threw May Park out early as an oddity, and I know it came back at the most
costly figure. But I was looking at two things when I looked at May Park. And
everybody said well, May Park will be done away with. That was my last idea. May
Park would first become a new May Park. Some of the complaints that may have
existing in Olde Town in terms of its proximity to residents, May Park in what I
envisioned would be able to do, would be able to deal with new ball fields, to deal with
outdoor area, and be able to deal with putting it in the open area of the fairgrounds, which
rdth
would be close to Laney Walker, away from residents. Access from 3 and 4 Streets
and being about to get back to 520 if you were coming from south Augusta, as well as
being able to deal with getting to Gordon Highway. The second reason that I think it still
would be important, and I’m going to broadminded enough, Mr. Mayor, to vote for a
motion. As I said earlier, I know when to fold them and I know when that support is not
there, I know [inaudible] honest enough to do that. But I still have to say it for the
record. We sit until we build another jail to house violent prisoners. It’s a 401 Walton
Way, gentlemen. It’s right next door to the largest land mass that -- of all five of these
sites, it has twice as much property as some of them that we are going out to buy. We
own everything that’s in May Park. We own the streets on both sides. In Virginia, where
you have a violent sniper’s trial going on, one of the main reasons they picked to moving
that trial to a particular part of Virginia was of safety and of tunnelage of being able to
move prisoners into a courtroom setting without ever being able to come in contact with
th
the general public. You have that ability to do that because you own 4 Street, you own
Walton Way, you own the property that we still own that we have not used when we
bought the old jail. The Fire Department will be out from there, they are building a new
fire station. That will be non-existent. The only building that would have to be relocated
that exists now in May Park would be the building of a new gym. Now you’re going to
sell something to the public. To me, the [inaudible] people who live in that area, of being
able to get to the [inaudible], law enforcement and judicial center that’s not -- it’s still
downtown, that’s not far, because last time I checked there were plenty of lawyers east of
thth
5 Street and east of 6 Street, that [inaudible] Telfair Street, Greene Street, in that area,
that are still -- and I made the statement this morning -- if they are as large as I am they
may need to walk to the Judicial Center. It will not kill them in terms of being where
May Park is right now. But it’s there right next door to where the existing Law
Enforcement Center is. And where your prisoners are housed. The long range effects of
what we are not looking at, and I’ve heard consultants say well, it doesn’t make any
difference, you put them in a car. Well, we got enough Ford Victorias and vans now to
start a dealership in this town. What about the fact that in prisoner transportation,
manpower, vehicles to a point of where you can walk some of them instead of riding
some of them, that are right next door to a jail? Now I don’t have any support on this
issue. I’m ready to walk away from it today. I’ve presented it three different times. It’s
dead. Y’all don’t want to hear it. But I’m putting it on for the record, because the last
19
time I checked a year ago, I voted for this site out of compromise to keep it here, as Andy
said, right here on the Municipal site. Now all of a sudden I come back and people tell
me we’ve got jackhammers, folk going to be disrupted, can’t [inaudible] conduct
business. Well, as Commissioner Cheek said this morning, University Hospital builds.
They still do surgery. MCG builds and constructs. They still operate and treat folk. You
know, I know folk ought to be able to work, even if they work at night, and be able to
build a building if you put one here. I don’t buy that argument and I’m a non-
professional making that statement. But to a point that the land property you’ve got, you
do not have to build an existing [inaudible] in the future, but right now, you have got
enough land space that you don’t have to build the first parking deck, in the May Park
area. Nowhere. You can put 750 to 1,000 cars on the ground and won’t have to
[inaudible]. But that one is dead. I guess the undertaker proposed it, the undertaker will
have to bury it. But I brought you something that I thought might make some sense since
you own that property already, have access to the streets, and your jailhouse where your
violent prisoners are is right next door to the property that you already own. I can vote
for either motion to get it motion. But gentlemen, if it gets bogged down and that ox gets
stuck in the ditch again, I compromised and said let’s go here, now all of a sudden this
has got to be a bad one. I applaud Marion for bringing the Telfair Street site on, because
I think out of the three that you’ve got left, it’s to a point if it can be done
environmentally it can at least be in a courthouse [inaudible] atmosphere where you’ve
got it there by the post office, you’ve got it there for the federal courthouse, and I can see
us doing that. I hope that you don’t put them in any ranking order to a point that you
explore the possibility of doing all three, Mr. Mayor, on an equal footing basis since May
Park is dead. But I’m going to tell you what. If [inaudible] occurs to these other three,
like Lazarus I’m going to be back again with the property y’all already own. It’s the
biggest spot you’ve got. Twice as big as the area that basically you already own, and the
only one that’s right next door to your Judicial Center, and I just wanted to put that there
for the record. I can vote for any one of the motions. I think this issue is bigger than one
person. It’s bigger than one District. I’m broadminded enough to say hey, [inaudible]
I’ll back up and support what you’ve got on the table. But for goodness sakes, let’s not
squeeze this in somewhere to where ten years down the road, we’ve got a problem that
we already know we may have a problem with some of these locations, and to a point I
still don’t think that all the cards are in yet on the river site, because as I said this morning
and y’all know I don’t hide anything, if I was the Attorney representing the pensioners, it
would not be the cheapest site acquisition, because it is not the highest and best use of
that property. Any Court of law would rule against that. They could very well come in
and say we want to negotiate with the Marriott, we want to negotiated with the Hyatt, we
want to see what we can put in a hotel [inaudible] complex for the future of this City and
its growth, and so therefore I think you may end up spending double [inaudible] in terms
of acquiring that riverfront property. Better think long and hard before you put that down
there, quite frankly, as your number one site. But my votes aren’t there. I couldn’t get a
second between here and Wyatt Earp to put it in May Park in terms of putting a new
facility out there, new ball fields, and a place where you could have a proper Mayfest, a
place where you could have a proper blues festival and have it, be able to get people in
and out with the proper access that you could do, relieve that tension from a residential
area, and who is going to argue? You’re going to put a Judicial Center -- last time I
20
checked, you got a jailhouse on one side and a cemetery on the other one. Nobody is
going to [inaudible] argument with that proposal, and it’s your biggest land site and it’s
your less-costly when you look at all the factors that you’ve got here. But I’m willing to
walk away, Mr. Mayor. I’ve lost that battle and I’ll vote for the one that’s on the floor.
But just remember, an old undertaker told y’all so. I just wanted that for the record.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Bridges had his hand up, so we’ll go to
him.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In regards to the gentleman’s agreement,
Mr. Mayor, I am pretty much in line with what Mr. Shepard recalled on that. We said
that if we got the campus location on the old Nixon property in south Richmond, near
Richmond Hill Road, we would move Utilities, Public Works, License & Inspection,
Planning & Zoning, and even discussed the possibility of Recreation going out there.
That wasn’t a definite but that was something we asked be looked at as well. That if that
happened, we could move forward with putting the Judicial Center here, taking the non-
Judicial, attaching those to a new location, probably attached to the new Library. At least
they would remain in what’s considered the downtown area. And that, you know, still
committee to that and willing to hold to that. I think where a lot of the issues concerning
maybe the breakup or the questions involved in that agreement were when we discovered
that the judicial side didn’t necessarily -- well, first it came back that this was not to be
the location, second was that maybe the judges didn’t necessarily need to remain
downtown, it could be in another location. I think that threw a lot of things up in the air.
It sounds like the study done by the architects this morning kind of bring it back to earth.
I do have a problem with the Reynolds Street site. Not only just area containment, but
Willie mentioned the legal issues and just -- I think that as far as tourism, attracting
people in, that may not be the best place to put a Judicial Center. But George or Jim, I’m
not sure who needs to answer this question. I’d like some update, if you can, or maybe
you need to get the staff to do it, as to where we’re at in committing to the property off of
Richmond Hill Road for putting the campus, what kind of, you know -- my understanding
is we’ve actually, we approved buying the property at some point and putting the road in.
Just give me an update of where we’re at with that. I think that is going to make a lot of
difference with some of these as far as the motion that’s on the floor.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, with respect to the property
on Richmond Hill Road, yes, you did approve the purchase of 42 acres before, A you
recall, part of the first construction is to build a traffic control center, which is a State
GDOT project, and before we can actually consummate the deal with the owners, we
have to get environmental clearance from the Department of Transportation. So that’s
where we are now. We submitted our environmental. It is now back with their
comments. We addressed those comments. They will be sent back to GDOT and
hopefully very soon we’ll get that clearance. We also have -- we’re probably pretty close
to final design on both the Public Works building and Utilities and will be looking at
possibly going to bids for construction to begin shortly sometime after the first of the
year. So we’re moving right along on that project.
21
Mr. Bridges: Speaking to the environmental issues, do we foresee any problem
with that since we sent back their request, and will we have to answer the same questions
in regards to any of the judicial sites that we pick?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, we’ll have to do an environmental on all the sites. Now do I
foresee a problem with that? It’s routine. I mean it looks clean. It’s been vacant forever.
But who knows?
Mr. Bridges: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Anybody we haven’t heard from you that would like to speak, and
then we’ll go back to some of the others.
Mr. Mays: I was just going to say I don’t think you probably have to do an
environmental on one of them cause we spent half a million dollars down there already a
few years ago. We know every track and footprint that’s down there. So that one’s
pretty clean. We know that one already. We [inaudible] on the Exchange Club, they
know what’s down there, too. So that would save us some money.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Just a quick question. George, where are we funding that campus?
I’m understanding we’re way short [inaudible] to build it.
Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir. Utilities is using their bond proceeds to build their particular
building. And I’ve asked them to move forward with the site purchase and the
preliminary work until we can get another SPLOST passed and get additional monies to
complete the work, Public Works building, and the Planning & Zoning, License &
Inspection facility. We’re also getting funds from GDOT for the traffic control center. I
can’t give you an exact number of how much is in the bank, but to complete the project
we will need some additional funds out of SPLOST.
Mr. Cheek: Is the plan to move the departments that have been mentioned up
here I guess, Zoning, Planning, so forth, to that site, is that actually in writing somewhere
or is that something we’re still kind of throwing around?
Mr. Kolb: I cannot recall whether or not you put that type of commitment in
writing in terms of a motion from the Commission.
Mr. Wall: Public Works and Utilities are the only two that are committed to that
location.
Mr. Cheek: The traffic control center.
Mr. Mayor: But it would be in the transcript, the record of this meeting, that it’s
the intention to send those other departments out there, too, is that not correct?
22
Mr. Kolb: Absolutely.
Mr. Mayor: That’s on the record here today.
Mr. Kolb: And we’re moving forward with that, with respect to SPLOST, with
respect to our planning, the site layout, all of those facilities within the 42 acre area, with
the laydown yards, the whole nine yards. So we are moving in that direction as if that’s
going to happen.
Mr. Cheek: I would have a much larger warm fuzzy about this whole thing if that
were in black and white somewhere, that we had those funds covered. I’ve been here for
four years now and there are just too many we’re going to do’s that don’t ever happen,
that this is just a -- I don’t like gray areas and this is too big of a gray area. The inertia
downtown is so strong and everything we say is going out in the county always comes
back downtown, and we spend hundreds of millions of dollars down here and I would
just, I need that assurances before I can support selecting a site.
Mr. Kolb: Well, we were just discussion whether or not we could do a resolution.
Can you give us some time and we’ll report back to you and determine what type of
commitment?
Mr. Mayor: Can you have that for us at the Engineering Services Committee
meeting?
Mr. Kolb: Yes. Yes.
Mr. Cheek: Next Monday.
Mr. Kolb: Friday, even.
Mr. Cheek: Work session?
Mr. Kolb: Yep.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Is there any --
Mr. Cheek: Madame Clerk, can you add that to the agenda for Friday?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: We have two motions on the floor. We have the substitute motion
from Commissioner Beard and the original motion from Commissioner Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor.
23
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Kuhlke: Can Mr., Commissioner Beard’s substitute motion, since he and
I are on the Judicial Committee, for us to proceed orderly on this thing, Mr. Beard,
could you define which is your primary location and which is your secondary so that
if this happens to pass, we know what to concentrate on first?
Mr. Beard: The Telfair and this one would be secondary.
Mr. Kuhlke: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I need clarification, please sir.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: We have not amended anything, I have not amended my second.
Mr. Mayor: No, sir.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] Okay, I just wanted to make sure we only got two in
there.
Mr. Mayor:
No amendments were accepted. Mr. Kuhlke, when he opened
. Would it be appropriate to
discussion of this, asked that we take up item 43 and 44
incorporate item 44 then into both of these motions that are on the floor, to allow
the work to proceed should one of them pass?
Mr. Beard: I can amend.
Mr. Kuhlke: That was in my motion.
Mr. Mayor: That was in yours. That would be in yours, too, Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Yes.44 can be included.
Mr. Mayor: All right. So let’s go ahead and first take up the substitute motion
from Mr. Beard.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Want to hear it again? All right, Madame Clerk, if you could read
the substitute motion for the Mayor Pro Tem.
24
The Clerk: The substitute motion from Mr. Beard and Mr. Shepard was to have
the proposed Judicial site selection location be Telfair Street primary site and Municipal
Building as secondary site. And include item 44 as well. Authorize the Attorney to
negotiate amendment to work authorization number 1.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of that motion, would you please raise your hand, and
raise it high so the Clerk can see it.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion carries 7-2-1.
Mr. Mayor: Is that everybody?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. So that takes care of items 43 and 44. The second item we
want to take up that involves a number of people in the Chamber, also, and that’s item
number 38. Madame Clerk, if you’ll read the --
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
38. Receive recommendation(s) from the Administrator relative to alternatives
for increase of funding for the Willow Creek Project and funding for the removal of
beaver dams on Butler Creek. (Commission’s August 5th Meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, do you have your recommendation ready for us?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. You had asked at
your last regular Commission meeting that we come back to you with a recommendation
on funding a shortfall in the Willow Creek project, also known as Raes Creek, Section
III, which was short about $1 million. What we have done in the meantime, and we
reported this to you on last Friday at your Engineering Committee meeting is that we
have gone through and looked at projects that are complete or excess revenues in all three
SPLOSTs, SPLOST I through III, and we scrubbed those projects. We were able to come
up with unrestricted funds of about $3.1 million. However, at the same time, and each of
you have a sheet or a listing of the projects, we also identified about $14.3 million of
unfunded projects which do not include some of the emergencies that have come forward,
for example, the one that you will be adding on later on today. When you take that $14.3
million and subtract the $3.1 million, you still have $11.2 million of unfunded, needed
projects in SPLOST I through III. We’re still scrubbing projects, and it’s going to take us
a while to look at it, and your input. And we’re going to bring back to you some projects,
even though it may be painful in some cases, that we believe could be delayed until
SPLOST V. However, in terms of funding I don’t believe that you should be considering
25
SPLOST as your sole source of funding, for this reason -- and evidence of that is this
year. Eventually, you will have all of your drainage capital improvements done, whether
it be tomorrow or whether it be 50 years from now. And as you complete each project, it
places on you a maintenance responsibility, and that maintenance responsibility in the
form of dollars and other resources cannot come out of SPLOST, so you need to be
looking at a more permanent solution. And more about that in just a moment. But there
are other ways of funding your shortfalls or your unfunded needs. One is to go to the
people and ask them for a general obligation bond, which would have to be supported by
a millage increase. Or you could float special revenue bonds and pay for them either
through special assessments and specific service areas where these problems occur. Or
you could create a storm water fee and charge that to pay off those special revenue bonds.
But I think all of this points to the fact that Augusta does not have a plan for addressing
its flood management, flood control, flood mitigation problems. I would recommend that
we hire someone who does specialize in putting these kinds of plans together and that
they look at various areas of our flood management program to help us put together a
plan. Today I don’t believe that we’re serious about addressing storm water problems.
We look at the issues that we face in terms of flood mitigation, purchasing homes. We
lack the resources or a plan to make that happen. In terms of flood control, we have
flooding popping up all over the county in recent days because of recent or record rainfall
that we have had. We’ve had areas flooding that we’ve never seen before or higher
degrees of flooding. We are lacking, even though we are just now getting a grip on those
storm water facilities that we have constructed and identified, and we’re beginning to
maintain those, there are probably just as many private that we have to identify and
enforce that that also be maintained. We don’t have the resources or the plan to do it.
We have a very strong storm water management ordinance on the books, but I suspect
that it was placed there in compliance with federal regulations and really not a serious
commitment to deal with the storm water issues. And I think more importantly, and most
importantly, we do not have a funding structure, a funding mechanism, to deal with our
storm water management program. Now with respect to the beavers, I have done some
research. I am not done. But I am convinced we can remove the beaver dams. But I am
also being given advise by those who do that, is that we need to trap the beavers first, so I
guess in just a short report, we’re working on it. We used to do it. We got chased off.
We will try and re-institute that program.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Kolb, on this list of projects, can you identify which
drainage-related projects the engineering is already completed and the project is being
held up because it is simply not fully funded?
Mr. Kolb: All of the projects on the list that are saying we need to funding needs
are ready to go either tomorrow or within two years.
Mr. Mayor: Which ones, the engineering is already completed?
Mr. Kolb: I ask Ms. Smith to identify those.
26
Ms. Smith: The drainage project that is specifically to address drainage-related
issues for which design has been completed and is ready to go to construction is the Raes
Creek Phase III Project.
Mr. Mayor: All right. So if this Commission were to take $1 million out of the
$3.1 million that’s available, that project could go to bids fairly quickly if the
engineering’s done?
Ms. Smith: The engineering’s done and the project has been let to bid, so we’ve
received bids back in.
Mr. Mayor: So you could award a contract fairly quickly then?
Ms. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: On that particular project. And that’s the only drainage problem on
here, project on here for which the engineering is completed at this time?
Ms. Smith: For which the engineering is completed. The ARC Drainage
Improvements Phase II, we’re in the process of finalizing the plans for that project as
well.
Mr. Mayor: All right. So if the Commission were to move $900,000 to that, that
could be out for bids fairly quickly.
Ms. Smith: Fairly quickly.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Beard: Just a clarification of what she said. What was the first one?
Ms. Smith: Raes Creek Phase III.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll go to the Mayor Pro Tem now. Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Colclough: What about the Morgan Road Improvement Project?
Ms. Smith: The Morgan Road Improvement Project is completed and is ready to
go out to bid. However, he specifically asked about drainage projects. Morgan Road
plans are on my desk, waiting to be sent to Purchasing. Warren Road is on my desk and
waiting to be sent to Purchasing. I think those are the two.
Mr. Colclough: When is Morgan Road going to Purchasing?
Ms. Smith: $704,000 dollars from now.
27
Mr. Colclough: So the Morgan Road that you’ve met out there in public meetings
with folks who got their hopes up that Morgan Road would be -- you can’t hear me?
The Clerk: No, sir.
Mr. Colclough: So the Morgan Road that you’ve gone out and held public
meetings with the people on Morgan Road and all this other stuff that Morgan Road is
going to be complete, you’re saying you still need $700,000, so if we moving, moving all
this money around, why can’t we just take another $700,000 of that money and send to
Morgan Road and send that one out, since you’ve had the public meetings and gone out
there and the people are waiting on it?
Ms. Smith: We’ve had the public meetings. What we, what we could do is we
can go ahead and send it to Purchasing, put it out to bid, see what the bids come back at
so we know the exact amount that we need to award the contract. So it can be done either
way. My comfort level is to identify the funds up front.
Mr. Colclough: I hear Mr. Kolb saying we’ve got $1.3 million and we’re talking
about moving monies around on this list.
Mr. Kolb: No.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] am I not hearing you correctly?
Mr. Kolb: Correct.
Mr. Colclough: Try it again and see if I can [inaudible].
Mr. Kolb: $3.1 million you have in unrestricted dollars.
Mr. Colclough: All right.
Mr. Kolb: Now there are projects that have not been done, that may or may not
be on this list that we believe could be delayed until SPLOST V. Yes, some of these
projects could be delayed that are on the list, but there are others that have not been
started that we could also stop.
Mr. Colclough: Are you saying ARC, take it out, the $900,000, the $3.1 million -
Mr. Kolb: No, no, I’m sorry. These are unfunded needs. These are not the actual
project dollars that are in the budget.
Mr. Colclough: But that $3.1 million available --
Mr. Kolb: Available. That is correct. On another list are projects --
28
Mr. Colclough: Let’s talk about this list. Don’t talk about that list. I’m talking
about Morgan Road. [inaudible] you’ve held the meetings, you’ve told the people you’re
going to [inaudible] the road, you’ve got the right-of-ways, but still you didn’t tell the
folks you didn’t have the money to do the road. That’s the issue. You went out there and
held all these meetings, and I had people calling me about Morgan Road, when are you
doing Morgan Road, and you tell these people that you are going to repair this road, and
now you sit here and say you don’t have the money to do it with. But [inaudible] and
$3.1 million [inaudible] go in and tell people one thing [inaudible] --
Mr. Kolb: At the time --
Mr. Colclough: It should be [inaudible] they say we’re coming out here, we’re
doing this, doing all these meetings and stuff, but let me tell you we don’t have the
money to do it with right now, you have to wait.
Mr. Kolb: At the time that the public hearing was held, I suspect that we were
still in design and had not finished our cost estimating, because we wanted public input
into the project. That’s usually how it works.
Mr. Colclough: But then you should have told the folks that’s what you’re doing.
Instead you lead them on that you had the money to repair this road, and knowing full
well you didn’t have the funds to do it.
Mr. Kolb: We didn’t. That’s my point. We didn’t know at the time of the
hearing.
Mr. Colclough: Why do you get people all stirred up, holding meetings, telling
them that we are going to fix the dips in this road and we’re going to widen the road and
we’re going to do all this stuff to it, but now you’re telling me that we don’t have the
money, we need $700,000 to do it? You should be up front with people.
Mr. Kolb: I think we were up front.
Mr. Colclough: I don’t think you was.
Mr. Mayor: I’ll get to the other Commissioners in a moment. I was doing some
quick math, and if you take the Morgan Road project, the Warren Road project, the Raes
Creek project and the ARC Drainage Improvements, which are all ready to ago, that
comes to about $3.1 million.
Mr. Colclough: He said we don’t have $3.1 million.
Mr. Mayor: No, he says we’ve got it. We’ve got this. So if the Commission
wanted to reassign that money, those are four projects we could get underway right away.
Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Williams.
29
Mr. Cheek: Just as status, Teresa, a status on the Travis Road/Plantation Road
drainage improvements. Is that completed engineering-wise and ready to go?
Ms. Smith: The engineering work is not completed on that project. We are
planning to hold a public meeting next month which would indicate that we are
approximately 30% complete with design.
Mr. Cheek: Okay. Quick question on Windsor Spring Road, Phase IV and V, if
we don’t allocate funding to that, does that further delay that project?
Ms. Smith: Actually, those funds for that project as are identified -- we probably
-- considering the amount of right-of-way that we have to acquire for the project, we are
probably 18 months out before we would need to use those funds.
Mr. Cheek: Okay, last question, and this is for you and the Attorney. On the
Willow Creek/Raes Creek area problem, we had one bid come in on that work?
Ms. Smith: Correct. Only one bid.
Mr. Cheek: My concern is two fold. One, we are not going with the
recommended engineering solution to this problem. We’ve kind of compromised with a
route around the pond, taking a third of the pond out; is that correct?
Ms. Smith: We developed the solution that was preferred by the -- it is an
engineering solution that will help the problem, but it is the solution that was preferred by
the residents of that area.
Mr. Cheek: So we’re asking the rest of the citizens to defer $1 million that could
help their projects for aesthetics in other, in this part/
Ms. Smith: And I can’t say that the full $1 million is the difference between what
the initial proposal was and what we’re actually going with.
Mr. Cheek: Well, that given -- and here again, until we take care of the bottom of
the problem, we are still going to have flooding in that area. From a liability standpoint,
if we do things to sustain the velocity of the water that comes through that area, instead of
having it spread out across the pond as it does now, down to #13 and #12 of the Augusta
National, if we do damage as a result of this work are we liable?
Mr. Wall: You talking about if we do the engineered solution to Willow Creek,
which increased the velocity and dump it out on adjoining property, whether or not we’re
creating any liability there?
Mr. Cheek: That’s correct.
Mr. Wall: Good question.
30
Mr. Cheek: We’re taking the kinks out of the hose right now. When we do this,
which is going to give the water a much greater shot down to Hogan and Nelson’s bridge,
I guess my concern is I’d like to see this fixed one and for all, but we’re just moving the
problem downstairs or downstream and we’re not solving the problem, we’re just moving
it to somebody else’s back yard.
Mr. Wall: The obvious answer is you’ve got potential liability. I’m not prepared
to address it right here today as far as whether there is liability. There are a number of
defenses to it, but there is obviously a potential for it.
Mr. Cheek: And Teresa, you may know this, is this fix designed to accommodate
th
the type of rainfall we had on the 30?
Ms. Smith: No, it will not. This particular solution will raise the entry road into
the subdivision such that the problem that existed with emergency vehicles having
difficulty ingressing and egressing out of the subdivision, that particular issue will be
improved. However, there will continue to be flooding in that particular area.
Mr. Cheek: So this is $1.8 million part fix, partial fix?
Ms. Smith: It will, it will assist in making the situation better.
Mr. Cheek: But it won’t solve the problem.
Ms. Smith: It will not solve the problem.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Smith, the ARC Drainage
Improvement Project, is that, is that inclusive with the Hyde Park area, in Hyde Park
[inaudible] is that anything to do with Hyde Park?
Ms. Smith: No, nothing at all.
Mr. Williams: And I sympathize with the people who down here now, Mr.
