HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-07-2003 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
October 7, 2003
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:03 p.m., Tuesday, October
7, 2002, the Honorable Richard Colclough, Mayor Pro Tem, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Shepard, Bard, 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 Rev. Thomas Walker.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Delegations?
The Clerk:
DELEGATION: (Five (5) minute time limit per delegation)
Golden Harvest Food Bank
Ms. Tammy Jackson
Mr. Armen Boyajian
RE: Proposed CDBG and ESG Grant awards.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Jackson. You have five minutes.
Ms. Jackson: I speak on behalf of Golden Harvest Food Bank. The Brown Bag
Program has been in service since 1987 and currently we’re serving 840 seniors in
Richmond County alone. 73% of these seniors are African American, 65% are female
head of household, and 73% live alone. 72% of the seniors we’re serving in Richmond
County are 70 years or older. The average income of these seniors is $602. Many of
these seniors depend on the supplemental bag of groceries every month that they receive
through the Brown Bag Program. Also, we run the Master’s Table Soup Kitchen. We
serve almost 200 guests daily at our soup kitchen. We’re open 365 days out of the year.
We serve homeless and at-risk homeless individuals at our soup kitchen. The City is
proposing to decrease our funding to both of these programs by $10,000. This would
force us at the Master’s Table alone to probably close one day out of the week and serve
only six days a week. In this tight economic time, we simply don’t have the resources to
make up that much of a decrease in our funding. With the Brown Bag Program, we could
be forced to cut almost 200 seniors from our program. We’re asking you to reconsider
the proposal and reinstate the $10,000 for the Brown Bag Program and for the Master’s
Table Soup Kitchen.
1
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Anybody have any questions of Ms. Jackson? Would you
like to address?
Mr. Boyajian: Yes. My name is Armen Boyajian. I’d like to address some of the
issues brought up. First of all, I want to emphasize that there’s a real human cost to the
proposed -- and I will emphasize the word proposed -- cuts in the budget that’s been
proposed by Housing & Neighborhood Development. With an annual cost of $67,000
the CDBG support in the past of $20,000 basically leverages an additional $40,000 in
funding. More or less a two-to-one ratio. If funding were reduced to $10,000 it would
leverage half of that amount, or about $20,000 and it would be a $30,000 cut overall, or
almost 50% of the program budget. As Tammy said, we -- just as airplanes have metal
fatigue, our donors have what you might call donor fatigue. In this tight economic time.
I cannot say that we can find the funding to address these proposed cuts. Actually, I
think Tammy probably stated conservatively something like 200 seniors cut off from the
Brown Bag Program. The cut could be as high as 400 seniors, and that is a month. We
are currently serving about 800 seniors a month. These are people, as you can hear, who
are living out of a very modest income, by and large African American, and dependent on
that 17 pound bag of groceries, which is given out absolutely for free. So I urge the
Commissioners to really think about the human cost here. We’re not just talking dollars.
I’d also like to address the Master’s Table. Gentlemen, as you know the Master’s Table
is on Fenwick Street. It’s the area’s homeless soup kitchen. It serves those that are not
only homeless but many that are at risk of being homeless. We basically run this
program currently at a loss. In the first 11 months of fiscal year ’03, we ran a net loss of
approximately $40,000. And with the proposed cut of $10,000 in funding to that
program, we would not be able to serve to what is approximately 200 individuals a day.
Men, women and children, seven days a week, and 365 days a year a we currently do.
We would probably have to cut our hours of operation back by one day and possibly two.
So I would kind of like to open up to any questions y’all may have about either the
Brown Bag Program or the Master’s Table, because I would, I would beseech you to
come up with some ways of restoring what are being proposed as cuts. And I do realize
Housing & Neighborhood Development Department has a difficult task here. HND has
the difficult task of weighing many, many very good proposals and very good
organizations’ needs against, you know, others, so clearly there’s, it’s a tight economic
climate. But we’ve really got to think as a City, as a community, can we afford to ignore
the homeless and the senior citizens?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Mr. Boyajian. Any questions? Mr. Williams,
then Steve.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t know whether we need to or
will get into this discussion at this time, because I had thought about pulling this item,
number 7, to talk about the way some of the funds was distributed. I don’t think that
even HND nor this Commission would like to, to cut unnecessarily the seniors, or
anybody for that matter. But there are some things that I think we need to look at, when I
look at these cuts to see how they was made and where they was made at. And whether
2
this the time or not, Mr. Chairman, I don’t know but I am concerned. I do have some
other concerns that I want to bring forth. We ought to be able to look at some things a
little bit differently. So whether we discuss it now, Mr. Chairman, be totally up to this
body, I guess, but I do have some concerns and I want to voice that to the [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You want to just hold it until we get to the agenda and pull
it?
Mr. Williams: Well, I had, I had intended to pull that item to discuss the way
some of the funds are being distributed and how much was distributed and how they
arrived at that. But it wasn’t specifically on that point. But I think that will come into
play when we do that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Why don’t you just hold it, then, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Steve.
Mr. Shepard: I can do the same thing. I can hold the questions, Mr. Mayor Pro
Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Bobby.
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, I have a question. I’m concerned about this massive cut to
this organization. I’ve received some telephone calls about it. Were you all notified
prior to the cut, the reason for you being cut the amount that you, that they cut you this
year, or did you go before the Advisory Committee?
Mr. Boyajian: We were aware of the proposed cuts around the time of the
Administrative Services Committee, Chairman Beard, two weeks ago and were not, to
the best of my knowledge, asked to appear before the Citizens Advisory Committee. We
were made aware of the cuts about three weeks ago.
Mr. Hankerson: That’s when -- at the Administrative Services Committee, that’s
when you were made aware?
Mr. Boyajian: Yes.
Mr. Hankerson: What about -- did HND inform you?
Mr. Boyajian: About three weeks ago. In other words, it was on the proposed
slate of, the proposed grantees, the proposed action plan of Housing & Neighborhood
Development. We actually found out at the meeting of Administrative Services
Committee, the meeting, of the exact amount of the proposed cut.
3
Mr. Hankerson: So your cut amounts to what percentage?
Mr. Boyajian: Of the overall program?
Mr. Hankerson: Compared to what you received last year.
Mr. Boyajian: Last year, for example, we received $22,000 from CDBG and
were proposed $10,000 for that same program. It’s a cut of almost 50%. 50% reduction.
Mr. Hankerson: $22,000 and --
Mr. Boyajian: $22,000 to $10,000. I guess that’s a 100% cut. With the Master’s
Table, we are being cut from $15,000 to $5,000. That’s a $10,000 cut. I’m not good
with percentages on my feet.
Mr. Hankerson: So in figures you’ve been cut how much?
Mr. Boyajian: $25,000.
Mr. Hankerson: $25,000?
Mr. Boyajian: Actually, it’s $20,000. $10,000 and $10,000. Went from $15,000
to $5,000 for the Master’s Table, that’s ESG funding. And from $22,000 to $10,000, a
$12,000 cut with the Brown Bag Program and that’s a CDBG program.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, did we say we was going to discuss
this in the -- it’s going to be pulled?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The item is going to be pulled.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. So I’ll rest until it be pulled and get into discussion.
Mr. Boyajian: I think our proposal, if I may interject, Mr. Hankerson, our
proposal I think was fairly highly rated, or so we were told by at least one member of the
Citizens Advisory Committee, that it was rated well, but you know, we were told that
there were more, many more grant applicants than there was funding to go around, so to
speak.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Bridges: Yes, sir. How many, in the past years, how many of the past years
have you received funding for? Do you know that?
Ms. Jackson: At least the last four.
4
Mr. Bridges: Four years? Okay, is that for both the Table and the --
Ms. Jackson: [inaudible]
Mr. Bridges: All right. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: I think you’ve made a ruling that we would discuss this later on and I
think that one of the Commissioner have indicated that they are going to pull it. We
would like to thank you for all you do for our city because we know you’re very helpful
in that. We know we have a homeless progress here and there are a lot of agencies that
participate in this. We do realize that we have a budget here that it’s going to be very
tight next year, and I think what we’re going to do here is look over all the programs, and
I would just ask all the Commissioners to review this, because it’s going to be very
important that we help where we can, but we know we aren’t going to be able to help
everybody. So it may have another look at this later on, so I’m going to ask that we
move to the next order.
Mr. Boyajian: Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You’ve very welcome. Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: Addendum agenda?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Addendum agenda.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and members of the Commission, I draw
your attention to our addendum agenda. Do you have both copies? There was one
that was sent prior to, items 1 through 4 and the legal meeting. And then we have
the agenda dated today, September 16.
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
1. Approve Letter of Intent to grant a 60-foot ingress and egress easement from
Damascus Road to property being acquired by Augusta State University
Foundation.
2. Approve First Amendment to Agreement for Professional Services between
Augusta and Turner and Associates.
3. Approve payment of invoice from Turner and Associates in the amount of
$96,530.99 for site selection study.
4. Approve street renaming of Linden Street to Lee Beard Way.
5
Legal Meeting:
1. Discuss real estate matters.
2. Discuss personnel matters.
3. Discussion pending and potential litigation.
After Legal Session:
1. Motion to consider personnel matters.
DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA:
Items 1, 50 and 51. (Requested by the applicants - see attached letters)
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
5. Consider a request for the purchase of tickets for the Formal Banquet of the
Eleventh Annual CSRA Classing on October 16, 2003.
6. Presentation by the Utilities Department regarding the Capital
Improvements Program: Investing in the Development of the City’s Key Corridors.
