HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-16-2003 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
September 16, 2003
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:07 p.m., Tuesday,
September 16, 2003, the Honorable Richard Colclough, Mayor Pro Tem, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Shepard, Beard, Cheek,
Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hon. Bob Young, Mayor.
Also Present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena Bonner,
Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by the Rev. Marion Williams.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, do we have any additions or deletions or do
we want to go into the recognitions?
The Clerk: However you want to do it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let’s go to the recognitions.
The Clerk: Recognitions? Yes, sir.
RECOGNITIONS:
Employee of the Month Award
Ms. Hattie Hogan, Housing Rehab Coordinator
ARC Housing & Neighborhood Department
The Clerk: At this time, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and members of the Augusta
Commission, we’d like to recognize our Employee of the Month. Ms. Hattie Hogan,
would you please join the Mayor Pro Tem at the podium, along with Ms. Rosa White and
Mr. Doug Manning. The Employee Recognition Committee has selected Ms. Hattie
Hogan with the Housing & Neighborhood Development Department as Employee of the
Month for August, 2003. Ms. Hogan has worked for the City of Augusta for over nine
years. Ms. Hogan is employed as a Housing Rehabilitation Coordinator. Her duties
include the coordination of all house rehabilitation projects, processing and monitoring of
all housing assistance programs, such as down payment assistance and managing the
paint program. She was nominated by department Director Warren C. Smith, who states:
“Hattie Hogan is a steady, dependable and accomplished Housing Rehab Coordinator.
Ms. Hogan assisted the Director with several new and important efforts to improve the
department’s loan management. Ms. Hogan worked with HND servicing agents,
1
borrower and others to get required information needed by the Director. She researched
historical data and reviewed files. This was done in addition to a normal, busy work
schedule. As a result of this fine work, the department has been able to get a much better
handle on loans that are outstanding, problems faced and prior mistakes, and created
potential for thousands of dollars of loss for the jurisdiction. Hattie Hogan exemplifies
the best in government service, getting things done. Ms. Hogan has also received many
letters of appreciation from citizens she has helped, as well as lending companies the
department deals with on a regular basis.” Based on this, the Committee felt that based
on Mr. Smith’s recommendation and Ms. Hogan’s attributes, she should be awarded the
Employee of the Month. Congratulations, Hattie Hogan. You’re making a difference in
the City of Augusta.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I think her immediate supervisor, Mr. Doug
Manning, and Ms. Rosa White would like to have some words.
Ms. White: I have a suitcase full of words but that was too much. But anyway,
Mr. Smith is out of town today, and on behalf of Mr. Smith and the Housing &
Neighborhood Development staff, I must say that Ms. Hogan is very deserving of this
award. Ms. Hogan is very dedicated and she’s very knowledgeable of her job duties.
She’s the first one to arrive at work at 7:30 in the morning. She’s punctual. She needs
very little supervision. And if you ever need any information, she’s ready, willing and
able to provide it to you. There is no ifs, ands, or buts. She just go ahead and give it to
you. And as a fellow staff member, I would like to congratulate her, because we really
deserve her and appreciate her.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Manning: Good afternoon, members of the Commission and the audience.
I’m Douglas Manning and I serve as Ms. Hogan’s supervisor. Although I’ve been there
for only a short period of time, I can definitely state and echo everything that’s been said
so far. I add also my personal thoughts. Ms. Hogan has definitely performed her level of
services in an exemplary fashion and I’m not going to get rid of her in any way, form or
fashion. So thank you very much. Thank you very much.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s an additional award for you out of the Mayor’s
Office. Congratulations again.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Max Hicks, Director Augusta Utilities
Received the Government Civil Engineer of the Year Award for 2002-2003 during
the American Society of Engineers Conference. Mr. Hicks received this award for
2
his involvement relative to water and sewer improvement projects for the Augusta
area.
The Clerk: At this time, we’d like to acknowledge one of our other distinguished
employees, Mr. Max Hicks.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, Mr. Hicks received the
Government Civil Engineer of the Year Award for 2002-2003 during the American
Society of Engineers Conference. Mr. Hicks received this award for his involvement
relative to water and sewer improvement projects for the Augusta area. And at this time,
we’d like to acknowledge his great accomplishment.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] Congratulations.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Cheek: It was but four or so short years ago that our City water system was
in deep trouble. This Commission put the tools in the hands of some leadership that has
turned the City’s water system around, and we are well on the way to having the finest
water system in the country. Max, I want to tell you, it’s not enough that your staff loves
you, but it’s the fact that you have done such a tremendous job for the people of Augusta
to turn around a system that was in dire need of assistance and help. You typify
leadership, love of City, and so many other things that I can’t find words for. But God
bless you in your efforts, and thank you on behalf of the citizens of Augusta for your
leadership. I know your staff feels the same way. You are the kind of person that this
City needs in every aspect of it to make it grow to be the best city in the South. And we
thank you for everything you’ve done.
Mr. Hicks: Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. City Administrator.
Mr. Kolb: I’d like to add my congratulations to Max for this prestigious award. I
have to tell you a little story. Max normally comes to our Thursday morning staff
meeting. Very faithful. He never misses unless there’s some dire emergency. So one of
the deputies showed up last Thursday and we asked where was Max. And the answer
came back, oh, he’s in Charlotte accepting some award. And the deputy said, but what
you don’t understand is it’s one of the most prestigious awards that is given out in the
Southeast region. And no one even knew about it. And that’s just the character of Max
Hicks. And that’s why we’re so proud and pleased that he is a recipient of this award. I
think it’s brought a tremendous honor to Augusta and to the Augusta Utilities Department
organization, and we truly thank you for that.
3
Mr. Hicks: Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Hicks: What I was going to say and want to say is the same thing I said to the
folks in the Department when I learned that I had won this. Anytime anything like this
comes, it’s, to me, as much recognition of the team as it is of the leader of the team. Now
someone’s going to step out and be recognized, and in this case I was the one who was
recognize. I look forward to the time when other members of the team are recognized for
accomplishments that the team is making. And I do appreciate the comments from the
Administrator and the Commissioners, because we’re all part of the team.
Commissioners, Mayor, Administrator, Utilities Department workers, we’re all
promoting Augusta. We want people to come and love it as much as we do. And I
accepted this indeed on behalf of the City of Augusta Utilities Department and the work
that we are accomplishing as a team. So we appreciate it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Congratulations.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen, we have an addendum agenda. Do
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Resolution requesting a performance review of the Richmond County Board of Tax
Assessors.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
RECOGNITION:
Mr. Richard J. Edenfield
Re: Thirty years as a voting member of the UL Corporation and Electrical Council
DELEGATION:
Mr. Brad Owens
Downtown Business Association
Re: Modification of existing First Friday guidelines
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do we have unanimous consent to add?
The Clerk: So noted.
Mr. Bridges: So move.
4
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of adding the addendum, please signify by the
sign of voting.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So noted.
The Clerk:
RECOGNITION:
Mr. Richard J. Edenfield
Re: Thirty years as a voting member of the UL Corporation and Electrical Council
The Clerk: At this time, we’d like to acknowledge and recognize another
distinguished gentleman that served many years for the City of Augusta. That gentleman
is Mr. Richard Edenfield. Mr. Edenfield. Mr. Mays and Mr. Shepard, would you please
join at the podium? Commissioner Bridges, at the request of Mr. Robert Anderson, asked
that this item be placed on today’s agenda to recognize Mr. Edenfield, who for 30 years
of service as a voting member of the UL Corporation and Electrical Council. In order to
be qualified to become a member, a person had to be in public safety and worked in a
city. With Mr. Edenfield on the board, Augusta had a representative. UL is an 80-
member board with only six members from government throughout the nation. This is
quite a distinguished honor to be a voting member of this organization, and Mr. Edenfield
represents Augusta quite well. Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk: Also --
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
The Clerk: In recognition of honor given to Richard J. Edenfield for contributing
30 years of committed service as a voting member of the UL Corporation and Electrical
Council, the City of Augusta recognizes and applauds the honor of achieving
th
membership status in the distinguished and prestigious UL Corporation, given this 16
day of September, 2002, Bob Young, Mayor.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Of course, Mr. Mays and I served
with Mr. Edenfield in the old City and we, I continue my association with Mr. Edenfield
5
down to the present, and I guess the best thing I can see right now about Dick is a lot of
the projects we saw come on line in the old City, particularly a lot of the electrical
projects, a lot of the lighting projects, Greene Street, the Greene Street monuments, a lot
of the decorative lighting that is all over our City now. Each one of those is from the
hand of Dick Edenfield. So -- I think it was said about one of our naturalists on a
national level, if you seek his monument look about you. So that will be my comment on
Mr. Edenfield, because whenever I ride down here or the other subdivisions that he has
helped light, the monuments that he helped light, worked out the technicalities of it,
worked out the politics of it, in general just worked it out, that is a monument to Dick
Edenfield that will continue past today, and I just wanted to thank you, Dick, on behalf of
the old City Commission and this body for your service to this City. It’s been
outstanding. Willie.
Mr. Mays: Thank you, Steve. Now don’t y’all let this chair fool everybody that
he’s riding around in today. Because he just got back from Las Vegas a few weeks ago
and he’s a little bit tired.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mays: He had his annual party there and he made sure that he took all of his
family there so that they could share it with him. Dick Edenfield I met over 30 years ago,
and I’ve never been here that long. I came here at that time when my mom was serving
on City Council, and I can honestly say that Dick Edenfield, amongst the thousands of
people that have worked for the City of Augusta, Richmond County, and now for the
consolidated government, Dick Edenfield is one of the most honest people that I’ve ever
known in my life that has worked in government. If it was a regulation that had to be
abided by, if Dick Edenfield’s signature had to go on it, you were going to abide by the
rules. Big contractor, little contractor, non-governmental, governmental. If it was a
building that we were building, he made sure it was right. And I can remember, Jim,
even down to the 401 Walton Way building, I can remember Dick saying, and probably if
everybody has listened to Dick Edenfield at that time, it might not be like it is. And Dick
said at that time, and it’s true now, hey, my name is not going on this sucker because it’s
not fully right. And I think we all had to respect him for it then, and obviously millions
of dollars later down the road, people respect him for it more even now. I can remember
one campaign office that I rented, and I was struggling with my campaign money, and I
came by that evening and I noticed it was the only building that was dark. You
remember that?
(Laughter)
Mr. Mays: And I said well, y’all supposed to be working today. They said Mr.
Edenfield came by during the day. And so I got a call from him the next morning, and he
said you had a light that was burned out on the back of that building, and it just might
short-circuit and somebody just might be walking by at the time, but it’s a regulation.
And he said young fellow, get it fixed today and you’ll have some lights. That’s how
good he was.
6
(Laughter)
Mr. Mays: So I respect him for it, love him for it. He’s been a great person, a
great asset to this City, and one of the reasons why I think that within the fire codes that
our long-standing record stood, Steve, in terms of the Fire Department and its rating and
the City of Augusta was because of the sternness of Dick Edenfield, but most of all
because of his honesty. And he’s a great person and a great human being.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Edenfield: Thank you very much. This 30 years [inaudible] UL, but I
worked with the City, you know, I was here 44 years. I’ve got a few more years to put on
there. I never worked with a finer bunch of people [inaudible]. I enjoyed working for the
City and I hope to be here the rest of my life.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Edenfield: Also, we wouldn’t receive that unless the City had backed us in
the Inspection Department [inaudible] on making this a safe community. [inaudible]
about 30 people. Nobody knows how they’re elected. They’re picked from throughout
the country. I imagine the same thing as [inaudible]. But I sure have [inaudible] been
voting on the Council for 44 years. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
DELEGATION:
Mr. Charles Utley, Chairman
Mayor’s Brownfield Committee
Re: Update Brownfield Pilot Project
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Rev. Utley.
Mr. Utley: To the Mayor Pro Tem and to all of the board, to those who have been
honored as honorees this afternoon, I bring you greetings on behalf of the Mayor’s
Brownfield pilot program here in Augusta. We felt that it was time that we give you a
quick update on this particular project. First of all, let me just say I thank God for you,
for allowing me to have a dream or a vision that came to me, implemented by your vote,
allowing us to go forth. Because without you and without your foresight of allowing us
to pursue the Brownfield, I wonder where we would be. But gentlemen and ladies, and
7
appropriately we thank you for that opportunity. And I just wanted to share with you
briefly for just a few minutes kind of where we are. And as I talk with you, I want to
pass around these pictures from where we were and where we are now. We’re closing
out the first phase of our Brownfield site. For those of you that travel the Gordon
Highway and you pass by Thermal Ceramics and there used to be an eyesore there.
Where you had a monumental task of junk that was piled up. Well, today, ladies and
gentlemen, I submit to you a clean place. A place where you can now stand on Dan
Bowles Road and see the Gordon Highway bridge, and in the past you couldn’t. And I
just want to ask and let you know, and if some of you may want to look at this [inaudible]
poster, this site has gone out nationally as well as we hope to go international with it.
Simply because we didn’t try to do it alone, but through the help of the City, the
community, and the federal government. We were able to move from what was an
eyesore to an asset. And I want to thank all of you -- [inaudible] Smith, who is our
immediate supervisor, [inaudible] and along with Mr. Kolb. You know, it takes a whole
team and I’m just here to kind of give you an update, but Charles Utley is just one of the
many that made it happen. And it takes that type of team to continue on with what we’re
doing. We don’t want to just stop here at the first phase with having a nice, clean lot.
10.2 acres or 10.5 acres of a clean space. We feel now it’s an opportunity to bring on an
economic development. So we are going to be working very diligently and hard with Mr.
Warren Smith that we may be able to put a viable business there, make it greenspace
available to the community and the adjacent communities. That’s the part of the dream
that a lot of people can’t see. But there is light in the tunnel now. And I just want to let
you know that we need your continual support in order to make what used to be, no one
wanted to claim. It’s [inaudible] give up and move forward. We presented this site in
Charlotte, North Carolina, and we received a lot of ravings for it. But a few weeks we’ll
be talking about this site in Portland, Oregon. Because right now, it is one of the most
exciting sites, not only in the Southeast, but we feel in the United States. You know
when the President’s Office feels that it’s important enough that they’ll send some
members of their Cabinet to come and visit with us. And I just want to tell you that that’s
part of a dream we have here in Augusta. Small dreams bring about small dividends.
Big dreams, big ideas. I’m short in statue, but ladies and gentlemen, I’ve got a heck of a
dream. And I dream that we’ll all be able to get a good education, where we’ll all be able
to look at Hyde Park, [inaudible] Park, Virginia Subdivision, and say that is a viable
neighborhood once again. I used to live there. We took pride in who had the best-cut
hedges in there, the most elaborate-looking lawn. But yet we had dirty streets. It didn’t
poison our minds, but we wanted to go forward. And I just wanted to tell you don’t give
up on it because we are still a unit. We are still working together. And I’m asking for all
of your help. From this Commission, to our Mayor, and if it even be possible that we can
look at making this [inaudible] that we can do even better and bigger things. So I submit
to you today, let us keep working together, not only for Brownfield, but for the City of
Augusta. And I just want to thank you on behalf of that board and for the Mayor’s office
for the Brownfield site, and may God bless and keep each and every one of you and that
you would continue to work with us.
(A round of applause is given.)
8
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Rev. Utley. You do a good job out there, and I
know how hard you work on this project. And from this Commission, Commissioner,
you have my full support. Commissioner Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Rev. Utley, with your team together, we have some other areas that
we need your expertise on, and we’re going to count on you to helping us do the same
thing for these other areas, that you’ve done over in the Hyde Park area. Thank you.
The Clerk:
Mr. Brad Owens
Downtown Business Association
Re: Modification of existing First Friday guidelines
The Clerk: It also is relative to item 44. It’s to discuss the ordinance amending
Augusta Richmond County Code section 6-2-5 so as to regulate the consumption of
alcohol at parks, playgrounds, public streets, and public areas owned or operated by
Augusta. At your last meeting, you approved this ordinance with it coming back today
for discussion and update from Main Street Augusta. Mr. Chris Naylor is here, as well,
to give an update on the last First Friday. Mr. Mayor, how do you want --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ll listen to Mr. Owens and then we’ll call Mr. Naylor
up.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Owens: Well, actually, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’m sorry, I’m here for a
different reason. I’m sorry, it was a miscommunication between me and you.
The Clerk: Oh, I’m sorry.
Mr. Owens: No, that’s what I spoke about last time. I’m sorry. No, no, what
we’re going to do is, there was a sheet passed out to you. We formed a business
association for the central business district downtown, which is independent of you all.