Mayor, and I thought we could take a couple of hundred thousand dollars [inaudible] but
I’m going to have a serious problem. I made a statement in this Chamber before that
some of my constituents don’t have two cars, they got a car and a boat, and they don’t
fish, but just in case it rain, in order to get out in Hyde Park, they have to have a boat to
get out. And that’s been for 50 years. It ain’t been three or four years ago. That’s been a
long time. And I’ve got a serious problem when we going to patch, and I think
[inaudible] in support, but if we going to start to jumping around, I mean you know, we
got to get in line to jump. All us can’t jump the same time. And these people have been
wrongly done, I guess is one way of putting it, but I’ve got a serious issue with not
considering the drainage problem that’s been in here a long, long time, rather than to
31
jumping to not to [inaudible], like Commissioner Cheek, just to kind of alleviate the
egress and in and out of a situation so that the emergency vehicles can get in. Where I’m
talking about now, the emergency vehicles won’t even go in with it rains. I mean if the
boat don’t meet them at the highway, then they just left out. And so we need to do some
serious looking, George, we need to find some money somewhere to address some of
these serious issues that’s out here. We don’t have a plan, but somebody ought to be
planning right now, somebody ought to be putting their heads together to come up with
something so we can address is. We know we blessed with a lot of rain. You mentioned,
Mr. Administrator, earlier that a lot of places flooding that never flood before in Augusta.
Any way you come to Augusta, you come in a hole. I don’t care if you come from
Carolina, from Waynesboro, from west Augusta, any way you come to Augusta you
come in a hole and water going to the lowest place, and we have had our share of rain,
but we have got some people that’s been suffering for a long time, and we need to do
something. Now we talking about building a courthouse and all this other stuff, but we
need to put some pipes in the ground. And I got a serious problem with some of those
folks putting pipe in the ground but that’s another topic.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, if I can just say one thing. If there is no objection from the
Commission, we will, we are talking to some engineers and we would like to have that
particular discussion with the Engineering Services Committee in the future.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Kuhlke and then [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: My question, Ms. Smith -- where did she go? There you are.
Thank you. The ARC Drainage Improvements Phase II, these are various projects across
the county; is that correct?
Ms. Smith: Various projects where the solutions are too large for our
maintenance forces, but we recognize that we are having some property damage and
things that need to be addressed, and they are within the confines of the county-owned
right-of-way or easements that this water travels through.
Mr. Shepard: To use Mr. Cheek’s expression, are these the low-hanging fruit that
can -- for relatively a small amount of money we can basically fund solutions to them?
Ms. Smith: That’s correct. And what we’ve done is we have packaged them
together, and if we can do these, they don’t become big problems at a later date.
Mr. Shepard: And I take it the Warren Road improvements are the ones you’re
talking about eliminating those ditches that have been so prominent and so deep along
that area?
Ms. Smith: That is correct. And part of the additional funds that are requested
there is where we have a 60” pipe that comes from the Montclair subdivision that dumps
over land and floods out a gentleman’s yard on its way to the ditch at Warren Road. So
that’s a problem that we also need to take care of with this project.
32
Mr. Shepard: Oh, there he is. Everybody is hard to see today. Maybe I ought to
put on my glasses. George, you are recommending that some of these projects could go
ahead today, and what is the administration’s recommendation, if any?
Mr. Kolb: I’m -- it’s really a Commission decision. You have to decide whether
or not you want to commit this $3.1 million. I was just telling Commissioner Boyles that
there are some unknowns out there, and some other unknowns, and if you spend all of
these dollars, they’re gone, and you’re going to have to look at abandoning some projects
that you have on the table now in SPLOST I through IV in order to address those
emergencies.
Mr. Shepard: But then in SPLOST V we could, we could take care --
Mr. Kolb: I am going to recommend that these dollars, these unfunded needs be
placed at the top of your list to finance in SPLOST V.
Mr. Shepard: I tell you, if it’s a Commission decision, I’m going to make a
motion that we expend the money on the Morgan Road improvements, the Warren Road
improvements, Raes Creek Section III and ARC Drainage Improvements Phase II.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Bridges: Got a question.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Bridges: Teresa, I see down here that if we spend that money we pretty well
have taken care of the $3.1 million. The Highway 56/New Goshen Road project,
$128,000, just had two people killed there a couple of weeks ago. This time last year had
two others killed. Will that, will that funding not be available to complete that projects if
we pass this motion?
Ms. Smith: I didn’t add them all up as they were doing them, Commissioner
Bridges.
Mr. Mayor: It came to [inaudible].
Ms. Smith: Okay. And I had actually just pointed out to the Mayor that 56 at
New Goshen is one of the projects that Public Works considered to be high priority on
this list, as well as they Peach Orchard Road work. That’s a Georgia Department of
Transportation project where they are ready to go to construction on that project as soon
as we identify funds to support the LPGA.
Mr. Bridges: That’s the $463,000?
33
Ms. Smith: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridges: What --
Mr. Mayor: If I could just inject something [inaudible] what you’re talking about.
[inaudible] seeking permission from the State to put some temporary traffic signals at that
intersection until the permanent work is done out there. So we hope to have those signals
up in the next couple of weeks.
Mr. Bridges: And I appreciate that, but once again, that’s temporary. There’s still
lane expansion and that type of thing that needs to be done. My, what I’m concerned
about here is if there is no possibility of getting $128,000 out of this $3.1 million, then
that permanent solution won’t ever happen. Jim?
Mr. Wall: Well, I wanted to caution the Commission so that there is no
misunderstanding as a result of this vote. I think the only two projects that have been out
for bid are the Warren Road Improvements and the Raes Creek. Teresa, correct me if I’m
wrong, but the Warren Road Improvements, even though we have an estimated cost of
what the bids will be, it has not been sent to purchasing. We don’t know what the bids
are and it may be $600,000 rather than the $700,000, or it may be $900,000 rather than
$700,000. And the same thing, I think, is true on the drainage improvements. Am I
correct?
Ms. Smith: Actually, the only project that has been out to bid is Raes Creek, and I
will bring to the Commission’s attention again that only one contractor bid on that
project. So we only had one bid that came in. That’s the only project that we have sent
out to bid that we have gotten back information from a contractor as to how much they
are willing to construct that project for.
Mr. Bridges: So what you’re saying then, Jim, is really the only ones we can vote
on are Raes Creek and not the Warren Road? I mean --
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] move ahead and you can [inaudible] the funding there but
I’m just saying that we, you may have to come back and ask for more money or may be
able to give up some money. I’m not sure. But the exact cost is not going to be known
until we get the bids in.
Mr. Bridges: I don’t, when we see that there’s a problem area, I don’t have any
problem in using this money for the Willow Creek area, a million dollars out of $3.1
million. I hate to commit the entire $3.1 million now and then we have other issues, as
we saw the Willow Creek, the Raes Creek project is $1 million short. That’s why we’re
here today. We thought we knew what the cost would be, and it’s going to be something
different. I’d much prefer to just be voting on one issue rather than the -- on the $1
million rather than committing the entire $3.1 million. You know, at this point. And
because we’re going to have these projects, you know, just the Goshen Road/Highway 56
has made the news again. It’s getting some attention again. I sure don’t want to lose the
34
opportunity to provide $128,000 to complete that project. I understand about the
temporary fix on the lights. We’re also looking at working with the property owner at
one of the corners for him to allow us to trim or cut back some of the growth there which
will allow the people coming out of Goshen Drive to better see the highway. We’re
working on that. But once again, that’s not a permanent solution, that’s temporary, and
we need a permanent solution on it. So I would much prefer to be voting on just the one
issue that we’re down here for today, rather than several of them.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Kuhlke and then Mr. Mays.
Mr. Kuhlke
: I’m like to make a substitute motion, and I know we’ve got folks
here from Willow Creek, but it does concern me a little bit that we only got one bid, and I
haven’t gotten an explanation -- I don’t know about Lee or Tommy -- on why the bid
was about a million dollars over what the estimate was. I’m talking about my
constituents’ District, but I live next -- and I have to pass there and I’m scared somebody
is going to catch me one day when I’m coming by there when y’all are parked on
But I’d like to make a substitute motion
Berckman Road, trying to get into your place.
that we on a priority basis, that we rebid Raes Creek -- and correct me. Ms. Smith,
if I’m off base here -- and that we expedite the awarding of that contract on Raes
Creek once we get it in and I think we’re probably looking at about six weeks.
Ms. Smith: We should be able to do that in that time frame.
Mr. Kuhlke:
The Warren Road project has been on the books since 1990. Ms.
Smith has a letter from the DOT to go ahead and prepare a contract on that particular
So my substitute motion is to rebid
road. That’s long enough for that to be on the list.
Raes Creek, to provide the funding for Warren Road so that we can move ahead
and that by the first week in October I would think Ms. Smith could come back to
us with the revised bids on the Raes Creek Project.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Second to that. Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I feel a little bit more comfortable in voting for the
substitute motion, but back up just a little bit. Commissioner Beard in District 1 has got
what was my old County Commission District. In my Super District I can look down and
see most of this in District 9. And by just the fact that people have a need, they can’t vote
for me and I can’t run no more, but I got some problems in Districts where I have no
direct vote [inaudible]. I say that to say this. I can vote for Bill’s substitute motion, but
what I think what needs to be done, and this doesn’t have to be a part of the motion,
[inaudible] our Engineering Services Chairman has been doing a good job, Mr. Mayor, in
terms of holding the open workshops and of trying to get each of us to participate,
particularly non-committee members. What I think needs to be expanded on, I know it’s
hard sometimes to call a full Commission meeting because then you have to [inaudible] if
no quorum is there, it’s not official. But what I’m going to ask that we do is open the
35
door to that next scheduled workshop and deal with looking at the projects that are in
front of us right now. Cause I’m going to tell you what’s confusing. We need to have --
I’m going to wait until [inaudible] cause I need to get gentleman’s attention when I say
what I’m going to say. I know that’s important [inaudible] get [inaudible]. What I think
needs to happen, George, is that this list needs to be further dissected from the standpoint
that it needs to show the percentages of DOT participation that are guaranteed on each
project, it needs to show a year of origination, it needs to show that in the process of
trying to prioritize we can go back and see how far we are away from being able to
complete a particular project realistically. And I’ve said this more times, Mr. Mayor,
than y’all want to hear, but that when DOT is that close to helping you with a project, it
makes no sense to take them [inaudible] tray and start something new when you are a
yardstick away. I think if you are going to re-prioritize, then you need to look and see
how close you are, put the real numbers out where we can all look at them, and to the
point that -- for lack of a better word -- those projects and money, George, that say for
instance are moving at a turtle’s pace but are still under Public Works, because the $3.1
million, we could get into a blood letting in three minutes and with a vote of six some
way it could all be gone. And you still have a problem in the same neighborhood. We’ve
not even addressed the point, for instance, Alexander Drive is on this list. I don’t have a
vote in Alexander Drive, but if it rains two more times on Alexander Drive, it’s going to
fall in. You are going to shut it down totally. It will not be there. It will absolutely
collapse. Now [inaudible] emergency money on Alexander Drive? Well, if we going to
do $100,00 of the emergency money on Alexander Drive and if I’m looking here cause I
don’t know what the total is on Alexander Drive [inaudible] $363,871. Well, I would
more inclined rather than putting $100,000 on emergency to do Alexander Drive is to go
ahead and reprogram $263,000 and do Alexander Drive right, if I’m reading the numbers
right. If you’re telling me the total thing needed is $363,000 and you’ve got all of it but
you’re getting $100,000 on an emergency, why do a third of it on an emergency
[inaudible] when you could do Alexander Drive for $370,000? Those are the type of re-
prioritizations that I’m talking about that I think you are going to have to, Mr. Chairman,
set aside, and you’re doing an excellent job with is, but I think that needs to be next
course of the agenda where if we are going to move this, if we deal with Willow Creek,
we look at what we can really program and get the most mileage out of that money.
Cause that makes no sense to be over here dealing with that, and you’re that close to
completing a project [inaudible] end of my District and go to east Augusta. East Augusta
started in 1987 in the first SPLOST. I’m looking at some stuff over there and [inaudible]
list here when we had two different governments. We still working on East Boundary.
There ain’t no way in the world we should still be dealing with East Boundary when
that’s the lowest elevation in the whole county, closest to the swamp, closest to the river,
it’s on flat land. It’s about half a million dollars. Now it makes more sense to me, Mr.
Kolb, [inaudible] how close we are to completing that. That’s why I’m saying this is
good, but it ain’t good enough. This needs to be dissected further so I can see how close
we are in moving it. Third thing, Mr. Mayor, and I’ll be through. I don’t think we can
just look at the $3.1 million. Now what I’m fixing to say ain’t going to make some folks
happy on this Commission. But there are some projects sitting still that are in another
category of Public Works, then maybe we need to look at those projects, hypothetically
speaking, let me give you a good example. If we started off with $7 million to pave
36
unpaved roads, if we still got between $4 million and $5 million in unpaved roads and we
got folk that don’t want to do donate property to go from dirt to pavement and the money
is there to do it, and our right-of-way exhaust every means to get folk to sign on, then I
don’t think that should be a sacred area. I’m going to get wide open today. I think that
ought to be brought to the table, too. We ought not just be getting in here to get into a
chicken coop fight over this $3.1 million. We need to bring all that we’ve got [inaudible]
to the table. If you got [inaudible] and something’s not moving, then maybe let’s look at
putting some of that in Phase V. Because you can send out, double the right-of-way
force, can’t make them sign it. So what do we do? Sit on the money? Well, folk, in
Marion’s District [inaudible] you can lose a whole car in water in one afternoon. It just
doesn’t make sense. I think that’s where we need to go and further expand this to dissect
it to a point to say where are we really with this list? What is it really going to take to
complete it? Cause I see what the numbers are. I see what the $11 million total is. But
the $11 million total doesn’t [inaudible] just like the conversation that Steve, you and Jim
and I had. This doesn’t reflect the total amount of projects [inaudible]. If $11 million is
needed, you may have $40 million in projects which won’t get done because you still
need a difference of $11 million. So the multiplier effect is far greater than the
difference, so while this only gives you the difference, it does not give you the multiplier
effect in terms of what won’t get done. When $35 million to $40 million won’t get done,
folk don’t work. Machines don’t turn. People don’t punch a time clock in the yard
before they leave. That slows down your excess sales tax because then they have no
buying power. They then go to indigent care. They fall in unemployment. So there is a
overall factor of job creation and continuance that you’ve got to look at other than just
what the difference of the money is. So I think that needs to be [inaudible] for whether
it’s for this Friday or the next Friday, however you want to set it, you’ve [inaudible]
praise, something we’ve never done before. Andy’s done a good job with it, but I think
that’s the step where we need to move. And we can move [inaudible] where we’re
talking with today to the top of that list of getting that done, but you’re going to, you’re
going to seriously go in here and see what you’ve got left, how close it is. Because I’d
much rather, to a point, if I am 90% away from completing a $600,000 project, don’t just
leave it out there, because you’re $75,000, to a point go after something else. I think --
and we can do that while we’re rebidding Raes Creek. And I said I was through, Mr.
Mayor, but I wasn’t. What I still am angry about at Raes Creek is this. When y’all go
back to do with Raes Creek, I said this, Mr. Kolb, and I don’t know whether anybody
been listening, but Raes Creek needs to seriously be reexamined to see whether the
engineering that was done that we are going by in its overall plan holds true today. The
development has changed, its geographics and the pressure of that water is no where
where it was when we started talking about engineering on Raes Creek. It’s different and
that affects Willow Creek and it affects everything else downstream. So I think when
you got back, you do the talking with the engineers, Ms. Smith, I think it’s incumbent
upon us to relook at the city’s engineers in that area. That’s just, quite frankly, it
[inaudible] something wrong, but it’s just a fact that in 2003, almost 2004, [inaudible]
work? We been dealing with this thing, you know, getting into 15, 20 years now. We
got a whole lot that’s been put up there on that end. And as I said at the last meeting, you
think you’re seeing some water, wait until the next two lanes of I20 get up there. It’s
going to dump some more. And it’s going to come there straight into Raes Creek. And
37
the rest of it’s going to dump right down into where [inaudible] and I’m going to catch
[inaudible]. But I think it is time that we reexamined that, George, and look at it. Your
overall plan for storm water, that’s got to be done. But I think in the immediate time of
what we do there, we got to go through this list and really look at what we complete,
because this gives me numbers, but I don’t think you’ll get [inaudible] quite frankly
District fight about this is not here, this is not there, and ultimately you solve nothing
when that happens. So you got some people with some real serious problems that we
going to have to deal with, and I think [inaudible] can do that but I think also there is
some money that can be brought to the table that we, quite frankly, we sitting on because
we prioritized it that way and folk [inaudible] cooperating and right now we got some
serious [inaudible] south end, the western end of the city. And I’m through with that Mr.
Mayor, but I just wanted to recommend that to our able Engineering Chairman. I’m on
his committee. I’ll assist him with whatever way I can. But I think that needs to be done.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Hankerson is next.
Mr. Hankerson: I decline.
Mr. Mayor: You want me to come back to you?
Mr. Hankerson: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles, do you want to say something?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I do. I don’t want to prolong this.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]
Mr. Boyles: Thank you. Thank you very much. I just have a question. When we
get information put in for a project at $800,000 and then it comes back later at $1.8
million, an increase of a million dollar, where did we get the initial figure of $800,000
from? How did we miss in an estimate of that much? Because -- or did the scope of the
project change? Because if this was started out as Willow Creek in 1984 at $365,000, I
believe it’s what the records show, have we gone through Willow Creek and go into the
Raes, as it says, Raes Creek Section III Improvements all the way to Lake Olmstead? Is
that what we’re doing now for the $1.8 million? What does that cover?
Ms. Smith: Actually the $364,000 estimate that was included in the original plan
that was developed for Raes Creek was the amount of money that it would have taken to
construct that project in 19 -- you said 84?
Mr. Boyles: ’84.
Ms. Smith: Okay.
38
Mr. Boyles: I think it was a commitment that the old City of Augusta made,
because the City of Augusta had to give, Richmond County had to give, allocate the fund
to the City of Augusta from the one cent sales tax, if I’m right. And that commitment
was made.
Ms. Smith: I’m not sure what the year was, but the fund that you are speaking of,
what it was was the cost to construct that project in the year [inaudible] books.
Mr. Boyles: [inaudible] Berckman Road to Lake Olmstead, is that Section III of
Raes Creek?
Ms. Smith: Section III of Raes Creek goes from Berckman Road to the National
Hills -- the beginning of the Augusta National. That’s Raes Creek Section III. That’s the
scope of work that was on the books to be designed in the project files of 1998 when we
sent the scope of work out to the engineering firm to do the design.
Mr. Boyles: So the engineering firm gave us the figure of $800,000 and that was
what was included in Phase IV?
Ms. Smith: Well, no, the -- the difference in the cost to construct the project from
the time that it was originally identified and the time that we went out to bid is of course
a product of it just costs more to do things now than it did to do things back when it was
originally put on the books. The $800,000 estimate was put together by the engineering
firm and was verified by our lead construction engineer, Mr. Robert Clements, who is
with us today. As we do with all projects before we put them out to bid. And we base
that information on previous bids that have come in and the cost that we received from
construction contractors to do similar type of work. Recent work that’s come in. We’ve
had a meeting with the engineering firm, as well as the construction contractor, to attempt
to determine why there was such a vast difference in the $800,000 estimate and the $1.8
million bid that came in. And the -- while there were a number of items that he had
indicated are a product of what current costs are, in that the price of gas is higher, the
price of renting the equipment, there are a number of things like that that impact. The
other thing that’s taken into consideration, they feel that they have a liability [inaudible]
because of the way our contracts are written, is any impact down stream to the Augusta
National that may occur while this contract, while this project is under construction.
Mr. Boyles: You mean the engineers didn’t take that into consideration, the
Augusta National being as big as it is?
Ms. Smith: I’m not implying that they didn’t take it into consideration. I
certainly know that they’re aware that it’s there. But with respect to what comfort level
the construction contractor would have with working in close proximity to the Augusta
National, I mean that’s not information that they would have. That’s something that
would vary from contractor to contractor.
39
Mr. Boyles: Let me ask another question, since [inaudible] Mr. Kuhlke’s motion.
Warren Road. We’re showing here that it’s $467,000 short, but it hasn’t gone to bid. So
how do we know what it costs?
Ms. Smith: Again, it’s based on our -- the estimate that we received from the
engineering firm, as well as our in-house estimate.
Mr. Boyles: That could be like Willow Creek, Raes Creek [inaudible] come in
like that.
Ms. Smith: It very well could. We have no control over what the contractors
submit when they submit bids. However, I will say, and commend Mr. Clements.
Typically the estimates that he gives on projects, and that we work with our engineering
firms on, we come in generally somewhere within 3% to 5% of what our in-house and
what our engineering estimates are.
Mr. Boyles: You miss many by a million dollars?
Mr. Clements: Sir?
Mr. Boyles: Do you miss many by a million dollars? Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: Is it time for me?
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I just have a couple of things to say. In reference to what
Mr. Boyles was talking about, when I hear 80’s, we’re talking almost 10, 12 years ago,
that we was involved in this. And it goes back to the city so I -- that’s been a long time,
so I’m sure things change [inaudible]. My other question would be how do we qualify
emergencies? And I know if your house is flooded, this is an emergency. But as I look
over this list, you know, we can consider all of these as emergencies. And I’m not -- I
thth
think we’re going to have to think above which District, 7 District, 6 District, or
whatever we’re talking about, and look at the city. I’m in agreement with Mr. Mays and
in agreement with George that we need a flood management plan. And we have to have
that. And I know that’s going to take some time. But you know, the other part, and
which Willie talked about a little bit, was that we need to really look at this list and if
we’re going to do it Friday, I think we ought to do that. Because it can get in a rat race
here with the $3 million and you know, we play games around here sometimes. We get
our constituents to come down and you know, we pack the house. I think all ten of us
could do that. But you got to be a little more broad minded than that. The whole county,
from Ulmer’s District on the south end to Tommy’s on the west end, and all throughout
[inaudible]. We are having problems. And we need to address all of those problems and
give all of those problems equal time and look at them and to really consider where it the
40
best place to use this money and what is the most comfort level that we can get and we
should all look at this as a city problem and not a District problem [inaudible] and I know
everybody need relief at this particular time, but we have to do that. And I would hope
that whatever Andy has planned for Friday, whatever time he has, that we could come
together as a group and go over this and make a decision that’s good for the entire city.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just a couple of things and then I want to ask our
Parliamentarian for an issue of appropriateness. We can, and that’s one of the reasons we
have our work sessions, is to cover emergency issues like this. We have been dealing
with drainage for some time now. We will cover this. I just encourage everybody to, I
guess, pack your lunch and maybe your sleeping bag. We’ve got a full slate this Friday.
Madame Clerk, we may need dinner, too. Teresa, just a quick question. On ARC
Drainage Improvements, does that include Pinnacle Place in that work?
Ms. Smith: No, it does not.
Mr. Cheek: Now I’m going to ask a question here concerning Willow Creek. Is it
true that there were no houses that had water in them?
Ms. Smith: We have no information that water actually got into houses in Willow
Creek. And there are some members here that may be able to speak differently to that,
but the information that we have does not indicate, that was given to Public Works, does
not indicate that water got into houses at Willow Creek.
Mr. Cheek: This is primarily an ingress and egress issue for emergency vehicles
and access [inaudible]?
Ms. Smith: And nuisance flooding in the yards, and I think some of the residents
complained about --
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Cheek: In foundations, that’s a level of -- you know that raises the bar, but
I’m speaking of in houses. The thing that I want everybody to understand is I think the
priority, and I’m trying to address this [inaudible] city-wide issues is we do have people
with flooding in their houses. That’s got to be priority one. And then other priorities
would come in descending order. Foundations, yards, driveways, and so forth. We’re
going to try to address these things, but Mr. Mayor, the question I had for appropriateness
is following this motion, I would like to -- this is one of the pearls, I hope we don’t
[inaudible] out of this conversation, is to follow this with a motion, if appropriate, that we
instruct staff to go out for request for proposals to develop a drainage master plan as
[inaudible] Utilities Department, our water system, and then also as a companion to that,
come back with a report on recommended funding sources, be it drainage basin, service
fees or whatever, that we have some information to look at sustained maintenance of
41
these systems. Because one of the problems we have, some of the low hanging fruit that
occurs all of the city is we have so many of these secondary drainage ditches that are in
need of maintenance, scraping and so forth, and we have no funding source and staff to
cover that maintenance on a regular basis. And a lot of our problems could be solved
simply by carrying out a routine maintenance plan and re-aligning these drainage ditches.
But I’d like to follow that with that motion if that is appropriate.
Mr. Mayor: Once the Commission disposes of the substitute motion, then
certainly you would be in a position to make another substitute motion should you desire.
We can just have no more than two motions on the floor.
Mr. Cheek: I’m just saying, since it’s germane to the discussion as far a drainage
--
Mr. Mayor: If it is germane to the agenda item.
Mr. Cheek: So I can follow up with a motion?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. That’s correct. If no other discussion, then we’ll
go ahead and vote and take up first the substitute motion that was presented by
Commissioner Kuhlke. Does anybody need that read again?
Mr. Boyles: Yes.
Mr. Bridges: Please.
Mr. Mayor: All right, if you would read that, Madame Clerk>
The Clerk: Mr. Kuhlke’s motion was on a priority basis to rebid the Raes Creek
project and expedite the awarding of the contract within a six week period and provide
funding for the Warren Road project completion.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of that motion, please raise your hand.
Mr. Hankerson: Excuse me, could we have the other one read, too?
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: The original motion?
The Clerk: The original motion?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes.
The Clerk: The original motion was out of the $3.1 million that was identified by
Mr. Kolb as unrestricted funding, was to fund the Morgan Road Improvement Project, the
42
Warren Road Improvement Project, Raes Creek Phase III, and the ARC Drainage
Improvement Phase I think.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’re voting now on the substitute motion. Please raise your
hand and raise it high so the Clerk can see if. If you’re in favor of it.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Colclough votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Shepard: Call for the order of the day.
Mr. Mayor: All right. The Chair is going to recognize Mr. Cheek for the purpose
of making a motion.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to make a motion that we
instruct staff to send out a request for proposals for a firm to create a drainage
master plan consistent with what we did with the 2000 Master Plan for our Utilities
Department and to come back with a report on the funding alternatives for these
projects.