7. Discuss request from City of Albany/Dougherty County, Georgia regarding
site visit to Augusta to meet with local officials regarding consolidation. (Requested
by Commissioner Mays)
8. Approve Capital Project Budget CPB# 323-04-203823336 in the amount of
$11,000 to be funded from One Percent Sales Tax Phase 3 for the Grading and
Drainage Project. Also award consultant services agreement in an amount of $8,000
to W. R Toole Engineers, Inc subject to receipt of approved contract documents.
(Requested by Commissioner Shepard)
9. Approve award of contract to Beam’s Contracting, Inc in the amount of
$931,575.75 for the Augusta Richmond County Drainage Improvements, Phase 1
Project (Capital Project Number 323-04-201823101) subject to receipt of signed
contracts and proper bonds. (Requested by Commissioner Kuhlke)
10. Approve Capital Project Change Number One (CPB# 323-04-203823261)
adding $37,000 from One Percent Sales Tax Phase III Grading and Drainage
(Account Number 296823081). Also approve award of construction contract to
Turner Mechanical in the amount of $146,572.08 for the Richmond Hill Road
Sidewalk Project subject to receipt of signed contracts and proper bonds.
(Requested by Commissioner Cheek)
Mr. Shepard: I move they all be added.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion? Seeing
none, all in favor of the motion, signify by the sign of voting.
6
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay.
The Clerk: Presentation?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Presentation.
Mr. Cheek: Just a quick question. Did we get Elliott Boulevard, the contract on
that, added in here? I don’t see --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible]
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible] agenda. I was just asking if we were going to add the
Elliott Boulevard -- let’s just make sure it’s on the agenda [inaudible] meeting.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The presentations.
The Clerk: I turn your attention to the September 16 addendum agenda
item 2:
Addendum item 6. Presentation by the Utilities Department regarding the Capital
Improvements Program: Investing in the Development of the City’s Key Corridors.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hicks.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, before Mr. Hicks gets started. This is a byproduct of our
work sessions. We asked him to bring it, they were going to bring it back to committee.
We thought it was worthy that the entire Commission see the strides being made by our
Utilities Department in making sure that the needs, the future needs of the City be met.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, Mr. Hicks.
Mr. Hicks: We’ll go ahead. Ladies and gentlemen, we appreciate your attention
[inaudible] do this. We’ll be brief with our presentation. First off, the definition of the
development corridors, and there might [inaudible] want to add, but those that were
identified for us for our presentation or to consider were -- and I’m going to take in order
of moving from north to south -- would be Riverwatch/Stevens Creek Road, Skinner
Miller Road, Belair/Jimmy Dyess Parkway, Gordon Highway, Wrightsboro Road, the
Medical Center/Central Business District, then the Highway 1, Highway 25, Highway 56,
Tobacco Road and Willis Foreman/Brown Road areas. Those were the ones that we were
asked to look at with regard to what we had prepared thus far and what did we have
planned in our capital improvement programs for bond issues. So we’ll go right on in to
the issue of the funding. Even in the 1996 bond issue, we had funding for portions of the
water and sewer systems to serve these areas. If you’ll notice, in the area along Highway
7
56, we had in at that time the Kimberly Clark trunk sewer to come up and bring the sewer
service to the Kimberly Clark development site, we call it, the park out there. And then
we had a sewer line and force main planned to come along Highway 56 and then along
Doug Barnard Parkway and up into the Bobby Jones -- to tie in to the sewer line going to
the treatment facility. And we had the water line that actually came from, at the
beginning of that Barton Chapel Road water line that was extended on out to Highway --
to Tobacco Road. But insofar as our 2000-2010 funding, this is where we really begin to
pick up. And these are water system improvements that are proposed for that period of
time. If you’d like, I can go through each one of them, or if you have major questions or
if you see spots that aren’t covered -- in other words, beginning in the
Riverwatch/Stevens Creek Road, we’ve got a [inaudible] tank up there, it could be a 3
million gallon storage tank and at least a pump station. Now to get more water to that
area, we’ve got the Alexander Road 16” water line. We’ve proceeded with part of that
already and we’re now having the water line designed at an alternate location so we can
go ahead and be ready with that line regardless of when the D.O.T. might spring for
funding on Alexander Drive. So we’ll go ahead and get that line under construction
during this winter, that is the one coming on down Alexander Drive. And already we’ve
got a 16” water line all along Riverwatch Parkway. That certainly is an area of growth
and potential growth. And then you’ll see that we have this. This is the central water line
or water connector bringing water down from the, from the Highland Avenue area down
into the southern part of our system. Now insofar as the Wrightsboro Road, this will be a
line going to the downtown district and this is a new 30” line going out toward Fort
Gordon and toward the growth area on the western side of our system. In addition to
that, we have the line which goes up now to the, to the [inaudible] elevated water tank
area. It will be coming along through here. And then the Belair Road improvement,
which will be constructed as a part of the improvements out in that area. And then
Tobacco Road, you can see a number of improvements there. This line is already in that
takes water over to the Windsor Spring Road. We didn’t want to [inaudible] at all. As
you know, that, Tobacco Road was at one time our most troublesome area and we now
have that area served, both from the west and from the east. Now in addition, we have
the additional water lines. The new water treatment plant will be right where this dot is
now. That will be on Tobacco Road near Highway 56, between 56 and Doug Barnard
Parkway. This is our new raw water intake, which will be behind, or it will be on Pistol
Range Road, they call it, off of -- the raw water line will extend around the levee, come
around the airport, and over to the treatment plant site. From that treatment plant, we’ll
have new lines extending over to the, on Tobacco Road over to Highway 25, then up to
Lumpkin Road, then will extend along Doug Barnard Parkway. We’ll bring the lines
down Doug Barnard, and then down into the southern end of our system to reinforce that
area, so that these corridors will all have ample water supply. Now an area that was not
identified as a central corridor but nevertheless is a business district and area is of course
Waynesboro Road, Old Waynesboro Road. We’ll have additional service down that area.
We also, along Highway 1, going out toward Blythe, we have a line here that’s under
construction and nearing completion. This will be a line that will tie over into the
Hephzibah system or it will be, it will end out as a Hephzibah system near the Recreation
Department site there out at Blythe. So these are water improvements for the 2000-2010.
Are there any questions about the water system? I’ll keep the presentation brief because
8
of, in the interest of time this afternoon, but any questions about what we have in mind,
the things you might see? You might see some areas where we don’t have lines. You’ll
see we already have that one covered. This is Tobacco Road, the western end of it. You
can see we’re certainly covering Willis Foreman and Brown Road. They’ll be, you
know, some really big lines out in that area when we’re through, and we’re constructing a
5 million gallon elevated tank at the intersection of Brown Road and Old Waynesboro
Road. That’s going to really give the flow for whatever future growth would occur out in
that area. It will put it in the air out in that area. Are there any questions about the water
system improvements?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any questions, gentlemen?
Mr. Hicks: If not, I’ll move on to the sewer real quick and then we’ll end up. The
sewer improvements. We have sewer improvements in those same areas where we have
water improvements, as you’ll notice. All of these green shaded areas are pockets of
unsewered areas, is what almost all of those area. And you know, we’ve been steadily
increasing or steadily adding those pockets of unsewered areas, we’re serving them one at
a time through the bond issues. And you’ll see that a lot of that is along the Tobacco
Road corridor. Now what we’ll need to do is along Tobacco Road itself -- Tobacco Road
is right on the ridge line and so what we’ve done, we’ve got sewer lines coming up to the
ridge on both sides so that as [inaudible] are expressed along Tobacco Road, we can
easily enough add the line to serve wherever those businesses might be. It won’t be as if
we were having to go a long way. Now one thing we are doing insofar as the western end
of the corridor, along Gordon Highway, going out toward Grovetown, we will be making
a presentation in the not-too-distance future about a proposed line we call the upper
Butler Creek sewer, which will sewer that. It will offer service to about 1,000 acres out
there that right now is unsewered, but it will be an agreement that I think you’ll like real
well. We’ll get greenspace area, we’ll get participation of the property owners,
participation from other entities. And then as far as this line, this is the Little Spirit Creek
line. We’re going to look at extending down that way. The biggest area you can see
where we’re providing sewer service that we don’t have it now, is a long the Doug
Barnard Parkway corridor and down in this area. Are there any questions about the sewer
improvements?
Mr. Bridges: Max, on the Little Spirit Creek, when is that due to completion and
where are you bringing it to? What highway? Is that Highway 25 right there?
Mr. Hicks: This right here is Old Waynesboro Road.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Hicks: That’s where we, that’s where we’re showing it to now.
Mr. Bridges: You don’t show bringing it to Highway 25 until after the year 2010?
9
Mr. Hicks: Right. We don’t show it coming on up to Hephzibah, although in the
2005 bond issue, those projects have not been fully identified at this time. There is, of
course, interest in the funds, and as interest is expressed, if the desire is there, to extend
on up to Hephzibah. Hephzibah has even made the indication that if the line comes on to
their, the area of their treatment facility, that they would be inclined to want to tie on to it.
I don’t know about that. They’d have to speak for themselves. But right now we show it
ending at Old Waynesboro Road.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Max, I’m looking, and all that
looks good, but I’ve got a [inaudible] area that’s been affected where it have not been
affected, and that’s Olive Road. From Gordon Highway to Olive Road. What, where is
that on the radar?