Main Street is a government-related organization and also receives tax money. But what
we have here is a group, if you’re looking at the list, is a group of downtown businesses
that fall within the central business district. There’s 42 on the sheet. We have about 55
total, but unfortunately I couldn’t complete the list and get it all done today. I had an
incident I had to take care of this morning. But if you’ll look, it’s about 75% retail
business and about 25% entertainment-related. And what we’re asking today, in
conjunction with Main Street, is we would like you to amend the guidelines for the First
Friday event. On Section 5, subsection B, the guidelines that were passed require that all
bands be acoustic only. And in the past, that’s been necessary because there have been so
many people coming down, just random bands, just wherever there was a plug-in, they
were plugging it in, they were playing over each other and causing a lot of problems for
the businesses and groups in front of the different things. So we’ve pruned the tree all the
9
way back and so it’s starting to grow again, and what we want to do is kind of help, help
it grow in the right direction. And so this group of businesses, we all agreed on this issue
that we’d like to present, to ask you to amend the guidelines to allow electric bands, as
long as we go through the Main Street committee. And our plan is, before they didn’t
have anyone to help organize it or places to take ownership of it. And I would submit to
you today that we have a couple of people here -- Mr. Eric [inaudible] sitting there -- Eric
th
is the owner of the Bees Knees, and he is actually on 10 Street, on the side street -- and
Coco Rubio is not here today, but he will be working with Eric to organize the bands on
th
the side stage, on the side street between Broad and Ellis on 10. Mr. Johnny Redding
standing there, and John [inaudible] standing here. Johnny is a booking agent for bands
here, for the Capri Cinema and also the Hangnail Gallery, so does John. They will
th
organize and put them on between Broad and Ellis on 8 Street. And I offered this to
Main Street, the director, Mr. Naylor, and said hey, if you’ll let us take ownership of this,
we’ll organize the bands, we’ll make sure that each band has a time slot, we’ll make sure
that everybody doesn’t play over each other, and if there’s an overflow we’ll rotate them
through the stages on different First Fridays so that every band has an opportunity that
would like to play. And possibly we’d like to set up another stage a little further down.
Maybe on Monument Street, a little further down, but that’s for another discussion. All
of our activities would go through Main Street as far as First Friday. But the one obstacle
is, is that the guidelines say acoustic only. Mr. Naylor has said that if you approve today
amending the guidelines to allow, to remove the acoustic only and put only -- and put
bands and allow electric bands, that he’ll recommend to the executive committee at the
meeting tomorrow that they allow us to go ahead and proceed with our plan. So I’d like
you to take a look at the businesses here, and they start on the 500 block and end on the
1200 block. They’re all right along the Broad Street area or right off on one of the side
streets. And also, I submit to you that these businesses, we’ve all talked about this issue,
everybody is agreement on it, and that’s why I’m speaking here today to that. And that’s
basically what we’re asking you to do, is simply to amend the guidelines and allow us to
go through First Friday to allow electric bands.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Beard, Commissioner Cheek.
Mr. Beard: Brad, you know I have been one of the supporters of this from the
beginning, even the First Friday and prior to First Friday, we talked about, you know,
information [inaudible]. We also go information from Athens. We looked at a lot of
things. What I have problem with what you are presenting is that I would hate to see
each Commission meeting [inaudible] presenting another item for us to consider in
relationship to First Friday. I thought that’s why -- it was my thought and has been my
thought all along -- that that is why we have established a group downtown to bring
things that need to be changed to us, because, you know, although I’m, I represent this
area down here, I’m not that familiar with what you are talking about at this point, and
that’s why we wanted to establish a group here, Main Street and others. And Mr. Naylor
there representing that. And you know, I think it would be for him to come to us and
make these recommendations, other than groups from all parts of downtown coming
there. That’s where I have the problem and I think that, in my case, I would like to hear
10
from the group that we have established to be recognized down there, and I would just
like to hear from them first.
Mr. Owens: Which group would that be, Mr. Beard? Main Street? Or do you
mean -- cause Main Street said that they would support it, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Chris is here.
Mr. Owens: Yeah, he’s here. He is actually sitting with --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Naylor is here.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Could you respond to Commissioner Beard?
Mr. Naylor: What I believe that Mr. Beard is speaking of is the Downtown
Advisory Panel that was established.
Mr. Beard: That is correct. That’s the group we established down there.
Mr. Naylor: What I can do at your request is take this to the Downtown Advisory
Panel as quickly as I can convene them, and because under the resolution that you, that
passed forming the Downtown Advisory Panel, this does come in their area of guidelines.
So we could, I could try to convene them by next week sometime.
Mr. Beard: Well, I think that would be the appropriate thing to do, instead of us
having to listen to someone else. And I respect Brad and those and I understand what
you’re doing may be good for the City, but I think this is the wrong precedence to start
here at this point, accepting that, it look like we got the cart before the horse. Now if
y’all are in agreement, your Authority is in agreement with that, then we can look at it.
But I just think that --
Mr. Naylor: If that’s amenable to Brad Owens, I’ll convene a meeting as quickly
as I can of the DAP and we’ll listen to his recommendations and then bring a
recommendation back to the Commission, if that’s your pleasure. Whatever you would
like us to do.
Mr. Owens: Yes, sir. The only problem is that there is not another meeting of
this before the October First Friday, which is traditionally the biggest one, and we’re
hoping to get, to be able to try it and get it going this First Friday, if there was -- you
know, and that was why I was asking not that you give us permission to do it but that you
just simply say that electric bands are allowed if we go through that organization. That
was the only thing I was asking. Not that you give us permission outside of Main Street
or any other organization.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek, Mr. Williams.
11
Mr. Cheek:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’m looking at this list. I see a
couple of businesses owned by representatives on the Advisory Board. I’m just, you
know, two years ago we would have never dreamed we would have had this many people
working together in the downtown area and this is just amazing. My concern is that we
don’t get into the battle of the bands and the battle of the [inaudible], you know,
whenever everybody’s turning it up to the next loudest [inaudible]. But I fully trust in
your ownership and the people you have on here are all -- a lot of them are very long-
term residents of the Broad Street area and have had a large investment in making that
I would like to make a motion that we
happen. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if it’s in order
forward this to the Advisory Board and instruct Main Street to call a special
meeting and review this and try to have a resolution and approval by the next First
Friday if we are able to allow them to do this on a trial basis without amending the
ordinance and then come back later to amend the ordinance if that’s appropriate.
Mr. Shepard: I’ll second it for purposes of discussion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion and second on the floor. Further
discussion on the issue? Okay, we have to go down the line here. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’m a little bit confused. I think
Commissioner Shepard had mentioned that we would come back. We approved the
present guidelines for that First Friday [inaudible] come back and if we going to do any
amendments, I think now is the time to do it, rather than to approve it, then to come back
and do it again. So I’m not in, I’m not in opposition to this, I just, I was thinking we was
going to discuss it anyway. I thought we had passed it just for the First Friday in
September because there was some things we wanted to look at, Steve, there were some
other things we wanted to see how it was going to work and what was a problem. Our
church choir was there. I think the First Friday went relatively well. I seen more police
cars than I probably seen since the May 11 riot, but I guess that was a good thing. But
nevertheless, I, I’m just a little confused as to are we going to amend anything, are we
going to, is there anything to discuss that we need to do this and then just let them come
back again, Steve?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] Ulmer.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any
problem voting for a recommendation that the review panel look at the request and you
know, act on it from there, but I’m, I’m going to be looking on the review panel’s
recommendation. That’s the group we put together. That’s the one that we’re, we have
put in place for that purpose and I think they’re the ones who are going to have to make
the recommendation to us in that regard. And I really don’t think, Mr. Chairman, that
Mr. Owens even has to come here. I think he’s got a large enough group here that the
review panel is going to listen to and probably could have already placed his
recommendation to there and be working on it. But I’m going to listen to what they have
to say and what they recommend on it. I don’t have any problems with asking them to
take a look at it and bring back a recommendation to us in a speedy amount of time.
12
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard.
My suggestion, Mr. Mayor Pro
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Tem and fellow members of the Commission, is that if we need any other
Commission action we could put a place holder on Friday’s meeting where we’re
going to be setting the millage rate, I believe. We have a called meeting -- I don’t
know if that call is fully issued -- but we could have it back if you could convene
your group in that short amount --
Mr. Naylor: I will do my best to get them together in the next day or so.
Mr. Shepard:It may be that no Commission action is necessary, but if you
would amend your motion, Mr. Cheek, that we have that other -- just because it’s a
matter of timing, we won’t be meeting in regular session before the next First
Friday, but we will be meeting in special meeting -- and I’d just suggest that as a
way to resolve that without undue delay and giving the Commission time to look at
the backup material.
This was an add-on item which did not go out with our books,
and I can understand that everybody wants to have a high comfort level before we did.
And I offer that as an amendment to your motion.
Mr. Cheek: I so accept it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Is the issue electrical bands versus
acoustical bands?
Mr. Owens: Well, the problem is, Mr. Boyles, is that electric bands are not loud
at all now. And the problem before, the reason they had to be cut out, was because there
was no regulations, so anyone who had a guitar amp was coming down, plugging into a
random socket, and they were all playing over each other and were causing problems for
the stores that were, you know, and people that were downtown and clogging up the
sidewalks and too loud for the cafes. So when this was passed, it was most people’s
understanding that bands would be allowed, but it would just have to be structured. And
as it reads, there’s no acoustics, only acoustic bands, and so therefore 95% of the bands
that had been performing and that would like to perform and would bring something good
to the First Friday event are not allowed now simply because of that subsection. If it was
amended that you would allow bands and did not say yet acoustic or electric, then the
committee could decide which bands were appropriate and allow us to organize them as
they see fit. I’m not asking for permission outside of the guidelines to do anything. I’m
just asking you to give that group the ability to let us do, help them make First Friday
better. That’s all we’re asking.
Mr. Boyles: Let me test Mr. Kuhlke’s memory, too, because I don’t remember
exactly this, but he and I were at the last Main Street [inaudible], weren’t we? [inaudible]
13
and something come up about acoustical bands versus electrical bands. I thought the
feeling of the people in that room that morning was to stay with the acoustical bands.
Mr. Naylor: That is the feeling of the board of directors of Main Street this time.
However, Mr. Owens has come to myself and to the Commission to present a plan that
th
would be feasible, in my estimation, to work out on a trial basis, to put them in the 10
th
Street and the 8 Street area. However, I can’t make that decision. I would have to take
that recommendation back to Main Street, but my feeling is from the Commission at this
point is to take it to the Downtown Advisory Panel, which at this point is the correct body
to take that to and have them decide. Because that -- events is listed as the fifth arm of
what they work with and that’s events and scheduling events downtown. So the
Advisory Panel would come back with a recommendation on that as far as electric bands.
It’s somewhat a little convoluted with Main Street being the sponsor of First Friday,
however the Downtown Advisory Panel was established to look at all the areas down
here and all of the events going on, and that’s what you all established. So -- but we had
a problem. I think with what Mr. Owens is presenting is a reasonable plan to do on a trial
basis. We need to make sure that the decibel level is kept down. We need to make sure
that people can enjoy the music without being accosted by it, let’s say, as some people
told me a long time ago, in October of last year. But it’s your choice as to if you want to
go ahead and make that recommendation, I believe that Main Street will allow it on a trial
period. But if you want to take it to the Downtown Advisory Panel, I will get them
together as quickly as I can to bring a recommendation back from them.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you. I appreciate that information. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: Just a question on the motion. The -- am I correct in that we passed,
did we pass this at our last meeting without a second reading?
The Clerk: [inaudible] This is not in reference to the alcohol license. This is the
First Friday guidelines.
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, that’s what I’m saying, though, that the First Friday guidelines,
did it require a resolution, did it not, to adopt those guidelines? And did we waive the
second reading?
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] wasn’t an ordinance.
Mr. Kuhlke: It wasn’t an ordinance?
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
Mr. Kuhlke: So if I understand the motion, Mr. Cheek, it’s to postpone any action
on this until our special meeting on Friday, at which point Mr. Naylor will come back and
14
make a recommendation as to whether we make an amendment or is it going to be a
temporary situation. What’s the deal?
Mr. Cheek: I would understand it that the parties would meet, discuss it before
the Advisory board. The Advisory board would come back with a recommendation
which may include a trial period for this to go. But I’m looking at this list and there’s an
awful lot of representation on the Advisory board on this list. So this is a further
evolution and refinement of the process, but that’s the way it would be. Come back
Friday for a recommendation from the board.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No further discussion, all in favor of the motion, please --
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Sorry, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Let me just ask this to maybe shorten some of the, some of the
bureaucracy in this. If the listed businesses that are on here are trying to work with this
idea as something to amend what’s been put together, and it’s a good number that’s here,
I mean representative probably of streets all the way up Broad Street and side streets,
unlike a body that we have [inaudible] that type situation, could it not be, Chris, and what
I’m looking for is to find a way to work this into what Steve was talking about in terms of
getting this resolved before we even get into another First Friday, that the group that we
put together is not that large a group. And if the group that’s trying to get this
accomplished represents a large number of people that have ownership and at least in the
downtown area, could y’all probably not converse by phone on the general idea of it and
be able to, to give us that feedback as opposed to trying to sit down, put a meeting
together, getting everybody together and do all that? I mean the people that signed on to
it I think to a point that you know, if this, to me, it’s a lot simpler to accomplish than
maybe what we trying to get done with it. Because sometimes you put in meeting form,
somebody can’t attend, this person can’t, if it’s a small group of people that have been on
the Advisory, and I agree that yes, they worked hard at doing it, but if you’ve got an
overwhelming number of business owners and people who are down there and who want
to work to try to advance it with that group, kind of cut the chase of maybe just y’all
talking about it and being able to come back and we put that on, Steve, as to where you’re
talking about doing that same time frame and it’s just done. And obviously, if it, if it, if it
doesn’t work, then that’s something that you’ll cross when you get to that. But I think
with as many people as you’ve got interested in wanting to see it work, and to have
[inaudible] unsolicited help [inaudible] positive [inaudible], that would accomplish both
sides of it and get it done prior to First Friday.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard.
15
Mr. Beard: I kind of agree with Mr. Mays, but I don’t think we should short-
circuit this. I think you have ample time and let’s follow the procedure and let’s do it,
you know, like we’re supposed to do it. We have the time. You’re right, it’s a small
group that Mr. Naylor would be working with, but I think he can contact that group, we
can get it back here and let’s just do it like we’re supposed to do it, and I think that
would, that would take care of it. And I’m in agreement with you that it should be done
by First Friday, and I think Chris has heard that and I think he will get it done. Then
we’ll have the opportunity to bring this back to the body, like it should be done, and we’ll
have everything in place by First Friday. I call for the question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The question has been called. All in favor of the motion,
please signify by the sign of voting.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Naylor: Thank you.
Mr. Owens: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: Consent agenda?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk: Consent agenda consists of items 1 through 52. Mr. Bridges,
would you like also for Public Services --
Mr. Bridges: Yes, item number 40. During the Public Services meeting, Mr.
Mays was asking to be pulled and put back on the committee agenda, and items number
41, 42 and 43 we offer as part of the consent agenda.
The Clerk: The consent agenda consists of items 1 through 52, with the
inclusion of items 41, 42 and 43.
For the benefit of any objectors to our planning
petitions, once the planning petitions are read, if there are any objections would you
please signify your objection by raising your hand?
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
PLANNING:
1. Z-03-58 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a reduced area with the following conditions 1)
the only use of the property shall be a garden center or those uses permitted in the
R-1C zone 2) the development of the property must substantially conform to the
concept plan submitted with this petition and 3) no curb cut onto Grady Street; a
petition by Jim Reeves, on behalf of Barton Investments, et al., requesting a change
of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business)
16
affecting property located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Wheeler
Road and Grady Street and containing approximately 2.2 acres. (Tax Map 33-2
Parcels 372-380). DISTRICT 1
2. Z-03-75 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Bryan Simkins, on behalf of Jane H.
Barrett et al, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone LI
(Light Industry) affecting property located at a point being on the northwest corner
of the intersection of Doug Barnard Parkway and Dixon Airline Road and
containing 50 acres. (Tax Map 135 Parcel 5 and Tax Map 146 Parcel 5). DISTRICT
1
3. Z-03-76 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Richard Lambert requesting a
change of zoning from Zone B-2 (General Business) to R-1A (One-family
Residential) affecting property located at 1926 ½ Cherry Road and containing .43
acres. (Tax Map 71-4 Parcel 84). DISTRICT 2
4. Z-03-77 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) that if the current
auto repair business ceases to operate the zoning will revert to R-2 (Two-family
Residential); 2) that there be no outside storage or additional buildings added
related to the business; a petition by Michael Ross requesting a change of zoning
from Zone R-2 (Two-family Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting
property located at 1935 Turknett Spring Road and containing .18 acres. (Tax Map
45-3 Parcel 306). DISTRICT 1
5. Z-03-78 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that a permanent easement be
recorded on 611 Fourth Street to provide adequate parking for this property; a
petition by Scott Hall requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3C (Multiple-
family Residential) to Zone P-1 (Professional) affecting property located at 602
Fourth Street and containing .04 acres. (Tax Map 47-4 Parcel 320) DISTRICT 1
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those planning petitions?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hearing none. What’s your pleasure, gentlemen?
Mr. Shepard: I move approval of the consent agenda, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Second to the motion. Any items to be pulled? Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, Pro Tem, I’d like to pull item 32 for discussion.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes sir.
17
Mr. Hankerson: I’d like to pull 41.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 41. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, pull item 22 and 33.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 22 and 33.
Mr. Boyles: 22 and 33?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Uh-huh.
Mr. Boyles: 22 and 32?
The Clerk: 22 and 33.