Mr. Shepard: Second the motion.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: The -- first, I’m going to vote for the Chairman’s motion, but I know
he can set the agenda. I just want to get something clear. I don’t necessarily think it has
to be in the motion, but while we are instructing staff, is it possible, since we are going to
have to still come back, Commissioner Cheek, to this list of projects that’s on here for
possible reprogramming, can they be instructed also for work session or called meeting,
whichever it’s called, that we can get a further breakdown on the projects that are here
and what is the status as far as DOT funding at present level and of how far away they are
from being [inaudible]? And a perfect example is the fact that everybody pretty much in
this Commission Chamber, Mr. Mayor, knows that we don’t have the funding to do St.
th
Sebastian Way, Greene Street, and 15 Street, and that’s $4.8 million. Well, that $4.8
million can be taken off the $14 million right away. And we down to less than $9.6
million. And you got $3 million to be reprogrammed and you bring back in some of the
other money, you got some you can concretely talk about. [inaudible] at least solve
probably 60% to 70% of these problems and don’t have to get into a dog fight about
them. And I just [inaudible] but I’m going to vote for the motion, but I just want you to -
- I think if you don’t [inaudible] some instruction of what you want them to do, then you
come back -- I don’t need to see this list again. I saw this last week. I’m looking at it
43
now. I need to get to a point where I can make some other decisions about some of these
others on here. Railroad Street where I’ve got folk with half of a street caved in, has been
living behind concrete barriers for four years, two Public Works Directors, and two
Administrators ago. I need to get that done. So I mean I need to get some answers to
move with that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Kolb: [inaudible]
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, [inaudible] is there a readily available list we can have
[inaudible] of unpaved roads and other things that are partially funded that we could look
for a slate of projects to push back [inaudible]?
Mr. Kolb: We were going to do exactly what Commissioner Mays is talking
about. SPLOST I through IV. And get all those done. Now whether there is a ready-
made list, I don’t know, and it’s going to take us a minute to put all that together. We put
this list together in IV now, but to go through I through IV may take a little longer.
Mr. Mays: Let me clear it up. I may have thrown that out a little bit [inaudible],
Mr. Mayor. I’m not necessarily talking about going I through IV. I’m talking about
going by what you all have already just put here. Some of this does, some of this may
cover I through IV, but, you know, that’s just, that’s just the nature of the beast. You got
to deal with it where it is. If it came in IV and ought to be in I, ought to be done in I, then
it’s a history there. It’s a paper trail to what it costs, what it should run now, what
percentage the DOT is sitting on. Mr. Hankerson, for instance, the other day, he doesn’t
have a project that’s on here. But -- he’s got some that’s on here, but one [inaudible] the
Glenn Hills Drive widening. It may be that it’s now reduced to turn lanes and not a
widening. But the DOT has money ready to go for it. Richmond County has zero
money. Those are the kind of instances that I’m talking about that if DOT is sitting up
there with $800,000 to $900,000 ready to move on a project, then we need to take a trip
back and say hey, if you’ve got it waiting on us, we got something else ready to go, can
you give it to us on that, if not, then let’s move some other money and at least get those
done. That’s what we’re not doing. And that’s why I’m saying this [inaudible] further
dissected. I’m still going with your motion, but I’m not getting this to where, Mr. Mayor,
it gets us off of this page of lists. I can memorize this list and tell you what’s on here. I
can’t see it that well but [inaudible] I can memorize it and tell you what comes up to $14
million. And I’ve already got you down under $10 million now. Cause one of them you
can’t do at all. So I mean that’s they kind of thing I’m talking about in a workshop
setting that will assist our Chairman in terms of getting some of this moved off. Because
to meet back and still come back with the same thing, come back with the same thing, it’s
just not going to get it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke.
44
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, one thing I wanted to say about the comments of Mr.
Mays. If I’m not mistaken, St. Sebastian Way was on a specific schedule, Teresa. We
may have gotten an extension on it, but I think we’ve got $15 million worth of federal
funds sitting out there that we do have a time frame that something is supposed to happen
on that; am I correct?
Ms. Smith: You’re correct. And I believe we have $18 million on it.
Mr. Kuhlke: $18 million. And my other comment for George is, as you look at
this drainage situation, is what sort of assistance we might be able to get from FEMA.
Mr. Kolb: Correct. That’s what we need help on.
Mr. Mays: Well, Mr. Mayor, while I agree with Bill on that about the St.
Sebastian and the federal funding, the point remains that the feds are the feds. ARC is
ARC. I’m talking in real terms. We ain’t got $4.8 million to go toward St. Sebastian
Way. You’ve got to realistically look at what we got, gentlemen. We don’t have it. If
they had $100 million and say you needed $4 million tomorrow, we’ll give you $100
million, you don’t have $4 million to spend over there. So let’s get realistic about what
you’ve got and get to what you can realistically [inaudible] Now that’s the real essence
of what you’ve got and [inaudible] off. Now somebody else can go find $3.8 million.
Disney World, fairy tale, Peter Pan, wherever you want to get it from, get it. But I’m
saying you don’t have it, and if you had it already we would have moved on it and
matched the $15 million that the feds have. We don’t have it.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Any other discussion? We’ll call the question on the
motion from Commissioner Cheek. You have a question or are you voting, Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I’m just voting.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All in favor, please raise your hand.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: In view of the hour, the Chair will declare a five minute recess.
When we come back, we will take up the matter over on Mayo Road.
(Recess)
Mr. Mayor: Item 34 and --
Ms. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Just a moment, Fran. Let the Clerk read the caption for me. Wait a
moment, wait a moment. We’ll take up items 34 and 35. Madame Clerk, if you would
read those captions, please.
45
The Clerk:
34. Z-03-60 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Steve Brown, on behalf of Courtney
Tobb Well, et al., requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family
Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located where
the southwest right-of-way line of Stevens Creek Road intersects with the northwest
right-of-way line of Mayo Road and containing approximately 2 acres. (Part of Tax
Map 6 Parcel 13) DISTRICT 7 (Deferred from the July 15th Commission Meeting)
35. Z-03-61 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to deny a petition by Steve Brown, on behalf of Courtney
Tobb Well, et al., requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family
Residential) to Zone P-1 (Professional) affecting property located on the northwest
right-of-way line of Mayo Road, 306.09 feet southwest of a point where the
southwest right-of-way line of Stevens Creek Road intersects with the northwest
right-of-way line of Mayo Road and containing approximately 5.33 acres. (Part of
Tax Map 6 Parcel 13) DISTRICT 7
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: Could I ask [inaudible] --
Mr. Mayor: They were supposed to talk. Let me see if they talked.
The Clerk: They did.
Mr. Kuhlke: They’ve talked but they didn’t make much progress.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Kuhlke: And I think Steve might want to say something before we get started
and we don’t have to talk around the clock on this.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Trying to get him up here.
Mr. Brown: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Let me ask you this, just for the record, the instructions from the
Commission were to talk to the neighbors and try to work something out. Were y’all able
to work something out, for the record? Can you, do you have agreement on either one of
these two items as they are presented today?
Mr. Brown: My proposal [inaudible] is to pursue the Professional zoning.
Mr. Mayor: Which item?
46
Mr. Brown. 34. 35.
Mr. Mayor: 35. So what you would do is withdraw that item?
Mr. Brown: [inaudible] trying to give some concessions here.
Mr. Mayor: All right. That will limit the scope of our discussion.
Mr. Kuhlke: Could I ask Mr. Brown --
Mr. Mayor: Go right ahead, Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: Would you like to withdraw that without prejudice?
Mr. Brown: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: And you wanted, we wanted to hear from Mr. Patty on --
Mr. Brown: Well, if he would just like to give an unbiased viewpoint.
Mr. Mayor: George, you want to talk about this in the context of withdrawing the
Professional zoning then?
Mr. Patty: The request was for Commercial at the corner and the remainder of the
property Professional. The Planning Commission considered that request the considered
the objection and they [inaudible] corner a couple of acres, recommending zoning a
couple of acres [inaudible] corner Commercial and denying the P-1. That came to you
all. There was still objection. The petitioner still wanted to pursue the P-1. So you sent
them to meet and talk about it. They met, met for an hour-and-a-half or so. There was a
lot of, there were a lot of misunderstandings. We tried to get the information to
everyone. There are still some people that feel there should be no zoning. Obviously the
petitioner would like to have [inaudible] compromise, but there were two specific
compromises thrown out. One was from the objectors, some of the objectors, certainly
not all of them, was that only the corner would be zoned and there would be no access on
Mayo Road. I think from the petitioner’s standpoint there were obvious problems with
that. The petitioner through out a possible compromise that some of the Professional
would be zoned, Commercial would be zoned, and there would be access only up toward
Stevens Creek Road on Mayo Road [inaudible] and there was not much interest in that on
the part of the objectors. So we left without a specific compromise but I felt like there
were some things accomplished and hopefully this can be worked out here today, that
they withdraw the Professional.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles.
47
Mr. Boyles:
If I may, thank you. I attended that meeting and I also made some
phone calls the next day to Mr. Wall and to Ms. Stewart and to Mr. Cromer and some
And I’d like to offer this
others in the neighborhood. Ms. [inaudible] over there.
motion based on that, that would give us a starting point to go from,that we
approve with the stipulation that no driveway be made on Mayo Road and that a
request be made to Columbia County to provide a traffic signal at Stevens Creek
and Watervale to slow down the traffic from Columbia County. I’d offer that in the
form of a motion.
Mr. Mayor: Would you include in your motion allowing him to withdraw
item number 35 without prejudice?
Mr. Boyles: I would allow that since he’s requested it.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. You want to comment on the
motion and then we’ll hear from some of the folks in the neighborhood?
Mr. Brown: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, my proposal again for this particular
issue is the -- [inaudible] this [inaudible] surrounded [inaudible] above it, [inaudible],
rezone the property on the corner [inaudible] other corner has [inaudible]. In my opinion,
[inaudible]
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Brown: It is my opinion that, you know, our proposal here, the reason why
[inaudible] is to have something that is going to provide some convenience to the
neighborhood. We propose a single use, one building with protective covenants that
would [inaudible] the compatibility of existing residential property, a use that would
somehow, you know, complement [inaudible], a bicycle operation, an out door store, a
gift store, something like that, that’s strictly low key in the neighborhood. And that’s
what we are trying to pursue. [inaudible] like I said before, let’s do something that will
enhance the neighborhood.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, you have a question?
Mr. Beard: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I guess this is to you. If we’re allowing him to
withdraw this without prejudice and he’s going to work out something with the
protestors, then why are we into this point, and why is a motion being made?
Mr. Boyles: There was two motions. There’s a B-1 and a P-1, Mr. Beard.
Mr. Mayor: There are two separate issues, two separate items, two separate
zoning issues.
48
Mr. Boyles: B-1 was on Stevens Creek Road and the P-1 was on Mayo Road.
Mr. Mayor: He’s pursuing the Business rezoning but he’s withdrawing the
Professional.
Mr. Brown: As a concession of meeting with the neighborhood, and it was my
opinion that major contention here was going down Mayo Road [inaudible] the corner
Commercial lot for Professional use.
Mr. Beard: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Are there some people from the neighborhood who wish to be heard?
Fran, if you’ll give us your name and address for the record.
Ms. Stewart: Fran Stewart. I live at 2060 Bridgewater Drive, Augusta, Georgia
30907.
Mr. Mayor: Fran, we had a pretty thorough public airing of this at the last
meeting.
Ms. Stewart: Yes. My husband was here and I appreciate y’all accepting his.
George Hewitt wrote you a letter last week that all of you should have had, and I tried to
address in a packet that each of you has in front of you all of the issues that were brought
up. There is a paper clip that is sort of my cover letter and then I’m going to be referring
to the things right underneath there.
Mr. Mayor: All right. If you would limit the scope of your discussion --
Ms. Stewart: I will.
Mr. Mayor: -- to the Commercial property on the corner.
Ms. Stewart: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: And the motion that we have at hand is to approve the B-1 with the
restriction on the curb cuts.
Ms. Stewart: Okay. My first statement that you’ll see, it talks about when we had
th
the meeting on the 12, we felt that no professional business or any cuts on Mayo Road
except those at residential, single-family homes. We prefer no business on Stevens
Creek. If it must be, we only want a cut on Stevens Creek Road. And in the packet,
you’ll see that I have this Augusta Richmond County -- I’ve been so waiting for the
comprehensive land use plan to be drafted. On the next page you’ll see I highlighted
what y’all had said on commercial and professional office development on minor,
arterials and collector roads. There was discussion when Charles was here about Mayo
49
being a collector road. And in this, it says if you’re going to put something there, you
want it only 500’ x 300’. And so I don’t know how much this two acres is, but I certainly
want it to hold to be in the areas where there is a precedent for commercial and
professional office development, commercial and professional zoning shall be limited to
a radius of approximately 500 from the center of the intersection to a strip not more than
300’ if appropriate. And so that’s what I’m asking you to look at. And as far as, he
asked a question about arterial roads, and Mr. Patty had said that Mayo Road was a
collector road. So --
Mr. Mayor: That’s not -- Fran, I just --
Ms. Stewart: Okay. You have information in there where I disagree that Mayo
Road is a local road, and I hope I never have to come up here again about Mayo Road.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
(Laughter)
Ms. Stewart: The other thing I’ve given you is a map of -- you Commissioners
voted, bought 6-1/2 acres, a $1.2 million park that you have a picture of. So I think you
considered us residential when you decided to put a park there. There is something
important that I would like to show you that all of you have a copy of a plat, that thank
goodness I put when I got it on the back, and it was ’91 and ’92, and this is a plat
showing all of this. You have it on there where I’ve got the red A’s on your maps here.
You’ll see that that was zoned agricultural, agricultural. Mr. Cromer’s property was
business. But it is not there. On the next plat I’ll show you. But the only business we
had was that right here at Stevens Creek, the Mayo -- I mean West Lake Manor is over
across the street, and what I’m concerned about is whatever y’all decide to do over here,
next to Riverwatch Parkway. I don’t want it impacting Mayo Road. That’s why I’m a
little disappointed that I can’t make my plight that we don’t want any professional
businesses or any roads cut in on either side. I would like for you to look on that plat.
Rock Creek is on there. You were just talking about Rock Creek, and it actually starts on
the other side of Riverwatch Parkway at the railroad tracks. That goes from Westside,
over Stevens Creek, Alexander Drive, Warren Lake [inaudible] silt. The last thing that
you have in here is a plat. [inaudible] showing up, and I had to piece it together, and I
had to take the liberty of writing the names of the roads in because Planning & Zoning
does not have the two where they go together. So you have to trust me on that. And I
have drawn in where Stevens Creek is blue, Riverwatch Parkway and Furys Ferry is blue,
and then I’ve highlighted where our neighborhoods are. Brookfield, Mayo Subdivision,
Watervale, Hunters Ridge, West Hills, and Sterling Heights. And as you can see, all of
this on the other plat was agricultural and you can see all of this has been zoned R-1A.
All the way, you know, from the Dennis Road, Sterling Heights property that backs up to
the quarry, and the Riverwatch -- what’s the one that’s right behind West Hills? All of
that is R-1A. All the way over to Fury’s Ferry Road. And then you can see Mayo Road
is drawn in orange, and I had to put an X at the end of that road because you know, I’m
always talking about proper map identification. Well, that’s where the road ends. That’s
50
a driveway into that man’s house. So I do not call this a collector road at all. And I hope
you won’t either. And you’ll notice that Mr. Cromer’s property has an A on it.
Agricultural. That was his request. On Mayo Road y’all had talked about the Hardin
boys that were running a business there. I’ve checked with Rob Sherman, and on the
rezoning you’ll see that he is residential but he has three manufactured homes and he has
an accessory building, and all of that was grand fathered in 2002 when they rezoned this
to single-family homes. And George Hewitt is building a house that you can see where
Brookfield Park is, and there’s Pierce Grove Baptist Church, and then there’s an area that
whoever buys this land can get onto Mayo Road from that that adjoins Stevens Creek
Road. So it’s very important to me that we never have any cuts into Mayo Road for
professional or business at all. We want all of Mayo Road to stay single family. And so
--
Mr. Mayor: Well, the --
Ms. Stewart: The traffic engineering, you asked about that. And traffic
engineering did come down and do a study and they said we did not warrant a red light
there. And George Hewitt’s family was told that in Columbia County there’s going to be
a new school in the vicinity of Evans-to-Locks Road and Stevens Creek Road, which
may create even more traffic. So anyhow, with that said, I really would like for you to
think about where we have land left to develop. You know, we have land along Rock
Creek there, Alexander Drive, on the side of Riverwatch Parkway. And you know, I
would really prefer y’all create more single family homes and less professional. You can
see across from Fury’s Ferry there’s 53 acres split between Richmond and Columbia
County that’s zone business. The storage shed unit on Riverwatch Parkway that has all
the you know, buildings you can rent, Mr. Crowell has built three that are for lease right
now. Are there any questions?
Mr. Mayor: Let me ask you a question, please. And this goes directly to the issue
that’s in front of the Commission as a result of the motion.
Ms. Stewart: Right.
Mr. Mayor: Now according to the handout that you’ve given us, the residents of
Brookfield prefer there not be a business.
Ms. Stewart: Right.
Mr. Mayor: But if the motion prevails today, the curb cut would be on Stevens
Creek Road.
Ms. Stewart: Right.
Mr. Mayor: Not on Mayo Road.
Ms. Stewart: Right. And only 500’ by 300’.
51
Mr. Mayor: Now is that, can you respond to the motion that’s been made and --
Mr. Brown: Mr. Mayor, let me say, we’re [inaudible] 306’ down Mayo by 500’.
Okay? And we’re on a corner here and we’re talking about a B-1 use that doesn’t
compete with people coming back and forth to their residences. The business doesn’t
open up until after nine o’clock, and closes at five or six. I don’t see the major problem
here after the traffic engineering study. The curb cut that’s that close to the intersection
of Stevens Creek. I mean it just provides a facility on that corner location. I myself, I
mean that’s why you have a corner lot. To have accessibility.
Mr. Mayor: I understand. But we have a motion on the floor and I’m just trying
to get the response from both parties to the specific motion that is on the floor.
Ms. Stewart: Is it 300’ by 500’ like Planning & Zoning says it should be?
Mr. Mayor: I don’t know. Is it 300’ x 500’, Steve?
Mr. Brown: It’s not quite -- on Stevens Creek it’s 300’. 300’ x 300’.
Mr. Mayor: 300’ x 300’?
Mr. Brown: Yes.
Ms. Stewart: Okay. And the cut will just be on Stevens Creek Road?
Mr. Mayor: Stevens Creek Road. That would be, that’s the motion. That’s the
motion.
Mr. Brown: That’s the motion but that’s not what --
Mr. Mayor: Not what you want. But can you live with it if the Commission
approves it?
Mr. Brown: I don’t think we have a choice.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to ask the Commission to do something else and hear
some more from Fran today?
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let me go to Mr. Mays and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I guess it’s just a point of question in reference to the
motion since we decided to -- and we do that quite a bit, I have no problem with it. We
are dealing with 34 and 35 somewhat together, and there’s a two part motion that’s on the
52
floor. What I guess I wanted to ask Ms. Stewart, because I don’t want us to assume to a
point that one side we’re talking about is in reference to the cuts and what’s going on in
reference to Mayo Road versus Stevens Creek. But there is a second part to that motion
since we’re talking about two items that I think we need to find out from the objectors
whether or not there is opposition to dealing with -- and it’s just for clarification --
whether there is opposition in reference to withdrawing without prejudice. Because we
do that, and there is no objection, sometimes we just will let that go per se. But if there
are opposing parties, then I think we need to find out whether or not there is objection to
a point of withdrawing it. Because sometimes in zoning matters where there’s a battle,
one of the reasons why sometimes objectors object is the fact that they may deal with an
item in this month, it’s withdrawn and it’s brought back 90 days or six months later and
they got to deal with that same situation all over again. So I’d like to hear from Ms.
Stewart as to whether or not the objectors are in agreement with the second part of that
motion to a point of withdrawing without prejudice. That’s just for information.
Ms. Stewart: That’s why I really wanted you not to do that, because I don’t want
to have to keep coming back here in three or four more years trying to explain why I want
Mayo Road, having a beautiful park, and I have faith that some people really will want to
live in Richmond County, and I think we have a need for having single-family homes in
this area, as you can see. Anybody that lives in Hunters Ridge might want to look at this
because when we met with George Patty in 2002 I was told Dennis Road was all single
family homes. But this that I bought on Friday shows you have apartments behind that
area, too. But that’s another whole ballgame there. But I do think that I would like to
prick your conscience to see that this is a one little island of single family residences on
our side of Riverwatch Parkway, and we’re like a little island until ourselves, with
business and light industrial and the county line all around us. So I would like for you to
vote and then I will know, hopefully, as I thought when George did it all single family,
that I would never have to deal with this again. And now I am having to say the park
hasn’t even opened and you are wanting to put professional first, all the way down to
almost Pierce Grove Baptist Church, at the park. And then Ms. Hewitt has torn down her
home to build a wonderful home on land right across from where he’s wanting to put
professional in. She’s moving back to Richmond County from Lincoln County. And Mr.
Cromer likes looking at woods across from his, and he had horses and that’s why he
wanted his agricultural. And I’ve been seeing y’all and George Patty since ’79 and I
know all of y’all since ’88.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: We don’t want you to stop coming down.
Ms. Stewart: Well, I do have other plans.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, is there a difference then, and I just was trying to get to
the part of the motion where we had objection, is that an objection, I guess you answered
[inaudible] about the second part of the motion. Is there an objection then to what the
first part of the motion is? Do y’all have a compromise on that part on the cut to a point I
53
guess what I’m looking at is [inaudible] motion [inaudible] was made, whether there is
objection to just one part of it, whether there is objection to both parts of it, or no parts of
it. Cause we’ve got a two part motion that’s there, and I understand where your objection
is on the second part of it. But on the first part of it, is there a compromise in that spirit
of it, or is there objection to both ends of it? I just, that’s what I’m trying to search for it,
to find out, where the objectors are on that.
Ms. Stewart: Well, George Patty has it in his comprehensive land use plan that’s
drafted as of July, 2003, the statement is the first statement, bolded in, just 300’ x 500’.
That’s what he has recommended, and I’ve tried to -- you wouldn’t let me talk about
major arterials, minor arterials, collectors roads and local roads. And George Patty at the
last meeting told you Mayo Road was a collector road. And I’ve given you illustrations
and yellowed them showing you what these are. So you need to tell me, do you think
Mayo Road is a collector road, and going by the comprehensive land use plan that’s what
it said. In areas where there is a precedence for commercial and professional [inaudible]
development, commercial [inaudible] professional zoning should be limited to a radius of
approximately 500’ from the center intersection to a strip not more than 300’ deep if
appropriate. And then y’all know that you are going to widen Stevens Creek Road, so
whatever he does, you should make them set it back so you don’t end up coming and
buying this property for more money, too.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor: I think everybody has spoken that wants to. We have a motion from
Commissioner Boyles. Does anybody need the motion read again? All in favor of that
motion, please raise your hand. Hold them high so Ms. Bonner can see them.
(Vote on Item 34)
Mr. Beard votes Present.
Motion carries 9-1.
(Vote on Item 35 – withdrawal of the petition)
Mr. Beard votes Present.
Mr. Mays votes No.
Motion carries 8-1-1.
Mr. Mayor: That disposes of those two items.
54
Ms. Stewart: I don’t understand. Did they vote for me, for what I said? Y’all
didn’t read it again.
Mr. Mayor: No cut on Mayo Road.
The Clerk: He withdrew without prejudice [inaudible].
Ms. Stewart: So he can come back on Mayo Road?
Mr. Mayor: He can. But even if they turned it down, he can come back in a year.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: If I could, let the read speak, since they were handled as two, I will
vote -- I have a problem when we combine and it’s two issues that’s there. And I’m
voting one way, so let the record speak that I voted against the withdrawal, because
[inaudible] did not wish to deal with that. So my vote is no on that one and yes on the
other one.
Ms. Stewart: Did you do it the 300’ x 500’?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Ms. Stewart: 300’ x 300’? Okay. Okay. Okay. Good. I’m glad. It’s 300’ x
300’.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Ms. Stewart: If y’all would save my information.
Mr. Boyles: You want us to save it for the [inaudible]?
Ms. Stewart: Thank you so much.
Mr. Mayor: With respect to the other zoning items on the regular agenda,
numbers 32 and 33, do we have people in the audience who are here for either one of
those items? Are you objecting to it or are you one of the petitioners? Let’s do this.
Let’s go back to the consent agenda and we’ll start taking up these items in order. The
first item would be number 5, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
5. Z-03-70 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that any manufactured home
55
placed on the subject property be less than five years old and be placed on a
masonry foundation; a petition by John Attaway, on behalf of Dennis J. English,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone
RMH (Manufactured Home Residential) on property located at 2352 New McDuffie
Road and containing .91 acres. (Tax Map 83 Parcel 123) DISTRICT 5
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir. This is a change of zoning here. Mr. Patty, you want to
explain the reason for this?
Mr. Patty: Yes. This is an area off of McDuffie Road. It’s mixed. It’s probably
60/40 conventional houses to manufactured homes, and the comprehensive plan spoke to
that. It’s one of the areas that did not recommend rezoning R-1 because of the mixture,
and we had the petitioner there who’s got an existing small home there that he’s got to
replace one way or the other, and we had the neighbors there in support of it. There were
no objectors, and the Planning Commission voted I think unanimously to approve it.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. Why you have to replace that, that home? I rode over
there and looked at that area. Seem like a nice house.
Mr. Speaker: It’s too small. It’s only 800 square foot and we’ve had to move my
wife’s mother in with us. She’s terminally ill, and this is the most efficient way to
replace the house, to have room for her, too.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. So Mr. Patty, this is just for that one location?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: The whole area is zoned R-1; right?
Mr. Patty: Let me get the map out, but there are plenty of manufactured homes in
that area, and I think there’s agricultural zoning in there.
Mr. Hankerson: It’s a mixture in there.
Mr. Speaker: There’s one next door to me. [inaudible] the street.
Mr. Hankerson: Manufactured homes?
Mr. Speaker: One next door and one across the street and one dead in behind me.
It’s not saying it on there, but they’re there. I promise you they’re there.
Mr. Hankerson: My definition for manufactured homes, I guess, may be a little
different. What’s the difference in a trailer and a manufactured home?
56
Mr. Speaker: I don’t think there’s any difference.