Mr. Hicks: I’m pretty sure that’s it right there. We will be bringing you a
contract, it might be at the next meeting. Hold on. [inaudible] Okay, we are now
negotiating now with an engineering firm to do that design, so that contract for
engineering work on it will come to you at the next committee meeting and then be ready
to proceed with it.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Let me ask you a question that probably you may be able to
answer. What time frame? That comes now not this meeting, but the next meeting, what
time frame? Cause this is a area that we really been concerned about, have not got --
have got businesses on that area that’s running off of septic tanks and can you give me
any frame, any time frame as to when that might get started? The contract comes in the
next two meetings?
Mr. Hicks: Yes. If it comes in, not next week at that committee meeting, but it
would actually be -- let’s see, two weeks from now, wouldn’t it be? Three weeks from
now. Three weeks from now. All right, you can hear some conversation here. We agree
on the design time. On the construction time, six months might be a little ambitious for
them to get the pipe, cause you’ve got a lot of paved areas you’ve got to work in out
there, along Olive Road. But what we’re looking at Commissioner, would be if we bring
the contract to you within the next three weeks, then within 12 to 18 months after that,
people should be tying on.
Mr. Williams: Okay, my last question on this Max is that this is a area, you
know, that I’ve been concerned about because it don’t have it, but if it comes down Olive
Road, would it not go on to tie into the next system already there? I mean would it go
across MLK there and tie into another system or just stop? I guess what I’m saying is
when we come in from Gordon Highway, are we going to go all the way to tie in to
something else that’s already there or what? What will we do?
Mr. Hicks: That’s what we would do, Commissioner. We would want to be sure
we pick up every little thing that we can.
10
Mr. Williams: Thank you. That’s all I need to do.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Andy. Andy, do you have a question? Okay.
Mr. Hicks: We’ve got other slides. One of them [inaudible] good job we propose
to do.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. Before we move on, just a brief question. I know
you’ve been working on that Belair area. What kind of time frame we have on Belair?
Mr. Hicks: Okay, the Belair area is this one, this is the Belair area. Now first off,
we have to get the line out to the Belair area, and that one, it will be open -- okay the
contractor award for construction of the line to go up to the Belair Road area will be at
the next committee meeting and then the design of the Belair area itself is at what -- 90%
completion? Between 60% and 90% so within the next month, or let’s say month-and-a-
half we’ll bringing or we’ll be going out for bids for the Belair system itself, and then we
will award that contract. In other words, we have to get this line constructed before we
can actually have anything to tie that into. So those two contracts [inaudible] period.
[inaudible]
Mr. Hankerson: Do we foresee any other problems?
Mr. Hicks: One thing we have done in the Belair Hills area that extended that
design a little bit. Once the Commission made the commitment that you were in fact
going to do the roads and the storm drainage in that area, we then went back and added
some roads and added sewer lines to some roads that heretofore [inaudible] so we’ll be
constructing at the same time. No need in coming in with a new road and then coming
right after it and tearing it up with a sewer line. We’ll have it all going it at the same
time.
Mr. Hankerson: So for customers, what kind of time, date, year, twelve months,
six months?
Mr. Hicks: For Belair Hills?
Mr. Hankerson: About 18 months?
Mr. Hicks: About that same time frame as for Olive Road. Mainly because it will
be along with the construction time there. That’s a lot larger project than say Olive Road.
Olive Road can be designed and constructed more quickly. It’s taken more time to
design Belair and it will take longer to construct it.
Mr. Hankerson: By summer of 2005?
11
Mr. Hicks: Something like that.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I just wanted to comment that one of the first
legs of economic development is infrastructure and I think as we can see, the Utilities
Department is on the ball with making sure that the infrastructure will be in place on
these major corridors to meet current and future needs. I think there is even discussion
about Spirit Creek versus combining it with Messerly or upgrading it, and they’re really
thinking into the future to provide the infrastructure for us to grow and continue to grow.
Again, this is a byproduct of one of our work sessions, and we will continue to bring
these things to the Commission as a whole as they develop.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other questions for Mr. Hicks? Go ahead. Do you
have some more slides?
Mr. Hicks: Well, let me say this. We just had some, it breaks down the funding
even more, but I’ve tried to go over it for sake of speed, but that’s what was on the
handout to you, and this tells about the water treatment plant and the 42” line and the new
5 million gallon water treatment plant, it gives the cost of the various water systems, $7.8
million in those particular areas, almost $7.9 million. The sewer system, we don’t even
have a total on it, and then finally our mission. [inaudible] telling you what we’re
planning to do and what we’re trying to do with the cooperation, of course, of the
Commission. And thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hicks, we want to thank you. It’s a job well done.
Okay, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: What would you like to take up next?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 54. Item 54. We’ll take item 54 now.
The Clerk:
54. Status report on the ANIC Building. (Requested by Commissioner Andy
Cheek)
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, the reason I asked to put this on is there have
been, one, it’s obvious we’re not going to meet the deadline. I believe we were told the
end of October or so to complete this building. Two, it’s significant cost to the City for
us to continue to see this thing drag out. And three, I’ve driven past that thing half a
dozen times or more and not seen a person hitting a lick on the job, and my concerns are
that -- I need a status report -- I’d like to see a status report on where we are, when we
12
expect to complete, and the last thing I want to hear is rain, because we can pull up the
rain reports for the last month and rain has not been an issue on construction, so -- that’s
what we heard last time. I just want to make sure that just as we did with Mabus
Brothers, asking them to tighten up their act and get the streets in order, I want to make
sure that we’re doing the same thing with the ANIC facility and that it will be completed
in a timely fashion and not drug out forever and ever amen.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We do have the Director, Mr. Cooks, here. Mr. Cooks,
would you like to respond?
Mr. Cooks: Sure. I’ll gladly give you an update. Currently, the contractor is
working six days a week. The third floor exterior walls are framed. The first floor is
actually at rough-in, which is for the Fire Department. All the utilities are done. The
sprinkler system. The projected delivery date stated by the contractor is the end of
November. The trusses are actually on the ground waiting for the [inaudible] to go on the
building. So they are framing a floor in 2-1/2 days. They’re running rough-in [inaudible]
overlap of about five to seven days at a time. They are working overtime and the goal is
to present, complete the building in a timely fashion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Cooks, I’m like
Commissioner Cheek, also I’ve been by several times and even at night I see lights in the
building, but I have not seen any activity. And I been truly worried about why it had not
come to another level, another stage than it is. And if there is a problem -- and I think we
came in and got a report and they said the report had held us up. But, and I have seen
some activity, but I’ve seen very little. And I’m really concerned, now, about why the
contractor have not gotten further along. Now you about the inside, you say that you
know, you’re ready for the drywalls and the lines and stuff for the offices there. But
certainly we cannot move in there and have the construction going on overhead. So is
there something else that we need to know, because if it is, I think we ought to be
[inaudible] that because time is of the essence. We spend money, we thought we were
going to be able to move in earlier, we didn’t. Something else has got to be there, Robert,
I mean something else is missing. So as a Commissioner, I’m very concerned. I’d like to
know is there something we need to do or something that the ANIC needs to do or
something the contractor need? Not -- but from what I just heard from you, it’s not
enough to tell me why they are not where they need to be. I mean it just, I been by there
several times and been concerned. Commissioner Cheek and I talked about it. He had
said he was going to put it in the agenda. I said well, I’m glad, cause I was going to put it
on the agenda. I need to find out. I need to know what is the holdup. It can’t be the rain.
So manpower, lack of pay, change of construction, and I remember when you came with
this earlier, we talked about the Fire Department had made some changes in their
guidelines as to what they wanted. Well, if you [inaudible] temporarily, I don’t
understand how they can even make any changes cause it’s not going to be the permanent
home. What we had set up, what we had done should be what the building was designed
to do and that plan was approved and [inaudible] it should be irrelevant. So is there
13
anything else that you can tell me or do you need to get back with the contractor and
bring us re port? Cause I’m like Commissioner Cheek, we got, we got a construction
company doing business for this, with this City, and we’re paying and not getting any
further along than they are, there’s got to be a problem. Do you need to come back to us
with something? Do you need to get with them and find out? Because what I just heard
just not acceptable, Robert.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard:
Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I think that, you know,
like the others that have been brought in, you know, ANIC is coming in, also. He has
given us what he’s going to do. So I think the only thing that we can do at this point is
monitor this. And if it’s not producing in the next month or so, whatever your time
schedule is, Commissioners’ time schedule is, I think that then we bring him back in.
But this time I am going to move that we accept that as information.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any further
discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Thank you, Mr. Cooks.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ll do the consent agenda now.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. The consent agenda consists of items 1 through 49.
That’s items 1 through 49. As to earlier action with our addendum agenda item 1
was deleted.
Mr. Williams: Ms. Bonner, what did you say about item 1?
The Clerk: Item 1 was deleted through our addendum agenda.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Was there a request to pull that, to delete that item?
The Clerk: Sir?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I say there was a request?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, it was a request by the petitioner.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: By the petitioner.
The Clerk: To withdraw that petition.
14
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Want to do alcohol?
The Clerk: That was the only one we had, sir, under the consent agenda, was item
1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right.
The Clerk: That’s it, that’s the only alcohol petition we had, was item 1.
Mr. Bridges: That was the only alcohol?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, gentlemen, can we get a motion?
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion on the floor.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any items to be pulled?
Mr. Cheek: Items to add, actually.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m sorry?
Mr. Cheek: From our addendum agenda, I’d like to see us add items, at least 4, 5
and 6 from the --
The Clerk: 4, 5 and 6?
Mr. Cheek: 4, 5, and 6 and item 1 on the addendum to the addendum agenda.