Mr. Williams: 22 and 33.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: I’d like to pull numbers 19 and 20.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Any other items? Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, could we possibly add in item number 46 --
46A to the consent agenda?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 46A. Is there any opposition to adding 46A to the consent
agenda? Hearing none. Madame Clerk, 46A will be added to the consent agenda.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other items to be pulled, gentlemen? Hearing none.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
PLANNING:
1. Z-03-58 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a reduced area with the following conditions 1)
the only use of the property shall be a garden center or those uses permitted in the
R-1C zone 2) the development of the property must substantially conform to the
concept plan submitted with this petition and 3) no curb cut onto Grady Street; a
petition by Jim Reeves, on behalf of Barton Investments, et al., requesting a change
of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business)
affecting property located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Wheeler
18
Road and Grady Street and containing approximately 2.2 acres. (Tax Map 33-2
Parcels 372-380). DISTRICT 1
2. Z-03-75 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Bryan Simkins, on behalf of Jane H.
Barrett et al, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone LI
(Light Industry) affecting property located at a point being on the northwest corner
of the intersection of Doug Barnard Parkway and Dixon Airline Road and
containing 50 acres. (Tax Map 135 Parcel 5 and Tax Map 146 Parcel 5). DISTRICT
1
3. Z-03-76 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Richard Lambert requesting a
change of zoning from Zone B-2 (General Business) to R-1A (One-family
Residential) affecting property located at 1926 ½ Cherry Road and containing .43
acres. (Tax Map 71-4 Parcel 84). DISTRICT 2
4. Z-03-77 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) that if the current
auto repair business ceases to operate the zoning will revert to R-2 (Two-family
Residential); 2) that there be no outside storage or additional buildings added
related to the business; a petition by Michael Ross requesting a change of zoning
from Zone R-2 (Two-family Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting
property located at 1935 Turknett Spring Road and containing .18 acres. (Tax Map
45-3 Parcel 306). DISTRICT 1
5. Z-03-78 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that a permanent easement be
recorded on 611 Fourth Street to provide adequate parking for this property; a
petition by Scott Hall requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3C (Multiple-
family Residential) to Zone P-1 (Professional) affecting property located at 602
Fourth Street and containing .04 acres. (Tax Map 47-4 Parcel 320) DISTRICT 1
6. FINAL PLAT – BRECKENRIDGE, SECTION V, PHASE ONE – S –655- A
request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission
to approve a petition by Southern Partners Inc., on behalf of Nordahl & Co.,
requesting final plat for Breckridge, Section V, Phase One. This residential
subdivision is located on Loveland Drive, adjacent to Breckenridge, Section III and
contains 26 lots.
7. FINAL PLAT – WOODSON LANE PROJECT – S-629 – A request for
concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve
a petition by Stantec, Inc., on behalf of 30901 Development Corp., requesting final
plat approval for Woodson Lane. This residential subdivision is located on Roulette
Lane, between Augusta Ave. and Holley St.
8. FINAL PLAT – WHEELER LAKE, PHASE 1, SECTION 1 – S-647-1-1 – A
request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission
to approve a petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of ATC Development
Co., requesting final plat approval for Wheeler Lake, Phase I, Section I. This
residential development is located on West Wheeler Parkway, south of the right-of-
way of Old Marks Drive and containing 21 lots.
19
9. FINAL PLAT – LIONS GATE, PHASE TWO – S-645-II – A request for
concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve
a petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of ATC Development Co.,
requesting final plat approval for Lions Gate, Phase 2. This residential development
is located on Bertram Road, north of the right-of-way of Center West Parkway and
containing 20 lots.
10. FINAL PLAT – HEATHER’S GLENN SUBDIVISION, PHASE III – S-592-
III – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by John A McGill & Associates, on behalf of
Toney E. Burnley, requesting final plat approval for Heather’s Glenn, Phase III.
This residential subdivision is located on Old Waynesboro Road adjacent to
heather’s Glenn Phase II and contains 17 lots.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
11. Motion to approve the creation of Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
Liaison Officer salary grade 54 at Augusta Regional Airport. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee September 8, 2003)
12. Motion to approve the creation of the Equal Employment Officer (EEO) and
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Officer (DBEO) positions with top priority
given to the hiring of the EEO position along with a clerical position for support.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee September 8, 2003)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
13. Motion to approve request for weather/rain day extension for fire station
construction projects. (Approved by Public Safety Committee September 8, 2003)
14. Motion to accept grant funding of $36,510.00 for Department of Justice
Homeland Defense Grant for the Fire Department. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee September 8, 2003)
15. Motion to approve transfer of surplus funding from completed fire station
projects to fire station #1 construction project. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee September 8, 2003)
16. Motion to approve the purchase of Symantec Enterprise Ghost Software and
Compaq Server. (Approved by Public Safety Committee September 8, 2003)
17. Motion to approve a new fileserver for Public Safety records and case
management data. (Approved by Public Safety Committee September 8, 2003)
FINANCE:
18. Motion to approve refund to Wiley T. Andrews, Sr. of 2001 taxes paid in
error in the amount of $24.79 on boat account #2042096. (Approved by Finance
Committee September 8, 2003)
19. Deleted from the consent agenda.
20. Deleted from the consent agenda.
21. Motion to approve the installation of additional street lights in accordance
with the previously approved Street Lighting Master Plan at six locations.
Installation costs in the amount of $6,710 and annual maintenance and energy
(currently $47,020) to be funded from General Fund Street Lighting (Account #
20
101-04-1610/52.13119 and 101-04-1610/53.12310 respectively). (Approved by
Finance Committee September 8, 2003)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
22. Deleted from the consent agenda.
23. Motion to approve funding in the amount of $24,250.00 for the purchase of
wetland mitigation credits to offset wetland areas disturbed during the Butler Creek
Interceptor Extension project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
September 8, 2003)
24. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements, and
Road Resolution(s) submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for
Pinehurst Subdivision, Section One-A. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee September 8, 2003)
25. Motion to approve the Deed of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements, and
Road Resolution(s) submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for
Breckenridge Subdivision, Section One-B. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee September 8, 2003)
26. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements, and
Road Resolution(s) submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for
Cambridge Subdivision, Section 3-A. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee September 8, 2003)
27. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements, and Road
Resolution(s) submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for
Cambridge Subdivision, Section 3-B. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee September 8, 2003)
28. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements, and
Road Resolution(s) submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for
Riverwest Commercial Park. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
September 8, 2003)
29. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements, and
Road Resolution(s) submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for
Amberlake Estates, Phase III. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
September 8, 2003)
30. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements, and
Road Resolution(s) submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for
Pepperidge Pointe Subdivision, Section Four. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee September 8, 2003)
31. Motion to approve the bid award of contract to Beams Contracting, Inc. in
the amount of $500,241.25 subject to the receipt of signed contracts and proper
bonds for the Traffic Engineering Phase II Project (CPB #323-04-200823591). Also
approve Capital Project Budget Change Number Three in the amount of $83,241 to
be funded from SPLOST Phase IV Traffic Safety Improvements. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee September 8, 2003)
32. Deleted from the consent agenda.
33. Deleted from the consent agenda.
21
34. Motion to approve installation of additional street lights in accordance with
the previously approved Street Lighting Master Plan at six locations. Installation
costs in the amount of $6,710 and annual maintenance and energy (currently
$47,020) to be funded from General Fund Street Lighting (Account # 101-04-
1610/52.13119 and 101-04-1610/53.12310 respectively). (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee September 8, 2003)
35. Motion to adopt Resolution finding that the portion of Garlington Avenue at
Government Street, adjacent to Castleberry’s Food Company, located on Tax Map
58-2 has ceased to be used for public purposes. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee September 8, 2003)
36. Motion to ratify Commission’s authorization letter for application of PDM-C
Grant by Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee September 8, 2003)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
37. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held September 2, 2003.
APPOINTMENTS:
38. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Isaac C. (Mike) Askew, III to the
Human Relations Commission representing District 7:
39. Motion to approve the reappointment of the following appointments
representing District 9:
a) Ms. Margaret Armstrong - ARC Planning Commission
b) Mr. Terrance Dicks - ARC Human Relations Commission
c) Mr. Bryan Haltermann - ARC Historic Preservation Commission
d) Mr. Charles McCann – ARC Personnel Board
e) Ms. Sheila Paulk - Augusta Aviation Commission
f) Mr. Edward Tarver - General Aviation Daniel Field
g) Mr. King Singleton - Zoning Appeals Board
PUBLIC SERVICES:
40. New Application: A.N. 03-32: A request by Felicia Thrasher for a retail
package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with S & H Convenience
Store located at 2001 Barnes Rd. District 2. Super District (Postponed from August
25 Public Services) (Postponed until September 22 Public Services Committee)
PUBLIC SERVICES CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
42. Approve continuing the Transportation Security Administration Agreement
through September 30, 2007 at Augusta Regional Airport.
43. Motion to approve an agreement with Mr. David Robinson as the tennis
professional at Newman Tennis Center.
APPOINTMENT:
46A. Consider the recommendations of the Richmond County Board of Health to
appoint Mr. Ralph Herndon to fill the unexpired term of Ms. Gloria Frazier and
22
Ms. Stella Nunnally to a two-year term to fill the expired term of Mr. Jack
Cheatham on the Community Service Board of East Central Georgia.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion to approve, please signify by the
sign of voting.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, could we have a list of those items that were
pulled, from the Clerk, please?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: Items 19, 20, 22, 32, 33, and we added item 46A to the consent
agenda.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And 41.
Mr. Shepard: 41.
The Clerk: 41?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 41.
The Clerk: Yes, it was.
Mr. Shepard: The reason I asked, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I believe there’s some
delegation here interested in number 33.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay.
Mr. Boyles: I think on item 46, I think Mr. Herndon is here. Is Ms. Nunnally
here?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 46A.
Mr. Boyles: The appointments.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Those are appointments.
Mr. Williams: Was 41, 42, 43 added to the consent agenda? Okay. I was getting
some clarification, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. 41, 42, and 43 was placed on the consent but 41
was pulled, is that right?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 41 was pulled.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
23
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hearing no further discussion on the agenda, the consent
agenda, all in favor of the consent agenda, please signify by the sign of voting.
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-18, 21, 23-31, 34-39, 42-43, 46A]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Pulled items.
The Clerk:
19. Motion to approve a Resolution requesting a performance review by the
Georgia Department for Revenue of the Augusta-Richmond County tax Assessor’s
Office and Board of Assessors. (Approved by Finance Committee September 8,
2003)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Who was going to address that?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I am.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard
: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. The text of that resolution was
attached and I just wanted for clarification to show you it was attached to the revisions to
It was passed by the Finance Committee, and I understand
the Commission agenda.
that the financing of this under the law, I’m told, and Jim can correct me, that we
would have to pay for this but we would call upon the Board of Education to
participate in the payment thereof because of the large ratio of ad valorem taxes
that are derived from the Board of Education. It’s about 70% ad valorem taxation
that goes to the Board of Education, 30% to us. But I think under the law we would
have to pay that expense up front. I guess we would find out what that expense is
and charge it to the contingency account.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: I have a question to Steve. Hopefully they’ll be paying the 75%, the
72% of this bill?
Mr. Shepard: Yes.
Mr. Beard: Okay.
Mr. Shepard
: But not -- they’ve indicated that they -- there’s been
communication between the Mayor’s Office and the President of the Board of Education.
They indicated they would be amenable to a division of the cost paralleling the division
So I would move
of the revenues. But that’s not the law. It’s their intention, though.
approval with that understanding.
24
Mr. Hankerson: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I want to make sure I understand
the resolution here. What we’re actually looking for or asking the State to investigate is
the, for lack of a better way to word this, the actual math of how the digest was arrived at,
the verify that that was done correctly, or if it was not, to point those errors out to us; am
I right in that, Jim? Are we actually asking for a review of the Board members and staff?
Mr. Wall: Well, you’re asking for a review of the actions of the Board members
and the staff as it relates to the appraisal techniques, as well as the compliance with State
law and regulations. So --
Mr. Bridges: They should come back with an answer as to whether the digest was
calculated correctly, then; is that not correct?
Mr. Wall: That would be part of what they would come back.
Mr. Bridges: I mean I want to know that. I mean that’s something, I think that’s
the main thing I want to know in this regard. I don’t want to be, I don’t think we ought to
go out there or be viewed as just trying to point fingers at someone, this type of thing. I
want an actual, I want them to actually review the calculations and those types of things
that are involved with the department.
Mr. Wall: That would be part of what they would review. Not the only thing
they would review.
Mr. Bridges: I understand. I understand. I do support the motion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion --
all in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, could we go to item number 33?
The Clerk:
33. Motion to approve award of contract to Beams Contracting, Inc. in the
amount of $888,941.00 for the Resurfacing Various Roads, Phase VIII Project
(Capital Project Number 324-04-203824045) subject to receipt of signed contracts
and proper bonds adding pavement marking to the contract. Also approve the
addition of Walton Woods Court to the contract as the contractor’s first order of
work to be funded from project contingency with a cost not to exceed $160,000.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 8, 2003)
25
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen?
Mr. Boyles: I move for approval.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams, did you have that pulled?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. And my reason for pulling is it is
I’ve got no problem with the bids or the awards. I’m a little concerned about the list.
The list here, is this the original list or this a new list? Various roads. There was an old
list and I want to know the old list been, been unprepared or it’s over with or did we
scratch that and start over from scratch? That’s all I need to know.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Who can address that? Oh, there we go, we’ve got Eric
here.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, Commissioner Williams, this is the same
list that was approved a few months by. We are working down the same list priority-wise
and this contract was just put out and the bids came in. No additions or deletions except
for Walton Woods Court.
Mr. Williams: So the old list, and you said this is a couple of months old, is that
right?
Mr. Thompson: More like four or five.
Mr. Williams: Four or five? Was there not an older list, though, was there not a
previous list before this list was developed?
Mr. Thompson: That was probably a Phase VII list and probably in another two
or three months there will be a Phase IX list. But this should have been the only list
that’s been presented as Phase VIII.
Mr. Williams: Okay. That’s my only question. I’m remembering, and I’m trying
to remember so much, but I remember another list of streets and stuff that we had that we
was going to address and I’m wondering had they been taken care of already. If they
had, that was fine. If they have not, I’d like to know why they was changed and why
[inaudible], but if this is the original list now, and another list may show up sometime,
and if it does, I’ll bring it.
Mr. Thompson: Do you have a specific street?
Mr. Williams: No. I got a specific list. Not just a street. It was some streets and
they don’t look like this list on this one. That’s all, I mean, you answered my question.
26
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Eric, in looking down this list, it
appears that they’re mostly residential streets is what I’m seeing and I’ve asked that some
roads be considered for resurfacing, like [inaudible] which are really thoroughfares. Are
those types of streets, thoroughfare streets, are they on a separate program for
resurfacing?
Mr. Thompson: They’re in the same data base. We probably [inaudible] through
the [inaudible] and that list will be coming to you probably at the next meeting.
Mr. Bridges: Okay, good.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussion?
Mr. Hankerson: One question. Has the list as printed, what’s the time frame, is
the list printed as priority or particular streets are or how are you going by it?
Mr. Thompson: There’s basically a data base of all the roads in the county, the
city/county, and they’re ranked by priority, based on condition. And as we move down
condition-wise, we get to the streets and [inaudible] basis.
Mr. Hankerson: So when can we look forward? For instance, I see some at the
bottom of the list, I think Glenn Hills is at the bottom of the list. I was just wondering
what shall I say to the people, what time frame, and you know, we have that problem
with the new gymnasium being built there that’s going to create a real congestion. What
kind of time frame are we looking at? Could you tell us off the top of your head? Is it
another year? Is it longer than a year?
Mr. Thompson: I believe the contract time for this project is about six months.
I’m not sure exactly [inaudible] in the timing. And Glenn Hills was added to the
contract, based on damage to the pavement caused by the construction of that new
stadium.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I guess one of the concerns that
I’m hearing is that we not have an extended period of time between the time the road is
prepared or milled and then whenever they come back and do the resurfacing. Will we
be doing, say a street, two or three streets, and then coming back and paving or will we
mill it this month and pave it next month? That’s one of the issues I hear coming from
the communities, the timely resurfacing after the initial milling is done.
27
Mr. Thompson: We’ve reduced the, the amount of time in the specifications in
the contract to ask that the repaving take place, I believe, within ten days, and I’d actually
like to reduce that more, but we need to be mindful what that does to the contract price at
the same time. Trying to stretch the money as far as possible, but still not have streets
milled up and left that way for weeks at a time.
Mr. Cheek: Well, if we can have them milled and paved like they’ve done
Highway 25, quickly repaving it [inaudible] that’s the kind of milling/resurfacing we’re
looking for. Mill it one night and pave it the next.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the
motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, we’ll got to item 41.
The Clerk:
41. Approve moving $150,000 from contingency to the marketing operating
budget for Continental Airline Incentives at Augusta Regional Airport.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boshears?
Mr. Boshears: The contingency fund mentioned in here is Bush Field’s
contingency fund, not the City of Augusta fund, if there’s a question about that.
Otherwise, a planned program that [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: I’m glad you brought that out. That’s not why I pulled it, but it’s
good to know that, too. The reason, is this the final part of the incentives?
Mr. Boshears: It’s my understanding this is the last of the Continental incentives,
yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: The last? Could you kind of give us a little update of, you know,
the progress, success of incentives or what you see in the future after this is done, as far
as Continental?
Mr. Boshears: I personally can’t do that, but I can bring that to you. I can get that
information and bring it back to you. I’m just not familiar enough with Continental yet to
be able to answer that intelligently.
Mr. Hankerson: The board members --
28
Mr. Boshears: I can bring that back.
Mr. Hankerson: The board members here, can they? I just wanted sort of an
update of where we are and whether we still count on using Continental, it looked pretty
good to us.
Mr. Boshears: It’s my understanding that it’s been a successful program so far, as
far as putting people in the seats. But as far as having exact numbers, I just can’t give
those to you. Like I said, I can bring that back to the Commission.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It’s been, it’s been, the load, the off-loading and on-loading
of Continental has almost been full since they came into Augusta. The Chairman --
Mr. Boshears: They left.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m the liaison out there now. The project out there with
Continental has been a huge success in terms of moving people in and out of Augusta.