Mr. Patty: There isn’t.
Mr. Hankerson: You’re calling it the same thing, cause the one next door I
[inaudible] more like a trailer, isn’t it?
Mr. Speaker: Yeah. Yeah. Old manufactured home, yeah.
Mr. Hankerson: But that’s not what you’re putting there?
Mr. Speaker: No, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: You’re putting in --
Mr. Speaker: A brand new home.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay.
Mr. Patty: You’ve got a mixture of agricultural, manufactured home, and R-1A
zoning [inaudible]. The majority of structures around this are [inaudible] built homes in
pretty decent condition. So we were kind of reluctant to go along with it, but you do have
a mixture. The plan does speak to this area, of it being a mixture, and the neighbors
support this.
Mr. Hankerson: It’s five manufactured homes, or five trailers in that area?
Mr. Speaker: Yeah.
Mr. Hankerson: And it’s a couple, couple brick homes is across the front of you?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] John Attaway, he lives in one of those brick homes.
Mr. Hankerson: Do we have anybody that signed the petition and said they have
no problem with this?
Mr. Speaker: Everybody except one.
Mr. Hankerson: [inaudible] and you’re doing this because you wanting to take
care of your --
Mr. Speaker: My wife’s mother, yeah.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay, I have no [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek.
57
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just a quick question. Why can’t we do this on a
hardship?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Cheek: I’m just saying it could last as long as you have your need to care for
--
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] die --
Mr. Cheek: That’s what I mean. What I’ve run into in my District is we have, we
have zoning problems. And these things end up -- and I’m not saying this in your case,
but if we open the door, since it is a south Augusta property we pretty much [inaudible]
rental spaces and trailers and [inaudible] I guess. But my concern is that this is
[inaudible] this property, if it’s permanently rezoned and it becomes a rental property
eventually --
Mr. Speaker: Until the day I die I’ll be there.
Mr. Cheek: Well, I just -- and you know it’s Commissioner Hankerson’s District
and I’m going to support his recommendations on it. You know, I understand your
plight, but I have got a serious mess in my District because we have allowed these kind of
things to happen and we’ve got agricultural that should have been rezoned 15 years ago
to residential and [inaudible] mobile homes out there that are really trailer slums. I just
don’t want to see that repeated in other areas.
Mr. Speaker: I plan on bricking this thing all the way around, put a porch on it,
[inaudible].
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, Mr. Cheek referring to that, I feel the same way about it.
When I first read this a couple of weeks ago I drove down this street about two or three
times and there are -- I was kind of confused because there are so many smaller mobile
homes that was in that area, and I was confused because it was, the lot that he owns, there
was a nice looking house, it’s small, it’s very small but it’s a very cute little house.
[inaudible] but I, I could accept this as a revitalization for that street.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: I move we concur with the Planning Commission.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
58
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion?
Mr. Cheek: Just a quick question.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: On the [inaudible] limitation, I think I saw in here, was limited to be
less than five years old. Is that correct? Which item number is it?
The Clerk: Number 5.
Mr. Hankerson: [inaudible] new one there [inaudible].
Mr. Cheek: Okay, less than five years old. Is that the practice for replacement of
mobile homes per the code, when somebody takes the old one off the lot, is it required to
be replaced by a new model?
Mr. Patty: No, sir, we’re trying to think of some way of exercising some control
In this location, and that’s actually the condition that we came up with out n the, in the
Brown Road, Old Waynesboro Road area where we did the mass rezoning and that was
one of the conditions that, [inaudible] conditions were to be placed on masonry
foundation and no unit over five years old could be brought into the area for replacement.
Mr. Cheek: That’s something I’d certainly like to see applied to my District as
well. We have notorious trailer slum lords, thank God, who have gone to the other,
across the great river, but I’d like to have that same stipulation on those properties, too.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All in favor of the motion then please vote by raising your
hand and raise it high so it can be seen.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. The next item is item number 7.
The Clerk:
7. Z-03-72 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) a solid board or
vinyl fence be erected and maintained along the east property line; 2) the only B-2
use of the property be the use described in the petition (sale of aluminum siding and
related products) and if that use ceases, the zoning reverts to B-1; a petition by Jill
59
A. Tompkins, on behalf of Mon Hong Wing, requesting a change of zoning from
Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) property located
at 3230 Washington Road and containing .50 acres. (Tax Map 11 Parcel 97)
DISTRICT 7
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here?
Ms. Tompkins: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Would you just come to the podium? There may be a question for
you. Mr. Williams, you asked that that item be pulled.
Mr. Williams: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I have no problem with it. I want to vote for the
motion, but I did want to bring up a couple of things. The solid board vinyl fencing we
talked about. When we put these restrictions on, I talked to George Patty about it, and
also Rob Sherman. When we put these restrictions on, certain conditions to go on with
the zoning that we do, what process, George, do we have to follow up to see whether or
not it’s been done? Cause when we zone these, once we okay them and we don’t know
whether it been done or not. There are several that I been addressing lately, so what
process?
Mr. Patty: Well, we do several things. One thing we do is we get the petitioner to
record the deed restriction so that if the property passes from one person to another the
attorneys will pick it up and it will go in perpetuity in that way. Now I think what you’re
referring to, and of course any time we review, it goes in computerized -- I think it’s
called Wingap Mapping System -- so our GIS, so that it’s recorded with the property
records of the property so that any time a site plan is given to us for the property or
anything, we pull the zoning and it’s recorded right there with it. Now we, we had made
a mistake in our office. My draftsman, when we went to Wingap with this, the Tax
Office draftsman called my draftsman and said you don’t have to sent these conditions
any more because you know, they’re in the computer, so he made the assumption that
that also applied to License & Inspection. He quit sending them to License & Inspection,
as well as the Tax Office a couple of years ago. We have learned, you know, through
your efforts, that there was a gap there for a year or so and there were about four of them
that did not go out there that should have, that involved properties that did not require site
plan. But we’ve corrected that and we will sending that to the License & Inspection in
the future so that that won’t happen again.
Mr. Williams:
George, I have no problem with this petitioner coming, but it
gave me an opportunity to bring that to this Commission, that ones we put those
stipulations or those guidelines, we need to follow up to make sure that those things
happen cause I’ve got several projects or several places that we zoned and had special
exceptions to do some things and they have not done those things. And we don’t have a
record at Planning & Zoning, License & Inspection rather, don’t have the knowledge of
what’s supposed to been done when they go by. I mean I have to go by and I been
following up on some very serious places, some large industry that we extended some
60
property to. So I just wanted to bring that, you know, to this Commission so we could
address that, those issues from now on when we do those special exceptions with what
was asked to be done, that we have some way of following it up to make sure it does get
done. Mr. Mayor, it goes back to the presentation today, accountability you talked about,
making sure that what we said or what we voted on, not only just be voted on but be
But I make a motion that we approve what
followed up in the process as well.
Planning and Zoning have brought to us this afternoon on Item 7.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? Yes?
Mr. Boyles: May I just ask, where is 3230?
Ms. Tompkins: It’s directly across from Taylor BMW on Washington Road.
There’s a Lutheran Church to the right and [inaudible] residence to the left.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, all in favor of the motion, please vote by raising your hand so
the Clerk can see how you’re voting.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Item number 12, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
12. Motion to approve Main Street Augusta’s guidelines for First Friday subject
to Attorney’s review. (Approved by the Public Services Committee August 11, 2003)
Mr. Cheek: Move to approve, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Mr. Wall, I have one question about one of
these items on here. Number 6, non-profit and political organizations. Could you speak
a little bit as to how this applies with free speech, allowing a political candidate to walk
on the street and solicit votes, where this says you put them in a designated area?
Mr. Wall: Yeah. I mean I think this was discussed somewhat at the committee
meeting insofar as the literature and the problem that the downtown merchants have
where you have people walking up and down the street passing out literature, most
people will take it or many people will take that, and the first thing they do is take two
steps and drop it on the ground. And it was a clean up problem. I think this is a
reasonable restriction. You’re not restricting their ability to get information out. It is just
that they have to be in certain locations.
61
Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion --
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Oh, you have a question?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. I pulled this item out, I believe, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: You sure did, and I jumped ahead of you. I’m sorry, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: I understand. I’m watching you, Mr. Mayor. Got my eyes on you.
Mr. Mayor: Go right ahead.
Mr. Williams: I’ve got no problem with the motion been made and I’m probably
going to support it but that item that you mentioned, item 6 in restricting people and
where they -- you talking about littering, what you telling me is that a non-profit person
or entity that’s passing out literature will be designated in one location to do that, but if I
take this Snickers wrapper that I been eating up here all day and I can drop it anywhere I
want to cause, you know, it’s not a non-profit. I mean you can’t legislate morality in
people now, when you talking about throwing stuff on the ground. That’s come from
within. I’ve got a serious problem when, not just with this one, but we been talking about
this for a couple of weeks not and Chris, and I talked with him, I’m not against it, this
proposal or even these guidelines, but I think we are going to have to come back. There
is some other issues. Over here on number 5, I believe it is, Mr. Mayor, no, number 4.
Food vendors. And I think [inaudible] no vendor will be set up in the city right-of-way or
without permission from the City or Main Street Augusta. Well, either the City’s going
to make the decision or Main Street is going to make the decision. I got some vendors
who have come to me already complaining about not having the right to set up either on
the right-of-way of the City or the sidewalk. They can’t set up on the sidewalk because
the equipment, I guess, is too big. But if they set up in the street, you know, they can’t
set up cause it’s a City right-of-way. And this person told me if a Commissioner says I
can set up here, I said to them one Commissioner can’t tell you anything, it takes six
votes. So I mean it just not clear. The first time this was brought, it was, it was, it was
[inaudible], it was straight, it was good, we need to do it. We held it up. It came back to
committee, then we had to make some changes in that two week time cause we saw
something [inaudible]. I’m going to support it but what I’m saying is I’m going to have
to come back and I’m feeling sure, Chris, we are going to have to come back and talk
about this some more, because there are some things been left out of this loop. If we
going to be a diverse city, if we going to have a group coming in to set up Main Street,
set up this First Friday, I content that First Friday should not stop at ten o’clock. You
can’t tell people, well, you know, we going to close it down. You come down here and
62
we want you to leave at 10. The vendors were the catalyst I think that got the people to
really come out along with the bands and the music. We know we started off with the
Artist Row and the stuff that they was doing, but until the vendors start to come, until we,
we nurtured this baby some and then had it grow. It didn’t start off like it is now and I
think it’s going to continue to grow even more. Commissioner Shepard has some
concern about some of the side streets and some of the other vendors that wanted to come
in and set up. And I think some of those things have been addressed, but I wanted to pull
this so we can talk about coming back. These issues continue, these issues don’t get
worked out. I mean if I have to put it on the agenda myself, we going to put it back,
Chris, so we can come back and deal with it. So I’m not fighting you but I’m trying to
fair, I’m trying to be up front. I’m not, I ain’t throwing a rock behind my hand, at least
you know where I’m coming from. So I support it, Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Cheek
has made a motion and it been second and I’m going to vote for the motion but those two
things that we talked about, I think we going, we going to get into some trouble trying to
tell people well, if you going to pass out literature on this end, you know, you can do that
but a hamburger, man bought a hamburger down the street and throw the paper on the
ground, you know, he can walk up and down Broad Street, but you got to stay in one
area. I don’t, I don’t think we can do that. But I’m not an attorney, Jim, my associate
Mr. Shepard handles all my legal stuff for me.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, anything further? We have a motion on the floor.
Mr. Shepard: Call the question after that.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor, please raise your hand so the Clerk can see you.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Naylor: Thank you.
Mr. Cheek: Go get ‘em, fellas.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is item number 13
The Clerk:
13. Motion to approve the increase of 2003 budgeted rent for Housing &
Neighborhood using Urban Services Fund as a source of revenue. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee July 28, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, you asked this to be pulled.
Mr. Beard: Yes. Just one thing, and I think it goes back to Jim. You were asked
about the contract the last time, I don’t know if it was committee meeting or the last
meeting. Someone had stated that they wished to see, make sure that [inaudible] had
been [inaudible].
63
Mr. Wall: The contract has been signed. It had been okayed previously and now
been signed.
Mr. Beard: Okay. I move for approval.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mayor: There is a motion and second. I have one question on this. Since the
work of the department is done in other areas of the city, why is the money coming
exclusively from the Urban Services Fund? Why not from the general fund for the entire
City?
Mr. Kolb: The old city had the Community Development Block Grant Program.
The county was not eligible. So traditionally, it has -- all the overages have come out of
Urban Services Fund, out of the old City [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Somehow there seems to be a lack of fairness in that since we’re a
consolidate government now and that department is spending money outside, doing work
outside the Urban Services District.
Mr. Kolb: Well, we can relook at it, but I’m just showing what the history has
been. It’s been any overages [inaudible] the department did come, have come from the
Urban Services Fund.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Any further discussion?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Shepard: Then Mr. Administrator, [inaudible] contingency account in the
Urban Services Fund?
Mr. Kolb: There is no contingency in Urban Services. It will come out of their
fund balance.
Mr. Shepard: Fund balance. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I need some clarification either from you, the Attorney
or the Administrator. When we consolidate this government and we consolidate the city
of Augusta and gave us the status of second largest city, I mean the old city was
[inaudible], was it not? I mean either we a city or we not a city. I mean I don’t
understand, you know.
64
Mr. Wall: The consolidation bill set up an Urban Services District which was in
essence the old city limits. In essence, it was the old city limits. And a Suburban Urban
Services District, which was the old unincorporated area of the county. And within the
Urban Services District, the taxes have to go for -- in both Districts the taxes have to go
for the services that are rendered within that District. And so there has been an effort
through the years to try to equalize the taxes within the Urban Services District and the
Suburban Services District, but for instance Fire is paid in the Urban Services District out
of the fund, whereas in the old county the Suburban Services District you still have the
fire Districts and that tax. So there are still areas that have not been completely married
together.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Well, I’m talking about the consolidated part that’s married
now. I ain’t talking about them outside people that hanging around. I’m talking about
the people who said “I do” with the county and the city. Now you may be looking at
Hephzibah, you may be looking at somebody else.
Mr. Wall: The Urban Services District is the old city of Augusta.
Mr. Williams: Okay, let’s go back to the Fire Department. Is there a city fire
department and a county fire department now?
Mr. Wall: No.
Mr. Williams: All of them paid out of the same pot, all of the money the same
jurisdiction?
Mr. Wall: I don’t know if they’re paid out of the same pot. I mean you’ve got a
Suburban -- you’ve got a fire District that pays and you’ve got a Suburban, now I assume
that the money at some point probably gets in the same pot and comes out, the tax
revenue gets into the pot from two difference sources.
Mr. Williams: No wonder my people out there confused, cause I’m confused
now, Jim. I’m thinking that when we consolidated the city and the county together to
give us the status of the second largest city in the state, that our city limit went from --
and Commissioner Hankerson was talking about it earlier, Commissioner Cheek talking
about it earlier, about Regency Mall and what we want to do [inaudible] that area, but we
do have two different governments then.
Mr. Wall: No, you’ve got two different sources of funds. Garbage, for instance,
is part of the Urban Services District general fund tax. In the Suburban, you’ve got the
garbage fee. So there are a number of things, there are several things like that they’re
handled differently in the Urban Services District and the Suburban Services District.
Street lighting is another one. Street lighting is in the Urban Services District and
[inaudible] tax bill. In the county, you see a line on your tax bill that talks about street
lighting.
65
Mr. Williams: I understand about the street lighting. I mean that’s a service that
you getting just on your street. You ain’t going to charge me for the street you live on, so
if the street, I ought to be ---
Mr. Wall: The Services District, if you live out in a neighborhood, you’re paying
for the street lights on Broad Street.
Mr. Williams: Okay, now I go back again. So consolidated government, then we
didn’t consolidate then. We, we, we, we, we still -- I don’t understand. I’m sorry. If --
Mr. Wall: I mean that’s been debated in the budget since 1996 and continues to
be debated in the budgets. We’ll be glad to sit down and go through that, when we go
through the budgets and set the millage rate, but that’s a long discussion.
Mr. Williams: Okay, well, Jim, I’m going to let it go. I see right now Steve
won’t help me and I ain’t got my lawyer.
Mr. Shepard: That’s because, Mr. Williams, you demoted me from senior partner
to associate.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I know obviously this has to be paid. Mr. Smith, I
think, clarified to the point that some money had to be brought forward at the last
meeting. I have no problem with that. But now I think, though, we need to clear
something at some point. The Mayor, and I’m going to follow up on what you just asked,
Mr. Mayor, it was said that the overage typically or traditionally, I forget which one of
the “T’s” it was, it comes out of the old city or Urban Services District. But my question
would be, one, when we had these type of overruns to come out and if we are servicing,
quite frankly, low to moderate income people because I know I personally have requested
that we go back and look at some areas that say previously would not qualify. And
Marion, to bring, to a point, when we [inaudible] looking at the Apple Valley funding,
and at some point in time, and I see Margaret sitting there, that, that, that group may not
have qualified in that funding to deal with [inaudible]. But it’s a part of the old county.
If we use money to purchase property in the Suburban District. You’ve got folk that are
low to moderate income that live more than just inside the old city limit lines. And I
think if you going to get to a point of this is the now and what’s going to be is going to be
the future, then maybe we ought to look at it on a pro rated basis of sharing from each
District to a point that if you got qualifications now to move in different [inaudible]. You
had it then because you didn’t have an urban designated county and it did not deal with
housing and other [inaudible] that the county [inaudible]. Only the old city did it. And
I’m asking the question from the standpoint cause it may get to the point that if say for
instance, this is hypothetical, but suppose Public Transit runs short, are we going to take
66
any money then out of the Urban Services Tax District or are we going to take it out of
both tax Districts, because traditionally, its overrun also came out of the old city, which is
now the Urban Services Tax District. Mr. Mayor, I need to get a clarification on that
because this could be a sign of things to come. Cause I been the one all the time saying
we really had a -- well, I ain’t going to use the “B” word but we ain’t really had no
marriage truthfully no way. We had a state of affairs that occurred through a Bill to deal
with a bailout. So I mean we ain’t really had no real consolidation. We got an
arrangement going on [inaudible]. So now I need to know whether or not, Jim, how do
we stand with this? Is this going to be something now that we going to be dealing with of
going back into old departments of where they existed, or we going to move forward and
deal with them out of both tax [inaudible]? It’s just a fundamental issue of where we are
going to take money from.
Mr. Wall: You directed the question at me. I’m sorry, I can’t answer the
question. I don’t have on the top of my head that level of knowledge of how the Urban
Services District and the millage rate [inaudible] is computed as far as what services
[inaudible] what District.
Mr. Mays: Okay.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] know about, but the level you’re talking about, I don’t have
that on the top of my head.
Mr. Mays:
I got you. I got you. I appreciate that. That’s maybe a little too
much to throw there. But if the reference of why we are doing this is because what has
I’m going to make a substitute motion that this be
been done, then Mr. Mayor,
delayed from the standpoint of at least finding out how we are going to deal with
previous one governmental departments and where they will be charged to and that
this be referred to either -- I can either go to the appropriate committee that it goes
through, which would be Finance, or the next Commission meeting.
Because I think
this is something that may not occur but every so often, but it needs to get resolved. And
I prefer it be sent back to Finance and we get an answer on it and we look at how these,
[inaudible] one government, how they were done, cause I think at some point that needs
to be done [inaudible] consolidated, as to whether or not it’s going to be charged back to
the original government and how they started, or how we do them on a pro rated basis
[inaudible] serviced.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: The motion has been seconded. Further discussion? If there is no
more discussion, we will vote on the substitute motion from Mr. Mays. All in favor of
that motion, please raise your hand. Raise it so the Clerk can see it.
(Vote on substitute motion)
67
Mr. Bridges votes No.
Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Shepard out.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is item number 24.
The Clerk:
24. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Skid Steer Loader for the
Augusta Recreation Department from Augusta Turf and Tractor Company of
Augusta, Georgia for $20,421.44 (lowest bid offer on Bid 03-107). (Approved by
Finance Committee August 11, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: I will not overlook you now, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir, Mr. Mayor. [inaudible] and I got a serious
problem with that. We split the meetings up in committee and some was going on here
and some was going on there [inaudible] the other committee and I couldn’t be at two
places at the same time. But I’ve got no problem with this but I do need to ask the
question, either Ron or Tom, either one of y’all can answer this for me. This $20,000 --
(End of tape 1)
(Beginning of tape 2)
Mr. Williams: -- it says in the backup that this would also eliminate the need to
purchase various other pieces of equipment to [inaudible] jobs. I mean that’s widespread.
I need to know what kind of equipment it’s going to eliminate. Cause when you bring it
back, I want to make sure that we ain’t getting double. I mean I don’t understand when
you say that.
Mr. Crowden: [inaudible] lift [inaudible] forklift [inaudible] much more
expensive than [inaudible]. [inaudible] and it also has a [inaudible] it can [inaudible]
small trees and [inaudible] objectors and move them over [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: So Ron, this piece of equipment be pretty good for Apple Valley
project, then, wouldn’t it?
(Laughter)
Mr. Crowden: [inaudible] operate, to move around.
Mr. Williams: Well, I understand, so we won’t need to buy no forklift, no digger,
no -- what else did you say it was? [inaudible] Okay.
Mr. Beck: Also got a loader.
68
Mr. Williams:
Also got a loader. Okay, Tom. We [inaudible] so long as we can
So move, Mr. Mayor, so move.
use [inaudible] ain’t got no problem.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor -- are you voting or discussing?
Mr. Shepard: Voting.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor, raise your hand.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hankerson has indicated to the Chair that he needs to
leave the meeting early and asked that we go ahead and take up item number 37, so we’ll
take that item up next.
The Clerk:
37. Approve request from the Board of Tax Assessors to proceed with obtaining
an outside auditing firm to review all accounts with a value of $50,000 and above.
(No recommendation from Finance Committee August 11, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Reece is back with us. Mr. Hankerson, do you want to begin the
discussion?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes. We discussed this in our Finance Committee meeting and I
had some concerns about this, whether this was necessary or not, and the cost of this,
according to the information that I received, hiring an outside auditing firm to do a job
that can be done inside with our own employees. The cost [inaudible] proposal that I had
would cost us about $1.5 million. Or could cost us that much. Anther concern we had
about it was that the School Board would also participate in this, but nobody from the
School Board came forward and spoke and the School Board, I think, about 65% of the
[inaudible] go to the School Board. I have a serious problem with hiring an outside
auditing firm at this time. Again, we are close to budget time, [inaudible] contract for at
least $1.5 million. I think that if we had that kind of money to award to a contract, we
can hire 30 employees in Mr. Reece’s office and it wouldn’t cost that much to go out and
get the appraisals and so forth. Another problem I had with, I think that business owners
and our citizens will be upset when they find out that some outside auditing firm is going
to, if they had a problem appealing, that they are going to have to appeal to the outside
auditing firm, I think that would create a problem. And I know Mr. Reece said that if
they don’t collect they don’t get paid. But I’m quite sure if a firm gets paid according to
how he has to collect, he’s going to make sure that he collects. And I think that’s an
awkward position to put our citizens in for somebody depending on collecting. That their
taxes would increase or you know, the assessments and so forth. We have a lot of
appeals. We had a lot of appeals last, last year. I think it’s going to generate a lot more
69
appeals. And the big question before we decide, and I hope we decide to deny this
[inaudible], but the big question is where would the funds come from? Where the funds
are going to come from? That’s, I think that’s a big issue. Another thing is that I know I
read today comments from Mr. Reece saying that his office was short of staff, that he
couldn’t handle that. But I thought that every time Mr. Reece came to us we supplied
that office with additional staff. So also I’d like to, for my Finance Chairman, to also
remember that we had a couple of other requests that we delayed, out of Mr. Saul’s office
-- we said that we weren’t going to even bother to deal with those until budget time
comes. And they were, came before us also. But I just don’t think that we should hire
outside auditing firm that can generate a cost of up to $1.5 million, so I’d like to put it in
the form of a motion that we deny this request.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Bridges: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Continuing the discussion, Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just a few questions. My understanding on this is that we
want to hire a firm to go out and look for additional value in property on these accounts
above $50,000 and they will be paid according to additional, I guess, tax proceeds that
they find; is that correct?
Mr. Reece: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: So there will be no initial out-of-pocket to the city to cover this cost?
Mr. Reece: Not at this time, sir. If I could, if I could give you my overview I
think it --
Mr. Cheek: If the Mayor will allow me to ask questions when you complete.
Mr. Reece: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: It comes out of your two minutes. Go ahead.
Mr. Reece: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, let me
thank you for letting me come up today and explain this. First, I want to emphasize the
Board of Assessors nor I, contrary to what the newspaper says, is in this thing to push for
an audit. Whether you decide to go forward with this is your decision. During the
budget hearings of 2001, the Commission asked all of its Department Directors to look at
sources of revenue. Possible sources of revenue [inaudible] to help this budget strapped
city. And that’s what my department has tried to do. As y’all recall at the 2002 budget
workshop, y’all approve the hiring of two temporary mobile home inspectors to go out
and try to police these mobile homes to do, to bring in revenue for the city, revenue
which when it comes in will be there on the books and continue. We can get more
70
revenue that way. We are going after mobile homes [inaudible] since 1999 and prior.
And we’ve had a good [inaudible] on that. Unfortunately, I did not have the foresight at
that time to go forth and ask the Board of Education to pay their pro rata share. You
learn as you go, and I’ve tried to do a little bit better job on that.
Mr. Cheek: Let me stop you there. On the mobile home assessments, they
recouped far more [inaudible] than it cost for us to administer that program; correct?
Mr. Reece: Correct. But part of the money that we’re collecting goes to the
Board of Education because of the tax split.
Mr. Cheek: We’re still to the good, though, aren’t we?
Mr. Reece: Yes, sir. The [inaudible] before you today is a similar tax situation.