The Clerk: Let me just do this. I apologize for the confusion. The items 1, 2, 3
and 4 and then on our second addendum agenda items we did today we will start with
item 5. So that will be 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. So -- I’m sorry.
Mr. Bridges: [inaudible]
The Clerk:
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
15
1. Approve Letter of Intent to grant a 60-foot ingress and egress easement from
Damascus Road to property being acquired by Augusta State University
Foundation.
2. Approve First Amendment to Agreement for Professional Services between
Augusta and Turner and Associates.
3. Approve payment of invoice from Turner and Associates in the amount of
$96,530.99 for site selection study.
4. Approve street renaming of Linden Street to Lee Beard Way.
5. Consider a request for the purchase of tickets for the Formal Banquet of the
Eleventh Annual CSRA Classing on October 16, 2003.
6. Presentation by the Utilities Department regarding the Capital
Improvements Program: Investing in the Development of the City’s Key Corridors.
7. Discuss request from City of Albany/Dougherty County, Georgia regarding
site visit to Augusta to meet with local officials regarding consolidation. (Requested
by Commissioner Mays)
8. Approve Capital Project Budget CPB# 323-04-203823336 in the amount of
$11,000 to be funded from One Percent Sales Tax Phase 3 for the Grading and
Drainage Project. Also award consultant services agreement in an amount of $8,000
to W. R Toole Engineers, Inc subject to receipt of approved contract documents.
(Requested by Commissioner Shepard)
9. Approve award of contract to Beam’s Contracting, Inc in the amount of
$931,575.75 for the Augusta Richmond County Drainage Improvements, Phase 1
Project (Capital Project Number 323-04-201823101) subject to receipt of signed
contracts and proper bonds. (Requested by Commissioner Kuhlke)
10. Approve Capital Project Change Number One (CPB# 323-04-203823261)
adding $37,000 from One Percent Sales Tax Phase III Grading and Drainage
(Account Number 296823081). Also approve award of construction contract to
Turner Mechanical in the amount of $146,572.08 for the Richmond Hill Road
Sidewalk Project subject to receipt of signed contracts and proper bonds.
(Requested by Commissioner Cheek)
The Clerk: These were items that were submitted to us today.
Mr. Kuhlke: Where is 10?
Mr. Speaker: Yeah, I don’t get 10.
The Clerk: Capital project change.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Haven’t we done number 2 already of the --
16
The Clerk: Yes, sir, we did.
Mr. Shepard: Of the revisions, item 2 [inaudible] that was Max’s presentation?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] number 6 on the addendum agenda.
Mr. Cheek: So I guess, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I would just move add items 1, 2, 4,
5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 to the consent agenda.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is that in the form of a motion?
Mr. Kuhlke: I moved.
Mr. Boyles: He moved, I seconded.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second to add items 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 to
the consent agenda.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Chairman, do I understand item 5 is our usual practice of
purchasing tickets?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Uh-huh.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: If we’re about to add, now I’d like to subtract a little bit.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay.
Mr. Williams: I’d like to pull a couple of items.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have to vote on the additions first.
Mr. Williams: I’m sorry. Okay. I don’t have any comment on that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ve got a motion to add these items to the consent
agenda. Is there any further questions on the addition to the agenda? Okay. Go ahead.
Mr. Hankerson: You asked to put number 7 on the consent agenda?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Number 7 is on the consent?
17
The Clerk: Yes, Mr. Mays [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Number 7 is on the consent.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ve got to vote to add items to the consent, to vote. All
right. We have a motion and second -- Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: On the additions, on the listed ones, but if there is no objection can we
add off of the regular agenda item 51A?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: To the consent?
Mr. Mays: To the consent. If there’s no objection.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other items to be added to the consent? Hearing none,
all in favor of the motion to add items 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 51A to the consent
agenda, please vote by the sign of voting.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Now, Mr. Williams, items to be pulled.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. Item number 7, 41 --
The Clerk: Just a moment, sir. Item 7 --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 41.
Mr. Williams: And 48.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 48. Any other items to be pulled? 7, 41, and 48.
The Clerk: Mr. Mays, you wanted 7 on the addendum agenda pulled?
Mr. Mays: We can. I have no problem explaining it.
The Clerk: Okay. Item 7 on the addendum agenda.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hearing no other items to be pulled, all in favor -- we have
a motion?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Deleted from the agenda.
18
2. Motion to approve the low bid of $20,500 from Smiths Heimann for Augusta
Regional Airport’s Electronic Live Finger Scan System. (Approved by Public
Services Committee September 22, 2003)
3. Motion to approve a request from the Downtown Development Authority of
Augusta regarding the release of SPLOST funds to purchase street clock and
approve the placement of the clock in the median in the 900 block of Broad Street in
front of Health Central. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 22,
2003)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
4. Motion to approve the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Monument
Committee to place the Korean War Memorial in the Broad Street median between
3rd and 4th Street. (Approved by Administrative Committee September 22, 2003)
5. Motion to approve the Disability Retirement of Mr. George Cooper under
the 1977 Pension Plan. (Approved by Administrative Committee September 22,
2003)
6. Motion to adopt Proclamation for Diversity and Fair Housing Recognition
Week. (Approved by Administrative Committee September 22, 2003)
7. Deleted from the agenda.
8. Motion to authorize the Public Works & Engineering Department to hire a
Design Engineer III at a salary of $57,500 to be funded from the Highway & Street
Administration Budget. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
September 22, 2003)
9. Motion to approve a request for reclassification of Accountant II (Capital
Projects Manager) to Financial Analyst I in the Finance Department. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee September 22, 2003)
10. Motion to approve funding of communication equipment and fiber optic
connection for the ANIC building. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee September 22, 2003)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
11. Motion to approve budget increase of $36,510.00 for the Fire Department.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee September 22, 2003)
FINANCE:
12. Motion to approve a request by the Augusta Task Force for the Homeless for
the purchase of tickets for the 6th Annual Chili Bowl 2003. (Approved by Finance
Committee September 22, 2003)
13. Motion to approve Proposed 2004 Budget Schedule. (Approved by Finance
Committee September 22, 2003)
14. Motion to approve abatement of 2001 taxes on Map 59-2, Parcels 113 and
129. (Approved by Finance Committee September 22, 2003)
15. Motion to approve recommendations from the Internal Auditor relative to
the Augusta Golf Course and Wireless E9-1-l fees audit findings (Approved by
Finance Committee September 22, 2003)
19
16. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Trailer Mounted Sewer Flusher
for the Utilities Department – Construction Division from Adams Equipment
Company of White Plains, Georgia for $39,849.60 (lowest bid offer on Bid 03-109).
(Approved by Finance Committee September 22, 2003)
17. Motion to receive as information Fiscal Year 2002 Audited Financial Report
and changes in financial condition. (Approved by Finance Committee September 22,
2003)
18. Motion to authorize utilization of $15,000 of Manpower Management savings
to fund the Safety Officer position in Public Works and Engineering Department for
the remainder of 2003, authorize Public Works to fill the position and include
funding in 2004 for this position and program. (Approved by Finance Committee
September 22, 2003)
19. Motion to approve the recommendation of Pension & Audit Committee to
revise the investment policy as follows: allocation of assets in the 1945, 1977 and
1949 Pension Plans to up to 55% of the assets in equities in the 1945 and 1977 plans
and up to 60% in the 1949 plan. (Approved by Finance Committee September 22,
2003)
20. Motion to approve the expenditure of SPLOST IV funds in the amount of
$631,983.36 to address “critical need” repairs to the Law Enforcement Center.
(Approved by Finance Committee September 22, 2003)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
21. Motion to approve the expenditure of SPLOST IV funds in the amount of
$631,983.36 to address “critical need” repairs to the Law Enforcement Center.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 22, 2003)
22. Motion to approve short-term repairs to Bransford Road through the use of
in-house forces. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 22, 2003)
23. Motion to approve Settlement Agreement between Augusta, Georgia and
Sherman Industries, Inc. to resolve claims related to alleged defective concrete pipe.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 22, 2003)
24. Motion to approve the Deed of Dedication, Maintenance Agreement and
Road Resolutions submitted by the Public Works and Engineering and Augusta
Utilities Departments for Walton Acres Subdivision, Section V . (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee September 22, 2003)
25. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and
Road Resolution(s) submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for
Cambridge Subdivision, Section Four. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee September 22, 2003)
26. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and
Road Resolution(s) submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for
Pepperidge Subdivision, Section 16, Phase Two. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee September 22, 2003)
27. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and
Road Resolution(s) submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for
Breckenridge Subdivision, Section Two. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee September 22, 2003)
20
28. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and
Road Resolution(s) submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for
Pinehurst Subdivision, Section Two. The “Greenspace” shown on the plat is not
being dedicated at this time. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
September 22, 2003)
29. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and
Road Resolution(s) submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for
Tullocks Hill Subdivision, Phase II. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
September 22, 2003)
30. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and
Road Resolution(s) submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for
Cambridge Subdivision, Section Two-A. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee September 22, 2003)
31. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and
Road Resolution(s) submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for
Barnett Crossing Subdivision, Section Three. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee September 22, 2003)
32. Motion to approve a consent order proposed by Georgia EPD in response to
sanitary sewer overflows from January 9, 2003 through April 14, 2003 and excessive
flows in the Spirit Creek wastewater collection system. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee September 22, 2003)
33. Motion to approve converting the existing contract with ARCADIS for
design of the proposed new facilities for the Department of Public Works and
Engineering and Augusta Utilities from 6% of the estimated cost of construction to
a fixed fee contract in the amount of $434,311 for the Public Works buildings and
related site development design and $579,877 for the Augusta Utilities buildings and
related site development design for a total of $1,014,188. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee September 22, 2003)
34. Motion to approve funding for professional services contract proposal from
Khafra Engineering Consultants, Inc. to develop software programming tools to
streamline data collection and data download from GPS to existing mapping system
and work flow tracking system. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
September 22, 2003)
35. Motion to approve Change Order #1 in the amount of $50,845.04 to the
Ridge Forest Estates Sanitary Sewer System Improvements due to an owner-
initiated change of pipe size, additional quantities and elimination of the Cambridge
Lift Station. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 22, 2003)
36. Motion to approve deductive Change Order #2 in the amount of $110,958.42
to the Hwy 1/ Bath-Edie/Etterlee Dr. Water System Project. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee September 22, 2003)
37. Motion to approve the following in conjunction with the construction of a six-
inch force main on Barton Chapel Road:
1) Approve concept of constructing a sewer force main along Barton
Chapel Road to serve Barnett Crossing and Buckhead Subdivisions.