Mr. Boshears: And they’ve been running an efficient airline as far their on-time.
They have the best on-time record of the three right now.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So far it’s been very successful.
Mr. Hankerson: So we can look for it to continue?
Mr. Boshears: I can get that information.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: As long as ridership is there, they’ll stay here. As long as
we continue to support it.
Mr. Hankerson: Is the incentive used -- what is that used for?
Mr. Boshears: I think it’s the marketing part of it. The advertising.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussion?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: If you could, [inaudible] information at some point, to bring us the
schedule of fares have been charged by -- I’m very appreciative that the carrier has not
been canceling flights out of the city or into the city so that you’re stranded in some
29
remote location and can’t get back home, but I would be interested in seeing what the
fare structure is. If you’re our liaison, something [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We can have that information for you.
Mr. Shepard: I appreciate that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the
motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
The Clerk: We have to get a motion.
Mr. Boyles: I move for approval.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I thought we did have one. All in favor of the motion,
please signify by the sign of voting. I thought we had one. I apologize.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you.
Mr. Boshears: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go back to item 20.
The Clerk:
20. Motion to approve Budget Resolutions for the General Fund, Law
Enforcement Fund, Fire Protection Fund, Capital Outlay Fund and urban Services
District Fund for budget amendments and the reduction in expenditures for year
2003 to keep the budget in balance; and all job vacancies be routed to the full
Commission’s addendum agenda for authorization to fill. (Approved by Finance
Committee September 8, 2003)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’m the one who had this pulled.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, go ahead then, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Wanted Mr. Kolb to comment. I had some of the Commissioners
before the meeting who were not able to be with us last week ask questions about it, so I
thought we all should be understanding of what we in the committee called the Mays
Amendment, and I certainly won’t try to restate his amendment, but for the benefit of the
30
Commission, the relevant part of the minutes are on page two of the Finance Committee’
agenda, and we can compare that to the caption we have in the book. If Mr. Kolb would
comment. I think the idea was to get through the rest of the year by utilization of the
manpower management plan and continued use of that plan. So if you’d comment, Mr.
Kolb.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, Commissioner
Shepard is correct. We had proposed to use the technique of managing our manpower so
that we could generate the savings. And what’s in the agenda item in terms of routing all
job vacancies to the full Commission was not what I understood Commissioner Mays’
amendment to be. Now of course, Commissioner Mays is going to have to determine
whether that understanding is right or wrong, but as I interpret the way the motion is on
the floor is that all positions would have to come to the Commission in order to be filled.
And that has not happened before. That was not the intent. We are managing the
vacancies to come to the pot of money that we need to balance the budget. What I’m
understanding, Commissioner Mays, is that any departments that wanted to bring
vacancies to the Commission, then they would be blocked by the Administration. If they
chose to come around the Administration to the Commission, then it would take ten
consents to put it on the agenda for the Commission to consider. Now I yield to
Commissioner Mays in terms of whether or not that is correct.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, thank you. What I was looking for was a way to
realistically address a problem that we continuously have. The Administrator is correct
in stating that we’ve never used this before, but also it’s one reason that we’ve never been
able to abide by a true freeze before is because we’ve never really let it happen before.
As Commissioner, what I was trying to do and it may have been in an air or sarcasm in
terms of making it, but I was very serious in it in that if we were seriously talking about
giving him the tools to not fill those positions for the next 90 days, then I wanted to avoid
what has been known traditionally as the “mad Richmond County rush,” wherein
everybody who needs a position that’s been vacant since New Year’s Eve will rush in,
and when they hear that you’re not going to fill them for the last 90 days, then you get a
list of them every week, folk line up at the microphone, and I wasn’t doing any
[inaudible] anybody, whether they be people that we hire or whether they be
constitutional officers. And what I said was that it would put the lobbying effect on the
people who needed the positions filled. They would then need to do some contacting of
Commissioners, because if they ask the Administrator to put it on, basically the
Administrator is going to pretty much have to put it on, and then it’s on the agenda, and
then it keeps the [inaudible], if this is going to really be a vital part of the getting this part
of the deficit under control, then I think if somebody is going to do that, then they need to
be able to make that case before it gets here. Now if you’re not going to be serious about
it, then I think you ought to say well, just come on, [inaudible], apply, make your case,
and then we’ll do by traditional Richmond County fashion, the majority of them will get
approved, or those that we figure that there is not control over, they will get approved.
And this was a way to really put it where the rubber meets the road of saying you’re not
31
going to handle them other than of this fashion. Anything short of that, quite frankly, to
me is a fiscal joke. Because you are still opening the door that you’ve always had. And
if it’s going to be true, if it’s going to mean something, then say you’re not going to hear
them. You know, I think barring some situation of a 9-11, and I think everybody should
have, you know, reasonable judgment that if those things happen then hey, everybody is
probably going to be on board to do something about that anyway. But to a point where a
position or two has been vacant and then all of a sudden there is a mad rush to increase
the budget -- I don’t have to go into any names, any departments. We know how this
traditionally happens. And it was my feeling that our efforts needed to be and
concentrated on how we were going to get this money straight for 2004. We did not need
to have to go through these changes about who had a real emergency, who didn’t have a
real emergency. And I used the Clerk’s office in the committee meeting as an example. I
said it’s been down 25% since the last budget. They’ve been one person short. We
[inaudible] and it’s not to say it doesn’t need to be filled, Ms. Bonner, but the point is,
there’s been no belly-aching and cry-babying out of that particular office to a point that
they are 25% down. We still get the same level of service, if not better, and I think
everybody has to be involved in that level of sacrifice. That’s a small department. I
realize that. But small, large, mid-size, everybody has to make that same commitment,
and that was the purpose of the amendment. It doesn’t have to be passed. It can be taken
out. If it’s passed and y’all think it won’t work, I just happened to be personally serious
about it, you know, y’all want to figure out, I mean I need a bathroom break right now if
it means to a point you can probably unanimously pass it if you do it while I’m gone and
get it done. If not, then just vote it down and you won’t have to abide by it. But it’s
merely a suggested amendment to seriously do something, quite frankly, that we have not
been doing. Because a freeze is regarded around this building as a joke to a point that,
you know, those who traditionally get, get. Those who traditionally suffer, suffer. So
what this does, it puts everybody in the same category. If you’ve not filled it prior to,
then we’re serious about these last 90 days of the year. It goes on addendum, and it takes
unanimous consent to do it. That’s a headache then the Administrator and his staff won’t
have to worry about. They can concentrate on closing the gap with the deficit and
presenting us a budget we can live with and that we can sit down and deal with what
services we may have to deal with making adjustments in and how we are going to be
able to come back and deal with a budget that will represent the services that are needed
to be rendered to this community. That’s the purpose of my amendment of doing that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Beard.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I agree that a freeze may be in
order. I just want to highlight and bring to everyone’s attention, and I’m not sure where
we’re at with this, but we just had a, our city engineer move on to another locale, and that
is a critical and central position that we need to make sure is filled.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if I just may, I think there is some
misunderstanding. We are not advocating nor are we recommending any freeze to any
positions. We are managing our vacancies, our manpower, to generate savings that will
cover what we’re proposing in the resolution. There is no hint of any freeze.
32
Mr. Cheek: The only thing, and I’m going to go back to something that if we
have not filled these positions to this date, this year, that have been open for a year, that
are funded, perhaps it’s time to hold those for 90 days. But critical positions such as the
engineering positions that are necessary to facilitate development plans and other issues,
those are the ones I would like to see considered priority, but the positions that we’ve
gone throughout this length of the year without filling, you know, perhaps we do need to
freeze those for the remainder of the year, just to generate that additional revenue.
Mr. Kolb: And that may happen. But administratively we’re managing our
vacancies. It’s really hard to explain, but there is a floor to the number of dollars that we
want to remain idle with respect to vacancies. Anything above that is not subject to the --
or critical positions, I should say, that are above that threshold are not subject to the
[inaudible]. There’s a lot of negotiating, too.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: I don’t see any reason why we can’t put on a 90 day freeze, I mean if
we’re going to really do it, let’s freeze. I mean we all know we’re in bad shape. And I
do think that we are, this group up here is intelligent enough to know that there are
certain positions that we have to have, but I’m in agreement, and the last years that I’ve
been involved, when we talked about freeze, it was kind of a joke. And you know, some
people were able to come in here and get it done and other people were not able to get it
done. And I think we should be fair across the board. I’m going to agree with, I agree
with both people who have spoken that we need the 90 day freeze, but we also have to
know that we’ve got to fill the critical positions and those emergency positions, and I
think if all of our agencies know, and that’s constitutional officers and everybody,
understand for the next 90 days that they’re not going to be able to hire anybody unless
it’s a very -- it’s an emergency, and we have to view it as an emergency, I think that
would make a difference, and you wouldn’t have these people coming in here. And we
need to put a hold on things.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir, thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. As you know, I have
been working on the pension -- been Chairman of the Pension Committee Study
Subcommittee, and we’ve been working, and I think now is a good time for us to look at
and consider early retirement. I do have a plan that could save this City a little over $2
million. I think we need to look at this right now. And that’s by offering a five year
incentive. We talking about the ’49 plan. We’ve talked about it, addressed the ’49 plan,
and the plan that I have that’s available for employees in the ’49 plan, 50 years old or
older, with 20 years of service, we would offer them a five year incentive, and that would
create a savings of $2 million, with only the cost of $980,000 which could be, that’s from
the Pension Fund, we have more than enough funds to take care of that, and I think we
need to seriously look at -- that’s 52 employees. Look at 52 employees of early
retirement. 20 years of service, at least 50 years old, offer them five years incentive.
33
And we can save $2 million. I hope that we will consider that very seriously, looking at
that. when we first started this, we heard echoes that we were not in a financial crunch, it
was not a money problem, but I think we can all agree now that we do have a money
problem. And I’d like for us to present this plan. We worked on it, we have it, we have
it in writing and worked on it all last week, so I’d like to present this as a plan. I hope the
Commission will accept it.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Colclough stepped out, gentlemen, and since he passed to the left,
he asked me to chair for him until he got back. Mr. Administrator, did you want to
respond to that particular statement, and then I’ll recognize you, Commissioner Shepard,
and Commissioner Cheek.
Mr. Kolb: Again, I’d just like to say that we are not in a financial crisis. We have
presented to you [inaudible] resolution and we believe that we can manage out of. There
is, we have never said that there should be a freeze on manpower. There shouldn’t be. It
is unnecessary. We believe that as you gave us direction at the beginning of the year
when you adopted your budget to manage to a certain number, that same directive will
give us, get us through the end of the fiscal year. And the only was we can do it is if the
Administration has the ability to manage as we have the first nine months of the year to
that savings target, to that target number.
Mr. Mays: Let me hold -- I had Commissioner Shepard, Commissioner Cheek,
Commissioner Boyles and then Commissioner Williams, in that order.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mays. What I wanted to understand and perhaps
ask one more question or two, was that by passing this as the committee passed it, each
one of us would be giving up the ability to put items on this main agenda, as I see it, so
Jim, that would to some extend be an amendment to the rules of this body, at least the
customs and practices of this body, is that -- and so this action today, Jim, would then
supercede the rules that an individual Commissioner acting along could put an item on
the agenda that is within this category and we would no longer be able to do that at least
until the end of the year?
Mr. Wall: Correct.
Mr. Shepard: Okay. And then the other question I have, to what effect would it
help us manage the vacancies in the positions of the constitutional officers? Would it
help us at all? Or would we basically just be limiting ourselves to the departments that
come up through the Administrator? Do you have an opinion on how that might work?
Mr. Wall: Ultimately, it’s, you’re limiting the department to which they report
directly, to the Administrator. Now I think some of the constitutional officers obviously
would abide with the policy, but they, if they wanted to push it, I mean they could hire
the staff that they needed.
34
Mr. Shepard: Well, and I think the understanding is, and I don’t know if it’s
expressed or not in the motion, but I think it should be expressed that this is for the
remainder of just this year. Is that, is that the consensus of the Commission? I think that
ought to be expressly in the, in the plan. And here again, I think that what we’re talking
about here is not a budget crisis. It’s a mid-course or ¾ of the course correction that
we’re trying to achieve. It’s not a crisis. So I think the body needs to understand,
number one, what authority we’re giving up as individual Commissioners and how it
affects agenda items, quite frankly, from all committees that would touch in the area of
personnel. And that’s I had this pulled, so we would have this discussion. If it’s not
understood, I would ask that the maker of the motion limit this to the positions that would
come through, until the end of this year.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Cheek and Commissioner Boyles and then Commissioner
Williams, and I’m giving it back to you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, cause I need to respond at
the end. I’m getting like Garfield, I’m resembling all of this today [inaudible].
Mr. Cheek: Just wanted to touch on the comment on early retirement. Early
retirement, and I’m going to quote Moses Todd in this, will only save us money if we do
not fill those positions. To opt out for an early retirement plan, there’s a couple of
caveats that go along with that. One, we would have to fill those critical skills positions
with either existing or new personnel, treating them as limited service employees not
subject to the same benefits, retirement plan and so forth, and that is one area where the
savings would occur at perhaps some lower salary, treating them much like consultants or
part-time employees. But this is the fly in the ointment, if you will, in early retirement is
that most of the positions in these [inaudible] employees are also critical skills positions,
some of them department heads that would eventually have to be replaced at some cost
unless we can get those employees currently serving in those positions to serve for some
extended periods of time as limited service exempt employees, which there is some legal
qualifications that come with that type of employment, so many hours per year, so forth.
But I think it is certainly something the committee is visiting and is something we’re
looking into, but there is, there is a little bit more to it than the amount of savings that we
would [inaudible], and again, that goes back to not filling those positions. And before we
offer those positions, we need to look strongly at what is necessary, do the positions need
to be filled, can they be filled by an employee of lesser qualification at a lower salary or
do those positions need to be eliminated. But that is certainly an option we’re visiting,
but there are certain details that need to be worked out.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams. I’m sorry, Mr. Boyles and then Mr.
Williams.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Let me ask Mr. Kolb, George, do
all 2700 employees report directly to you?
Mr. Kolb: No, they do not.
35
Mr. Boyles: I thought that was what I heard in the Finance Committee meeting,
that the employees that are directly under the Administrator’s supervision would continue
to be managed just like you’ve done for the first nine months. Am I -- I thought that is
what I heard. And then the others, the constitutional officers who can run by you and put
items on the Commission agenda, that you don’t have any control over but it can come
directly to us. I thought that is where Mr. Mays, that is what Mr. Mays was talking about
when he said that we would try, and if a constitutional officer wanted to put personnel, a
new employee, personnel addition on to the Commission agenda, it would have to come
to the Commission and then we would have the right to refuse it. And I thought that
would be, not going into a full freeze, continuing to manage it like you have, and in that
way the Commission would have control because as a former department head, I know
how those things work. We used to always come at the very last minute and get things so
we could include in the next year’s budget. So if I’m mistaken -- I thought that is what
we jokingly laughed about in Finance as the Mays Amendment, that people would not,
the constitutional officer would not be coming by you and coming to us, and that would
give us the, maybe the prohibition to stop it. That was what I thought, gentlemen.
Mr. Kolb: That was how I misinterpreted what Commissioner Mays meant.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I was going to call on my
attorney to represent me and help me understand cause I’m confused about some of this.
I understand what the Administrator has said about managing and not being in trouble,
some reports [inaudible] effort, if we’re not in trouble and we put a freeze on then we
going to be even further along, meaning we going to be even have a greater savings. To
have those positions come by here and we make those decisions, we would know what,
when, how and where. If we don’t do that, then we come up at the end of the year, Steve,
and I need some financial information now, not necessarily the attorney. I got Jim here,
looking at me, I can use him if I need that. But as the Finance Chairman if we do that
and we save even more money, would that not be even better just for this remainder of
this year, not for an extension of next year anytime, but just for this year? Would that not
be better in those constitution officers who brought something to the Administrator, who
got on the agenda, we would make the decision, either good, bad, indifferent, but we
would make that. Wouldn’t that be even better? I’m just asking the question. I need a
legal opinion from you. Would that be better or not?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, the Administrator indicated he wanted to
respond. I’ll be happy to respond to you, Mr. Williams [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] first and then the Administrator.
Mr. Shepard: Have I been fired?
Mr. Williams: Well, if I don’t get an answer maybe.
36
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Williams, I’ll be happy to address this the best I understand it,
first, last, or however you want it.
Mr. Williams: First.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. The way I would understand it is, is there’s a two
edged sword here. There would be, number one, you’d have to have unanimous consent
to get the position that you may feel as an individual Commissioner or the Administrator
may feel or the constitutional officer involved may feel is in fact a critical skills positions
and you’d have to overcome the first hurdle of the addendum agenda, which sometimes
there’s no hurdle at all, as we saw today. But the withdrawal of one consent would
effectively keep that off the agenda that time. And the second hurdle, but I think you
could probably get over it if you got over the first, is you’d then have to have six votes
for the action. So that’s why I indicated that I thought this was worth some conversation,
because we’re changing, we’re changing the rules that we have known. And, but to
answer your first question about our relative solvency, I’m going to ask David -- there he
is, he just came into the room, called his name and he’s here -- but I think that if you had
this in addition to the resolutions we have, my thinking is if you freeze positions, you
obviously slow down expenses even more than what’s on the book here. And if I’m
wrong, I’ll have to ask David, but I would think the savings would increase, Mr.
Williams, and I think your fund balance probably would be positively affected, but since
your Finance Director is out here, I would ask if he heard that question, if he would
respond to that. But my understanding would be it would improve our financial position.