Our office was contacted by two outside auditing firms, one of which was aggressive
enough to make a proposal. I received the proposal and I talked to George [inaudible]
told them, I said there is no way that I can commit to anything like this, that I would like
to see what they to offer. They had tentative information [inaudible] about the number of
accounts in the different categories, $50,000 to $100,000, $500,000 to $1 million, $5
million, $10 million, and over $10 million. And they asked for the number of accounts
and we gave that to them and they came back with a proposal. And based on their past
experience, they submitted something that may be a pie in the sky. I have no idea. I
informed the company that before we could go any further or enter into a contract
[inaudible] RFP or RFQ and take it to the Commission, to you, to y’all to approve or
[inaudible]. After we received the proposal, I called and told them that we didn’t have
but $1.5 million, as was pointed out [inaudible]. I said now what we’d like to do, if the
Commission would go forward with it, I’d like to be able to say that it’s an audit and it’s
a flat fee audit based on the category of the audit. We will determine, based on the
information that y’all would be given, if y’all approve going forward with it, of course,
y’all would have the distinction of telling [inaudible] which way to go. We’ll write up
RFQ’s for that. I met with Ms. Sams, our Purchasing Director, and after reviewing it
with her he indicated that she felt that the best way to go would be RFQ’s. Not RFP but
RFQ’s, and put it out and send it to the different companies who handle this type of
[inaudible]. So [inaudible] I told them that we didn’t have the money, would you be
willing to be paid as we receive money? And generally when this money is discovered,
it’s not put on like in the normal assessment the next year. If there is additional
[inaudible] equipment, [inaudible] it goes on the books immediately, the board approves
it at a board meeting, we send the paperwork down to the Tax Commissioner and he bills
and the taxpayer has 60 days to pay. After we did this, I met --
Mr. Cheek: Can the taxpayer appeals delay that?
Mr. Reece: Yes, sir. You can appeal, but when you do the appeal, you still have
to pay your taxes under the appeal value or the prior amount.
Mr. Cheek: Is it still the same appeal process that’s currently used?
71
Mr. Reece: 45 days to the Board of Assessors, 21 days to the Board of
Equalization.
Mr. Cheek: So it wouldn’t be to the company that’s doing the work?
Mr. Reece: No, sir.
Mr. Cheek: Okay.
Mr. Reece: Part of the agreement, part of the proposal that we would do in our
RFQ would be that the company would come in and help defend and support what they
have done. I met with Mr. Kolb and outlined the process to Mr. Kolb, and here again --
now he questioned the funding process, how we’re going to pay for it. And at that point
in time, I asked him, I was going to meet with the Board of Education to see if we could
do a split based on the amount, the way the revenue is collected. When we met with the
Board of Education, the controller liked the concept, liked the idea, and took it to the
superintendent. The superintendent, Dr. Charles Larke, wrote a letter saying that they
supported the concept, and if the Commission decided to go forward with it, they would
take it to their Board. Now I talked to our County Attorney, Jim Wall, about it and said
that if we did something along that line there would probably have to be an agreement
between the Commission and the Board of Education, making sure it’s legal on how we
are going to do the split, so [inaudible] think about that. Jim said he was going to look
into that. After I met with Ms. Sams, [inaudible] go back to review the RFQ’s with Mr.
Wall to make sure that we covered everything. Then before we started to proceed, to go
out and get RFQ’s, that’s when I called the Finance Chairman and told him what we were
trying to do. And I asked him could I put it on the agenda, make an agenda item out of it,
he said contact the Vice Chairman, which I did, and to go forward with it, to bring it to
the Commission. This is a concept. It’s not a contract entered into. It’s a proposal that
was sent in by this company, it’s something that they sent in as a contract. We have not
developed an RFQ to send out. We have not entered into a contract. This is a concept to
see if y’all would like to go forward with it. If the Commission says no, we won’t.
Mr. Cheek: Let me stop you right there. Maybe we can save us some time. But I
know the last three times I think you’ve come before us with adjustments in your staffing
and different things, we’ve turned you down, always been a wait and we’ll come back to
you another day. I don’t want that to happen today. You did a tremendous job with the
mobile home team that you put together to go out and find new revenue. I trust that you
will do that with this and use due diligence in going through this and make sure that it is
to the benefit of the city and that people won’t be unfairly taxed but they will be asked to
pay what they should pay. So I’m going to make a substitute motion that we approve this
and move forward.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard.
72
Mr. Shepard: Sonny, the point of this is that the vendor doesn’t get paid until the
tax gets paid, until we receive the revenue, is that right?
Mr. Reece: That’s what we will put in the RFQ and what we talked to the County
Attorney about, how we draw this up.
Mr. Shepard: And you would, if the taxpayer, if the audit was deemed unfair by
the taxpayer, the taxpayer would retain all of the appeal rights that a taxpayer might have
in this situation; is that correct?
Mr. Reece: That is correct.
Mr. Shepard: Well, gentlemen, you know, we’re going to be in budget in about
90 days, and I’m sure that we are going to be faced with the same choices we are always
faced with. To balance the budget. To find new sources of revenue. Raise taxes. Use
fund balance to cut the budget. And so here this is about as fair a way to develop a new
source of revenue that I know there can be without having to risk the money of the city in
overhead in the operation. It’s a contingent fee contract. And so I think that, I certainly
supported that motion in the Finance Committee and I seconded Mr. Cheek’s motion and
I hope that you will sustain Mr. Reece’s position here because that’s what we’ve got to
ask everybody in this government, to try to run a leaner shop or find new sources of
revenue that don’t come from new taxes. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, too, like Commissioner Hankerson, was a
little concerned about this, when I read it in the book here. But on the last, well, last
night I talked to two of your Board of Commissioners, Tax Assessors Board of
Commissioners, and both of them told me the same thing, they are advocating what you
are advocating, because this does not call for any output of funds at the beginning. So
with that in mind, and I do have respect for those gentlemen that I talked to last night --
Mr. Reece: Thank you, I do, too, sir.
Mr. Beard: -- I really don’t, I changed my [inaudible] of this and think it’s maybe
the way to go.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go over here to Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: I just wanted to ask this. The way I understand it, you have not
gone out for RFQ’s.
Mr. Reece: No, sir. I didn’t want to do that until y’all --
73
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. But once you go out for RFQ’s, then you’ve got to come
back for RFP’s.
Mr. Reece: Come back to y’all for approval.
Mr. Kuhlke: Well, what I’m saying is that, the way I understand it, RFQ is
qualifications of the firm. When you do that, then I guess the next step is what is the fee
they are going to charge to do the job; right?
Mr. Kolb: They submit it usually in a sealed envelope.
Mr. Kuhlke: At the same time?
Mr. Kolb: At the same time.
Mr. Kuhlke: I compliment you, Sonny, on being innovative, but I -- somehow
I’ve got a hang-up. I’m one of these people that just, I don’t like taxes a bit. And this
almost seems like the Gestapo, to some extent. Here’s a government agency going on a
contingency and the incentive is to go out and raise the value of property and raise the
value of contents and then the burden of proof that it is not an accurate assessment of it
falls on the property owner, on the taxpayer. And while I’m all for looking for other
sources of revenue, I don’t like the approach, and so I’m going to vote against it.
Mr. Mayor: Go down here to Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Bridges: I’m going to get my word in first.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] we’ll get [inaudible].
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I’m like Mr. Kuhlke. Whereas when
this came before the committee last week, I had some real problems with it. I don’t have
as much of that after Sonny explained it, I don’t have as much of a problem with it as I
originally did. But still, it’s as Commissioner Kuhlke said, you’re hiring somebody
shortly after we’ve gone out there and raised the value of people’s property and we’ve
still got some protests, I guess, of people that think they’re property is not worth that
much. Those are still out there unsettled. And we’re going to hire somebody whose
incentive it is to increase the value of that property, because their income depends on
finding property that in their calculations should be increased. I don’t think that sends
out the proper message to those particular business owners that are being reassessed.
Assessed and reassessed. That government is looking is looking out for their best
interest. I think it sends a message and it does to me just looking at it that yeah, we’ve
got, we’re going to have budget problems and we need more money. And you know,
74
let’s go out there and see if we can find somebody again that has already been, property
been valued and let’s see if we can’t up it some more and get some more, squeeze a little
more out of them. To me, that’s the message I see over and above anything else, and I’m
opposed to the substitute motion.
Mr. Mayor: We go to Mr. Boyles and then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I was just going to say that last Thursday, at a civic club
meeting that I and the comptroller, Mr. Spires from the Board of Education were at, he
asked me about this, and I told him I was not in Finance so I had not heard the proposal
before. But it seems that this is pretty important to the Board of Education. They were
[inaudible] and I think once you explained it to them [inaudible]. They’ve got the
problem with anyone over 65 owning a home not having to pay taxes [inaudible] find
more tax revenues. And I see that they’re raising taxes I think $31 on a $100,000 home
that’s coming up, too, so they’re raising taxes again for this year. I just wonder, since
we’ve got two motions on the floor, I think, if maybe at the next Finance Committee
meeting have someone from the Board of Education kind of explain their side of it, too.
And if we’re in this thing jointly, just to try to get a feel for what they’re thinking. Cause
Mr. Spires sure was for it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Again, I say I was not in Finance cause I
can’t be in two places at the same time. I did not discuss this with anybody. I saw in the
backup, but it’s like hire, going out and hiring a gunslinger. When you approach people
and you don’t work for this government and you going to tell them that their property is
going to be this value, that value, and the first thing the property owner gets afraid and
they stop saying to us what they doing. I think it’s going to put a fear factor on them. I
appreciate Sonny’s effort, now. Sonny and I have talked about a lot of things. I think
this is good, but we’ve got to be really careful about how we approach this. I thought that
North and his crew downstairs was the one who went out and collected, sent out the tax
bills to bring the revenues back in. If you send a hired gun out to get it, that’s like the
repo man. I don’t know -- you don’t nothing about the repo man, Sonny, you never had
to hide your car in the neighbor’s yard in the back.
(Laughter)
Mr. Reece: I appreciate you telling me that. You know, you don’t know
everything.
Mr. Williams: But people, people got to understand that, you know, we done
raised taxes, we done told people we going to try to do better. We’ve got to do
something to get some economic growth into this county, this city, but we’ve got to do
that. We’ve got to create something that more tax dollars will come in. We have not yet
-- and I know, Mr. Mayor, I’m getting off a little bit but we have not yet talked about
75
nothing that’s going to bring some revenue into the city of Augusta. And that’s another -
-
Mr. Cheek: Arts in the Heart.
Mr. Williams: Arts in the Heart is good, Andy.
Mr. Cheek: First Friday.
Mr. Williams: But I mean -- you trying to kill it. You’re talking about 10
o’clock.
(Laughter)
Mr. Williams: Let me finish. We’ve got to do something to bring some revenue
in, and I agree that we got to get aggressive, Steve made a good point. We got to do
some things different. The budget going to come up. We cutting, people talking about
cutting back, laying off, doing without some services. But we have got to come up with
some way to get some revenue generated in this town. We have got to open this town, to
give people choice and have some of those things that people can make [inaudible].
Money is being spent. It ain’t being spent in Augusta because we have not given them
choices. And if they don’t have them here they are going to drive to Columbia, they are
going to drive to Atlanta, they going to drive to Macon, they are going to drive to
wherever there is some activity going on. So if we going to get creative now, let’s get
creative. We talk about Regency Mall. Every time I look at Commissioner Hankerson, I
think about it, but something got to -- we need to open up something in there. A bakery
shop. Something has got to, something has got to happen in order to revenue some
revenue and keep some things going in Augusta. After 10 o’clock, we roll up the
sidewalks. And for the second largest city, I mean that’s just, that’s not kosher. I mean
we need to start to do some things to get some economics stirring and rolling into the city
of Augusta. But I applaud you, Sonny, for your efforts and you trying. But I think again,
we hiring a gunslinger, he better be a good one [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, you haven’t spoken yet, and then we’ll get to some of
these other folks who have spoken.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, after this vote is taken, whichever way it goes, tax
assessor and I, we going to remain long-time friends. He probably knows what I’m
getting ready to say. And I supported his hiring, supported his contract, I even supported
the measure that this Commission turned down on some of the things that he wanted to
go ahead and do in terms of revamping his office and of being able to do that internally.
And that particular effort failed. I still think he was right on that issue. I think the Board
of Assessors heart is in the right place of wanting to do what’s right on this issue, but I
think the perception that it will cause far overrides whatever may be in actuality. People
when they work on a contingency basis, it just like a lawsuit [inaudible] you either get
some of whoever’s money you going after or you get some of whoever’s money that’s
76
already got it. You don’t come to the table and put money in, cause their job is to make
money and to be able to do a service. So therefore I think the perception that my Super
District colleague brought up is exactly where this will be perceived. Whether that’s,
whether that’s true or not, but the perception is going to be there. I’ve seen [inaudible] in
other counties where some of the uproars have been not so much on the auditing of
assessments but where it’s been proposed to use contractual people to deal with
collections. And where there has caused a certain uproar in folk. This I think where you
set the [inaudible] basically I think further basically says to John and Jane Doe, in their
mindset of where they sit, now I really don’t have a fighting chance in terms of dealing
with this. I do think we need to go back, I think we’re looking [inaudible] do to
strengthen that office and to do it, but I think right now, this particular example of doing
it will set probably the wrong perception and precedent, and for that reason I couldn’t
support it. I think one good example, even though I know people who owe money to the
judicial system have to pay it, but I think one shining example, Mr. Mayor, of how we
got a lot of the jail situation loaded up right now with folk on non-violent, minor
offenses, we got folk out here collecting [inaudible] on contractual basis, and a lot of
these folk get behind and to a point [inaudible] they get picked up. I’m not saying they
don’t owe it and I’m not saying the system shouldn’t work. But when folk have to hustle
for their money [inaudible] what’s going to be collected, then somebody is going to
suffer some [inaudible] so I don’t think you need to have that on the property tax side of
what you doing at this point. I would much rather see us come back and to try and give
Mr. Reece those internal things that he has been asking for and will do the things in his
office that he needs to do as opposed to going this route. And I couldn’t support the
motion that’s out there.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. I’m happy that some of the Commissioners are
seeing it more clearly. We shouldn’t have to hire outside firms to do those jobs at the
citizens’ expense. Now if they are going to collect, you better believe that they’re going
to collect. That would be at the citizens’ expense. But I must say, too, that from what
I’m hearing, that I’m a little bit disappointed with what I’m hearing [inaudible] come
about, Mr. Reece, because in the Finance Committee meeting, this proposal came, the
request came on the agenda. If we had accepted that and if I had not of challenged that, I
think we would have had something here [inaudible] our hand, it was nothing about
collecting as they -- pay as they collect. It’s an amount in here, it’s in here in detail of
what this was going to cost us. Now I’m hearing, I’m hearing that all of these things
were done but the request was just to approve auditing, outside auditing firm. Now we
go into detail. So I’m looking in surprise of what I’m hearing here and I just -- it’s more
clearly now that we shouldn’t accept this. And another thing is I can’t understand how
we could have one department head, we have the -- we have Mr. Saul’s office [inaudible]
and asking for additional help there. They collect taxes. We have denied that. We
delayed it. We only, we only denied a request, the last request for employees or
something that you brought one time, and several times you’ve been before us. Now you
did say that the employees that were hired to go out to collect for the mobile homes, that
was successful?
77
Mr. Reece: Yes, Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: That was all you need to say. It’s successful. Cause I heard you
say that, it was successful. Now if that was successful with the small amount of
employees that we gave you to go out and do that, now why now we have to add a
outside firm? We were collecting all of that because they were our employees. Now we
are adding -- you want to add an outside firm to come in and do what your department
should be doing, and then we are going to have to give them a percentage, we are going
to have to pay them. That money is not coming to the government. We are paying
outside firm. As I said before, with this kind of money we can hire, we can hire 30
employees at $35,000 a year and it wouldn’t come to $1.5 million, and they can go out
and do a lot of auditing work. They can do that. So I don’t see where that is necessary.
And one final question, and I hope that we will support the motion to deny this request.
Mr. Reece, do we have any other problems in your office? I’m going to say like I said in
the meeting, the committee meetings last week, I said to the Administrator, I said to the
Finance Director, I don’t want no surprises. I do not want any more surprises. Surprises,
somebody going to get some pink slips. Do we have any other problems in your office?
Mr. Reece: I guess that depends on who you talk to, Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: I’m talking to Mr. Sonny Reece, the Chief Appraiser. Do we
have any more problems in your office that we need to know? No more surprises, and
I’m finished after this question.
Mr. Reece: Well, I don’t think we have any surprises coming to you. If we have
any problems, now we’re still cleaning up data in our system that we are trying to do.
But any major surprises, I don’t see any, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you.
Mr. Cheek: Sonny, if you do have any surprises, I’m sure we’ll find a way to
delay or study the problem and not come back and give you a solution. I know you’ve
come to us several times with recommendations. They’ve been very sound business
practices. Clearly, if we did hire staff when this assessment need went away, we would
have to pay staff, with this growing government, we are proposing to subcontract this out
and make those who are currently not paying pay taxes that they should be paying pay.
Now to say that we are going to go out and do Gestapo type things or ride roughshod
[inaudible] is pretty clear cut. There’s a appeal process that is in place, and people will
be asked to pay for I’m sure the garage they’ve added or other things that should be part
of the tax base that will contribute to the operations of this government. That is what
they do to pay. Nothing more. No intimidation. Nothing less. What we’re going to do,
though, instead of going out and collecting from those that actually owe us money is we
are, since we’re going to take care of everybody, then we’re either going to -- we are
either going to protect everybody or punish everybody, instead of punishing the people
who are not paying their taxes. So when the tax, when the budget comes due and we’re
78
short, we’re either going to raise taxes on everybody, but the people who owe money
who are not paying now -- we’re not going to raise it on them. Let’s raise it on
everybody. And then -- or, we’ll reduce services for everybody. It makes sense that we
go out in a special needs case like this and take a subcontractor, along them to do their
work, based on the money they generate, which is generated based on the tax code that
already exists. We found ample monies when we went out and looked at the mobile
homes, which we did not have staff to go out and do an audit in the field. And I’m
assuming that’s the same case here, we don’t have staff to go out and do the assessments
because we’re waiting to change and hire new people all at one time at some point in the
future. It just -- and I know you get tired, Sonny, you come to us with several
recommendations, we’ve always studied, delayed, deferred, when it comes to adjusting
your staff you’ve done a very professional job. You know, we can talk and talk like
we’re going to create the wrong perception, but the truth is we’re only asking people to
pay what they owe. This is not the Gestapo. Augusta is a long way away from Nazi
Germany. We are asking people to pay what they owe where we don’t have to reduce
services for the entire population or raise taxes on the entire population. That’s fair and
just. That’s fair and just. You need to pay, people need to pay what they owe, and we
don’t need to shotgun everybody else because of some perceived perception that may
occur as a result of subcontracting this out to a private firm who we don’t have to pay
fulltime salaries to. We may defeat this today for whatever reason, but this is a good
business practice that the Tax Assessor has brought to us and something we need to think
about.
Mr. Mayor: Are we ready to vote? Mr. Beard.
Mr. Reece: May I say one thing, Mr. Mayor, before you vote?
Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. Mr. Beard has --
Mr. Beard: If he want to say something, just come back to me.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Sonny.
Mr. Reece: Thank you, sir. In answer to your question, I’m sorry the perception
that Rev. Hankerson has that if they had -- if y’all had approved this we would be going
into a contract, because the thing sent to me was a proposal, but we were not going into a
contract. We have to go through the process that -- and I was trying to keep the
Commission informed. The Board of Assessors was aware of this from the get-go, and
we were going through and trying to do everything we could. We’re not trying to be
secretive about it. And we go out with RFQ’s and come back in, and at which time the
Commission could do what they want to do. What I wanted to do was, first, [inaudible]
the Commission, and if y’all didn’t want to go forward with it now, then that’s it. Y’all
asked me to do something and I am doing it. We don’t collect taxes in my office. That is
Mr. Williamson’s department and the Tax Commission department. What we do is put
value on property. Unfortunately, the word contingency has been brought. The State of
Georgia statute prohibits contingency fees for auditing firms that assist taxing
79
jurisdictions to be able to collect. You can’t do that in Georgia. You have a percentage
of what you [inaudible]. Now the flat fee contract was there and what I went back to was
that we would pay a flat fee. But if they don’t [inaudible] we wouldn’t do it and we
would have to get with the Attorney to word that contract properly to be put into an RFQ.
Here again, this is done by other jurisdictions and I don’t, I’m here trying to do what y’all
asked us to do. And if y’all don’t want to go forward with it, I have no problem with it,
and as Commissioner Mays said, you’ve got to do what y’all have to do. Y’all are the
elected officials, y’all are the bosses. Y’all asked us to do something and I tried to bring
something to you. And if that’s not satisfactory, then I don’t have any hard feelings
either. We just go right on, shake hands, and have a good time. Keep right on plugging
along. And I appreciate your time and thank you for hearing me.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: Yes. I just wanted to ask one question of Sonny. I personally see
nothing wrong with this and am probably going to vote for that, but from what I’m
hearing it probably won’t go through. If we are going to get into this on our own, Sonny,
and do our own internal stuff here, how many people would you need in your -- to add to
your staff?
Mr. Reece: I’d hate to pull a figure out of the air right now, Mr. Beard. I’d rather
get with my assistant in charge of this. With 1,300 accounts that we have, and find out if
we were going to do it over a three year period, continuously rotate on a three year
period, and that’s -- and come back and give you -- I could give you that at the next
meeting. If you’d like me to bring it to Finance.
Mr. Beard: I just thought you could give us a ballpark figure, but if you can’t,
that’s okay. It doesn’t matter. But I’m going to agree with Andy here on some of the
things that he said. I think if there is money out there to be collected, you know, some of
us pay our fair share and others don’t pay their fair share. I see nothing wrong with going
out and getting some people to do it. If we do it from your proposal here or we ought to
hire the people necessary within the organization to do it. So it’s a matter of which way
do we want to go. And with that, I’m going to call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. The Chair will rule there has been
adequate discussion. We have two motions pending. The substitute motion is to approve
the request. The original motion is to deny the request. All in favor of the substitute
motion, raise your hand so the Clerk can see it. This is motion to approve.
The Clerk: To approve.
Mr. Mayor: To approve. All opposed to that motion, please raise your hand.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Bridges, Mr. Williams, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Mays and Mr. Hankerson
vote No.
80
Mr. Boyles not voting.
Motion fails 3-6.
Mr. Cheek: Tell the employees they’re not getting their cost of living adjustment
again next year.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s move to the original motion, which is the motion to deny.
The Clerk: Deny.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of that motion, please raise your hand. The original
motion to deny.
The Clerk: Deny.
Mr. Hankerson: Deny.
The Clerk: Voting now on the motion to deny.
Mr. Mayor: To deny --
Mr. Hankerson: [inaudible] motion on the first one to approve?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: The first motion was to approve and you voted against that.
Mr. Hankerson: Right.
Mr. Mayor: Now we’re on the original motion, which is your motion to deny. So
if you want to deny it, now is the time to raise your hand.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Cheek, Mr. Beard and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Mr. Boyles and Mr. Colclough vote Present.
Motion fails 5-3-2.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, may the record reflect that we did not give our
employees a cost of living adjustment this year and unless we generate additional revenue
somehow we won’t be able to give them one next year. That would be a net 7% decrease
approximately in their buying power, and it’s [inaudible] that we don’t look for additional
sources of money.
Mr. Mayor: All right, next item on the agenda will be item number 32.
81
The Clerk:
PLANNING:
32. Z-03-63 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission requesting a change of zoning from Zone LI (Light Industry)
to Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) affecting property located in the east end of
the Harrisburg neighborhood portion of the urban services district and contains the
following parcel numbers: Tax Map 35-2; Parcels 167 – 172, 175 – 177, 281 – 292,
295 – 300, 397 – 399, 408, 422 – 430, and 442 – 447. Tax Map 6-1; Parcels 152.1 and
153Tax Map 36-3; Parcels 38, 42, 42.1 and 48
Mr. Mayor: You want to give us background on that, Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty: It’s on the regular agenda. Of course. we did have some objectors.
This is the rezoning that staff initiated. We had some calls. This is there between Broad
Street and Calhoun -- I’m sorry, between the canal, the expressway, Frank Street, a lane
th
up there about halfway up there to 15 Street. With the exception of a couple of
businesses that would not be rezoned, it’s a residential area. In previous planning, it was
an area in transition and historically had been a light industrial zoning, and we left it that
way because there was a light industrial business building there about the time the
planning was being done, Augusta Janitorial Supply. Since then, we’ve had -- in recent,
in the last year we’ve had a number of those houses that have been fixed up. We’ve had
some calls from folks telling us that they can’t get residential loans because of the
industrial zoning, and we have actually had some folks wanting to build houses in there.
So for whatever reason, the area has become attractive for residential development and
we need to change the zoning on it. We had some folks and I met with them at the
church. We had numerous discussion with them and I think finally we won them over
but at one point they thought the city had some ulterior motive for rezoning that property.
We tried to assure them that wasn’t the case.
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors here today? Gentlemen, your pleasure?
Mr. Boyles: I move for approval.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Further discussion? All in favor, please raise
your hand so the Clerk can see it.
Mr. Beard, Mr. Colclough and Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next item is number 33.
82
The Clerk:
33. Z-03-65 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) That if the dance
studio should cease to operate the Special Exception will be canceled and the use of
the property will be residential only; 2) That the hours of operation shall be
confined to 5 P.M. to 9 P.M., Monday thru Friday; 3) that only one, unlighted sign 6
square feet in area be placed on the property; a petition by Patricia Cornette, on
behalf of Leslie Kitchens, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of
establishing a dance studio per Section 26-1 (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta- Richmond County affecting property located at 3956 Belair
Road and containing .55 acres. (Tax Map 52 Parcel 2.07) DISTRICT 3
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty.
Mr. Patty: This is sort of an unusual deal. This property is just going out, it’s
past Dyess Parkway on the left, near the entrance to some new subdivisions, but it’s
surrounded by a couple of mobile homes and some older homes. This is obviously an old
schoolhouse that is not in too bad -- this property has on it what obviously was an old
schoolhouse and it’s not in too bad of repair. And the petitioner wants to have a dance
studio there. They’re involved in clogging, actually. And we had some objectors to this.