2) Approve engineering cost of $8,175 to Southern Partners, Inc. for the
design of the Barton Chapel Force Main.
21
3) Allow the City Attorney to negotiate an agreement between Homesites,
Ltd. and Augusta, Georgia for the construction of the Barton Chapel Force
Main.
4) Approved AUD to advertise at the appropriate time for the construction of
the Barton Chapel force main.
38. Motion to approve proposal from Khafra Engineering Consultants, Inc. for
the design of the Walton Acres unsewered pockets to provide sewer service.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 22, 2003)
39. Motion to ratify funds in the amount of $21,494.36 for payment to Blair
Construction, Inc. for emergency repairs to Rae’s Creek Sewer Interceptor
Structure. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 22, 2003)
40. Motion to approve award of constructed contract in the amount of
$462,823.90 to Blair Construction, Inc. for the construction of the Plantation Road
Water Line Replacement Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
September 22, 2003)
41. Deleted from the agenda.
42. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering to amend the contract
with Montgomery KONE to add replacement of the hydraulic elevator at the west
end of the Municipal Building in the amount of $133,293.00 bringing the total
contract amount to $254,460.00. Also, increase the previously approved Capital
Project Budget (CPB# 324-05- 201150500) by $20,000 from $260,000.00 to $280,000,
to be funded from Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) Phase III for
Renovations to the Municipal Building. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee September 22, 2003)
43. Motion to authorize the Public Works & Engineering Department to hire a
Design Engineer III at a salary of $57,500 to be funded from the Highway & Street
Administration Budget. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September
22, 2003)
44. Motion to ratify funds in the amount of $15,243.00 for final repairs
completed by Hebbard Electric Company to the Emergency Generators not
included in the original scope of work for this project. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee September 22, 2003)
45. Motion to approve deductive Change Order #2 in the amount of $121,016.76
to the Peach Orchard Road 12” Water Main Project. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee September 22, 2003)
46. Motion to approve the Deed of Dedication, Maintenance Agreement and
Road Resolutions submitted by the Public Works and Engineering and Augusta
Utilities Departments for Walton Hills Subdivision, Section IV. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee September 22, 2003)
47. Motion to authorize utilization of $15,000 of Manpower Management savings
to fund the Safety Officer position in Public Works and Engineering Department for
the remainder of 2003, authorize Public Works to fill the position and include
funding in 2004 for this position and program. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee September 22, 2003)
48. Deleted from the agenda.
22
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
49. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held September 16, 2003 and Special Called Meeting held September 19, 2003.
51A. A motion to approve the bid for three (3) transit vehicles with options
submitted by National Bus Sales & Leasing, Inc the sole bidder in the amount of
$742, 209.00.
Addendum Item 1. Approve Letter of Intent to grant a 60-foot ingress and egress
easement from Damascus Road to property being acquired by Augusta State
University Foundation.
Addendum Item 2. Approve First Amendment to Agreement for Professional
Services between Augusta and Turner and Associates.
Addendum Item 4. Approve street renaming of Linden Street to Lee Beard Way.
Addendum Item 5. Consider a request for the purchase of tickets for the Formal
Banquet of the Eleventh Annual CSRA Classing on October 16, 2003.
Addendum Item 8. Approve Capital Project Budget CPB# 323-04-203823336 in the
amount of $11,000 to be funded from One Percent Sales Tax Phase 3 for the
Grading and Drainage Project Also award consultant services agreement in an
amount of $8,000 to W. R Toole Engineers, Inc subject to receipt of approved
contract documents. (Requested by Commissioner Shepard)
Addendum Item 9. Approve award of contract to Beam’s Contracting, Inc in the
amount of $931,575.75 for the Augusta Richmond County Drainage Improvements,
Phase 1 Project (Capital Project Number 323-04-201823101) subject to receipt of
signed contracts and proper bonds. (Requested by Commissioner Kuhlke)
Addendum Item 10. Approve Capital Project Change Number One (CPB# 323-04-
203823261) adding $37,000 from One Percent Sales Tax Phase III Grading and
Drainage (Account Number 296823081). Also approve award of construction
contract to Turner Mechanical in the amount of $146,572.08 for the Richmond Hill
Road Sidewalk Project subject to receipt of signed contracts and proper bonds.
(Requested by Commissioner Cheek)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and a second. All in favor of the consent
agenda, please vote with the sign of voting.
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 2-6, 8-40, 42-49, 51A, Addendum Items 1-2, 4-5, 8-10]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams, item number 7.
7. Motion to approve Year 2004 Proposed Action Plan for CDBG, ESG and
HOME funds. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee September 22,
2003)
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I had a concern when I looked at
the backup material and saw how some of the funds was being distributed. First of all, I
think my first question, my first response is that when, when agencies apply, Mr. Smith,
how do they qualify? I won’t say how, [inaudible] detail, all of the legal stuff they have
23
to have. But -- and I guess what I’m looking at, I’m looking at some agency apply for
one amount but receive an amount greater. It says maximum allowed. Is this maximum
allowed what we are giving or the maximum allowed is what they apply, they could be
given? Because some of these got, for instance, of somebody apply for $24,000 and they
got $25,000, how did we arrive at these figures?
Mr. Smith: The thing that we’ve done this year, Mr. Commissioner, is in the past
we allowed organizations to apply for any amount that they felt that they needed. This
year, the procedure is -- and it’s basically the practice that I’ve always had in any other
program I’ve operated -- is that you’d have a maximum award amount, where you have a
pool of funds --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The mic is off. Is it off?
Mr. Smith: Okay, it’s fine.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay.
Mr. Smith: Sorry about that. What happens is that we have categories, we have
funding categories. For example, I think you’re probably referring to public services. In
the public service category, we’ve allocated $200,000, and the amount set aside for that
category, the maximum award amount -- I [inaudible] that amount -- let’s say it’s
$50,000, that you can apply for up to that amount. Now in no case should you or would
you get more than the $50,000 that that particular category would allow you to apply for.
And it shouldn’t be, I’m not aware of anybody that applied for funds that we’re going to
give them more or recommending we provide more than what they’ve applied for.
Mr. Williams: Well, this would be very misleading, when it says 2004 CDBG
application received and it says type project and request. Well, under request, on several
of them, and I’m looking at one, I won’t call the name of the entity, but it’s got $44,000.
Then it says maximum allowed on beside there it’s got $75,000. So if --
Mr. Kolb: Can I help?
Mr. Williams: Yes, somebody.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Kolb: What the sheet that you’re looking at, the two columns. You’ll see
type project. I don’t what PF means. The PS means public services. Those are the
different categories.
Mr. Smith: PF is public facilities.
Mr. Kolb: Public facilities. In the next column is the dollar request that that
agency asked for. And then the next column, where you see maximum allowed, within
24
those categories under type project, that is the maximum amount allowed for that
category.
Mr. Williams: Okay. So --
Mr. Kolb: This is just what was received and is being compared to the maximum
allowed.
Mr. Williams: So we don’t know then what, I mean if the maximum allowed to
be applied for was $75,000 and they requested $40,000 or $44,000, whatever, we don’t
know what they receiving.
Mr. Kolb: No. Next two pages. Where it says proposed action plan, those, that
table represents what is being recommended to the Commission for funding.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Well, and it’s easy to confuse me, but it’s when one sheet
on this side show you what the request was --
Mr. Kolb: Correct.
Mr. Williams: -- and then on this sheet it does not show what the request was, it
shows what they was, what the entity’s receiving. Why isn’t it not on here for us to see
what the request was versus what they received, whether they was turned down, whether
they got more or less or whether they, you know?
Mr. Smith: Let me, let me try to handle that. The other thing we did this year, we
tried to streamline this process so that when we make this presentation that you’d have a
matrix or sheet that actually laid out the recommendation. On this, and again, I believe
everybody should have received this form right here, and it probably didn’t come at the
same time. It was something that was sent separately. But this form right here, this is a
table and it’s entitled CDBG Public Facility Recommendation and it’s actually for each
one of the categories. What that has on it is everything that you just asked for. It has the
name of the agency, has the proposed activity, has the rating, as well as the ranking of
that particular activity in the objective ranking criteria -- again, we have a whole set of
objective criteria that rank and rate these projects. It’s not arbitrary. The next column is
amount requested. And then the next column is the recommendation. And the last
column is something we added from my conversation with the Administrator, and it’s a
concurrence between what the Citizens Committee and the staff recommended. It’s a
concurrence to say that we agree that that is the amount that should be recommended. So
again, I’m hoping that you all have this.