Mr. Persaud: Commissioner, you’re right.
Mr. Williams: Thank you. And Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if I can conclude here. And
that’s what I’m thinking, even though Commissioner Beard mentioned earlier that we as
elected officials know if there’s a position that’s critical, whether it be in law
enforcement, whether it be in the janitor. I think we could make that decision. I don’t
think that we would have to worry about whether or not we could sit here and make that
decision if there’s a position that came to us in that manner. So that’s all, Mr. Mayor Pro
Tem, I had. I just wanted to bring that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. I remember the conversation where we talked about
it in the committee and it was that we needed to be, if we going to say it’s a freeze, it
need to be a freeze, and normally in our government we have individuals that will come
forth and all of a sudden it is a crucial position, that it was not a crucial position before
the freeze was on, before we announced the freeze. So I think that’s what we were
talking about. We wanted to make sure that these positions would not just be filled
because of individuals coming and saying it’s crucial, that it needed to be discussed
among the Commissioners to say that this is a crucial position, that it need to be filled.
And again, I still want to reiterate that we are looking at the ’49 plan, and I heard the
comments about having to rehire, it’s method that you don’t want to have to rehire.
37
We’ve already asked that we get critical positions to be identified. There are methods
that we can replace those critical positions for a short period of time or any length of time
that we want to. And that would be the person that is retiring, that they can work under
contract for maybe a year or so or maybe longer, whatever the length of the contract is.
You won’t have to pay them benefits. But 52, reducing 52 employees, it may seem early,
it may not seem pertinent to what we are talking about, but I heard when we discussed the
tax digest, the deficit, that we were really gong to be facing something in 2004, we going
to have a deficit. So we are going to look at, I suggest that we look at this early
retirement plan. We talking about $2 million that we can reduce the deficit by $2 million.
And coming from the ’49 plan, which would not be a cost to the general fund, I think it’s
worthwhile that we take a serious look at identifying those 52 employees that would like
to take the five year incentive, have 20 years of service, and they’re 50 years old, if they
want to, we would know by the end of the year if we start this process now. We’ll know
whether we have all 52 or how many we would have. And I’m quite sure almost 52 have
come up to me since I’ve been Chairman of this subcommittee asking about early
retirement and some incentives, and I think this is the time. We need to get very serious
about it and look at it. Other governments do the same thing. They contract employees
for a certain length of time, for shorter hours, and still can have the same amount, level of
service that we’ve had previously, or we could have some assistants moving up into the
positions that it would not cost us. Even if we had to hire at least half of the employees
back you are still talking about $1 million savings. $2 million for 52. If we don’t get 52,
you still going to save. You save $1 million. And I think that now is the time, and we
know that we are going to be facing a deficit. I keep hearing that there’s not a crisis. I
hope the public know that it’s not a crisis and I think we need to re-write the ink. I
thought we were really facing a crisis. I think we need to hear the truth about this,
whether we are going to be facing a deficit, whether we are going to be looking at
increasing property taxes, or the millage rate for next year. I think we need to get very
serious and be truthful about it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I think I understand what’s going on, but -- and
I don’t know that I necessarily agree with it. I, you know, I feel comfortable in letting the
Administrator bring a recommendation to us on a position that needs to be filled, and then
six votes up here will make that decision. I don’t have any problem on voting on Mr.
Mays’ amendment, but I can tell you this: I am uncomfortable that while it takes six
votes for us to pass something, one vote can stop everything that’s going on in this
government. So I would vote for it, but if you do it, there won’t be another position filled
in this organization for the rest of this year.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman, thank you. You know, this created exactly what I
wanted it to do. The first honest discussion that we’ve had in the budget year. Finally
we’re getting ready to talk seriously about money. Got everybody’s attention, didn’t it,
gentlemen? Even if it meant the possibility of bending the rules, which as you know, I
38
like to win but I like to win by the rules. I take great joy in winning by the rules. But it
accomplished what I wanted it to do. It got the attention of everybody sitting up here to
talk about whether or not we were going to talk seriously about money. Now we see
budget resolutions on the same day that we deal with shrinking tax digests, I’m still
uncomfortable when I see departments making a sacrifice or supposedly making a
sacrifice, and the first place I look, and it may be somewhere else, maybe it’s way down
deep [inaudible] small print that I can’t read with these 250’s, is that when I see my Fire
Chief making a contribution to that sacrifice and to a point that even though it may be
just $50,000. You know, when we had to deal with a situation that they could not control
on how we fund fire services, and particularly in the suburban tax district, that we dealt
with a small millage rate increase but then I see that as the only department in the whole
process that we’ve got over here that’s taking a hit. Now think about that in that process,
gentlemen, about where you’re going to get money, how you arrive at it. Now I sat in
that Finance Committee meeting and I threw that out there, to propose it. I knew it would
get a whole lot of thought before y’all got here. Glad it did. I’m like Bill, I can live or
live without it, but what I was trying to do, and maybe what the Administrator grossly
misunderstood was that my attempt was to give him some help. If he is not experienced
in mad budget season rush, he’ll get to know it real quickly. And he’ll get to know it real
quickly by people, quite frankly, that have to pop up and we’ll have to make those
decisions. I’ve done it before, I can do it again. Don’t have a problem with that. But the
point being when I hear things floating around and that requests outnumber your monies,
when expected revenues are not what they were projected to be, when I hear our Finance
Director truthfully saying we’d better get busy about how we are going to deal with 2004,
I think they have managed, and I’ll say this positively, I think they have managed well in
terms of how they’ve had to budget in terms of dealing with those filled positions. I was
looking at what traditionally has happened in the last three months of the year. I may be
proven wrong. Maybe somebody might get the message that we are thinking about it
seriously, gentlemen, and they won’t come. But that’s why I put it out there. Because
now at least we are talking about it. And we are going to be talking for the rest of this
year. Cause when you get into seven figures of money and usually it’s times two, it’s not
Monopoly, play money, you’ve got to make it up from somewhere. And folk don’t have
to admit that that’s a crisis. I don’t know. Maybe we have to experience Enron or we
have to get, you know, like a Grey Davis set of numbers, $38 million, and they say that’s
a crisis. I look at it to when you’ve got a dollar over you don’t know how you are going
to get the money back. That’s critical, because you’ve got to find a way to balance it and
not balance it on the backs of the city to a point of being able to put the city in such a
peril [inaudible] services are not rendered. So gentlemen, that, that, that was a good,
friendly amendment. I didn’t vote on it. I’m not on the committee. I made that
suggestion so that we would start talking, because my Finance Chairman, who’s been
very, very diligent in putting on this budget calendar, [inaudible] stay focused on what
we’re doing. I thought at one time the calendar had been lost and throwed away because
it didn’t seem like it was going to ever arise again. We got budget numbers throwed at us
basically to a point it’s almost, was like a riddle. You know, it’s either like to a point you
go into fund balance and spend it or you find some money out of a smokescreen to deal
with it. Somewhere you’ve got to talk about what you going to do, what departments it’s
going to affect. That, gentlemen, we just getting started. We’ve not done any of that. So
39
that part of the amendment, it can be taken out, but I think you’re going to have to
seriously start talking about the fact that you are going to have to know how you are
going to find and get this money. All of those things have to go into that equation. And
Mr. Hankerson’s idea in reference to what we’re dealing with with early retirement, early
retirement has to be discussed in the same vein as the people that you’re going to take off
the payment rolls, as to whether or not they’re critical and whether you can do without
those positions or whether they’re going to have to turn right around and be filled. And I
think that brings into the idea of then the contractual services amount and whether or not
if you fill them, maybe you can do it out of a reduced amount. All of those things need to
be talked about, gentlemen. And while we’re around town talking about how we are
going to get together and socialize and have ice breakers and everything else, we better
be trying to break this stagnation [inaudible] dealing with the seriousness of how do you
solve a gap problem in a deficit. Maybe we have ten different definitions of what is a
crisis. I happen to think we have got one until we resolve what we are doing and come
up with a serious plan about it. Already you know you won’t collect the money. Now I
got sense enough to know that if in the Fire Department where they’re making a sacrifice,
and I’m just using that one department right now, if we’ve got vacancies on professional
fire fighters that need to be filled, we cannot cripple a department to a point that where
you send a truck out with two people on it, one driving it and one riding. I hope my
mama left me with enough sense to know that that’s something you’ve got to deal with.
But I made that point so that it would get our attention and talk about it. And I agree with
you, Bill, I don’t think one person should ever control anything. You know there are
instances in this town where I think that happens. But I don’t think that ought to happen
here in this government. But if it [inaudible], if it got us to start talking about money,
gentlemen, then I think at least it’s a start, and it’s more than we been talking about
dealing with in this year’s budget and how we were going to deal with this money. We
been coating along and hearing these story book [inaudible] about how good a shape
we’re in. Gentlemen, we’re either in good shape or we got critical issues to deal with.
It’s not both. And unlike -- I say many times, unlike Dorothy and that yellow brick road,
Mr. Mayor, we cannot go both ways. Either discussions have got to be dealt with or
[inaudible] money and if you’re starting with less than you even planned for, then you
have a problem, if it’s not a crisis. And it won’t get solved to a point of just managing
some positions that you’ve got. There will be life after December 31 and we better
decide in a prudent way how we are going to do it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do we have a motion, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: No, sir.
Mr. Williams: So move, Mr. Chairman -- [inaudible] Mr. Mays.
Mr. Speaker: I’d like some clarification.
Mr. Shepard: I think we need some clarification.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: What do you need in clarification?
40
Mr. Shepard: Well, I think we -- the motion, whether it’s going to go through the
end of the year -- if we sustain the committee action as the caption or the [inaudible] as
captioned and sustain the committee action with the understanding that the freeze goes
through the end of the year. I [inaudible] time frame, I mean I’ll, I’ll put the committee
action in the form of a motion with the amendment that it continue through the end of the
year.
Mr. Williams: I second that then.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Now we have a motion and second on the floor. Mr.
Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I understand the problems that we are having
trying to correct before next year some of our staffing needs versus our available funds to
cover that staff. We do need to look into early retirement. We do need to look into
organizational charts to see if we have redundancy. I know time and time again we’ve
had human resources issues come before us in the way of staffing and so forth.
Redeveloping our staffing table, we put it all off until it comes at one time, and now
we’ve got a mountain to conquer rather than taking it one bite at a time. We do have a
problem on the horizon in 2004 that we have to deal with, and now’s as good a time to do
it as any, but I want to go back to say just a couple of things. One, we can only cut grass
and maintain our detention ponds four times a year if we don’t have emergencies. We do
not have staff to cover that particular work. Some of those are life safety issues that must
be staffed in order to maintain the integrity of our drainage systems. We have road
problems that need to be resolved. We have emergencies that need to be repaired in
different areas. We do need a city engineer or it’s going to delay the development
community and the approval process for those plans that come through that we’re often
hearing from the development community that are delayed too long as it is. I’m all for a
freeze, but this freeze cannot continue to be borne by the operations and maintenance
sections of this government. It is going to have to be spread to all constitutional offices.
In fact, if we see a budgetary decrease in the general fund accounts of this government,
that that same percentage needs to be transferred to all constitutional officers that receive
money from this government. My citizens in my District have been crying all summer
long about the perceived lack of service because they’re only getting certain areas cut
four times a year. Or the 1800 miles of road being striped or the holes repaired in that
same 1800 miles of road in a timely manner. It’s because we have been living under the
principle of lean operations. And you can look that up in Dr. Deming’s work. That
means that we are at a level to where if we diminish our population of employees by one
more person, then we cannot perform at the same level. That’s where we’re at right now.
Before we go into cutting across the board, we need to completely and totally broadcast
to the people of this community that we are reducing services to them because we cannot
afford to maintain this government operation at the same level of service. That’s where
we’re at right now. It’s either, it’s either we’re at a point where we have to generate
additional revenues or reduce services, and that’s clearly where we’re at today. And that
needs to be communicated clearly into the coming year. Because you can look at Public
41
Works as a good example, as one of the non enterprise fund divisions. We are working
with skeleton crews. And we cannot continue to deliver -- and a good example is our
road striping machines. Takes four to operate it. So let’s go ahead and cut one of those
and just park the darn thing. I mean this is the type of decision that we’re having to make
right now. If we start early retirement or other programs, let us not fool ourselves, we
will be diminishing services across the board in this city, and I for one will fight every,
every effort being made to reduce the operational capacity of this government when it
comes to maintaining and operating this city’s government in its infrastructure, and that’s
exactly where we’re at. And if we spread this burden across all constitutional offices.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles and then Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Boyles: Was that, what Mr. Cheek just said, that’s not a part of this item 20,
is it? That we talked about cutting staff. [inaudible] We’re not talking about cutting
staff, not in this motion, do we?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No.
Mr. Boyles: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Cheek: We’re not talking about filling staff, either.
Mr. Hankerson: I was just wondering if the maker of the motion would consider
the amendment of adding the early retirement to that, therefore that we would be in
position for 2004 and we could go ahead and find out how many of the 52 employees that
are interested, except for deciding the incentives. We can go forward with it and we have
everything in place for the 2004. Would they accept that as the motion?
Mr. Shepard: I made the motion, I believe, Madame Clerk.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Hankerson, I see that the
early retirement program should be considered as part of the series of budget workshops
that we have, and I think that it would not -- I would like for you to report back to us and
I would like to take action on that in the context of your report coming back, then we
having budget workshops on it, and seeing what the effects are. Because I’d also like to
see what the effects are of how you would fill those positions. You and I have had some
discussions about using consultants and I also know that when we have early retired
folks, we have brought other folks back at a more competitive market rate, which means
we pay more for the same position. So I would not be inclined to amend the motion as
stated any further.
42
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: [inaudible] I’m in agreement with the amendment [inaudible] with the
[inaudible]. I’m in agreement with the freeze. What I don’t quite understand, and maybe
he can help me out here at little bit, we talked about earlier one person, and I’m
concerned about that, and I would like that explanation, how one person could hold this
up, if we go with what we have. Or is there anything that we can delete in this, in this, in
this motion here that would, would lost that one person hold there. How can we
overcome that, because that is a concern of mine.
Mr. Wall: Well, in my opinion, the way you do that is drop the Mays
Amendment. I mean the Mays Amendment, which requires unanimous consent of all ten
Commissioners to get an item on the agenda to fill a position creates the situation where
any one of you can stop that item from coming on the agenda. And so therefore it
effectively empowers any one of you to prevent the hiring of a county engineer, a
fireman, or any employee that may need to be, in the opinion of nine of you, needs to be
hired, but one of you can effectively block any action by the Commission to fill that
position. And I will tell you that I think insofar as the constitutional officers are
concerned that they are, I mean if they need critical positions, you have approved their
budget, I don’t think they require Commission approval to fill those positions and I think
they will either fill the positions or if we attempt to block them from doing that, I think
that you’re going to run into some potential litigation. So I mean I appreciate the spirit in
which Commissioner Mays offered that suggestion, but I think it has some very far
reaching ramifications and you’re talking about lobbying, I mean effectively if the Fire
Chief for whatever reason, you know, only had two fireman on his trucks and needed to
hire the third person, he’s got to go around and get all ten of you to sign a letter saying I
can put this on the Commission so I can hire a fireman. And I’m not sure you want to go
there.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays. Mr. Williams, then Mr. Mays. [inaudible] Mr.
Beard?
Mr. Beard: I would like for Mr. Mays to respond to this, because I’m still not
quite clear on -- you’re talking [inaudible] amendment and all of this.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do you yield, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I’m sorry?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do you yield to Mr. Mays?
Mr. Williams: [inaudible]
43
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do you yield to Mr. Mays?
Mr. Williams: Yes, I guess I will, cause he going to talk for two hours if I don’t.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays.
I’m
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’m not going to make any comments on it.
going to make a substitute motion that the motion on the floor, my motion is that
the motion that’s on the floor, with the exception with the amendment, as has been
referred to me by name, I’m going to take my name out of it, I’m going to pull it out,
based on the conversation that I’ve had in legal -- Jim and I, we’ve been agreeing
and disagreeing as long as anybody up here, and I’m going to take his advice on that
from the standpoint that where the litigation could lead, but I think the seriousness
of it, I hope that it’s gotten the attention of every member of this Commission, it was
designed to help, not hurt the Administrator in being able to deal with this, and I
will say this personally, because I do [inaudible] we manage people. When I say
that, non-constitutional ones, that have problems right now, that I hope we will be
sensitive to those, just as we will those who come here and who get their way
traditionally in the fall season and will not put them on wait because obviously they
are out there, as well. So I’m going to make that motion, the motion that you’ve got,
with the exception of the amendment, be approved and that the ideas in reference to
early retirement and others brought to this table be forwarded to the budget
workshops and that the Finance Chairman’s calendar be adhered to once again and
be resurrected from the dead and not as a joking matter and that we seriously get
back to it, because I do think to a point whether it’s crisis or not there is a problem
when you have more needs than you have money to fill those needs with. And if
that’s gotten your attention today, I’m glad it has, and that’s my motion and it’s
without the so-called Mays Amendment and it takes in those provisions of dealing
with utilizing the discussion of early retirement, along with balancing where those
employees are and whether or not we would need to deal with them. That’s my
motion.