And I went into it thinking that they wanted to fix up and restore that old schoolhouse,
and it’s a historic building and it looked like a way to preserve the building, so I went
into it heavily in favor of it and when I heard that what they actually planned to do was
tear that building down and build a new building in the back, and we had objectors there,
I frankly think I flipped a coin in my mind, and we came up with approval with some
conditions. And you see the conditions in front of you. We did have objectors. I don’t
know what to tell you other than that.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors here today? Is the petitioner here today?
The recommendation, Mr. Patty, is to approve; is that correct, with these exceptions?
Mr. Patty: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Would you like to address the Commission?
Ms. Speaker: The only condition that we really have a problem with is the time,
being 5 to 9. They had asked me during the Planning Commission meeting what time the
classes were, and they are, they start at 5 and they are over at 9, but every once in a while,
I know that they, a couple of years ago they had clogged at a halftime show for the Gator
Bowl, they’re getting ready to clog at the Arts in the Heart of Augusta, and when they do
things like that sometimes they do have extra practices where they bring them in on a
Saturday from 2 to 4 and things like that to get ready for a show that may be coming up.
And if we’re restricted to the 5 to 9 thing, there will be no time for extra practices. I
don’t know that, you know, having a difference of, you know, a few hours on a Saturday,
if someone is not keeping up in the class and needs to come in for a private one-on-one
83
lesson, you know, with the time frame being from 5 to 9, that you’re going to have any
time for those extra practices or one-on-ones.
Mr. Mayor: Let me ask the Attorney a question. Since this stipulates the hours of
operation to be Monday through Friday, 5 to 9, it’s silent on the weekends, does that
mean absolutely no activity on the weekends at all?
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry I interrupted you. Go ahead and finish.
Ms. Speaker: I was just saying that there won’t be any time allowed for people
who couldn’t keep up with their class and needed one-on-one or extra practices for
getting ready for shows. But the major times that they do, the classes are usually held
from 5 to 9, Monday through Friday, but every now and then you need that extra time.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I’ll concede to Mr. Shepard since this is his District, but
I would like to, to --
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: Go ahead and speak now.
Mr. Boyles: All right. Mr. Mayor, and other members of the Commission, I used
to work with Ms. [inaudible] and when the group was called the Masters City Cloggers.
They kind of changed their name in the last few years and they have left their Columbia
County home and come back to Richmond. I do know that with these young children --
most of them are girls -- you very seldom find boys.
Ms. Speaker: I think we have three boys.
Mr. Boyles: [inaudible] into the clogging business, but it’s a very clean type
recreational activity and because they are school children, I don’t see where it would hurt
to have some Saturday type operation in there, Steve. It’s your District but I think just
from experience when you have children -- as you say, some of them, they lag behind a
little bit and they practice a little bit and gosh, I think everything we’ve ever done on the
Riverwalk or the Common or anyplace else, we’ve had the cloggers down here to do the
entertainment. So if there is any way that we could change that and give them some
Saturday time, I think the 5 to 9 is okay.
Ms. Speaker: 5 to 9 is okay for a group. [inaudible] during the week that we
would need to studio open would be just on one-on-one, would be a teacher and one
84
student that would maybe need some extra, you know, practice, to kind of get to where
they need to be to clog with the whole group.[inaudible] do it into a Saturday, and if we
ever got a complaint we’d stop it. I mean -- and I don’t think you’d ever get a complaint.
Mr. Shepard: Well, Tommy -- what is the feeling, George, of the objectors? I
mean if we had 2 to 5 on Saturday for individual lessons? Do you think that would be --
Mr. Patty: This is tailored around, the conditions are tailored around what we
were told they needed. I can tell you we had objectors who lived fairly close to the site.
And I’m assuming there is going to be music involved here [inaudible] not too familiar
with it.
Mr. Boyles: Yes, you have to have music.
Mr. Patty: [inaudible] these people that live around there. I think [inaudible] I
don’t know anything about it [inaudible].
Mr. Boyles: I’m only commenting on the Saturday. I’m not talking about --
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Patty, you’re suggesting that the neighbors would be more
appreciative if we had less time in the evenings and some time on Saturdays or leave it
alone -- I mean give me a recommendation here.
Mr. Patty: Well, if I had more time to think about this, my recommendation
might have been to deny it, to be honest with you. But it wasn’t, and this is what the
Planning Commission recommends. As far as Saturdays, I don’t know that that would be
a problem, to have to have it, but I wouldn’t go past 9 o’clock.
Mr. Shepard: Well, I don’t think that’s the question. The question is do we allow
some weekend time? I mean Saturday afternoons for individual lessons, I mean I’m
trying to get the feel of the hearing you had [inaudible].
Mr. Patty: I don’t remember any -- we had, we had four or five different
objectors. Different objectors from different properties. One of them had rental property
next to it and he just didn’t want it. One of them lived in a mobile home behind it. She
was real concerned about the tranquility of the neighborhood and all that. I don’t
remember anything specific about, you know, not having this on a weekend. I think, you
know, we said 9 to 5, 5 to 9 rather on Monday through Friday because that’s what they
told us they wanted. I don’t think there was any discussion about the weekend.
Mr. Shepard: I’d make the motion to approve with the conditions as set forth
by the Planning Commission and the additional condition that individual lessons
could be conducted on the premises from 2:00 to 5:00 on Saturday.
Mr. Colclough: I second that.
85
Mr. Wall: Do you want to limit it to individual lessons, because if they’ve got
a performance coming up, I mean --
Mr. Shepard: That’s what she asked for.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] individual or group.
Mr. Shepard: Well, that’s what she asked for, Mr. Wall, so I was just trying to
give her what she asked for.
Ms. Speaker: Well, I’d actually like for - I mean I would like for it not to be
limited -- I mean we’ll be out of there any day by 9 o’clock but limit them to 2 to 5 on a
Saturday. A lot of these girls are teenagers and they work, you know, so if they can only
schedule a practice for [inaudible] in the afternoon and they can only schedule a practice
until 12, they can’t get the extra practice cause we can only practice from 2 to 5 or
whatever. You know, if we had the weekend, I mean I don’t know why it matters if
they’re clogging at 12 or clogging at 2.
Mr. Shepard: What about this, could you and Mr. Patty come back and we
just table this and consider this in a few minutes with a -- I mean I suggested what
you specifically wanted, which I understood to be individual lessons on Saturday. I
mean I’m not, you know, having a dog in this fight one way or the other but let’s
make the rules clear, ma’am. You say now you’d like to group lessons?
Ms. Speaker: No, what I said --
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible], help me out here.
Ms. Speaker: What I said was during the week sometimes they need one-on-one
lessons. During Saturday time, if they’re getting ready for a show, like the Arts in the
Heart and the whole group is not ready, bring the group in and they practice on
Saturdays, get extra practice for the whole group.
Mr. Shepard: Well, what hours of operation on Saturday are you proposing? I
mean is 2 to 5 not appropriate [inaudible] 10 to 5?
Ms. Speaker: 10 to 5 would be great.
Mr. Shepard: Well, we’ve had a motion and second. I’ll --
Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll make a substitute motion.
Mr. Shepard: Well, I was going to amend it with the consent of the body.
Mr. Colclough: You have my consent.
86
Mr. Shepard: We’ll adopt those suggested hours on Saturday, say 10 to 5.
Ms. Speaker: That would be great.
Mr. Shepard: That will be an additional condition if the body accepts my
amendment.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to that? Further discussion? Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Colclough: I don’t know anything about clogging.
Ms. Speaker: It’s like -- have you ever seen Riverdance? Riverdance? That’s
what it is.
Mr. Colclough: Okay. Now you’re talking about young school-age children and
you’re having a dance group?
Ms. Speaker: Right.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] what kind of music do they dance by?
Ms. Speaker: They usually dance to mountain music, country music.
Mr. Wall: They have taps.
Ms. Speaker: They have taps on their shoes. It’s just like Riverdance.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] in the building?
Ms. Speaker: They’re in the building, yes. And it’s mostly girls.
Mr. Colclough: How much noise do these -- I mean I [inaudible].
Ms. Speaker: They don’t make much noise at all. They’re all girls and they’re
not trouble making.
Mr. Colclough: What is the big deal about a group of youngsters getting together
to dance in a building? They’re not playing loud boom [inaudible].
Ms. Speaker: Actually, Tommy Boyles used to do all the MC-ing shows for the
Masters City Cloggers.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Anybody else want to speak to the motion?
87
Mr. Cheek: Call the question. Mr. Boyles, lord of the dance.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] Planning & Zoning and I’m in support. I think the
changes be good. They are not outside, they are inside. They got their own driveway
going back there, for what I remember, George, and not [inaudible] other people. There
were some objectors there. It was fairly close but being inside, I think if we get a report
that there is trouble then we need to go out there and maybe you know, make some
changes. But I think we need to support this. This ain’t like break dancing that Richard
used to do.
(Laughter)
Mr. Williams: This is --
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] boom box.
Mr. Williams: This ain’t like that, though. They got their own music inside and I
think it be good. So let’s go ahead and vote on this.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, we always said that three minutes is equal to an average
person jogging three miles.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges [inaudible].
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to make sure I understand the
motion. We’re approving what we’ve already got down here plus 10 to 5 on Saturday.
Did we get to the one-on-one that we needed?
Mr. Shepard: That dropped out, Mr. Bridges, they can have the group there on
Saturday.
Mr. Bridges: Do we have any objectors here today?
Ms. Speaker: Besides this being --
Mr. Mayor: No objectors.
Ms. Speaker: Besides this being a clogging studio, a dance studio for these
children, it’s also a business, and when you put limitations, this is my 20-year-old
daughter who is doing this. She’s been clogging since she was five. She’s [inaudible]
people say can I come in for, can I get you to meet me at the clogging studio for one-on-
one, I need some extra practice at 12 and she’s going to say no, I can’t do it until 2. It’s a
88
business and I think it should have business hours, 10 to 9 or whatever, like regular
businesses.
Mr. Bridges: According to this, you won’t be able to do it at 2. Only 5 to 9.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] Saturday.
Mr. Bridges: 5 to 9 Monday through Friday and then 10 to 5 on Saturday.
Ms. Speaker: Right.
Mr. Beard: Call for the question.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. The Chair rules there has been
adequate rehearsal here. Let’s move ahead with the vote then. The motion as amended
by Mr. Shepard. Raise your hand, please, if you’re in favor.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Motion is approved.
Ms. Speaker: Thank you. Now what are my hours?
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty will -- George, George, will you please go over with her
what her hours are? We’ll move along now. I think our next item is number 36.
The Clerk: Which one, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: 36, I think in sequence.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY:
36. Consider the matter of taxicab dispatching and telephone listing. (No
recommendation from Public Safety Committee August 11, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: The Chairman of the committee is here. Go ahead.
Mr. Williams:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We, we had debated and talked about,
we had a subcommittee come back and made some changes in our taxicab ordinance. We
are waiting to get something from the Airport Committee as to how we can [inaudible] all
the taxicab service. I contend that the taxicab with one or two taxis should not be
required to have to have a dispatch or a telephone listing in the telephone book. If they
89
can have services that they can provide their customers with, without a telephone, that’s
I so move that we approve, Mr. Mayor, giving them the
an expense they can save, and
option to have or have not a dispatch or a telephone.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. This would have to come back as an
ordinance amendment, Mr. Wall, is that correct?
Mr. Wall: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Comments, questions? Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just a couple of comments. In polling several people
waiting for taxis, they are very displeased with the service we have available in Augusta
in general. Anything we can do to improve that service I am for. I am concerned,
though, that here again with the big guys, we don’t want to overly burden the little guys
where they can’t compete. But there again, if the, this same ordinance, I’m assure, I want
to be assured that it will be the same for the big guys, they don’t have to have a phone
number in the book, they don’t have to have dispatch, they can [inaudible] those costs, as
well. I think there should be certain minimum requirements on this. In any event, I’m
just concerned that we [inaudible] this thing closely. I’m supportive of making the
system better, but at some point they’ve either got to be listed in directory assistance or at
least be listed in some book somewhere. How else are people going to call them? How
else are we going to know they’re in business? I mean they can throw a sign or light on.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I agree with --
Mr. Mayor: Just a minute, Mr. Williams. Some down here want to speak.
Mr. Williams: All right.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Boyles: I was just going -- I think we ought to give a citizens award to Mr.
Lay because he hasn’t missed a meeting. He’s been here longer than we have, Mr.
Williams, and we ought to give some sort of citizens award to Mr. Lay. He’s been
persistent in trying to get this done.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, did you have your hand up?
Mr. Beard: Just for clarification, I guess. I just don’t understand what we’re
doing here right now. Are we saying that all those taxicabs, licensed taxicab people, they
don’t have to be in the book? Is this what we’re saying?
90
Mr. Wall: That’s what we’re saying. Don’t have to have dispatch, don’t have to
have telephone listing.
Mr. Beard: Come on. That’s a little farfetched there.
Mr. Williams: No, no --
Mr. Beard: I have the floor at this point.
(Laughter)
Mr. Beard: You know, I would like to help out the small business people but if
this is going to open up a floodgate, I think we need to consider that. That’s all. I turned
it back over to whoever want to, but that’s -- I don’t know, because I know if I was
running one and I didn’t have [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: And Mr. Beard, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Even the large
companies. I’m not trying to put a burden on a large company and let the smaller
company go out from under that. I’m saying that if you can run the business, a large
company will want to have a dispatch service and they got the option, they got their
license, but a man or woman with two taxis or one taxi should not have to have a
dispatcher and a phone listing. If he can operate his business successfully without a
phone, then he’s a genius, he knows how to do it. I mean, and I don’t think we ought to
get in the business of demanding. If he wants to get one and he has one taxi and he can
do it that way, that’s fine, too. But everybody has got the right. Commissioner Cheek
brought up a good point. We shouldn’t put a burden on the large companies and let the
smaller ones get by. If anybody wants to do that, they got an option to do it or not. I
mean if I decide to go into business and I can do without a phone, that’s a savings for me.
So I don’t want to demand because the larger company who have to have a phone, he’s
got 20 taxis, 25 taxis, he’s got to be able to notify them, he’s got to be able to call them.
But a man with one taxi, maybe two, he shouldn’t have to have a dispatch service. I
mean if that going to be an injustice to have them compete with a larger company. I
mean a lot of these people just trying to make a living, and some people in business. I
mean we really got to look at this, this seriously now. We been talking about this for
some months. Commissioner Cheek talked about being in the phone book. But we are
still going on a town mentality in a city. All the major cities like taxis. I ain’t seen
anybody yet that goes [inaudible] call a taxi to come pick them up. They, if you at a
hotel, the bellman will flag somebody for you. [inaudible] but since we still got a town,
we have not come to the city status yet, we still thinking like a town. We need to open
this city up and be a city. And if a taxi can run his business without that, he’s done come
to the city level. But those that still got dispatchers, they still in towns, let them operate
that way. I mean that’s simple. That shouldn’t be so complicated for you to understand.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams. Thank you. I disagree, Mr. Williams. To me this is
not a business issue at all. This is a public safety issue. Now you’ve got people in
vehicles who are literally riding the streets of this city inviting people to come off the
91
street and get in their vehicle. To me there needs to be a legitimacy to the business that
puts the telephone number in a phone book. I’m not as concerned about the dispatching
as I am having a number listed in a phone book. To me, there is potential for someone to
become seriously hurt by somebody who is impersonating a cab or a cab driver. As Mr.
Hankerson said, what if he left something in the cab by mistake, how is he going to call
the cab company and retrieve his item? This is a public safety issue, and I think that in
this we need to protect the public and requiring a cab company to put a phone number in
a phone book, a listing with telephone information where someone can retrieve, some
way to get in touch with that cab company to me is not asking too much at all.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I can agree with you. As Chairman of Public Safety I
am truly interested in safety of not only this county, but the people traveling in this
county. But when you say listed in a phone book, which is the phone, the real phone
book now? You talking about in a phone book, and I have not problem doing it in a
book. But if you going to list in a phone book, who is going to say which is the real book
to be listed in? Do we designate the Real Yellow Pages or the red book or the blue book
or the local phone book that somebody else may print? So as long as you’re listed in the
book, would that be sufficient for this government? As long as they’re listed in the book,
I can agree with that.
Mr. Mayor: I would submit to you, Mr. Williams, that you could specify that it
must be listed in a phone book. Let the business decide which book it wants to list it in.
You could say a book in general circulation.
Mr. Williams: I make a substitute motion --
Mr. Mayor: You could say -- one more thing, you can say that the number has
got to be listed with telephone information. You call 4-1-1 and get the number.
Mr. Williams: Well, I’m going to make a substitute motion that we don’t demand
that they have a dispatch service but we do --
Mr. Wall: You made the first motion, you would need to amend.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Thank you, Jim. You doing your attorney duties today.
(Laughter)
Mr. Williams: I would amend, that’s right, I would amend my initial motion
to establish or to make a motion that we allow them to not have a dispatch unless
they want one, not making it mandatory, but to also have it mandatory that they be
listed in a phone book. I mean I can’t designate which phone book but in a phone
book would be my motion.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to the amendment that’s been offered? We’ll
let the motion stand as amended. Mr. Shepard.
92
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I’d ask the maker of the motion and the consent
of the body that we dispose of this in one time, because it’s been up here and I think
if we’re going to do that, with that kind of compromise, let’s go ahead and waive the
second reading and let’s move on to other business.
Mr. Williams: I can, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I just think we ought to designate as a minimum yellow
book, Yellow Pages, Bell South, directory assistance, some consistent medium for these
people to register with, because if not, if we just say the phone book, they can go get
somebody’s little book from some little neighborhood or something that’s called a phone
book. We need to have consistent policy with a consistent contact number and that could
be Bell South Yellow Pages. I think that’s fine. It’s a standard for the area and
[inaudible] picks up the book.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Lay, you wanted to speak?
Mr. Lay: The nature of our business is flag-downs anyway. I mean you go to
New York City, like he said, people get cabs by flag-downs. Travel all over the city,
you’re right. But [inaudible] pick up flag-downs. And we do get calls. We have a cell
phone. We dispatch on our cell phones.
Mr. Mayor: Who dispatches you?
Mr. Lay: We get the call.
Mr. Mayor: I mean how do they know to call you? How do you get the number
out?
Mr. Lay: Pass out cards. You know, have advertising on the side of our cars.
Mr. Mayor: I was in New York last week and they had radios and meters and
dispatch in cabs that I flagged down.
Mr. Lay: We have phone numbers on the side of our cars and they just flag us
down. Until we can grow big enough to get in the yellow pages, we really can’t afford to
[inaudible] yellow pages. We can afford the cell phones.
Mr. Mayor: They give you a free ad in the yellow -- put the number in the yellow
pages.
Mr. Lay: [inaudible]
93
Mr. Wall: I agree with you. I think it needs to be one or more designated phone
books, I think Southern Bell Yellow Pages. I mean all the other telephone companies,
[inaudible] everybody has to furnish their telephone numbers to Southern Bell. That is
the recognized telephone book, and if they want a cell phone, they can get a listing in the
Yellow Pages of Southern Bell telephone, and that is in my opinion the industry standard.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to amend the motion, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I’d like to amend the motion to that. I think that a standard is
necessary. If somebody can’t afford an ad in the Yellow Pages, they’re too marginal
to be in operation. I mean that’s $8 or $10 a year.
Mr. Lay: We don’t need it.
Mr. Cheek: The city needs it. We’ve come a long way to accommodating --
Mr. Lay: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Lay, direct your comments to the Chair.
Mr. Cheek: We’ve come a long way to amending and changing the taxi
ordinance, but this is one that -- and I’ve been supportive of those things to date, but this
is one there has to be a minimum standard of accountability, and the Yellow Pages in the
phone book that everybody uses and several places I’ve called people to contact them and
never get them.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to Mr. Cheek’s objection to the motion that
would designate the Southern Bell Yellow Pages?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I’m objecting.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Then he has the right to amend it through a vote. We can
vote on the amendment.
Mr. Williams: I’ve got a comment. I need some clarification, too, because when
you talking about telephones and you talking about long distance service, there’s got to
be 4,000 different telephone services and long distance services that we use in your
home. Not even in your car, but in your home. I’ve got three cell phones and two of
them are different. They ain’t the same. So all I’m saying is why should we want to
regulate whether or not they be in the yellow pages or the red book or the green book? If
they can operate their business -- [inaudible] Mr. Mayor, talking about the safety side of
it, about where people leave something in their car. These people have been operating
for years the same way. Small business people are trying to get better, trying to grow, to
get to the point of advertising. There are some people that pay $140 a month for
advertisement in the phone book. Not for just one line, now, but for advertisement in the
94
phone book. Some of them can’t pay that. Will never pay that. And that’s not a one time
fee. That’s a every month fee. Depends on --
Mr. Mayor: They don’t have to buy an ad.
Mr. Williams: I understand. But a lot of people buy those ads and buy those ads.
I just don’t understand why we going designate a certain book and we never had a certain
book before. A red book, a blue book, now the Yellow Pages. I disagree.
Mr. Mayor: All right. There has been a motion made to amend the motion, so
we’ll vote on the amendment to the motion. All in favor of amending the motion --
Mr. Bridges: What’s the motion that we’re voting on?
Mr. Mayor: The amendment. The amendment would specify the Bell South
Yellow Pages. All in favor of that amendment, please raise your hand.
(Vote on the amendment to the motion)
Mr. Williams votes No.
Mr. Mays not voting.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any discussion on the motion? Is there any discussion on the
motion? We’ll go ahead and go for a vote on that now.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] second reading, Mr. Mayor? Like Commissioner
Shepard --
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: If you’d like it. Only if you’d like it.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion as amended, please raise your hand so the
Clerk can see it.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Bell South Yellow Pages.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
95
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] either one. [inaudible] automatically going to be listed in
Bell South, the regular phone book. [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: We’re voting on the motion. All in favor of the motion, please raise
your hand.
(Vote on original motion with amendment)
Mr. Mays votes Present.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Shepard: Call for the order of the day.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is item number 39.
Mr. Lay: What does that mean? What does that mean? I’m in Bell South.
Mr. Mayor: You can talk to Mr. Sherman. Where is Mr. Sherman from the
Inspection Department? He can explain that to you. Go see Mr. Sherman. Item number
39.
The Clerk:
FINANCE:
39. Approve award of contract to Mabus Brothers Construction, Inc. in the
amount of $303,156.25 for construction of the Jones Street Storm Separation
Project. (No recommendation from Engineering Services Committee August 11,
2003)
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure?
Mr. Cheek: I move approval.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I asked that it be pulled. And my question is, at the
time in committee I was asking whether or not there were maybe like any bidders that
were in second or third or fourth position. I was informed at that time, I think, and I
stand to be corrected, I believe Mr. [inaudible], there is only two bidders on this
particular project.
Mr. Speaker: That’s correct.
96
Mr. Mays: And my reason, Mr. Mayor, for bringing this to be discussed is the
fact that, and I stand to be corrected on the geographical location, but the fact that as
recently as the Judicial Committee meeting before [inaudible], the one at the museum, the
Chief Judge of the Superior Court talked about the level of contamination which some of
th
us have been talking about anyway. But along the canal period. All the way up 13
Street, back down. Now the previous work that was done one block from where part of
this work is being done had more change orders with it than I really wanted to see
personally. Because I thought they were justified but it was no secret about the level of
contamination. That’s public information and knowledge [inaudible] people talk about it.
And my thing is, I’m just going to whether or not these numbers are going to be close to
where they are, whether some conversation has been held with the contractor to a point
we’re not going to wear this one out to a point where every penny [inaudible] out of it. I
mean I just need to hear whether or not this is going to be one where we deal with
another low bid and we deal with it along in that same area. It needs to be done because
you’ve got a mixture of storm water and sanitary stuff. It’s a necessity. But also, it ought
to be some prudence in there of when people take these particular bids in [inaudible]
areas, knowing what they are going to run into, that they element of surprise doesn’t
surprise us. And that’s what I’d like to hear some feedback on, the $305,000 cause it
could get to be where next month it’s another $40,000, the next month another $20,000,
and we ran into this, we ran into that, then we’re looking [inaudible] I just need to hear
something on it. [inaudible] whether it’s [inaudible] or whether it’s going to get change
ordered to death.
Mr. Mayor: Want to try?
Mr. Speaker: I’ll try. You are correct in that part of this is on the Fenwick Street,
thth
between 8 and 9 Street, which we basically ran a sewer line approximately 18 months
or two years ago. And we did not encounter contamination when we went in that area,
like it was a possibility. So there is a slight increased level of [inaudible] that we don’t
have the contamination that was originally thought to be located there, and that did
involve the testing of the ground water, including putting in a [inaudible] tank to test it
before we discharged it. There has been some conversations with contractors. We had a
pre-bid conference. They knew where they were going, and I don’t want to rule out the
possibility that we could encounter something down there that we don’t know about. We
have done a significant amount of excavation in the area and have a pretty good
confidence in what we think is down there. On top of that, this is a relatively shallow
excavation project, due to flat grades in the area anyway, which is just another way we
can keep the grading down, you know, four feet excavations which obviously cuts down
on the [inaudible] conditions. And the reason that it’s coupled with the Jones Street
Storm Separation Project, which for those that may not know [inaudible], it’s basically
thth
where Riverwatch dead ends and from there, from 13 to 12 is that area. Was due to the
emergency nature of the storm drainage issue that we have there, I guess the increased
operations, maintenance costs for pumping, etc., and to keep the [inaudible] from
flooding. We did go out and actually solicit prices for Fenwick Street all by itself, and
the prices came in, what we thought were not what we thought should be. So we denied
that. It wasn’t really a bid. It was actually attempted to be negotiated, and the company
97
refused to negotiate the price. So we decided to add it to this one and hopefully get a
better price when coupled with quantities of the Jones Street project and I think that
helped in keeping the prices down because the quantities were of course a lot more. And
the contractors wanted a little bit more defined area than the other. So with that said, I
think that you know, we feel pretty confident about it. There has been some discussion
with the contractor and I guess we do recommend approval.
Mr. Mays: The -- my question then would be the contractor that you negotiated
with that refused to negotiate, I’m assuming that was another contractor other than the
one that you’re giving it to you now?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir, they did not put a bid in on the [inaudible] advertised
project. Coincidentally, it was the same contractor that subbed in the previous project
you’re talking about.