Mr. Williams: Warren, let me go to another part of this. And you know, it says
motion to approve year 2004 proposed action plan for CDBG, ESG and HOME funds.
When I vote on something, when we vote to approve something and then it says approve
year proposed action plan, then I look at back here, when I look at the first part and see
what somebody requested one amount and it shows on the other side just the maximum
25
allowed. Well, I mean I’m not really concerned about the maximum allowed. I’m
concerned about how much did they receive. In this other part you show here, show
where they received, but it don’t show what they was eligible for. In other words, it’s
confusing just to me. The rest of these Commissioners understand that. But I just don’t,
I don’t, I don’t understand when, when, when it’s like this cause some of these agencies
I’m looking at, I don’t know how much of the previous fund did they receive, have
already been utilized. Did that come into play? Did that come into play with, with the
money they received this year?
Mr. Smith: If they received funding last year -- if I can understand your question
-- we absolutely look at what they have used in the past. What they have applied for,
what they received in the past, and as -- one of the criteria that we used for making a,
actually for ranking these projects, one of the criteria is previous performance. How did
they use the funds, what, if any funds did they have left -- we take a thorough look at that
in such that if they have funds left over -- and you’ll see as you go through this sheet,
you’ll see that there are several organizations that have funds left over from last year or
they did not use their funds effectively [inaudible] rank and criteria, that they were not
recommended for funding. Funds are tight. We’ve got to be very careful. So if you’re
not using funds properly or efficiently, then you’re not recommended for funding.
Mr. Williams: So on this list, nobody is receiving funds that has not used the
previous funds before? In other words, it’s no, no funds out that’s been allocated and still
in hand or still have not been used and receiving additional funds?
Mr. Smith: I believe in every case we’ve taken a look at that, and that’s been
dealt with. That if you have not used your funds, you are not recommended for any more
funds.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Okay.
Mr. Smith: Can I --
Mr. Williams: Go ahead. Go ahead.
Mr. Smith: I wanted to [inaudible] I know your time is of the essence. I wanted
to just make a recommendation, because we have gotten quite a few applications, we
have changed the procedure a little bit this year in terms of making sure that we, we
distribute the funds in a, in a more effective way. I wanted to recommend, based on some
concerns that I know that many organizations have, specifically the presentation that you
just heard from Golden Harvest, I worked on a one page amendment to the
recommendation that we made for funding. And each of you at your place should have a
one page amended proposed 2004 -- entitled [inaudible] plan. It has a couple of elements
in it I wanted to just propose to you. I think it’s going to go a long way to help us get
through this. You’ll see that it says Community Development Block Grant and gives the
amount of our allocation for that program of $2,900,000. It’s a change. One of the
things that I think we all need to realize is that we have restrictions by category in CDBG.
26
Public services has a federally-mandated 15% cap on how we use funds for that particular
purpose. And again, public services is going to be the Food Bank type activities, just to
cut to that chase. In the past, we have gone over that cap sometimes, so HUD came back
and slapped our wrist a little bit and said okay, now you no longer have a 15% cap, you
are going to have a 10% cap. So that’s $200,000 allocated for that category, and that
category again is the category that Golden Harvest is in, was at $200,000. I think we’ve
been doing a little bit better. I went back to staff, I said well, can we -- [inaudible] we’re
going to manage that category a little bit better, why don’t we shift some funds around a
little bit so that we can make more money available under the public services category?
What you have here is a recommendation that we [inaudible]. We have a category called
economic development. We had original proposed that at $280,000 you see there. I’m
recommending that we reduce that by $50,000, making that become $230,000.
Everybody got me with that so far? Those projects below that category are projects that
are in the plan. Okay. They will still be able to be implemented evening reducing this.
Okay. If you go down -- again, we’re at $250,000 for public services. If you go down to
the next program, recaptured UDAG, what I would propose -- and again, with the idea
that I presented to you last spring, I said we’d use recaptured UDAG for economic
development projects -- we currently have available per financial analysis $134,970 as an
amount available for recaptured UDAG. What I would recommend is taking the first
project, Antioch Microenterprise, which was a project we were going to fund under
CDBG, fund that under recapture UDAG. Okay. That’s $30,000. So that’s going to free
up $30,000 and go back into the public services. The other initiative that, I’ll tell you, I’ll
be perfectly honest, it slipped through the cracks, we didn’t have it [inaudible] plan but
we absolutely need to put it in, and that is the commercial revitalization for [inaudible]
loan program. What I’m proposing is using the balance of the UDAG funds to fund that
very important program. We’ve been out looking at buildings. There are some great
things we can do to help improve our buildings downtown within the service area, and
we’re proposing $104,970 for that. So that again will take care of the recaptured UDAG,
to use that as economic development, and will make us have available to us $50,000
more and you will have the wherewithal to increase any allocation under public service
by $50,000.
Mr. Williams: I think --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You finished?
Mr. Williams: No, sir. I think the other Commissioners have something they
want to bring to the table, especially on the Golden Harvest [inaudible]. When facilities
come up, and I thinking about one in particular where this, our own Augusta Richmond
County Recreation Department owns the W. T. Johnson Center, we use monies to, to
[inaudible] the neighborhood to make sure that certain areas fit the criteria for certain
things. But how do, how do the City come under this program to use this type money for,
for rec centers?
Mr. Smith: Any project that’s going to provide a service to low-to-moderate
income persons can be considered. The one thing we have to be very careful on and one
27
[inaudible] next year is that CDBG funds cannot supplant other public funds that
[inaudible] general fund to implement projects. They can’t take the place of a normal set
of programs you’re going to do anyway. We, I think, are a little bit not on the money, so
to speak, in terms of how we’re using the funds. The other aspect of CDBG is that
CDBG funds are supposed to be used to either increase a service or provide a new
service. That’s the federal guidance that we have for CDBG. Now [inaudible] across the
nation are doing a whole variety of things that may not fit that to the letter of the law, but
the bottom line is that some of the things that we may be doing, we need to take a real
good, close look at them, especially when it comes to some of the public facilities kinds
of things that we are doing.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’m through.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson:
Thank you, sir. I’m looking at the amended proposal and all
the questions have been asked today and organizations concerned about the [inaudible]
amount that was cut. To me, this is a little bit too much for me to digest today to make a
decision on it. I think we need to take this back to Administrative Services Committee,
and that we can look at it and make sure we understand. I don’t understand all these
amendments. It’s going to be quite a lot of time for each Commissioner to be asking all
I’d like to put that in the form of a motion that we
the questions about it. And I --
send this back to Administrative Service so we can further discuss it, critique it,
decide where we are going to allocate the other $50,000 or whether we going to do
that or whether the amendment will be accepted.
Mr. Boyles: I’ll second that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and second on the floor to send this back
to Administrative Services. Any questions? Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. In doing that budget or the
compilation, Mr. Smith, this is from the Citizens Advisory Committee process?
Mr. Smith: Yes, it is, sir.
Mr. Shepard: And there was a mention when the Food Bank representatives were
up here a few minutes ago that because of the cuts in the local funds, there was going to
be reduction as I understood it in leveraged funds. Was the Citizens Advisory Committee
made aware of that? And how much -- I didn’t get from your presentation, from the Food
Bank, how much leveraged funds would be lost as a result of these cuts? Do we have any
way to know that specifically.
Mr. Boyajian: Two to one ratio.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Would you come up to the microphone?
28
Mr. Shepard: If you could. Are those funds from what other source?
Mr. Boyajian: Such sources as the Area Agency on Aging, our own funding that
we apply toward this program. Let me see -- I’d also like to address a question that was
brought up earlier --
Mr. Shepard: How about my question, and then I’ll be happy to yield the floor.
Mr. Boyajian: You want to know the net effect of the reduction in leveraging?
Mr. Shepard: Yes. Where your other fund loss is going to be as a result of our
reductions.
Mr. Boyajian; Well, the fund losses will be from our having to cut services and
therefore apply less money to the Brown Bags that are distributed.
Mr. Shepard: Well, the monies that are coming from other sources, are they not
subject to budget: cutting in other agencies or are they already approved? Help me out
there.
Mr. Boyajian: Okay. We’re operating with a budget that presumes a certain
amount that comes from various sources.
Mr. Shepard: Sure.
Mr. Boyajian: Okay. And what I’m saying, Commissioner Shepard, is that the --
in a zero sum equation, you take away what CDBG, what we’re counting on from CDBG,
there’s less available overall.
Mr. Shepard: The way I understood it is if we cut some of these programs, that
your other funding sources themselves would be reduced. Maybe I’m the only one that
understand leveraging like that.
Mr. Boyajian: Let me, let me for a moment --
Mr. Shepard: That’s what you said.
Mr. Boyajian: Let me just confer with one of my colleagues as to the specifics on
that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The gentleman you’re talking to, can he answer the
question? Come to the microphone, sir. Give us your name. Give us your name and
address.
Mr. Boyajian: This is Derrick Dugan. He’s the development officer.
29
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay.
Mr. Dugan: I’m Derrick Dugan [inaudible]. I’ll say this to the best of my ability.
There’s a certain level of funding that must be met from outside sources to trigger the
additional funding from the Golden Harvest Food Bank general obligation fund. If a
specific level is not met from CDBG, which is relied upon to provide a certain amount of
services, therefore the rest of the funding is just not made available. I hope that answers
the questions.