Mr. Beard: I second that motion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] motion. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, [inaudible] but we talking about
who can pull and what one Commissioner can control. I see nothing wrong with the
motion Mr. Shepard made except maybe leaving the part out about adding on [inaudible]
Clerk’s office and putting it on the agenda and [inaudible] add-on. It takes six votes to
get anything done, rather than to have to have approval from one Commissioner. I mean
that was the only loophole. We pull add-ons all the time. When something add on, one
Commissioner cannot agree, so we can’t add it. So what in the world is the harm of the
freeze that we talked about for 90 days and having any critical position come through the
normal process on this Commission board and we vote it up or down? But now we
acting like now it’s so hard, but for so long certain people in the four years I been here
44
have been able to come in and certain positions get filled and we don’t even know they’re
filled. The buck stop with us. I been saying that for four years now. We ought to know,
at least know what’s going on and not have the mindset of thinking what’s going on and
that doesn’t happen. Mr. Mays mentioned about our Finance Chairman had a calendar
set up for us to have some dates met on our finance. That has not happened. And when
are we going to step to the plate and call the shots that we elected to call? Now if y’all
got a problem with something, I’m missing. I can see you saying one Commissioner cant
stop it from being put on. But we ought to be able to go through the normal process, put
[inaudible] on the agenda, have a 90 day freeze until the end of the year, Commissioner
Shepard. Not from now on, just to the end of the year. That’s going to save us additional
money. That’s going to get us, with our fund balance and everything else, going to get
even better for us to not have our taxpayers thinking it’s going to be an increase.
[inaudible] critical positions Commissioner Cheek talked about, engineer, anybody that’s
critical, we’ve got enough sense to know those positions are needed. So I guess that’s all
I got to say, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, but I think we going around the wagon we could just
walk up to it and take that little bit out. Those critical positions can come through the
Clerk’s office, be put on the agenda so no one Commissioner can control it, still have the
Mays Amendment or Mays version of it still brought to us so we have the freeze for 90
days. If anything come through, we can say we voted for it, we know it happened, or it
didn’t happen. But behind our backs, things are being done, then we look up, it’s done,
it’s too late then. We have not stood up as men yet and turned nobody down or sent
anybody back that came in a different way. Now we talking about calling names the
other week. We [inaudible] calling some names.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Cheek: Just a clarification and a couple of questions. So with this motion,
are we adopting a 90 day freeze?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No.
Mr. Cheek: Okay. So my deficiencies in traffic signal engineers can be filled, my
city engineer can be filled, other key staffing positions in the understaffed Public Works
Department can be filled?
Mr. Kolb: [inaudible] the provisions of the management manpower plan, correct.
Mr. Cheek: Okay. I just -- and I’m going to follow it up. I wish I could take a
Pollyanna view of what’s coming up in 2004 and not realize that we are talking about
either an increase in revenue or a reduction in force. But these are real things that are
going on. And all conversation I’ve had that’s germane to not just the present but the
future that this city has operated lean in several departments, that we have not been able
to staff or completely staff these departments for some period of time. We need to have
them staffed in order to maintain life safety issues. I think I read it in one of our GMA
magazines, government cannot afford to not prepare for all contingencies. The lives and
health and safety of our citizens depend on our ability to deliver certain infrastructure
45
essentials. We have got to look at this in a way to where we make sure that those
positions are filled and those capabilities are maintained. In the coming year, with the
digest being smaller than it was projected to be, with perhaps the same level or no growth
for the coming year, we are not going to be able to fund the same level of staffing unless
we either go into contingency or come up with an additional revenue source. Those are
the facts of life, and to deny that today, tomorrow or next week as part of what we are
dealing with is, at the least, viewing the world through rose-colored glasses. We are
going to have to make some adjustments. This Commission has had the opportunity to
deal with this piece-meal throughout the year to try to adjust the staffing, the organization
and other recommendations brought before us by department heads. We’ve all “put it
off” to do it all at one time, and quite frankly, now we’ve got a mountain to deal with
instead of a molehill, and that is my concern, that we do at least keep the door open to fill
these departments, to keep the traffic signals working, the potholes filled, the ditches
clean, and our plans going through development, development plans going through our
Engineering Department that are both done in a quality way and a timely way.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. To respond, Mayor Pro Tem, to Mr. Williams’
comments, the oversight calendar has been followed all year. We’ve had fairly timely
reports, so the budget calendar the committee uses is different from the budget calendar
which the Administration uses to put together for the ensuing year 2004. But I think if
we want to send the message, not just talk about it, then we vote for the original motion.
That will have the only impact, for sure, on the coming fund balance problem if there is
one. As Mr. Persaud said, that we would be saving more money that way and therefore
we would be adding to the fund balance and therefore we would probably not have the
projected deficit that we may have next year. So therefore if you want to, if you want to,
if you want to improve our financial position, I think the original motion is the one to
vote for. I mean we, if we want to try to get a conference committee between the House
and Senate and see what we could do, I’d be happy to do that in the form of a conference
committee type motion, but I think there are certain aspects of the second motion, the
substitute motion that I certainly support, but the real teeth to budgetary control is in the
first motion. So either we talk about it or we vote for it. If you want to just talk about it,
fine, but I’m going to vote for it.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, could I respond to that? I just want to say
that what Commissioner Cheek said earlier about the services and the critical people that
we need. As a government body, we know those positions need to be filled. So we do a
90 day freeze [inaudible] things that run the purse strings up would not be there. We still
can hire those people that Mr. Cheek was talking about. We talking about now if we
don’t then we can’t hire nobody. Those critical issues can still come to this body, we can
vote on those issues. [inaudible] Jim [inaudible].
Mr. Wall: Not without 100% approval of all [inaudible], can’t come before the
Commission -- the original motion was that any one Commissioner can block it. You
won’t get an opportunity to vote on it, and it will not be on the agenda, it will not be
46
considered, and when you stop the constitutional officers from hiring the people that they
need to run their departments, they are going to go down -- they are going to file a
lawsuit, and before the ink gets dry in the Clerk’s office, the Judge is going to sign the
order mandamusing the County to add them to the payrolls. So we’re kidding ourselves
if we believe that through this action that you’re going to require 100% approval of the
ten Commissioners before and require the constitutional officers to come down to the
Commission when their budget has been approved and asked permission to hire
somebody to make their operation work. And so you’re, you’re asking for a lawsuit there
that I’m telling you we’re not going to win.
Mr. Williams: You talking about the constitutional officers, Jim, right now I’m
worried about just the people that we have. I mean you got a whole different string out
there. But just these people here. When the amendment that Mr. Mays brought up
earlier, no, I brought it up about changing, that anything, any employee, any employment
could be brought to the Clerk on a normal agenda. They don’t have to be add on, where
you have to have unanimous consent. It takes six votes still to get it done, even if we, if
nobody fights it, it’s going to take six votes. So if Mr. Shepard amend his motion, the
part about not having [inaudible] add on, having it so it could brought through the normal
process, those critical positions, whether it be the Administrator’s office, whether it be
straight to the Clerk, those position we’ll make the decision on. And not have it have to
have unanimous consent. If you worry about one person turning down, it’s still going to
take six votes. But at least we would know what was done. Well, no, we won’t, cause
there some things we voted for that still didn’t get done. So that’s not going to be no
guarantee. But at least we will have an opportunity to vote on it or not vote on it.
Mr. Wall: And you’re holding the Administrator and you’re holding the
department head responsible for accomplishing what they need to accomplish -- when
they’re recommending the hiring of people, it’s being reviewed by the Administrator but
it doesn’t matter what they think, the six of you are going to make that decision.
Mr. Williams: Exactly right. You 100%. I agree with you. They make the
decision to bring to us, and if we turn it down, then we can’t expect them to do the job if
we turn it down. But the buck stop with us. 200 years now, Jim, and I’m being funny
when I say that, but for a long time, that’s [inaudible] been happening. The
Administrator, the department head have made a decision, we got people walking on top
of each other doing nothing and getting paid. So we need to stop it, it need to stop with
us. Those critical position that need to be hired ought to come through this government
for the 90 days. Not forever, just for 90 days. At the end of 90 days, they going to
[inaudible] again, just like they been doing for 200 years.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible]
Mr. Cheek: Point of clarification.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, Mr. Cheek.
47
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Wall, did I understand you correctly that other constitutional
officers can come to us for budgeting amounts based on the number of employees they
have and they are not subject to the same constraints of the budgetary draw-down that we
are?
Mr. Wall: You’re using the phrase budgetary draw-down. I mean what you’re
talking about now is filling vacant positions. And the positions have been authorized for
the constitutional officers, the positions have been funded in the budgets that they have
received, and so if they’re asking to fill those positions, in my opinion, they can fill those
positions without asking the Commission for authority to do that, and if the payroll
department, the HR Department, the Administrator refuses to allow the hiring of that,
then I think they could file a mandamus action in Superior Court and I think they’ll win.
Mr. Cheek: So in other words, if they feel like they have a need for a person --
Mr. Wall: They can hire them.
Mr. Cheek: - they can fill that positions and then it’s incumbent upon us to pay
them the amount to cover that position, irregardless of the financial restraints on the rest
of the government?
Mr. Wall: Well, two things. Number one, I mean you have approved the budget
for them. You heard the Administrator say that there is not a financial crisis, that he is
managing forces.
Mr. Cheek: For FY ‘03. I’m talking about FY ‘04.
Mr. Wall: Okay. Once you get into ’04 -- I mean you can approve a lesser
budget for those constitutional officers and then it becomes a different issue. Now you
still may be challenged by the constitutional officer, but it then becomes a question of
whether or not they can adequately carry out their responsibilities and whether you
provided sufficient funding for them.
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible] burden of proof on whether they can carry out their
obligations, is it on us or on them?
Mr. Wall: Well, if they file the lawsuit, then the burden of proof is going to be on
them.
Mr. Cheek: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’m going to call for the question. I think we
have beat this over the head forever and probably need some more discussion. I think we
are going to have to -- I’ll wait until [inaudible] stop talking.
48
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen.
Mr. Beard: I think we have [inaudible] we need the freeze, we have heard the
discussion, we’ve heard what our Attorney said, we’ve heard what some of the other
people on this podium up here said. I mean we’ve [inaudible] decision, so I’m going to
call for the question and let’s vote on it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, I’m going to rule that there has been adequate
discussion on this issue and we will now, we do have two motions on the floor, right?
Would you read us the substitute motion?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. The substitute motion by Mr. Mays was to approve the
caption in item 20 without his own amendment, that the early retirement issues be
forwarded to the budget workshops for discussion and the Finance Committee
Chairman’s budget calendar be reinstated.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, gentlemen, all in favor of the substitute, please -- the
question has been called [inaudible]. All in favor of the substitute motion, please signify
by the sign of voting.
Mr. Williams, Mr. Shepard, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Bridges vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, could we go now to item 22?
The Clerk:
22. Motion to approve the renewal of the Parking Management Agreement for
Public Parking Facilities at the Augusta Radisson Riverfront with Republic/Payne
Parking System for a two-year period from January 21, 2004 through January 21,
2006. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 8, 2003)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I had this pulled because of all
the discussion in the [inaudible] we finally got somebody to go over there, and from my
understanding was that this was going to be a one year contract, that local people would
have an opportunity to bid on. This renewal of this contract does not show anywhere
where any other bidders have the opportunity to bid. You know the story behind all this,
for lack of not having somebody at the gate and the money that was lost there, but we had
local people that came in and wanted to bid, and because of the crunch, because of the
time span, because of this professional group, we elected to go ahead and give it to them.
And I thought as of this year we would at least be nice enough to come back and say, you
know, we was gong to open it up for bids and get some bids from some of our local
people. Now I’d like to hear from somebody why we did not do that.
49
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Administrator.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, when this contract
was originally approved, we were instructed to bring it back to the Commission for
review, and at that time the Commission would make a decision to either renew the
contract for the original term or to go to bid. We have had a review of the current
operator, as well as the local vendors who wanted to bid. We believe that what we’re
recommending, and that is to renew the contract for an additional two years, is the best
way for us to go. They are experts in managing parking garages. There is no one local
that has that type of expertise. They have also demonstrated that, through their
management, that they can show an excess of revenue over operating expenses, which
can be used to apply towards the debt service that we have. We believe that this is the
best way for us to go, and we would therefore recommend approval of this contract.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I hear Mr. Kolb, hear the Administrator,
what he’s saying, but -- and I didn’t have the records pulled, I didn’t have the minutes
pulled to go back to talk about this. And I probably should have. But when we did this,
we had local businesses that was licensed, reputable businesses who been doing this
business and other security business. There was two local businesses that I’m
remembering off the top of my head who came down and had proposals, and because of
the crunch, because we was up against the wall, we went out and did something with
another agency. But now here we are saying, we’re not even giving them even a chance.
We have not got a bid from them. The Administrator saying they are the best thing, and
you may be right. But if you ain’t got no choices, they got to be right. This government
ought to be trying to give some choices. We got taxpayers that living in this city that’s
business people and I remember a young man saying he was licensed in Georgia and
Carolina to do security work and have done parking attendant. But I just think we being
unfair to go out and do a two year contract that we already gave one, really going to be a
three year contract. I mean that’s another way we do when a business come in and get
inside, then it stays in. We are not competitive. We need to give people, we need to
open the doors so everybody have an opportunity to come to the table. And this is
something I disagree with, this is something I can’t support because those local business
people should have had an opportunity, and not just local, but anybody should have had
an opportunity to bid on this work, and that had not been done.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Kolb: I can appreciate what Commissioner Williams is saying about the two
vendors, and they are very competent in their respective field. We are not looking for a
security system for any other type of business. We are looking for parking management.
Parking deck, parking lots, someone who will actually have the expertise and experience
to manage parking decks. The two local vendors that you have talked about are in the
field of security, or they do not have the experience of operating and managing parking
decks, to the ones that we solicited bids from. And they had expressed no interest in that
50
and they don’t really have the experience in managing parking decks as we are looking
for in this particular contract.
Mr. Williams: Well, Mr. Kolb, and we probably disagree the rest of the day on
this because I think if you can, a security person who can perform security work, who’s
licensed and bond, who, who’s trained and certified even to have a firearm. I remember
one of the businesses off of Reynolds Street that did own a parking garage, Mr. Shepard,
Davison parking garage I believe it was at one time. And then there’s another security
company that was licensed and bonded. Now if you can watch people and watch
buildings, you sure ought to be able to watch cars. I mean you talking about parking.
We not talking about a deck here. We’re talking about a parking lot that you going to let
people in and out. Not that you got to inspect them and [inaudible] but letting people in
and out. And I remember some of those prices, Mr. Kolb, that we probably could have
gained more money in this city from the prices that was given back then. Now I didn’t
[inaudible], I don’t [inaudible], I can’t support it, I mean I got no problem with the
present people that’s running this facility, but I just think that local people in this town
out to have an opportunity to make some of the money that the city is paying out to other
vendors that from out of this town. And if they was watching inmates now and had to be
trained in karate or something and didn’t have that, that might be different, but to watch
cars, let cars in and out, to sweep the parking lot down, don’t take a brain surgeon to do
that. I mean I know [inaudible] people in this government ought to be doing it, but we
should have gave some local people the opportunity to bid on this contract, and if their
bid was too high, they didn’t make it, and that’s fine. But to not even consider them at
all, I think we are wrong as a government to sit here and not have those people brought to
the table or even extend the bid out so they could come in and bid on it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Kolb, I understand [inaudible] goes as the progress of last
year? That’s what I’m reading in this financial impact.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Kolb: As I recall, they’re averaging around $16,000 expenses a month and
$20,000 in revenues.
Mr. Hankerson: So that’s a lot of improvements. I remember when we were
discussing it before.
Mr. Kolb: Correct. They have the expertise to know how to keep track of the
tickets that come and out of the parking deck.
Mr. Hankerson: So everything worked out with -- I think there was some
problems with the hotel and so forth, they’ve got all that worked out?
51
Mr. Kolb: It is my understanding that relationship between the parking deck
operator and the garage is excellent.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you.
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] motion.
Mr. Kuhlke: A motion to approve.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and second.
Mr. Williams: Well, hold it now, wait, wait. Bill called for the question, but my
hand was up before he called for the question, and you were looking dead down this way.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: Okay, well, don’t, just don’t --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] Go ahead.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Hankerson, I need to know, I need some information from you
about the agreement or the disagreement with the hotel and the parking, cause I mean I’m
not familiar with any of that. You kind of, you kind of throwed a little light on something
that I need it to shine a little brighter.
Mr. Hankerson: I don’t think it was a disagreement. I think it was a just a
method of collecting from the patrons of the hotel coming in, and it was something about
that. I know we discussed when we first did the contract and I know that this company
said that they were working on it, and that’s why I asked had that been ironed out, to
make sure that we are getting all the revenue. And apparently we are, cause I didn’t think
we were going to have this kind of revenue coming in after we [inaudible] the contract, I
thought maybe we would break even or even come to a loss. That’s, that’s what I was --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. There is a motion and second on the floor.
Mr. Bridges: Could I have the motion reread, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. The motion was to approve as captioned in item 23.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
52
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. All in favor of the motion,
please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, can we go to item number 32 .
The Clerk:
32. Motion to receive as information the Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 8, 2003)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: This is your item.
Mr. Cheek: Gentlemen, we have bringing this information to us today Ms. Terry
Turner. She has done a tremendous job in working with consultants on preparing this
study, and I wanted to give her an opportunity brief the entire Commission and those in
attendance on the study itself.