Mr. Mays: And I’m not like Steve now. I don’t have a dog in this hunt, but I do
have a problem when I see the same folk back at the same table and they incur the same
problem and you get these CO’s on there and it’s done as a matter of necessity and it’s to
a point of where we’ve got to do it and I just, like I say, I just don’t want to deal with any
more surprises. The danger of it, I can vote for it, but I’m going to kind of be as
[inaudible] as [inaudible] when he [inaudible] I ain’t going to vote for a change order on
this one at the point of a gun. So I mean whatever you going to get out of this particular
Commissioner, it’s not going to be any more than $303,156.25. Period. And if it gets
changed past that, it will get changed in a vote that nine other people make a decision on.
But I’m just not going to do it. At all. Cause I think [inaudible] in there and I make the
same comments, not just about Fenwick Street, I make it about Jones Street. We know to
a point that we’ve been warned of what’s in there. We can get in denial about the fact
that you don’t have danger zones in there. But it just, it just, somehow very coincidental
that the same folk get into the same project and the same folk end up with just as many
change orders. And it seems as though that’s just the way of doing business with us, and I
have a problem with that. I’m through, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Let me make a comment, if I may, because
I’m the one who is getting the phone calls with respect to Jones Street. Every time we
get the raining, the rain because we do not have the separation, the toilets back up at
Kamo Manufacturing on Reynolds Street. And we have to send a plumber over there at
our expense to clean up the mess and clean out the sewer over there. This project is
something we have been trying to get going for about two years now. I’m talking about
just the Jones Street. The Fenwick Street came in late in the process. But if there is some
way -- if Fenwick Street is the problem, if there is some way to move ahead with the
Jones Street, the folks over at Kamo Manufacturing would be deeply appreciative of that.
Besides that, the EPA requires us to separate these things, so we really don’t have a lot of
options on that, either. Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Cheek, Mr. Cheek. [inaudible] Laney Walker [inaudible]?
98
Mr. D. Cheek: [inaudible]
Mr. Colclough: That’s the same company? We’re going to give the same
company Jones and Fenwick, mess up Jones and Fenwick like they got Laney-Walker for
the last year, with the change orders and all this other good stuff?
Mr. D. Cheek: I want to, from just my limited knowledge of the Laney-Walker
project --
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] I know it’s [inaudible] and I have to [inaudible] drop
my kid off at school and I know [inaudible] have your front end re-aligned. Now this
thing has been messed up for quite a while and [inaudible] the same company coming
back with change order #7. And I know [inaudible] come back [inaudible] do the same
thing with [inaudible]. Public Works [inaudible] because I see these folks down on
Laney-Walker [inaudible] and it’s still going on and it don’t look like they are going to
finish anytime soon. And we’re going to give them Jones Street and Fenwick Street
[inaudible].
Mr. D. Cheek: The only thing I can say, this is actually the project that we’re
coming forward with today. The new project is actually a combined effort between the
two departments. I see what you’re saying. If the timeliness is not good on one project,
then you’re adding another project, and a very valid point. It is my understanding that
they have added to staff. For what that’s worth, they have actually acquired employees
of a fellow company, which we’re okay with the company. But as far as change orders
go, we did just a little -- I guess for the Utilities Department, and since 2001 Mabus
Brothers has had five projects with us. And the number were actually quite shocking to
me. They were -5% percentage of the original contract amount. And that’s a little bit
distorted because of a $100,000 deducted change order where we were able to work out a
really good deal with the Public Works Department and save ourselves some money. But
they have been fairly successful on water and sewer projects where the concept and scope
is very much more, easier defined. It’s more clearly defined, and it’s usually in a
subdivision, so those numbers are very misleading compared to the kinds of projects we
have here, is all I can say.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] item number 40. I know this is [inaudible]. The
original contract amount of that project was [inaudible] and a change order for
[inaudible] and another change order for [inaudible] and that’s the same company that
you’re talking about [inaudible]. I’d like [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go to Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ve got a serious problem with this
company. And if I can, for Friday at the Administrative Public Services meeting,
Commissioner Cheek is holding, right?
The Clerk: [inaudible]
99
Mr. Williams: Engineering meeting. If I can get somebody to give us a report of
the last five years, how many jobs -- not just from you -- period. How many change
orders, their work ethics, the work that they have done ought to mean something to this
government. [inaudible] I don’t care about the amount here, the change orders has been
coming in, but they have not been professional in their work and what they been doing,
the types service that we been giving the people on this Laney-Walker project is really
disturbing. If you walk down that street, this night, you are subject to fall in a hole at any
given place along Laney-Walker. There is no barricade. There is nothing up. The
driveways have been disrupted. They have not been professional. I would not vote on no
contract for them. And I ain’t got no problem doing that. But when you look at the
professional type work they supposed to be done and what they had to do and as long as
they been doing it, they shouldn’t be considered for no other work for this government,
and I would not vote for it. [inaudible] this item and other items, Mr. Mayor, my vote is
already cast. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you. Any further discussion? We need a motion on
this.
Mr. Cheek: Motion to approve, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Boyles: Is this the same company that put in the bid for Willow Creek, Raes
Creek job?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion to approve -- you have a question, Mr.
Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to ask a question and I’m going to make a
substitute motion.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Mays: What is the amount of the second bid on this particular contract?
Mr. D. Cheek: It’s exactly $354,629.05, with Blair Construction.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make a substitute motion that the
contract be awarded to the second bidder, with negotiations done in it.
And my
reason for making the substitute motion basically is to get this out on the table, get it in
I’m doing it under the best bid concept
the open, deal with -- and , the problems that
100
have, that this city has incurred with the bidder who has been conducting business with
previous contracts, that we’ve had problems with, and that is my reason for doing that.
Then I think if that generates then a bid protest, then it gets us to a point that we need to
call the company in and then maybe that’s what’s really needed to get to some serious
talks about how this work is being done. And I make that in the form of a substitute
motion.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Motion has been duly seconded.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Bridges: On the motion, and I certainly understand it, what are the legalities
of this, Jim, being able to take the second bid in a bid situation?
Mr. Wall: I think that the Commission is justified in doing it. As Mr. Cheek has
indicated, this is somewhat of a different project than the sewer projects that Mabus has
performed on in the past. You are going to be tearing up Jones Street, you are going to
be tearing up --
Mr. Bridges: You feel comfortable with our legal standing on it then?
Mr. Wall: I do.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: All right. If I could ask a question to clarify, Mr. Wall, because I’m
going to get the phone call from the business on Reynolds Street. If the substitute motion
passes and they negotiate with that company, then they’re authorized to go ahead and
sign the contract, or does that have to come back here again?
Mr. Wall: Generally an agenda item is worded such that you are approving the
award of a contract, for the contract to be done.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Further questions?
Mr. Williams: Clarification, Mr. Mayor. On that proposal, I asked for a report on
Friday, I didn’t hear whether or not I could get that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb was taking some notes. I believe he’s going to have that
for you on Friday.
101
Mr. Williams: Mr. Kolb, I asked about the amount of work that this company has
done for this government in the last five years, counting every change order.
Mr. Kolb: We’ll do our best to get it done.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: Just a caveat on that. If we keep adding things to Friday, like I said,
take your sleeping bags cause this stuff is getting tacked on to the back of the agenda. It
ain’t going to be put at the front.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, all in favor of the substitute motion from Mr. Mays, if you will
please raise your hand. Raise it high so the Clerk can see it.
Mr. Kuhlke votes No.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: That motion is approve. The next item is item number 40.
The Clerk:
40. Approve Change Order Number Seven with Mabus Brothers in the amount
of $72,082.35 on the Laney Walker Boulevard Reconstruction Project to be funded
from the project contingency account (CPB # 327-04-1110/201812018). (No
recommendation from Engineering Services Committee August 11, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: All right, gentlemen, what’s your pleasure?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion and be recognized.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Mays, you have the floor.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that change order be denied.
Mr. Beard: I second that.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there any discussion on the motion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: I had this pulled with the essence of time [inaudible] really put up
with us in committee that day, and this came in about three hours after the scheduled time
to do it. And that’s we are really dealing with these with no recommendation. But I
102
think there are some very serious issues that are involved in Laney-Walker as Marion just
said. I know that everything does not necessarily deal with one contractor in Laney-
Walker. Public Works has had to deal with utilities, had to deal with some other items.
But the point of the main contract and the work that’s out there, not only have people in
that area been [inaudible] residents been displeased, but the point of almost being in
something of wanting to be reimbursed for disruption during the January parade on
King’s birthday, an annual event in that area of doing so, that in taking the job they knew
that was going to be, but that did not account for the fact that you had manhole situations
that were up as high in some cases as two feet in the area, grading [inaudible] city police
were even questioning the fact of whether they could ride a motor bike over in terms of
escorting the parade, holes at every corridor on the north south boundaries of every one
th
of the streets, starting with Twiggs, and it’s the best one. Twiggs or 7 is the best one.
The new entrance at Summer Street to those new homes that are there, enough holes that
ththth
standing water is there in the middle of those streets. 9, the same way. 10. 11. All
the way up the numerical streets. The public safety dilemma that you’ve got. If you stop
-- let me put it this way. If you are going north south and you are crossing that street and
the light changes to green going east to west, you make a choice of knocking your car out
of line or getting it hit by the east west cars coming. Because even with the delayed
traffic signals, you’ve got to come to a full stop. So if someone turns, for instance, out of
Armstrong Galleria going west on Laney Walker and a car just happens, they’ve got the
green light, cars still in the middle of the road sitting there, look up, bam. You’ve got an
accident because they’ve got to come to a full stop. Our risk management office is full of
-- they got claims already been denied. Now I think some of this is out of defiance from
the standpoint this Commissioner went on record as providing damages that was done to
the gentleman that owned the car wash that was out there, for his [inaudible] work that
was halted out there in his business, I think the transmission the young lady had that was
basically torn from under the bottom of her car, you’ve got even to the point of, Mr.
Chairman, your citizens committee [inaudible] didn’t even want the hassle of being
[inaudible] deal with it, his was tore up the same way. And there are probably untold
others who just feel they can’t fight city hall, that won’t come down. It id ridiculous the
way that that area has been left totally. And I don’t mean a bump. I’m talking about
actual holes, 6 and 7 of them in each corridor going north south. Now I ride the street
and sometimes run over these metal plates that cover areas. Some of them been in the
streets for a long time. Now if they got the audacity to ask for an extension that goes into
February, then I think some discussion needs to be, they need to come in here before us,
some discussion needs to be held with the contractor to a point of putting down some
plan, if we going to have to deal with that on north south corridors every day. Cause all
that’s not a utility problem that’s there. Those [inaudible] and there’s a lot of economic
[inaudible] of this city no major thoroughfare would be left as raggedy as that area has
been left, and to have the nerve, more nerve than a brass monkey, to come up here and
ask for a change order and an extension at the same time. Now that’s a whole lot of
nerve. They don’t need no nerve pills except [inaudible] to be [inaudible] something like
this to come in here with it. I don’t [inaudible] if nothing else from the standpoint to
make them come in, prove their point. I’ve heard what staff has said and I realize again
all if it’s not done 100% of what this company has done. But the majority of it, they
have. And the changes that have been made, each [inaudible] a lighted barricade, to do
103
work that’s [inaudible], we’ve had to turn to the Public Works Department to say go in
there to get them to do it. Now it would seem to me if they did it after Public Works sent
to them, they do it in other areas of this city, quite frankly, that are more affluent than
Laney-Walker, and I resent the fact that they come in here, they make enough money off
of this city, and to have the nerve to come in here and ask for a change order and
extension at the same time. I will not vote, this Commissioner won’t, to give them one
more penny to deal with anything else out there on that project. And Mr. Mayor, I hope
that we can see through that. If you haven’t seen it yet, drive north south on any one of
those corridors and drive over five miles an hour. Go to your alignment place the next
day, cause you’ll need it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I -- just rather, if you could answer this question for me.
I understand the concern of Commissioner Mays, but seems to me that the request for the
change order, what effect is it going to have on the progress of the job? Because it seems
to me like what has got to be done, it could have some impact on then continuing
whatever they are doing down there.
Mr. Speaker: That’s correct. Utilities is a huge problem, still is a huge problem.
Just two or three weeks ago Bell South announced that they had come to an agreement
with our County Attorney, so they are now in the design phase for what they’re going to
do. This could be months down the road before they do that. But the change order work,
I believe, has already been done.
Mr. Kuhlke: Well, in order to keep the project moving --
Mr. Speaker: The change order work has already been done.
Mr. Mays: Well, let me just ask you this then, Mr. Mayor, or the Attorney.
Under the auspices of how this government works, how in the hell do you make change
orders through anybody and come back and you ratify them to a point that if we got a
bridge on Alexander Drive that the road is basically about to fall in, I’ve got one over on
Railroad Street where half the street is caved in and you can’t get that changed and put
[inaudible] to do it, how then are we coming in, ratifying work on something that has not
been brought before this Commission to get done? Now I realize projects, yes, they have
to keep going, but there is a process, even if there is an emergency to do it. Folk just
cannot sit somewhere in an office, including the Administrator of this city, he’s got a
limit on what he can do. Now I know good and well we can’t do [inaudible] departments
to say you’ve got change orders [inaudible]. I beg to differ in that and anything that has
been done, to do it, that is a violation of city ordinance. And I address that to the
Attorney.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
104
Mr. Mays: No, I’m asking to a point if he said the change order has already been
done and to a point that who authorized it, who gave the vote to deal with it, and was it an
emergency, Mr. Cheek has had more meetings and more workshops as a progressive
departmental chairman than anybody here, and Andy’s had enough clearing ground
where we could discuss if something is being done. Now I hope that was a slip of the
tongue and that just came out wrong. [inaudible] if we did a change order to a point out
there particularly in that area on that street and we did not ratify it or approve it and you
telling me that’s something we’re doing today cause the work’s already been done?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, if you look at the backup, and this is kind of perplexing,
but some of this work goes back to November of last year.
Mr. Speaker: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: November, January, March of this year. And here it is the middle of
August, and this is just coming before the Commission.
Mr. Mays: And my problem is on the same, the item that’s coming next, the
backup also says that we got notes in there from November 26, 2002, December 1, 2002,
and we doing work almost in September. So the one of them, they may be step-children,
but they kin. I’m going to deal with that one when we get to that one. But you absolutely
correct. I read the backup. You’re right. It is disturbing.
Mr. Wall: Let me clarify. You could have [inaudible] decision that has to be
made [inaudible]. I mean that’s, in my opinion, the [inaudible] and I think you have the
right to turn down [inaudible].
Mr. Speaker: This work was done. Mabus elected to proceed with the work
because they were getting pressure from us and everybody else. The reason that some of
this is just now coming to the Commission is because we negotiated prices. We would
not accept what they brought to us to start with. We didn’t want to bring anything down
here that was unreasonable. And Mabus has elected to do this work on their own.
Mr. Mayor: Then they proceed at their own risk, I would assume.
Mr. Williams: That’s the way I see it, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mays: Mighty nice of them, considering all the millions that’s been spent,
Mr. Mayor. I still got, I still got a major problem. You mentioned a minute ago that the
design work, [inaudible] was being done with the utilities. So then I’m to assume the
utilities and the design work, then the holes and the raggedness and the shoddiness does
not belong to Bell South then?
Mr. Speaker: You’re correct. Part of it does, part of it belongs to Georgia Natural
Gas.
105
Mr. Mays: The ones that are in the middle of the streets on the north south
corridors that have been just left there. What I’m saying is to a point we have a general
contractor overseeing a project, and if they can go out there every day and look at the
same hole. Cause now I can see it if folk were in the hole every day working, if they
were out there every day doing something. But to a point when nobody is on the north
south corridors other than the holes, other than the water, other than the bumps, then I got
a problem with that. Because that means there is no activity, couple with shoddiness
that’s being left there, and you’ve got people -- we’ve got a $7 million Health
Department project that we put sales tax money in [inaudible] Laney-Walker Boulevard.
You’ve got a major corridor going to your, to the finest medical center that you’ve got in
the south that’s going through there, and you’ve got three schools that’s on that street that
deal with children that [inaudible] that passageway. You’ve got historical churches there.
Nowhere in this city would anybody have left or had the audacity. If they left it that
raggedy, it sure wouldn’t have been that [inaudible], Mr. Mayor, to [inaudible] change
order. And I can’t vote for one. Nary a penny. Not one cent. Whether they’ve done it,
didn’t get it, or how they going to get it. This is one of them cases where sometimes y’all
get in the back room and y’all say this is something we ought to take a stand on let
[inaudible]. Well, I tell you what. You got [inaudible] take a stand on dealing with that.
[inaudible] cars, you can’t get up through there to do a darn thing, and then come up here
today and want $70,000-some and seven change orders and not even metal plates to run
across one street? I don’t think so.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mays, I was wondering if we would add something to this, your
motion in that I think somebody from either, you know, the Mayor or the Administrator
or Public Works ought to inform these people that something should be done with some
of the things that you talked about, and I won’t go back into those. But it is kind of a --
and I get calls from there all the time about when are we going to -- you know, you ride
th
from 7 Street to the railroad, and you hitting bump after bump after bump. And I think,
you know, with a company of this size, they should be able to direct that, so at least you
would have some smooth passage along the way. And I don’t usually go down that way
simply because I can’t afford it in my car. But I think we need to add something more to
that. I think people need to be informed. We just don’t need to talk about this here, we
need to inform them what they are doing here, and I don’t know whose going to do that,
but I hope that could be [inaudible] into the motion.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Beard, [inaudible] the motion is out there [inaudible] take yours
own, anybody else wants to send them any kind of message, it’s acceptable.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: This motion is to deny this change order; is that correct?
Mr. Mays: That’s correct.
106
Mr. Cheek: Now this will basically put a stop on the project, I assume?
Mr. Mays: Well, it will get somebody’s attention, cause if it puts a stop on it then
there’s no work being done, but the holes are still there anyway, Andy. My problem I’ve
got with it is sometimes you’ve got to deal with getting somebody’s attention. Now
[inaudible] get mad about it, they going to call their attorney, the Mayor, the
Administrator and say we’ve got a problem, you denied our change order. We say okay,
fine, come down to our turf and let’s talk. But what I’m saying is you don’t do anything
about it, I mean you’ve taken me home, you can’t drive over two miles, [inaudible] you
take me home, you know that it’s raggedy as hell any way you go. And I just think
[inaudible] --
Mr. Cheek: Let me complete.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: Well, he asked a question about --
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible] I was looking [inaudible]. The thing that we need to
know, though, is if we are fed up with this, and this is probably one of the shoddiest jobs
I’ve ever seen. I have questions about I guess a compliance audit to look at the quality of
work as compared to our specifications. I, too, have driven this road several times and it
looks like Beirut. And it doesn’t, it just doesn’t seem right. I can’t really say that there is
no precedent for that in the city [inaudible] for this types of roughness with all the
infrastructure changes and all, but it just seems unusually poorly done and I don’t have a
problem with delaying this and calling these folks in and telling them this is
unacceptable. Laney-Walker, when we complete this, is supposed to be a show place. It
seems like it could be done better than it’s being done. Do we do -- Teresa, when we do
a check out on a project, do we go through a punch list and actually check the thickness
on concrete, on curbing and different things like that for conformance to specifications?
Mr. Speaker: We normally do, but this is Georgia D.O.T. participating in this
project and they have their people out there on a regular basis. On the main road where
they’re cut out for the pipe down the center and side tie-ins, we did all of our
specifications to Georgia D.O.T. specs. The Georgia D.O.T. said that a 2” drop off is
acceptable. Now for how long -- we can get that covered up, the side streets, you really
can’t put a grade on them until you get the curb and gutter in to tie in to it. But we can
get something done there, too.
Mr. Cheek: You said the major word when you said State D.O.T. They operate
in their own space and their own time. How was this, with the contractor and State
D.O.T., how is this interface going to affect delays on the projects? With Bell South in
design now, I’m anticipating September before they actually go out to the field with the
work; is that about right/
107
Mr. Speaker: That could very easily be true. September is only a little while
away. And they still have got a bunch of work to do. And other utilities are contingent
on their moving.
Mr. Cheek: Do we have any scheduled or any I guess projects scheduled that
shows them being on schedule, behind schedule, ahead of schedule?
Mr. Speaker: They have been at odds from day one. They have refused and like I
said, this was just worked out through the County Attorney two or three weeks ago, that
Bell South would, and I don’t know what they agreed to do and what they agreed not to
do. But they are just now proceeding with stuff that could have been done six months
ago or a year.
Mr. Cheek: One of the things we’ve asked in our work sessions is we’d like some
daylight out of this. What can we do based on what we’ve learned from this job to
prevent the delays from Bell South and these other people from happening again? What
can we do differently?
Mr. Speaker: The only thing that I could suggest, and of course, you know, this is
really like dealing on kindergarten level. They, all the utilities apply for permits for their
work and [inaudible] about the only leverage we have is just put their permit application
on the bottom of the stack. Now I don’t know how the County Attorney would look at
that. But you know, they really, they really are not easy to deal with.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you. No questions. Call for the question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard had his hand up.
Mr. Beard: Just one question to [inaudible]. Is it a normal procedure that a road
th
that long from 7 Street all the way to the railroad there, that you would normally in
repairing or whatever you’re doing, tear up the whole section, or would you do it in
sections? I’ve just seen in different areas where they probably do it is sections. Is it a
necessity that you, you do, you just tear up the whole thing?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir. You, but you would have to put that in the contract
because they bid it to do the traditional way, you know, whatever way they see fit. And
then they give us a schedule. But this thing would have been gone had not the utilities --
I mean we would have been putting trees out and finishing up side walks had it not been
for the utilities problems.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen, any further discussion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Only thing I say is this. I know utilities
can be difficult to deal with but I just find it real strange to a point that until the
complaints started dealing with this particular project that all of a sudden we had major
[inaudible] problems with utilities. Now we had problems in terms of whether we were
108
going to deal with power lines, up or down, Georgia Power, a light year ago, almost
before we got started. And we know that was a battle in terms of dealing with it. But
now this Bell South deal is something that’s happened that’s basically new to our ears
down here, [inaudible]. Now the point is, if it’s going to be to a point, and I think other
Commissioners who maybe are not suffering with the Laney-Walker problem right now,
then if the utility company, from what I’m hearing is such an albatross and can’t anybody
deal with them, then maybe [inaudible] Jim, that we need to talk about that in legal,
because this won’t be the first street we’re digging up, nor will it be the last. So if there
is a better relationship that needs to be established [inaudible] I just can’t believe to a
point that you get six to seven streets on a north south corridor on every side of the
thoroughfare that’s torn up before the utilities start to dig, that the contractor can’t do
anything to make that smooth. Now, Mr. [inaudible], I agree with you, you can’t raise
that level [inaudible] curbing and gutters. But we got enough of them [inaudible] plates
that you run over. Something can be smoothed to a point that even if you did nothing
th
more than dealt with 11 Street where you’ve got Immaculate Conception and the school
[inaudible] there, we’ve got buses that come through there. I’m so afraid from a safety
standpoint that somebody is going to broadside a city bus sitting in the middle of Laney-
Walker Boulevard because it has had to come to a full stop in order to make the crossing
on two different [inaudible] going north south. It’s just sitting in the middle of the road.
That happens every day and it’s full of people. Now they own something as far as
equipment. There ought to be something we can rent, borrow and to a point almost if we
are doing change orders this late on this project, rent, borrow or steal to [inaudible] to get
it safer to cross than what it is. And I still stand by the same complaints I made on this,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, gentlemen. We have a motion. Anybody need the
motion read?
Mr. Bridges: That to deny?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion, please signify by raising your
hand.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s move on now to item number 41.
The Clerk:
41. Approve Change Order Number Thirteen with Advanced Outdoor Services
in the amount of $65,005.00 on the Augusta Common, Phase 1A Project to be
109
funded from Account Number 101-04-2260/53.19110 ($48,000) and the project’s
contingency account ($17,005). (No recommendation from Engineering Services
Committee August 11, 2003)
Mr. Bridges: I so move.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure?
Mr. Cheek: We have a motion. I’m going to second it.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Go ahead.
Mr. Cheek: Ulmer made a motion to approve and I seconded it. I --
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear you.
Mr. Cheek: Just a quick comment on this. It’s my understanding on this that as
activities have been held, there was an initial punch list of things generated that were
taken care of but as we’ve had events there have been needs for additional outlets and
relocating circuits and so forth, and that this, this is -- I know this is another change order
in this project, but it is in that we have learned and there have been changes to the needs
within the facility that have improved it. These are over and above the design
specifications that we originally put out that help enhance the facility, and I just urge
approval.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. I have a question. One other thing which we need over
there, which we haven’t even started on yet, are public rest rooms. Is this money being
taken away from money that was set aside to build rest rooms over there? Mr. Kolb,
when are we going to get started on those?
Mr. Kolb: I will let -- the answer is yes.
Mr. Mayor: What, this is rest room money we’re using?
Ms. Smith: Only $17,000 of it is rest room money.
Mr. Kolb: Correct.
Mr. Mayor: All right. When are we going to get started on the rest rooms over
there?
Ms. Smith: We have received a request from the Information Technology
Department to review the plans. We gave them a set of plans. I believe it was last week.
We are expecting to get those back this week and that had to do with the offices that are
upstairs on the second floor, and some requirements for fiber and cable and things like
that. When we get that back, we’ll send it back to the engineering firm to finalize the
110
plans and I would anticipate within 30 to 45 days we’d be sending those over to
Purchasing.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Cause as we draw more and more people there we’re going to
need facilities for them, and I’m glad we are going to be moving along on that. Let’s see.
We’ll start down here with Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, thank you. Item 41 talking about Outdoor Services in
the amount of $65,000. Don’t we have a number of in-house personnel that could have
run these outside outlets or services that we need, you know, when it come to electrical
stuff? I mean I like to see us done if we have to go to Outdoor for this, but I’m
wondering with all of the electrical work we have done in this county, if we don’t have
nobody then we need to be trying to hire somebody. But don’t we have some people that
could have saved us some money in running these outside outlets and stuff, Mr. Mayor?