Mr. Shepard: Could you name some sources? I mean I understand you say it’s
not within your budget, but is it from other charitable agencies, is it from the State, is it
from the federal government? Looks like they are all budget cutting and I’m just
wondering if our leverage, if our reduction is resulting in a reduction say of matching
funds somewhere? That’s what I’m trying to find out. No?
Mr. Dugan: No. It is not through any federal, any grant matching funds
[inaudible] shared maintenance fees and other sources of funding from our agencies
within the community. Various agencies sponsor the Brown Bag Program, the
distribution. Churches, other [inaudible]. If there is not a minimum amount of funding
available from other sources, the funding that those churches are normally charged to
match the funding, in this case CDBG, wouldn’t -- we would be forced to raise the shared
maintenance fees from these agencies to a point that they could not afford to continue the
program.
Mr. Shepard: Or if we didn’t have the money to match, then you’d get a less
dollar-for-dollar match at a church, say for instance?
Mr. Dugan: Yes. Precisely.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me -- Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My comment, my question, my concern was
going to be the same as [inaudible] Commissioner Hankerson’s motion, that we send this
back to Administrative Services and we [inaudible] or add in the portion, that Mr. Smith
gave us the amended budget, proposed amended budget, and that we could work the
numbers in and see and be brought back to us, and I think that was the intent of Mr.
Hankerson’s motion that I seconded.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay.
Mr. Boyles: And that was my comments.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. Mr. Beard.
30
Mr. Beard: Oh, I was just going to -- thank you. I just had one thing. I was
going to ask that the amended proposal -- I think the Director know that this is going to
come through Administrative Services and not brought here to the council itself, and I
think they’ve already suggested that.
Mr. Smith: I apologize for that [inaudible]. Just to explain, that was a 3:30 in the
morning [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible]
Mr. Smith: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me finish and then I’ll get back to you.
Mr. Smith: All right.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: Just to Mr. Smith, when you come back to Administrative Services,
I think I’m probably -- just from what everybody else has said -- I think you need to come
back on how you are going to redistribute that $50,000. Not just come back with the
proposal but what your recommendation on how to distribute those funds.
Mr. Smith: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kuhlke: But I don’t need any more paperwork. I’ve got all the paperwork I
need.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: I believe Ulmer was before me.
Mr. Bridges: No, I think you had your hand up first.
Mr. Mays: Let me just, let me just ask a question first, and then a couple of
comments. Mr. Smith, how are we sitting on submission time? Because I believe in
terms of this motion it’s probably going to go back into committee and then back to us
again on Commission. Are we, are we running into any boondoggle that as far as your
submission and of getting this out on the proposal?
Mr. Smith: If you all would have approved this today, we’d be right on track.
Since it does have to go back around again, we will be on schedule for submission by the
end of -- Rose, help me out here. Rose White. End of October for submission to HUD?
31
Ms. White: It has to be [inaudible]. However -- my name is Rose White and I’m
Neighborhood Development Administrator with Housing & Neighborhood Development.
We should have it in to HUD by November 15. However, we have submitted a draft one.
That means we have approved a proposed one, we haven’t had an opportunity for the
Commission to approve a final one, so what we did, we submitted a draft to HUD and
they accepted that until we got the final one in. We would like to get it in on time, but we
know y’all have decisions to make, and pondering, and what not.
Mr. Mays: I didn’t mind yielding to her, Mr. Mayor, cause usually when she’s
got a however, I like to hear. We’ve been around each other long enough to know
[inaudible] needs to be heard. And I thought we needed to get that out in front in
reference to the time line, Mr. Mayor. Because if questions are going to be asked, if
we’re going to deal with, with changing some things or trying to during the committee
process, and then before it comes back to the Commission, I just wanted to see where we
were standing on that time. The other questions that I was going to ask have basically
already been asked. I think the Director, particularly on the amount, maximum approved
and of giving an explanation of [inaudible], I think they have a tough job there, because
historically these requests always out number and dwarf the amount of money that are
going to be there. I think that’s understood by everybody. But I think what would be
helpful, when this comes back to committee and even prior to that is that I see a couple of
things in here, particularly as they may relate, for instance, one, to governmental projects,
that -- and as chairman of Public Services, say, for instance over in Recreation & Parks, I
think that if we’re going to, going to ask the department on these where we say for
instance have other leveraging monies, say it may be where CDBG, because it’s eligible
in a certain area to interact with HUD, with sales tax funds, for instance, and to be able to
complete a project, I think that it would be probably prudent, Mr. Kolb, for us to maybe
highlight those from the standpoint that these are some that they are not on CDBG’s list
alone. I looked at the amount that’s there for, for instance, for [inaudible]. I would hope
that probably even for that category that we can look at some of the potential people that
may want to do this, and even try to, and I know it’s a lot to stack on Mr. Smith’s
department, but I think some other areas are going to have bear this burden and to help
CDBG, HND office out. It still boils back, gentlemen, to money. And this goes all the
way back even to the old city of Augusta. This department cannot be the total financing
arm for everything and everybody. Until we do what we are deciding to do in some
cases, of seeing particularly where our [inaudible] how institutions are adhering to the
Community Reinvestment Act, not treating it as a joke, how we are planning to leverage
some of those monies and to be able to ask them on those legitimate agencies that are
trying to do things that cannot go it alone, particularly [inaudible] governmental money,
somewhere those partnerships are going to have to be carefully underlined and we are
going to have to go with those. I’d like to see more money over into that category. But I
think it crosses you a little bit if they are going to have to go it alone, Warren, in some of
those areas by themselves. So I think that’s something by themselves that not only
Administrative Services but the Commission needs to keep in mind and you’re going to
send it back, at least be thinking over the next couple of weeks in terms of some
suggestions to make to the Director and to the Department in there, that if we want to do
some of that juggling then let’s see then who can split some of those monies the furthest.
32
But I think the bigger picture does not rest with the money that’s there in CDBG.
Somewhere we’re going to still have to get serious about how we house money, and if we
know historically in these areas where a lot of these projects have to help, we know
where historically people do not like to put money, and we’ve had some good people who
are having to go it alone in a lot of these areas to come out and to deal with 100% of their
money and what little money the CDBG [inaudible]. Somewhere in there we’re going to
have to help that department by cracking that nut and saying okay, fine, you know,
you’ve got our bonding money, you’ve got our sales money, you’ve got our payroll
money, and I know y’all get tired of hearing me make that argument but I’m going to
continue to make it for the final two years and two months and two weeks that I remain
here to a point that we have to get serious about trying to leverage our own money. How
can we ask folk to leverage things and come into partnership when we are not really
maximizing that that we’ve got. And I think we can get some better partners to do some
better things, help that department to stretch its money, and to be able to attract some
better investors so that this does not become the go-to department for everything that’s
there. It will only go so far. And the list of people that we turn down, quite frankly, Mr.
Mayor, is going to be larger than the list of people that you can really help. So until we
get to that point, we’re going to forever be in this mode of doing it this way and of trying
to stretch it to the nth degree. And I apologize for being tardy, Mr. Smith, on your
[inaudible] presentation that y’all presented at Public Works. I had a service that I had to
be on and I just go here. But those are my comments, Mr. Mayor, and I think the two
weeks will give us a chance to at least look at some of these a little different, and I’m not
being critical because I think the department has done the best that it can basically do
with where it is, but I agree it does need to come back through that process.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smith, I want some information on
how the CDBG works in regards to continuing funding of these organizations. I know
the Food Bank said we funded them for four years. I think there are other organizations
that, you know, have kind of gotten to the history and expectation of being funded every
year. My understanding is that these funds are not to be a continual source for, you
know, funding, that it’s to get new projects off the ground or provide some funding for a
period of two to three years.
Mr. Smith: Your understanding is absolutely correct. The program was set up to
help organizations develop capacity to serve the community for some period of time. I’m
not so sure it was just two years. But there usually is a cap of a number of years that you
can receive CDBG funds and during that time you’re doing things to kind of get yourself
up and running and come up with other sources, or the situation is that each year you get
a percentage less. Like first year, you might get 100% of what you request. Next year
you might get 75%, 50%, and you are kind of weaned off the program like that.
Mr. Bridges: Three years sticks in my mind. Is that a HUD requirement? Does
HUD have a limit on the number of continuous years that an organization can get
funding?
33
Mr. Smith: HUD doesn’t have a specific limit, but what they want to see is that
we don’t fund the same projects in perpetuity, every year, without some kind of
consideration of them finding other sources. The reality is that some of the organizations
that we fund, I’m not so sure that there is a great [inaudible] solution for them of
alternative funding. But the bottom line is, in the best of all possible worlds they should
be weaning themselves from dependence on CDBG.
Mr. Bridges: Do these applicants understand that that this is not a continual
funding source? I mean do we stress that enough or --
Mr. Smith: I’m not so sure we stress it enough. I think many of them do
understand it, but it’s, it’s a hard thing to tell somebody that hey, next year, you’re not
going to get any money, you’re going to get less money, you need to be planning for the
future. That’s something that I’ve been doing since I’ve been here more and more. And
we do provide one-on-one technical assistance to these organizations to try to help them
come up with a funding plan or be more entrepreneurial and move in that direction. But
it’s something we do need to do more and more of.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If not further discussion, Madame Clerk, we do have a
motion and second on the floor; correct?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, to refer it back to Administrative Services.
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: Next item, please. Did we ever vote on consent?
The Clerk:The next item is 41.
Yes, sir.