Ms. Turner: Good afternoon. After several public meetings, after months of
preparation, we are ready to take the Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan forward to GEMA for
review and then on to FEMA for review. The plan is presented to you in an information
only format so that once GEMA and FEMA make their comments, we can make those
changes, if there are any, and then bring it to you later this year for adoption. What the
plan does is it assesses the problem. We know the problem. It puts it in writing. And
then it also lists several priority actions that the City can look at in combating the plan. It
looks at drainage and storm water management, it looks at flood warnings, a public
awareness initiative, flood hazard map revisions and update, flood mitigation projects
that the City can undertake, soil [inaudible] and sediment control, flood mitigation
staffing, the [inaudible] rating system [inaudible] communications to combat that, the
Savannah River flood protection and awareness, and also dam safety. There has been an
executive summary presented to each of you and also copies of the Flood Hazard
Mitigation Plan. We feel like this is a good plan, and one of the main things this will do
for the city is one the plan is adopted by FEMA, it will open the door to any future
funding that the federal or state government passes down. It will open that door to us so
that we can apply for that funding.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen? Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Go ahead, Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: I was just going to make a motion that we do receive this as
information and that we use this document upon completion and review by GEMA
53
and FEMA and other entities as a reference document for all future flood related
construction projects and other activities the city may undertake.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion, is there a second?
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Yes, maybe Ms. Turner or Mr. Chairman, the Engineering Services
Chairman can answer my question. I remember that there was a deadline I think last
week for submission, I thought it was a very quick pending deadline. Is this what we
achieved by circulating a letter during Engineering Services last week? Is this the same
item or is this a different one?
Ms. Turner: No, sir, that was a different item which was on the consent agenda.
Mr. Shepard: Okay.
Ms. Turner: That was the PDM-C grant, and that has been submitted. It was
submitted on Friday and we did make our deadline. In fact, we were able to submit two
grants instead of just the one. One for [inaudible] properties and one for searching
continuous properties in the Hollywood Subdivision adjacent to Rocky Creek. So those
are at GEMA now under review. And like I said earlier, this plan will open the door for
funding like that that we can apply for as it becomes available, and we can take
advantage of it to take care of our flooding problems and buying out of properties, flood
mitigation projects, a plethora of things that the City can take advantage of because this
finding will become available because we’ve had the foresight to do this plan.
Mr. Shepard: Sounds good. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion.
Mr. Cheek: Just for the record, can you restate the -- you mentioned properties
that we may be getting funds to buy out in Hollywood and the others. Can you restate
those properties?
Ms. Turner: Okay, what we applied for on Friday was two PDM-C grants. The
PDM stands for pre-disaster mitigation. The C is competitive. The federal government
has gone to a new format where rather than just getting funding from a state level, we
actually compete nationally. It’s a little bit tougher, but also not everybody is going to
have the plan under their belt. So we have taken a big step in making ourselves
competitive by just doing the plan. The two grants, the first one was eight various
properties around the city of Augusta that was [inaudible] the repetitive loss list. As best
I can remember, they were 469 Boy Scout Road, 3117 Chelsea Drive, 2406 Southgate
Drive, 30-33 Dominion, and 1920 [inaudible] Drive. Those were the eight properties we
54
applied for under the repetitive loss category, and we did that as one grant. The other
grant was 13 contiguous properties on Clark, Rosella and [inaudible] Drive adjacent to
Rocky Creek in Hollywood Subdivision, and we packaged those separately because not
all of those properties have structures on them. But we felt like to make an impact in that
area, we need to apply for continuous properties.
Mr. Cheek: And for the record, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, it’s my understanding that
those are the, all but one of the creek front properties in the Hollywood Subdivision
which if we’re able to secure that last one house, that will be all of the houses in
Hollywood adjacent to the creek, and will take us a great step back away from the flood
plain.
Ms. Speaker: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: And that’s on both sides of town. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and second on the floor. All in favor of
the motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, we’ll go to the regular agenda.
The Clerk: Item 41?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, ma’am, item 44.
The Clerk:
ATTORNEY:
44. Discuss ordinance amending Augusta-Richmond County Code Section 6-2-5
so as to regulate consumption of alcohol at parks, playgrounds, public street and
public areas owned or operated by Augusta. (Approved by Commission September
2, 2003)
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Attorney.
Mr. Wall: Well, when the Commission adopted this ordinance at the last meeting,
I think there was concern about whether or not this would adequately address the issue
that have been raised by First Friday and I think that as part of this, a request was made
that a report be given, I think insofar as how this ordinance impacted First Friday, how it
was applied insofar as First Friday, and I would request that Mr. Naylor address that issue
55
and give us a report. I think my understanding is that’s what the Commission was asking
for.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Naylor.
Mr. Naylor: Commissioners, Mayor Pro Tem, First Friday was an excellent even
this past First Friday. We have a lot of families outside strolling up and down Broad
Street, especially on -- I get it mixed up in the direction -- but to me it’s on the east side,
some say the south side. The alcohol ordinance has basically minimal effect as far as
people being concerned about not being able to stroll up and down the street without any
consumption of alcoholic beverages. We had, I had one person stop me and say they
were concerned about it, and we discussed that issue, but other than that, that was the
only time that issue was brought up. It appeared that everyone enjoyed themselves. We
did not have any difficulties after the event, that we understand from the Sheriff’s office.
There were a few, what I understand through media reports, a few DUI’s, a few folks
were stopped for playing loud music in their automobiles, which is against an ordinance
that is already on the books as far as the 50’ rule is concerned. But other than that, First
Friday turned out very well. I continue on and talk about last weekend’s event, the
Border Bash. The Border Bash was an excellent event, drew a lot of folks down here.
We had, as you’re going to have with an ordinance like this that is just in place, a few
complaints, but a negligible amount of complaints. People are more concerned of their
safety and having a good time than being able to walk up and down the streets of Augusta
with an alcoholic beverage in their hand. I will tell you that we have noticed, and I have
talked with the merchants, there is a lack of now, since the ordinance went into place, a
lack of beer bottles ending up on the street and sidewalks and window sills. A lack of
cups ending up that merchants have to clean up, that have been cleaning up. The streets,
believe it or not, are cleaner. You don’t see smashed beer bottles in the gutters that can
damage tires, people pulling into parking places on Broad Street, or for that fact
anywhere else. So in our estimation and what we say, the event turned out to be a good
event. And there was little negative effect to the event, because of the alcohol ordinance
that was in place.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any questions? We have a motion?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: I need to ask a question and not just related to downtown. But
Jim, this ordinance that’s in place, I mean this ordinance is any public street, is that right?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
56
Mr. Williams: What burden is this going to put, now because if you going to
enforce the law and we need to enforce the law. But if we going to enforce the law on
Broad Street and then [inaudible] Lane out to be the same thing, is that right?
Mr. Wall: Well, sure it is, but I mean common sense --
Mr. Williams: Common sense ain’t common to everybody, but I hear you. Go
ahead.
Mr. Wall: Law enforcement officers exercise common sense, and I think, you
know, somebody that lives out on Highway 56, if they want to walk across the street to
visit their neighbor and they happen to cross the street getting to the neighbor’s house, I
mean I don’t think the law enforcement officer is going to arrest them for that.
Mr. Williams: Well, if they breaking the law going on Highway 56, Jim, that’s
what -- and that’s my point. I mean I’m not advocating [inaudible] turn it loose, but I’m
saying if you got a law, if the law going to be effective on Broad Street, it ought to be
effective any street. Meaning that if you are walking with an open container, a beer
bottle, and I got a lot of that and I’m sick of it. I’ve got more than all other
Commissioners got it combined. But folk walking down the street. In fact, you can’t get
th
out Milledgeville Road between 15 Street and Olive Road after seven o’clock. Folk
[inaudible] all up and down the road. But they got --
Mr. Wall: The law applies to that.
Mr. Williams: Well, if it applies to that, and that’s my point now, how much
more burden are we going to put on the law enforcement and then saying we don’t have
the people to do the job. If you want, if it’s a law, we got laws on the book, and Brad
came in, Brad Owens said at the last meeting that we got laws on the books that stop that.
I understand what Chris saying about the mobs, too, and we ought to be able to do
something with the merchants about selling the containers that walk out, that can be
broken and thrown on the street and that kind of thing. The merchants ought to be able to
stop that. The people that sell it. But if that’s, if that law going to be in effect, then it
need to be in effect all over this city. And I’m asking you as a legal representative of this
government is that right or not? That’s all I want to know.
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Okay, throughout the city. Now do you think we going to add
additional burden to law enforcement for saying we don’t have the people to do the job
on other streets?
Mr. Wall: No, sir, in adopting this ordinance I think you are going to have less of
an impact on the law enforcement than you would if you had not passed this ordinance.
57
Mr. Williams: Okay. Well. Like I said, I understand. I got no problem. But I
wanted to bring it up. If it’s a law, it ought to be law all over this city, not just in parts of
it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We do have a motion and second on the floor?
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: Move approval.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion for approval.
Mr. Kuhlke: I already made a motion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We did have a motion on the floor.
Mr. Kuhlke: I already made it. Made it again.
Mr. Bridges: I can’t hear the discussion. What’s, what’s going on?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and second on the floor. All in favor of
the motion for approval, please signify by the sign of voting.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Now we’re at 45, I believe.
The Clerk: Sir?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think we’re at 45.
The Clerk:
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
45. Select voting and alternate delegates for the National League of Cities
Conference (NLC) December 9-13, 2003.
Mr. Kuhlke: I nominate Steve Shepard as the delegate and Lee Beard as the
alternate, if he’s going to go.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. We do have a motion and a second?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
58
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of
voting.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 47?
Mr. Kuhlke: 46.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 46?
Mr. Kuhlke: 46A we put on the consent.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Didn’t we put that on the consent agenda?
The Clerk: 46A was.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay.
The Clerk:
46. Select voting delegate for the Annual Fall Policy Conference of the
Association of County Commissioners of Georgia (ACCG) September 29 – October
1, 2003.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen?
Mr. Kuhlke: I’d like to nominate Bobby Hankerson as the delegate.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Discussion? Hearing
none, all in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk: Item 47?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
47. Reconsideration of the disapproval of Change Order Number Seven (7) with
Mabus Brothers in the amount of $72,082.35 on the Laney Walker Boulevard
59
Reconstruction Project to be funded from the project contingency account (CPB
#327-04-1110/201812018). (Disapproved by the Commission August 19, 2003)
Mr. Boyles: Move for approval.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Discussion?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, is this all charge, all -- I mean we had a little
discrepancy about $1700, I think. Is everybody, Ms. Smith, is this, this $72,000, is that
including all those charges, I think your assistant said there was some question about
some $1700. I just wanted to know is this included, excluded, what?
Ms. Smith: It is included.
Mr. Williams: It is included. Okay. So I mean -- you in agreement, that what
you’re saying, right?
Ms. Smith: What I’m saying is that the work was performed and they are due to
be paid.
Mr. Williams: Okay, that’s what I want to know. The work was performed and
that issue on that [inaudible] something about a side street, something was moved or
something was put in. I’m trying to remember now.
Mr. Boyles: Pipe on Phillips.
Ms. Smith: There was some pipe that was placed on Phillips Street for some
work that was to be done on Phillips Street. A change order was issue. The size of that
pipe needed to be increased, and the pipe was sitting there for an extended period of time.
We got some complaints from the neighbors about that pipe sitting there and the
contractor was asked to move the pipe.
Mr. Williams: They were asked to move the pipe?
Ms. Smith: As I understand it, there was an inquiry made requesting that the
contractor move the pipe.
Mr. Williams: Is that the $1700 we talked about?
Ms. Smith: That’s correct, the $1700.
Mr. Williams: Was that through your department? I mean how did that get to --
60
Ms. Smith: As I understand it, Mr. Thompson requested that one of the inspectors
inquire whether or not the pipe could be moved or relocated. And as for exactly the
conversation that took place, I don’t know exactly what was said. I do have Mr.
Thompson, Mr. Clements, members of staff that were here that had direction
conversations, if by chance you’re looking for specific conversations.
Mr. Williams: Yes, ma’am.
Ms. Smith: There’s not a document that indicates what transpired with respect to
that specific conversation.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Thompson, can you help me out with that any?
Mr. Thompson: Yes, sir. There was basically a request or a complaint received
about the material being stored on Phillips Street. I asked the inspector did the contractor
have any other place they could use as a stockpile location and apparently that was
interpreted as a directive to have the contractor move the material.
Mr. Williams: And then in turn cost this city $1700?
Mr. Thompson: Potentially.
Mr. Williams: It can’t be potentially, Ms. Smith, you’re saying it’s in this
[inaudible], so --
Mr. Thompson: But it’s not approved, so.
Mr. Williams: Yeah, but it’s here for approval. That’s my point.
Mr. Thompson: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Potentially. I don’t guess I got anything else. Nobody got any
questions, I mean it’s the City’s money, y’all do like you want to.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I’m going to vote for a motion on the, on the
change order. I’ve got a couple of questions, though, and I guess it’s more on the
procedure of how some of this is done. I can see where if we change the size of pipe then
obviously we got to deal with paying for pipe. But now do we have a particular policy or
anything, Mr. Kolb, when, when work is being done, whether it be in commercial or
residential areas, and you’ve got this situation of where you’ve got to either put pipe or
store pipe, do we have something that we deal with in terms of some guidelines where
residents or business owners are asked or just what is that format of doing that? Because
like I say, pipe changes, that’s obvious, that’s got to be done. But in terms of the fact of
do you [inaudible] in areas of whether it be private property or whether it be to a point if
61
it stays on public, and it’s not so much on this project, but I’m just trying to find out
what’s our procedure with it.
Mr. Kolb: The short answer to your question is yes. Contractors usually have
what they call staging areas where they have equipment, where they have materials stored
temporarily until it is ready to be used in the project. That is usually negotiated with -- if
the owner does not have a suitable place for staging, then the contractor is responsible for
finding a site, negotiating with the owner to use that site, and then have an approval from
us. I think that that’s generally correct. Mr. Thompson or Ms. Smith can correct me if
I’ve misstated.
Mr. Mays: Cause I guess what I’m asking, Mr. Mayor, are we, are we paying for
the change in the size of the pipe or are we paying for moving the pie so that it is not
inconveniencing people who live in the area? I’m just trying to get a clarification on
what are we paying for?
Mr. Kolb: Theoretically, they were prepared to put the pipe into the ground until
they discovered that the pipe was really too small to really be suitable, and there wasn’t
enough space to put a larger pipe in. Until they could get that resolved and the
engineering design, they kept it in the right-of-way. Now whether that’s right or wrong,
it turned out to be inconvenient, and it was in the public right-of-way, so they, when a
complaint came in, they had to investigate it. And as a result, the pipe was moved.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, that answers my question on that part of it. Also, in that
change order, unless something has changed, are we still requesting the extension of time
that’s on this project as well?
Mr. Kolb: I think if it’s not in this change order, it will be in another one. But I
think part of it is in this change order. Yes. There is an extension of time that they’re
requesting.
Mr. Mays: Okay. Well, then, my question or comment would be do we need to,
and I’m tempted to [inaudible] make a substitute motion [inaudible] other ideas
[inaudible] today, but I guess where this is leading me, George, is the fact that if it’s
going to be an extension on this project, and I’m not going to, I’m not in a beating-up
mode today, but -- cause we’ve had a lot of discussion about this, I think to a point that
the system has worked from the standpoint that work that has been done and had to be
corrected and the tidying up and those type of things, regardless of how we got to that
point, some of that has been done. And I can [inaudible] live in peace from that
standpoint. But now we left that committee with some unanswered questions in reference
to new things that have popped up. And I think this goes under the idea of whether or not
we need to maybe separate this motion, deal with paying for the change order, and then
deal with how we are going to deal with the extension at another time. For this reason: if
you are going to extend -- you were talking about utility companies, and I made the
comment at the last meeting and I was not alone in making it, all of a sudden BellSouth
had popped up as an issue. We were talking about other things that involved people other
62
than the contractor that was doing the work. Now if we are to extend the contract, don’t
we need to have some intelligent answers or some dialog, whether it be with utility
company, or utility company/contractor, in reference to how long this is going to take.
This may be a staff work that’s already in process. But to a point that we are going to
have to end up repeating some of the same stuff that’s going on in the community that
was going on last year. How then are we to deal with extending a contract if we’re
having to deal with other entities that we are not foreseeing at this time and whether
we’re still bogged down in that process? And I’d like to get an answer as to whether or
not that has been worked out since the last committee meeting, and this is not so much in
reference to Mabus Brothers as it is to us and other utilities and how that stands, because
I think this plays into whether or not we need to extend or whether we need to extend
with some level of conversation.
Mr. Kolb: I’ll let Mr. Wall answer that.
Mr. Wall: We hope to have on the agenda on Monday a, the resolution of the
Southern Bell, and I was just confirming that Eric had had an opportunity to review the
cost estimate insofar as Southern Bell is concerned, and so hopefully that will be on the
committee meeting, Engineering Services Committee meeting on Monday. And I do
think that it has been worked out, yes.
Mr. Mays: Okay, well then I’m asking then do we need to then at this point just
approve what’s in costs that have been incurred, deal with that on the change order, and
then deal with the discussion of the extension at the time that we deal with the
conversation and the finality of the utility company? Because if we’re extending a
contract at this point to some period unknown, how can we make an intelligent decision
on that if we don’t know what the utility companies are saying? So I’m saying would it
not be better to separate out this, pay for what costs we owe, on services that have been
done, but then in fairness to the company and everybody else that has been in question
throughout this whole ordeal, do then do we need to talk about extending seeing in more
realistic terms in what we can do, of getting some estimation of time, whether this is
going to end in January, February, Easter, you know, Masters, you know, summer, you
know, when. I mean at least on an estimated time frame. And I don’t think we’re
prepared to do this with what’s on the change order today because if you’re telling me
we’re going to talk about that Monday, then to me this pre-empts that.