Ms. Smith: Actually, we do have electricians on staff. Because of their work
load, it probably would have taken three times longer for these activities to be done. And
the project was under warranty, so we were tying to the systems that were under warranty
and if there were any problems associated with it, then we accept a certain level of
liability and relieve the contractor for any problems with those systems that we make
changes or adjustments to during the warranty period.
Mr. Williams: So, so we, you saying we got to go back to the contractor because
of the warrant period, in other words we’ve got licensed people now.
Ms. Smith: No.
Mr. Williams: I’m asking a question.
Ms. Smith: No, we do not have licensed electricians on staff, if I’m not mistaken.
I think we have one person on staff that may have a state electrician’s license, and I’m
not sure if it’s current cause it’s not a requirement of the job.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I understand. But with employees that can do some of this
kind of stuff, you know, look like we would try to find in this government those people,
those talents, those skills to be able to do those kind of things to save us you know,
money like this. And I hear you talking about the warranty. I know you talk about if
something happens we can’t go back on the contractor in the beginning. But if they can
run the outside, outdoor services to what is already existing there, we could save a lot of
money, I’m sure. I mean it wouldn’t be $65,000. If we had started on this thing a month
ago we could have had -- how many of these outlets we got to have, Ms. Smith? Do you
know?
Ms. Smith: I apologize -- I don’t --
Mr. Williams: Just roughly, ten?
111
Ms. Smith: [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: 10, 15?
Ms. Smith: About eight as I understand it.
Mr. Williams: Yeah, I see, if we had started a month ago, Ms. Smith, we could,
we could have had at least five of them already in.
Ms. Smith: We would have voided the warranty on the electric system that’s in
place.
Mr. Williams: I understand. How long that system been in place though?
Ms. Smith: Mr. Clements, do you recall how long the electrical system --
Mr. Clements: [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Ms. Smith: He’s indicating that it’s the January/February time frame.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] 30 days or something going to go wrong [inaudible] 30
days would have done it, I mean we would of knowed by now if there had been some
default there and six months, I’m guessing now --
Ms. Smith: Actually, they’ve gone back out and done some repairs. The
Recreation Department has had some events out there where they have been some
problems and they have been called back in to make corrections.
Mr. Williams: And this at the Common, is that right?
Ms. Smith: At the Common, yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Now I was at the Common and I was trying to think if [inaudible]
people was there who kept the services on [inaudible] services went out on each side of
the wall, but our people, the one who could be causing the problems that we thinking
maybe, those the people who kept the services on. Who had to wait a while and the
circuit breaker wasn’t, wasn’t whatever and whatever. So that’s all I got to say, Mr.
Mayor, I’m through. But we could have saved some money. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor Pro
Tem, whoever.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles.
112
Mr. Boyles: Last week I called in a complaint to Augusta Cares that I received
th
because at the 9 and Reynolds Street location where the jail used to be, has been moved,
but there’s still a building there. But all of the -- there’s a great deal of construction
debris that has been back there on that lot since last October when it was opened. And I
filed a complaint with Augusta Cares last Thursday, Friday, somewhere in that
neighborhood. So I just want to alert you that it’s kind of an eyesore over in that parking
th
lot and I think that parking lot was used for VIP parking back during the July 4.
Ms. Smith: Are you saying that that debris is associated with this project?
Mr. Boyles: It’s probably associated with when -- it looks like the concrete forms
[inaudible].
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Boyles: It really doesn’t look like stored stuff. It looks like something that’s
just been kind of -- it’s just debris.
Mr. Speaker: You called this in --
Mr. Boyles: I called it to Augusta Cares one day last week. I haven’t checked
back up on it to see if it’s been taken care of.
Mr. Speaker: We’ll take a look at it to see whether or not it’s been tied to our
project, but [inaudible].
Mr. Boyles: Some of the business people, the owner of Beamie’s and the same
guy owns both those buildings, we were talking about it and saw it. Would you look at
that? I’d appreciate it.
Ms. Smith: We’ll follow up on it. And even if it is associated with this project,
we’ll get that information to License & Inspection or whoever and have a notice sent out
that it needs to be cleaned up.
Mr. Boyles: Martha’s got it cause I emailed it to her and she emailed me a receipt
back.
Ms. Smith: Okay. Great.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’m the culprit of pulling this one, too.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
113
Mr. Mays: This one I probably would end up voting for the change order because
of the necessity of what it contains, but you mentioned a minute ago, Mr. Mayor, while
you were looking at what was being done or whether or not -- has this work, I guess
because the time frame of looking at the backup, is this another case where the work has
already been done and we are in a ratifying stage? Or is it still have to be done?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: So the $65,000 has been done? The outlets have been installed?
Ms. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible], all of them have been done?
Ms. Smith: Correct.
Mr. Mays: Might I ask when were they completed, with a rough time frame?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Well, there’s a big hole in the Common week before last.
Mr. Speaker: Everything was [inaudible] except for [inaudible] Christmas tree
[inaudible].
Mr. Mays: But the wiring in terms of the added wiring for the [inaudible], all
th
that’s been done and it was done prior to July 4?
th
Mr. Kolb: It had to be done for July 4 activities.
Mr. Mays: Well, why -- why did I get reports of being read that this still had to
end up being done in terms of needed accessories for people who had to deal with
bringing in concessions that required the 220 electrical stuff, which I know should have
been done when we first -- you know, I know we got to [inaudible] but should have been
in there from the very beginning to a point of having 110 and 220 out there. But I’m
th
trying to figure out when, you know, if this was done prior to July 4, if that’s the answer
I’m getting, and we’re basically covering to a point of work being done. I know the
statute was late, we couldn’t control that, we had to deal with the base replacement. I
was looking at the breakdown of what was dealt with to make up the $65,000.
Mr. Kolb: Remember when we had the grand opening celebration last October,
that’s when we had complaints about there not being enough electrical juice for the
vendors to set up and so forth, and that’s when we started looking into developing the
changes and doing the punch list. They still weren’t done with the park. But they were
still going through and installing and making sure the systems were in place and that’s
114
when Robert is saying January to February is when we really closed out that part of the
[inaudible].
Mr. Mays: Well, my problem, I guess, is a little bit like the Mayor’s. The Mayor
a little bit ago, where you dipping into bathroom money to get to it. Some of the things,
and I tend to friendly disagree. I don’t think when we opened at the grand opening that
we noticed some of the things. I’m not going to deal with it cause I don’t want anybody
to get their heads bonked. But I think some of it on these initial walk throughs of looking
at Augusta Common period that there were observations that you were not going to have
enough power in the place from the very beginning. I tend to somewhat [inaudible]
disagree that just didn’t occur in October when we had grand opening. That was done
prior to. Now what I’m looking at when I look at the backup, Mr. Mayor, and that’s why
[inaudible] the work already been done and we ratifying, just like you got truth in
lending, it ought to be truth in what was represented to us. If what’s been done, and we
done done it [inaudible] change order like this, I do not have a problem doing it. But I
don’t like to read somewhere to a point that we fixing to install something that basically
we’ve already done. Now if we done done it and you got to do it, I don’t have a problem
with that kind because that is a necessity. But I do have a problem, and that’s why I
asked what stage it was completed, if I’m looking at background information where
notifications were made that this should have been done at Thanksgiving and prior to
Christmas of last year, if we got it done in July then we still dealing with five or six
months in terms of putting in a [inaudible] lines [inaudible] on a project that we spent
seven figures of money on. And you deal with the change order [inaudible] somewhere
else. What that does, Mr. Mayor, to me is that if you got that much gap period in terms
of the time, you bring the notification, when you put an official notice out, you do the
background on it, [inaudible] to say that’s being done, that is too long when you’ve got
the money sitting. Now our electrical folk may have been busy, but they could have
walked down there without the truck with the wire hanging over their arm and run one
outlet a month. If you did eight from November to July. I’m going to vote for it cause
it’s a necessity that’s already been done, but don’t, don’t, this Commissioner doesn’t
want to see change orders coming on work that’s been done. If it’s work that’s been
done, Mr. Administrator and your departmental folk, cause they work for you, if we’ve
done work, bring it to us to say ratification of work being done. But don’t hand me
something up here. Everybody else may not feel this way, but I’m not going to vote for
stuff that has been done and we are going backwards in doing it and ratifying it. That’s a
big difference cause [inaudible] and say no, we’re not going to do it? Then you create a
problem them with [inaudible] getting paid. If the Commission does not know whether
or not you did something in an emergency or you did something of necessity, then that’s
a big difference. And if it’s already been done, it should be somewhere within our
writings to know that this has been done, we need to go ahead and we need to authorize
how we’re dealing with it, whether it’s payment or whether we’re dealing with it at
budget time. That’s just business. And I been hearing about [inaudible].
.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. MrWilliams.
115
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. There are some things not being told or at
least not being told truthfully. My memory serving me correctly at this minute, but it was
th
July, the 4 of July that we was down with the big event at the Common when they had
all of the games and all of the vendors there. Our people, the two people that we got on
staff that does a little electrical work, kept the [inaudible] current going when they were
kicking the breakers. And I stood there and y’all -- you know, I been accused of
micromanaging, I don’t mind being accused of that, because ain’t nobody managing one
hand, so micro is probably all we getting. I stood there and talked with the guy that was
doing the electrical work and he was relaying on the radio for them to wait until the
breaker cooled off. So if we had done done this work, [inaudible], Ms. Smith,
th
Administrator, this work ain’t been done right because July 4 when we had the big
celebration when everything was going on, all the vendors was there and it was truly hot,
they had to sit around and wait until the breakers cooled down so breakers could get
power on one or the other side. So if this work was being done, it wasn’t being done
right. So that warranty we talked about, Ms. Smith, that the vendor, that the construction
company did the electrical work, need to be called back in. I’m not voting to pay this,
Mr. Mays, I don’t know about you, but I’m not [inaudible] paying for something that’s
already been done that I’m thinking need to be done and we was going to approve the
money to have it done. So before I vote for that, I need to know, is this in full operation,
that it’s working like it’s supposed to work. I got no problem voting to pay them then.
But if it’s not, then they need to go back there before they get any money from us,
th
because it was the 4 of July when the big event ran from the Common all the way over
to the Riverwalk area, over in that area, and, and, and the men that we got on this staff,
me micromanaging, y’all know that, stood there while they had to relay and they was
talking on the two-way radio about telling to wait until we can let the breakers cool off
before we can kick it back on. And if we done paid $6,500 [sic] for that, we done paid
too much money. I can’t support it. Not until we know that this construction engineers
or electric engineers have been back out to do what they supposed to do. I can’t support
it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any further comments? We have a motion on the floor to
approve.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Robert.
Mr. Speaker: This is the first I’ve heard that everything was not kosher, not
th
satisfactory for the July 4. Nobody had reported it to us.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Williams: Okay, I’m going to make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor, that we
deny.
116
Mr. Mayor: Just a minute, Mr. Williams. Let me do this. How about -- it should
th
be fairly easy to find out who of our employees were working there July 4. How about
getting in touch with them and let’s see what the issues are. Okay? And then we’ll move
forward from there. All right, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: I was going to make a substitute motion that we deny until we
get a report back from our electrical people that had to work that day and, and,
and I could be very much mistaken, but trust me, I will apologize, but I doubt I have
to do that, but I make a substitute motion that we deny until we get a report back
from our people that everything is in operation and working right.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Mays: I’ll second it to get it on the floor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, it’s on the floor. Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: I was going to suggest to Mr. Williams that we, instead of
denying it, that we postpone it and make a decision at the next, at the next
[inaudible] .
Mr. Williams: Postponing is good, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: You would make that amendment?
Mr. Williams: I’ll make that amendment.
Mr. Mayor: You accept that amendment. All right. Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, if we’re having breakers trip with the kind of load we
th
had on them at 4 of July, that just indicates we have excess or more amperage drawn
through the system than we had capacity to handle, which may mean adding some
additional services for these major events. Somebody standing there holding breakers
closed, that’s a serious safety issue that needs to be addressed. That’s not a policy we
need to encourage for any circumstances. But if that’s the case, I mean we’ve got new
switch gear and everything down there. This is the first I’ve heard of it, but if that’s the
th
case, we need to look seriously at adding additional capacity because the 4 of July is
exactly the kind of event we want to have in the future. So I can agree with the delay
until we get a report back, but I’d like the report to be comprehensive enough to tell us
that we need additional circuitry and recommend the amount additional that we need to
cover that type of event.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I can clarify Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
117
Mr. Williams: I’m not saying about holding breakers now. They said wait until
the breakers cool down. They could not -- as fast as they turned them on, it [inaudible].
Mr. Cheek: That’s overheating it.
Mr. Williams: Okay, I just wanted to clarify. I didn’t see anybody holding
breakers and I want to make sure it’s clarified.
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible] after they trip once, without going to find out what the
problem is, then that is a serious safety issue.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? We have a substitute motion to postpone
this. Yes?
Ms. Smith: I just want to clarify that we will work with the Parks & Recreation
Department who manages that facility to determine what special events they plan to have
th
of the size and similarity of the 4 of July and have them to identify what the needs are,
and at that point we can bring that information back to you.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, if I may add just one quick thing. Can at the same time, I
know this is a separate facility, but it’s downtown and you’ll be dealing with Recreation
on electrical issues. Under the stage at the amphitheater the disconnects, the 440 panels
that feed the stage have standing water in them. When it rains or when you have a cooler
in there. That needs to be addressed, either raised by [inaudible] platform and drain, and
if you could bring that up in a conversation with Recreation, too.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s move along and see if we can dispose --
Mr. Williams: I just need clarification now. We are going to postpone or we
going to wait until Recreation gets --
Mr. Mayor: Postpone until you get your report.
Mr. Williams: Postpone and get a report.
Mr. Mayor: That’s the motion.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. Mays: In his motion, so that it stays progressive, and if I’m hearing
[inaudible] work has already been done, does anything in there preclude, preclude --
there’s nothing in that motion that precludes them from bringing back that information at
the next meeting or wherever it’s going, to the committee, so that if we still have got
things that need to be done [inaudible] this particular situation that we go ahead on and
118
that we deal with doing that. Because I mean this was one that I could go ahead and I
could vote for, but I’m going to support the delay to get that report back, but I think in
getting the report back, if it’s [inaudible] things, we need to look at that, too. At that
time. And be ready to [inaudible] and try to make a move of getting those done. This is
going to be a well-used facility. And the only reason I pulled it was to a point that when I
saw the time frame we’d gone through and I just wanted to make sure it got done or
hadn’t gotten done. I can support the motion.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a substitute motion on the floor. All in favor of the
substitute motion, please raise your hand. Raise them high enough so the Clerk can see
it.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is item number 45.
The Clerk:
ATTORNEY:
45. Appoint representative from Tax Commissioner’s Office to the Land Bank
Authority to replace Harry James due to his employment in the Augusta Law
Department and his responsibility as Land Bank Authority Coordinator.
Mr. Mayor: We have to name somebody, don’t we? We have to name
somebody. Tell you what, while y’all caucus on that, let’s take the item on the addendum
agenda. First of all, is there any objection to adding this item to the agenda. If there is no
objection, we will take up the item. Madame Clerk, if you will read it.
The Clerk:
Addendum Agenda:
1. Authorize Public Works and Engineering to award a contract to the
successful bidder to perform emergency repairs to Alexander Drive at the Rock
Creek Crossing subject to receipt and execution of the required contract document
in an amount not to exceed $100,000. Funds for this contract will be from the One
Percent Sales Tax Grading and Drainage account.
Mr. Shepard: I move approval.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve with a second. Is there any discussion
on this? Mr. Boyles.
119
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. How long do you think we will have the
road closed or will we have to close the road?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Robert, can you come up to the microphone, please, so we can get
you in the record. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: We have several [inaudible], we have [inaudible] time period. The
short time period will be given extra consideration when it comes to selecting the
successful bidder.
Ms. Smith: [inaudible] 45 days.
Mr. Boyles: Be closed for 45 days?
Ms. Smith: [inaudible] contract [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Smith, would you come to the microphone?
Ms. Smith: The amount of -- the amount of time that was included in the contract
was 45 days as the time I last removed it. However, I have been told that it was removed
from the document that was sent to Purchasing. We do, we are, however, encouraging
the contractors to provide us with time frames that may be of a shorter duration than that
45 days based on what their staffing loads are, based on their ability to get materials,
things of that nature. So the projection, the original projection was 45 days to have the
work completed, and we’re encouraging the contractors to give us information on the
different alternates that are being bid and identify what they anticipate the time frame that
is needed to complete the work.
Mr. Boyles: Is this what a project such as the D.O.T. does when they work
around the clock?
Ms. Smith: Actually, I’m sure that we probably could.
Mr. Boyles: Work at night, you know, on the interstate?
Ms. Smith: Correct. I mean it will impact the cost associated --
Mr. Boyles: It will cost about $40,000 more?
Ms. Smith: I’ll let you speak, Robert.
Mr. Speaker: You can get somebody to work 24 hours a day, but you have to pay
dearly for it because they have to have good lighting and they have to pay their help
120
overtime and they have to take them off of other projects probably. You can’t work a
crew 24 hours a day.
Mr. Boyles: I understand.
Mr. Speaker: We will not allow them to close the road until they are ready to
start. It shouldn’t be that very long before they order the material. Only the concrete
pipe [inaudible] could start immediately. The rest of it is probably going to take a week,
maybe two weeks, for material but we won’t close the road until the material is on site
and they’re ready to go to work.
Mr. Boyles: Robert, will this be the kind of culverts that can be the final, the final
makeup of the road when the road is finished?
Mr. Speaker: That crossing will be opened back up to the channel. It will be cul-
de-saced. It will not be -- yes, it will be taken out.
Mr. Boyles: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Any further questions?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: And I’m going to vote for the emergency procedure. The only
question I want to ask is if we are looking at that kind of time frame on a situation of
where you’ve got that much down time on this project and I asked earlier because this
was one of the things that stood out because it was at the top of the list, on the difference
of the money that we needed to complete this project. I think everybody knows that the
emergency situation will not resolve what you’re dealing with there on Alexander Drive.
But if we’re looking at this not being something you are fixing to jump on tomorrow and
do, and I’m going to vote for it, but would it not be prudent, and I don’t want to overload
my Chairman’s wagon cause he already fussing at us about putting enough stuff at the
[inaudible] work session, but I’m just thinking to a point if those numbers are true, the
$383,000 that I saw to get that project complete -- now that may not be true at this time,
that may be some old numbers, but if you fixing to spend $100,000 and you’re looking at
$383,000 to complete because it’s got [inaudible] money to deal with it, can something
be done in conjunction with the emergency project to make sure that if this one is that
short and you’re fixing to re-program money that you can go ahead and start to move into
a finalization of what is the finished product of Alexander Drive? Because the
Engineering Services Chairman, I believe maybe before he even became Chairman, that
was one of your projects, Andy, that you looked at over there when we did the last
emergency work on it. So if we going to do an emergency deal over there, Mr. Mayor, in
12 to 18 months, we just as well to do, you know, a permanent fix to it at some point on
this project. And I’m going to vote for the emergency, but something needs to get back
121
soon if you’ve got 45 days that you’re going to deal with in making a decision,
somewhere in there this is one that I think if you are going to throw that kind of money in
there, and if you got that much of a difference, if it’s a true difference, then we need to
talk about this one on an upfront basis at the top to deal with it. Maybe those numbers
aren’t true. I’m just throwing it out. Okay.
Ms. Smith: Are you indicating you want to talk about that on Friday?
Mr. Mays: I’m willing to wait until Friday, but I’m just wondering are those
numbers still true? We still looking at $383,000?
Ms. Smith: We’re still looking at the same --
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Ms. Smith: The same, same funding, because those funds are for right-of-way
acquisition, not for -- they’re not associated with the construction activities that would
take place at this crossing. The Georgia Department of Transportation is doing all the
construction and they’re funding all of the construction work on Alexander Drive.
Mr. Mays: Okay. What --
Mr. Kolb: [inaudible] you’re concerned about is start and completion of the
project, and as I understand from the paper the project is not going to start until 2004
anyway.
Ms. Smith: We’re looking at --
Mr. Speaker: ’06.
Mr. Kolb: ’06.
Mr. Mayor: ’06?
Ms. Smith: Right-of-way is starting --
Mr. Kolb: -- in 2004, but the actual construction won’t be started until 2006. The
thing that you’re approving tonight or the award you’re making tonight is for emergency
repairs. I mean we can’t wait two years. The bridge will be out.
Mr. Mays: And I would not even dare say do that. I voted for the last emergency
and I’m going to vote for this one. But it reemphasized my point that I made, that the list
-- and we both agree -- that the list has to contain numbers with a year breakdown and
what’s in there and where they stand, when they start, and the time of completion.
Because when I’m looking at only a figure, I cannot tell whether or not that is the deal
with starting soon or starting later. I’m looking at difference, this says to me of
122
$383,000. And the first red light that goes on in my head in terms of saving money is the
fact that if you fixing to take $100,000 now and if you only need $383,000 to do it, that’s
[inaudible] time frame breakdown so that we actually know where it is. And I have no
problem. You have answered my question thoroughly.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Smith, y’all are taking bids on this now?
Mr. Speaker: Tomorrow.
Mr. Mayor: You’re opening them tomorrow or soliciting them tomorrow?
Robert? Ms. Smith? Can somebody answer that?
Mr. Speaker: 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.
Mr. Mayor: You’re going to open the bids?
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Speaker: No, no, I’m sorry. We’re going to have a pre-bid conference.
Mr. Mayor: Now is there a certain construction company that Mr. Mays is
interested in who is going to bid on that?
Ms. Smith: Gentlemen, what we have done is we have issued a package to
Purchasing. We have faxed out the information to somewhere between 50 and 75
construction companies requesting that they -- we have provided them with the
information on the project. We have requested a mandatory pre-bid meeting be held
tomorrow so that we can discuss the intricacies of the project, as well as the urgency
th
associated with it. Bid opening is scheduled for August 27 at 1 p.m. in the Purchasing
Department.
Mr. Mayor: This motion today would authorize you to go ahead and award the
contract?
Ms. Smith: That is correct.
Mr. Mayor: It would not come back to us?
Ms. Smith: That is correct.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I will say this, I have no construction dogs in any of these
hunts at all, but I’ll say like Deion Sanders when he [inaudible] on defense, the only thing
I say about that is I just in the hunt [inaudible] do what’s right and I say this, it makes a
hell of a lot of difference when the rabbit’s got the gun.
123
(Laughter)
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m kind of concerned about the removal of the 45 day
window. This is a 30 day job at best.
Ms. Smith: Commissioner Cheek, let me assure you that the document that we
will be handing out on, at the pre-bid meeting at 10 a.m. will have the 45 day restriction
included in it, and we will be asking the contractors to provide us with estimates that
would accelerate that schedule.
Mr. Cheek: Well, they -- I think we discussed the [inaudible] culverts, the half
circles or whatever, that should conduct -- a gentleman that discussed this with Teresa,
the conductors [inaudible] to conduct additional water to keep this from topping again,
th
unless we have rainfall in excess of what we had on the 30. Commissioner Mays, this is
in fact the project before where we had the famous quote that the guy cut the grass to
inspect the culverts, so I think we’ve got beyond that, but what happened here was we
had excessive water during that rainfall. The fix should last us two years or three years,
depending on --
Ms. Smith: The solution should last us until the project gets constructed,
whenever the project gets constructed.
Mr. Cheek: It’s just that if we’re going to declare an emergency, it should have
enough teeth in it to where we can get this type of single two-lane road culverts put in in
under 30 days.
Ms. Smith: And the only thing that is authorizing us to move on with the contract
is it avoids the delay associated with coming back to the full Commission meeting,
without knowing whether there was an intermediate session planned.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor to approve this. Any further
discussion? All in favor, please raise your hand so the Clerk can see it.
Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Kuhlke: Are we getting ready to go to legal?
Mr. Mayor: No, going back to number 45. We need a nomination as a
representative from the Tax Commissioner’s office.
ATTORNEY:
45. Appoint representative from Tax Commissioner’s Office to the Land Bank
Authority to replace Harry James due to his employment in the Augusta Law
Department and his responsibility as Land Bank Authority Coordinator.
124
Mr. Wall: This would be Fred Stallings.
We’re asking that he be appointed to
replace Harry James. Of course, Harry being now employed in the Law Department.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any other nominations? All in favor of Mr. Stallings’ appointment,
please raise your hands.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, I think we’re now ready for legal meeting.
Mr. Kuhlke: If I can just say one thing to the Commissioners before we do that.
And I meant to mention it while we were talking about the Judicial -- the administrative
part of the [inaudible] will be coming to the Commission probably in two weeks, with a
recommendation on a program manager for all the capital improvement projects that we
anticipate over the next few years.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Very good.
Mr. Cheek: We did an RFQ on that?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kolb: Yes, yes, we did. And I think that’s what Commissioner Kuhlke is
saying. We will bring you back a recommendation on the selection that the
Administrative Building Committee of the Judicial Subcommittee is going to make to the
Commission on who to award that contract to.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, do you have something for legal meeting?
Mr. Wall:
46. Legal Meeting:
Discuss real estate matters.
•
Discuss pending and potential litigation.
•
Personnel
•
Mr. Wall: I won’t take up all the items unless y’all want me to, but I do have a
couple
Mr. Mayor: All right. I know we’ve got one real estate we need to discuss.
125
Mr. Wall: Right.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to add to legal personnel item, please.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of going into legal for the stated reason, please raise your
hand.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 9-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
47. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 9-0.
48. Motion to authorize the transfer of Tax Map Parcel 037-3-016-4 and 037-3-
015-0 to the Richmond County Land Bank Authority, with authorization for the
Land Bank Authority to sell the property to Georgia Bank & Trust Company of
Augusta for the sum of $48,000.00.
Mr. Wall: Under item number 48, I would ask that you authorize the sale of two
lots on Reynolds Street to the Land Bank Authority for the sales price of $48,000
[inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: I move we add and approve.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion? Hearing
none, all in favor of the motion, please raise your hand.
Mr. Hankerson out.
126
Motion carries 9-0.
[MEETING ADJOURNED
]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on August 19, 2003.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
127