Mr. Wall: And I think you can do it either way. You could either go ahead and
approve these days that the contract needs to be extended for this work, and then if a
further extension is needed, you could do that at a subsequent time, or you’re exactly
correct, can deal with the time extension all at one time, if that’s the Commission’s
preference.
Mr. Kolb: If I could add, I think that this is related to the change order number
seven, things that happened prior to a resolution with BellSouth and I would recommend
that you go ahead and deal with those and any fresh time provisions would probably be
63
related to BellSouth and you could deal with that issue that concerns you. But I think to
confuse, to mix the two together may confuse the issue.
Mr. Mays: Well, it’s certainly, the whole thing has been confusing at the very
best, to me, thus far. And like I said, I’m not going to rehash old business, but I’m sitting
here looking at, and if I’d had this probably in front of me when we were in the
committee meeting last week, I may not have been as nice and polite as I am today. But
I’m looking at a point that, you know, of all the issues that were brought up in public
meetings, and complaints about this project and about we air it in this chamber and the
room next door where we had damages that were done to business and to property and to
where we took monies that those people were paid. Whether or not a company reads
about something in the newspaper or not, if it’s an issue then I still have got a problem --
this is one of those categories that doesn’t fall under nobody’s fault. If we, if we made
those things an issue, then to a point that if we discussed it and if they knew there were
problems in reference to whether or not the insurance company was going to deal with it,
and we turned those folk over to their insurance company, and I debated that, I’m glad
successfully, that the majority of the Commission supported it, to deal with those claims
that were there, even though some went in to Risk Management and were turned down, in
reference to damage on cars. But what I still have a problem with is that it seems as
though the company says on one hand they didn’t know, and I’m looking at one
[inaudible] out there now, we didn’t want to make this into an issue because it could have
been packed from churches and schools and everybody else to deal with fighting this
issue. We tried to let this go on and just resolve it. But it’s still in my craw a little bit.
I’ll wait till the two of them finish, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] Mr. Mays, proceed.
Mr. Mays: I still have a little problem in my craw that if, if, if, if, if people make
the statement that there is nothing they ever heard about this particular incident on Laney-
Walker and this incident was talked about for months in committee and for several times
on this Commission floor, this did not just roll innocently by. And I still have not had, at
least from our side of the fence, how this was dealt with. Because what we had, we had a
private company to [inaudible] that they heard nothing about it. And we were told on
many occasions that, you know, if a resident had a problem, a citizen had a claim, then
they were the ones who needed to go and approach the private company. So obviously
something’s wrong with that picture, and I would just hope -- and I’m going to vote for it
today -- I’m in that kind of good mood, but I just hope that procedures, Mr. Kolb, are
taking place that when this much discussion happens with a neighborhood project and
complaints are lodged like that, that they are passed along in a timely fashion to whoever
may be doing the contractual work in those areas, and that [inaudible] be discussed just
like it’s happening in these meetings. Because it’s not like it happened. It was discussed,
it was reported, it was brought through the proper channels, and I don’t feel it was any
Commissioner on board responsibility to stop by and speak to a foreman on a job or to
stop people in the middle of their work because that falls in the category, quite frankly, of
ultra micro-managing. That was not our job to do. We brought that to the proper
channels. We brought it to the committee, and we brought it to this Commission. And
64
that’s the place that it [inaudible], but when I hear folk say that they heard nothing,
nobody knew anything, and then you know, I’m getting to a point where there’s almost
like a blank in a tape that just disappears where nobody has a response, I have a problem
with that. We may be clearing this one up right now, but I think to a point in the future,
so that no other community deals with it in this manner, it’s not a matter of jumping on a
company or anybody like that. I’ve said from the very beginning it’s reputable folk. But
to a point of the way this was handled within the system, within the system itself, there
was a lot of damage, there were a lot of things that should have been corrected, and I still
stay I was pleased with what was done, [inaudible] in those 72 hours that those folk went
to work, but more than 72 days probably passed before they did the work --
(End of tape 1)
(Beginning of tape 2)
Mr. Mays: -- two days probably passed before they did the work [inaudible] I feel
like that could have been done and relief could have been brought to those folk out there
and whether that’s the contractor’s fault or whether that’s Richmond County’s fault, I
really don’t care. But I hope that it never occurs again.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Is there a motion, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a motion.
Mr. Williams: Okay, I want to make a substitute motion that wapprove
e
and pay the $72,082.35 but not the extension.
If we going to deal with extension of
any kind, we going to talk about it Monday and I think Monday be the time to discuss
either this one and any other, but I think we need to go ahead and pay the change order
monies to this company so we get that out of the way. I may not get a second, but if I do,
then that’s my motion.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I made the original motion and I’ll second the substitute.
We’re taking off the time; correct?
Mr. Williams: Right.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion, we have a substitute motion on the
floor. All in favor of the substitute motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Kuhlke vote No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion carries 7-2-1.
65
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, for clarification, I think Mr. Mays touched
on a couple of things, and not anything to do with the company, but in-house we need to
have a serious talk with our people for some direction being given, and monies has been
spent, and I don’t know how much more other money has been spent or how much more
will be spent, but somebody needs to be in charge in calling the shots or giving the orders
as to contracts and contractors that going [inaudible] this government with funds. And I
think this is a perfect example here of how we need to start looking at it cause we are
spending taxpayers’ money and then not having the knowledge in the departments.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, sir. Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
PENSION COMMITTEE:
48. Receive report from Pension Committee.
Mr. Shepard: Madame Clerk, I take that to be the Pension Committee, the
Pension & Audit Committee; is that correct?
The Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Shepard:
In the absence of the Mayor, I sat as Chair today, gentlemen, and
the disposition of the depot property. Mr.
the only item on the agenda was captioned
Kolb made the motion that the outside of the depot be rented for Saturday,
commencing last Saturday through the next six Saturdays for a rental of $300 a
week with a $150 cleanup fee and that the proceeds of those rentals go the Pension
Fund that owns the property.
Mr. Kuhlke: So move.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Discussion? Hearing none
--
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Yeah, I’m going to vote for that motion. I just wanted to ask a
question. Obviously, this got over into this side of the [inaudible] because of the
situation that happened at the Common, am I correct?
Mr. Kolb: That is correct. There were other events scheduled at the Common
and so, prior to the Farmers Market scheduling, so they had to find another location. The
pension property was available and it was made available to them.
66
Mr. Mays: And I think that’s, in order to get to the event and to make sure that it
goes on, I’m glad that the property is available over there and to do that, so I guess what I
am to assume then is that because of the scheduling of other events and not the situation
that maybe I read or mis-read that it was done in reference to a situation with the grass
and other stuff, then you know, I guess I just wanted to hear that clear, because what I’m
looking at, we spent a lot of money over in a public place, and if scheduling was a
problem and if it’s being moved so that all these events can occur at the same time, I’m
all for that and I understand everybody had a good time that down there. But I’m to a
point where, you know, are we, you know, are we going, is it going to be a situation
where you ask folk to tiptoe on the grass or do you remove your shoes on the grass or,
you know, what’s the case about the grass? You know, to a point I can see the deal with
the markings because you know, Tommy and I talked about that earlier when you deal
with ball fields. You line them out, you have somebody that spots them, you show
people where they can’t do certain things, and that’s the purpose of why you deal with
with people having a rental place, to have staff in there so that they don’t drill holes, they
don’t do those types of things. I agree totally with all that. But I just wanted to make
sure that to a point that what kind of, what kind, now what kind of rules are we operating
there? And like I said, maybe I misread what I read, but if we are interpreting that, it
came out to a point that it was being moved not because of events were being scheduled,
but because of what the disruption there that was caused. And I just wanted to hear
something in a comment about that. If the scheduling, I’m all for that and doing it. But I
think if it’s about the disruption, then maybe we need to address how some things are to
be done down there. Because it was built, I thought, and designed so that people who
behaved themselves properly good have a good time, but that if you need to point out
certain things of being there, cause obviously if you got grass down there, you know, at
some point somebody going to walk on that grass, now. Now y’all need to, that’s
something you need to get over or let’s go put some dirt down there. You know, but I’d
like to hear about that. I’m all for the motion. I ain’t trying to kill that. I’m going to
vote for that as it is. But this ties in -- it has nothing to do with it, we can discuss it at
another time. But did I misread something or did I miss something in there, Mr. Mayor,
that’s all I’m trying to find out.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, in answer to Commissioner Mays, there is an
issue with the grass. There is an issue with the pipes. Those issues can be worked out.
They are being worked out. The reason that the Farmers Market relocated from the
Augusta Common was because of a scheduling conflict. That’s my story and I’m
sticking to it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: Are you finished, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Well, that partially answers my question, but do we have something,
George, that we’re dealing with -- in other words, what I read then, it wasn’t true, then?
67
Mr. Kolb: Ah --
Mr. Mays: You can’t control, neither one of us are in the paper business, but to a
point when those things come out, people are going to ask you and the first comment I
got from folk was, what kind of grass y’all got down there? You got the world’s greatest
golf tournament and people walk on grass. You know, so I mean, I tried to answer, and I
just wanted to know whether there was some type of special grass and you needed to
tiptoe on it, or you know, what might be the case.
Mr. Kolb: They were not -- and Chris Naylor is here and he can speak for himself
as to what he heard. But no one from the City side asked the Farmers Market to move
because of the grass or anything else. We are working through those issues. They had to
move because of scheduling conflicts.
Mr. Mays: Well, let me just ask, let me just ask this one thing, Mr. Mayor, and
I’ll say this. If it was scheduling conflicts, were they given prior scheduling to a point,
didn’t somebody know about scheduling before you [inaudible] schedule?
Mr. Kolb: Arts in the Heart, Border Bash were all, are all annual events. There
are other annual events that are taking place for the next six weeks. Farmers Market was
birthed late spring and so they had to get the dates that were already, that were available
to them on the calendar and then make other arrangements for those when the Common
was not available.
Mr. Mays: I’m aware of that, George. They were happening prior to your
coming here [inaudible], but the point being if they were there and those events were
going to be, I’m just saying that they probably never should have been on that schedule in
the very first place to make a change. That’s my only comment to that. Because you
can’t have two events of different nature going on at the same time and occupying the
same space. That’s the only thing I’m saying there.
Mr. Kolb: I guess our point is that we did everything that we could to
accommodate the Farmers Market. And whether or not they initially chose to accept the
Common or to not accept the Common, it wasn’t our decision. It was theirs. But we
tried to accommodate because we think it’s a good thing.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’m not being -- I want the Administrator to know I’m not
being argumentative, cause you know I believe very little in some quarters where I read
some things, but I was approached by citizens that asked me the question as to whether or
not that was the reason. And that’s the only reason I’m asking it. It wasn’t in terms of an
accusation or anything else, but that was the comment and the air and the tone that it took
on and that the [inaudible] said it would not be there and basically the only thing that
came out was the trampling of the grass and the fact that the water main had been broken
and to a point of where if you deal with marking the spot, you avoid those type of things.
And it’s a procedure that you can handle in-house and staff in order to do it. And that’s
68
the only reason I ask the question. It was not for debate, or not to say that was being
done. I read it just like I assume everybody else read it. Or at least it was faxed to me.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: I guess that my point would be a little different in that if we’re going
to be [inaudible] area, is that a permanent position, are we working on a permanent
position there, because I think we should. If we’re going to have these conflicts at the
Common, then I’m hoping -- because I think I was, Mr. Mays and I had talked about this
prior to go to this particular area, and I suggested then [inaudible] and I didn’t suggest it
to Mr. Naylor because I couldn’t get in contact with him. But I was kind of glad that they
made that. But I think the people need to know whether we are permanently fixed there,
because you’re getting a lot of traffic there. Are we going to [inaudible] this month until
these events are over at the Common, are we going back to the Common, or what we
going to do, and I think either [inaudible] I think the Commission ought to make a
decision on where we are going to be permanently, if this is permanent fixture, there
could be a price there for this. People are getting used to that. I see them down there
more and more every Saturday. They’re looking forward. They need to know where, if
we have a permanent fixture there.
Mr. Kolb: Commissioner Beard, I guess I need to answer that, for the mere fact
that the Pension Fund owns the property, and the Commission has directed that we sell
the property, and so we are continuing with marketing efforts to sell the property. Now
we brought to the Pension Committee today just what you said, that there needs to be
some discussion as to whether or not the asset ought to be treated differently, and that the
DDA has made a desire to locate in the building. But there are vast improvements that
have to be made to the building. And all of those things have to be taken into
consideration. And we were not prepared today or, you know, tonight or anytime real
soon to make a recommendation to you as to your very question. But we would like to
look into that and bring something back to you for your consider.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. You know, we talked about this a
couple of years ago where we would just love to see things going on from Greene Street
thth
to the river, from 13 Street to 5 Street. Lord knows, it’s happening. And instead of
worrying about this as a scheduling conflict, let us move lighter, more appropriate things
to the Common, things that are time sensitive, Arts in the Heart and so forth, and have the
Farmers Market there at the pension property. From what I understand, it was bigger this
week than it was the week before. There’s room to grow, there’s parking. I mean,
gentlemen, eventually it’s going to happen. Every street, every open block is going to
have something going on on the weekends in downtown Augusta, which is the dream that
I think we all have for the revitalization of downtown Augusta. It’s happening. This is a
great fit. If we can work out the logistics with the pensioners to use the property and the
depot. It has loading docks, you have parking, you have room to grow. The Common
can have a concert and in the afternoon you can go down and shop at the Farmers Market
69
or vice versa. I mean we are beginning to fill up every open spot in the downtown area
with activities on the same weekend. This is tremendous. This hasn’t happened before
since I was a child. Just like with First Friday, with the ordinances, just like with the
Farmers Market and the [inaudible], we are growing exponentially with each event, and
we are having to make changes so quickly because of the growth and the success has
been so great. This is a, this is a great fit. There’s room to grow. There’s more that we
could do there in that spot. [inaudible] positive spin-off for use of this property is one
potential suitors that may be interested in buying the property see the interest, the
willingness for people to congregate there and the use of that property as a point of
interest, it may increase the ability to market that property and eventually sell it. And it
may be at some point in time where we decide we want to make that Augusta Common II
and develop it in some way and put a parking deck and a public plaza there or something.
But this is growth. This is part of the growing pains we’re going through for the success
in a city that is beginning to break out of the cocoon and become a great Southeastern
destination. I think it’s a great move. And I hope next time when we have the Farmers
Market down there it’s twice as big as the last one and we have three parties going on at
the Common.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I was just going to say that I
attending the Main Street Augusta meeting in July. Chris, remember I was there that
morning?
Mr. Naylor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Boyles: And everyone on the board understood that it would be moving for
those three times. That was a given. Everybody understood that. So regardless of what
happened with the grass and the water system and the electrical outlet that fell off the
wall or whatever happened, Main Street Augusta knew what was going to happen with
the Farmers Market. So that was -- from being at that meeting, I remember that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Naylor.
Mr. Naylor: I would just like to reiterate something I told a reporter the other day.
At no time was Main Street ever asked to leave or take the Farmers Market elsewhere.
We knew back in April and back in May that there were scheduling conflicts and we
were going to have to find other, another venue for the Farmers Market to run it through
October. We just did not realize -- we knew Arts in the Heart was coming up -- we
thought we might be able to work something out with the configurations of the tents in
order to protect the integrity of the underground systems, to set them up and be on the
Common after Border Bash. It just couldn’t happen. We could not work it out with the
people at Borden Bash and how they have their venue set up, so we had to move. It was
a little quicker than we’d like to. But at no time were we ever told -- we had discussions
about configurations of tents, we did hit the water system twice with our stakes, we were
requested not to use stake tents anymore, but that had nothing to do with us moving.
70
th
Now, we will stay permanently at the depot through the rest of the year, October 25,
because we just don’t want to be bouncing back and forth. It just is not good business for
us. And everybody knows that we’re down there. All of the comments we had this
weekend from people coming and leaving was that this was a good place, they had plenty
of parking, the city office bent over backward getting the land cleaned up, the parking lot
graded, and everything cleaned up and lights on and power, and we appreciate that very
much. And I wanted to go on the record to let everyone know that the city and those
departments worked, I mean, unbelievably hard on Friday to get that property ready, and
we appreciate that, and it was a very, very successful event.
Motion carries 10-0.
OTHER BUSINESS:
49. Discuss Administrator’s Evaluation process. (Requested by Commissioner
Marion Williams)
Mr. Beard: I’m going to make a motion that we authorize the Attorney and the
Clerk to start a timeline and procedure for this evaluation process.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Beard: I’m going to make a substitute motion that the Mayor Pro Tem
appoint a committee inclusive of whatever the ramification that the Administrator
needs to participate in this according to the contract, that that be done and you
appoint a committee today and working within the frame line along with the
Attorney and the Clerk and whoever else is needed there, working with them to
proceed with the timeline that is necessary before the budget process.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’ll appoint Mr. Shepard as Chairman, Mr. cheek, Mr.
Williams, the Attorney and the Administrator to serve on the committee and come back
with something for us two weeks from today.
50. LEGAL MEETING
??
Discuss real estate matters.
??
Discuss pending and potential litigation.
??
Discuss personnel matters.
Mr. Kuhlke: I move we go into legal.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Motion carries 10-0.
71
[LEGAL MEETING]
52. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia’s Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Beard, Mr. Williams and Mr. Shepard out.
Motion carries 7-0.
[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 September 16, 2003.
________________________
Clerk of Commission
72