41. Motion to amend the current contract with Republic/Payne Parking System
to add operation of the Augusta owned parking facility at Fort Discovery for the
remainder of the existing contract term, including any extensions. The initial
contract term runs from February 1, 2003 to January 31, 2004, exclusive of action
on contract extensions pending before the Commission. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee September 22, 2003)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I asked to have this pulled for
some discussion on this. You know, we talked I think last Commission meeting about
34
approving a contract, renewing a contract at the Radisson. And then in this agenda it
came up with adding, amending the contract that we just approved to add the parking area
down at Fort Discovery. And I need, I need to hear something from somebody, the
Administrator or somebody, even on this one we have not considered local vendors, local
people who is able to do this. Why is the amendment coming this way and we didn’t we
include or why didn’t we try to include the local businessman who’s able to do this? This
is a smaller event, too. This is not the [inaudible] I was told that they couldn’t do because
of the expertise, I guess, of -- I’d like to know we was not [inaudible] local business
people.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kolb, can you answer that?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, this amendment to
the contract or contract addendum that would be effective for next year is to add the
second deck, which is Fort Discovery, onto the existing one with the Radisson. The
success that we saw at the Radisson was such that we felt it would make sense for us to
put it under that additional contract. In terms of why no one local was contacted, there is
no one local that is qualified to provide the services that we’re requesting in terms of the
administration of the parking deck.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Kolb, I hear what you’re saying and I differ with you about
whether there was nobody here that was qualified, is qualified to do that. We talking
about a parking attendant, somebody to be on the gate, to let the gate up and let the ticket
out and take the dollar in and take the ticket back in. I just, I just think that we, we
should have been mindful of and at least went out to see were there any local people,
vendors interested in whether or not to handle this. It’s a smaller facility. We act like we
don’t think people in Augusta’s qualified to do some of this stuff, and I say we act like
that cause we don’t, we don’t, you know, we don’t share with them. And if they don’t
meet the guidelines and you can, we can set the guidelines as high and low as we want to,
I guess, but at least we, we, we let them know that we are trying to be fair with them,
we’re trying to give them an opportunity to be taxpayers, to not only be taxpayers but be
business partners with the City of Augusta. When we do such as this, it just give me the
impression that we don’t want to include those people. And I’ve got no problem with the
parking people that’s doing it. I just think, like the lat contract, we should have
[inaudible] to at least see were there any local people capable, interested in handling this
facility for us. That’s my take, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I don’t have anything else to say.
I’m not in favor of amending the contract because of those reasons.
Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion on the floor.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. Mr. Beard.
35
Mr. Beard: I just want clarification. What are we talking about in Fort
Discovery, George? They have a bottom deck, a lower deck. Are we talking about --
what are we talking about? Just the lower deck?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, the part of the deck that the City owns, that the Downtown
Development Authority owns.
Mr. Beard: Oh.
Mr. Kolb: The public portion of the deck. There is a private portion that is in the
deck, and we’re not talking about that. We are talking about the public portion.
Mr. Beard: And who is conducting this at this time?
Mr. Kolb: Currently, and they did submit a proposal that we looked at and were
not impressed with that. But currently the Fort Discovery operation is providing the
management to that deck. They keep it clean, they man the booth, etc. But in exchange
they keep 100% of the revenues, also, so that’s why we’re recommending the change.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: That prompts a question. They keep 100% of the revenue. What
are we going to profit by extending it to Republic? If that’s a local, Fort Discovery is
local, if they’re, if they are recouping the profits on this, what’s the purpose of extending
this to Republic Parking? I mean they were not doing -- are they [inaudible] to relinquish
this? Why are we giving it to, suggesting to let Republic handle that? Why they can’t
work to the end of the year [inaudible] contract?
Mr. Wall: Well, the plan would be for this to go into effect with the renewal of
the contract insofar as the Radisson is concerned. But right now, as I understand it,
basically Fort Discovery will man the booth when they expect visitors to come to their
facility. And so that is the only time that it is manned. For instance, if you were to go
down right now, in all probability unless there was some function going on at Fort
Discovery where you are expecting a crowd of people, there would be no ticket-taker and
you would drive in and park free. And so the idea was that there was an opportunity for
us to charge and have it manned and reduce the amount that we’re having to pay out of
our pocket insofar as the bonds are concerned. But Fort Discovery visitors and customers
would now have to pay. And that money would come to the City rather than to Fort
Discovery.
Mr. Kolb: In addition, there may be some other cost savings, techniques,
methods, that we may be able to use to increase the amount that goes to the bottom line.
Mr. Hankerson: Was this discussed -- I got two questions, cause I was sort of
confused on this being presented to Engineering Services. Was the original Republic
contract -- I thought that was presented to Administrative Services or Finance. Finance,
36
wasn’t it? So why would this be presented to Engineering Services? Shouldn’t this come
back to Finance in the committee to recommend an amendment of a contract that we just
approved?
Mr. Kolb: Actually, I think it could go either place. This is a Public Works
facility, managed, and so the overseer of Public Works is Engineering Services.
Mr. Hankerson: But it kind of seem like we drifting away from our procedure as
we just discussed this contract in Engineering Services and then it’s presented -- I mean
in Finance. Is this -- the questions that I have, I was unable to ask them in the committee
meeting. I know that we do not expect to make money out of the parking facilities. I’ve
heard that before. Is that correct? But we also have been giving a certain amount to
make the project work. Is this going to be additional cost to us now to Republic?
Because the contract that we just passed, we had, our funds that we allocated to Republic
in order to make sure that this operation works, is this going to be additional for them
taking over this?
Mr. Kolb: Yes. There is a cost for them to manage the garage. However, there
will also be some revenues, just like in the Radisson, in their parking deck, there are
revenues that will help to offset that expense. So now we pay the debt on both parking
decks, with no revenue whatsoever coming in from the Fort Discovery project. So you
know, we need to take a look at it to determine whether or not there is at least we can
cover our operating costs.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: While I agree that [inaudible] may have been some other ways to
handle this, I have to agree that we’re not getting the maximum use out of that garage at
this point, and I think anytime that we are afforded to increase our revenues, we should.
After he has explained this, I can see, because you know, people are in and out of that
place quite a bit and if they are only collecting money at certain times, then I think that if
this, if Republic can come in and do it and we can make money off of it, it should be a
consideration at this time. I do think that we ought [inaudible] we ought to be getting the
maximum use out of it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I don’t really have a debate with the, with, with
[inaudible] contract per se. I think you got a good, reputable firm, but let me just say this
in terms of reality. I think the reason why probably this is not going down routinely
today is a follow-up to what Commissioner Hankerson has just stated. This came to us in
Engineering Services and it’s not secret to us, the general public or the Commissioners
who -- particularly Commissioners who don’t have to be in the committee meeting
[inaudible] to deal with Engineering Services, that sometimes when we leave at 6:30 or
7:00 o’clock at night and start a meeting two hours past the starting time, we are trying,
under our Chairman, and he’s done a very good job, to put a lot of stuff on the consent
37
agenda. And I just be honest with you, even with my 250 reading glasses, when I stand,
the agenda, when this came up, and I saw Republic, I just basically thought that it was
where we were already on the contract since we were just on the heels of it. And not an
amendment to a different parking facility per se. I’m not saying this is not a good move.
It may be. A couple of questions, though, I would have, is that I think in one light -- I
just want to make sure we’re dealing with a net plus on this, if this is where we’re going.
Because if we got a debt service to retire, in light of the fact that Fort Discovery has had
some other cutbacks that maybe they could not control as well, and you’ve got a facility
there that’s running and moving. Now on one hand we say well, they are getting all the
revenue, but is that helping to keep us from having to put any more money over there or
not? By removing it and getting it over in our hands, are we just basically to a certain
extent, will we be put in a position then, George, of robbing Peter to pay Paul? We now
collecting and get some back, but then are we going to get a letter real soon to say you
know, we were doing well out of the parking money, now we’re going to have to turn
around and ask you for the parking money back for us to survive. This gets us back to
Commissioner Hankerson’s original proposal. Where committee action starts, it should
go back there when you make a change. Technically speaking, Engineering Services --
Public Works may be the operative, but we’re not talking about where it operates out of.
We’re talking about money. This originated in Finance. This started here to deal with
the contract. If you are going to amend the contract procedurally, I think it should have
been in Finance. In that way, you would have had a clear procedural line to ask as a
follow-up question on the same contract that just went through. And I think that’s what
has got you into a non-routine situation because it did not go back and I have a friendly
agreement that it should have gone back to Finance and not be put over to us in the end of
the day, and then we dealt with it to a point of trying to move a routine item, and I think it
just got there and so I think that’s why you’re having a discussion. I don’t think it’s bad
in terms of what you’re doing. But I think I would like to hear whether or not in the net
of this, once we start to collect the money, what are we talking about in estimates, what
are we talking about in their loss, what are we then going to be asked to be providing
them if this money then goes another way? Those are the questions I think that are
unanswered and would have been asked in Finance had it gone that way. And that’s my
comment on it, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams and then Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I just want to ask that the other parking
facility that we are affiliated with, the one on Ellis Street, is there any other impact, is
there any other entity to be brought into this thing? I mean I just thought about the other
facility there that the School Board is coming down, I just wanted to ask that question. I
don’t have anything else.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Kolb: I can answer that. I think it was about a year, maybe a year-and-a-half
ago, we brought to you a lease between the Downtown Development Authority and the
Richmond public schools to lease that parking deck. And so that parking deck would not
38
come under management unless the public schools or the parties of the contract would
want that to happen.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. What we have done in the past
when items are affecting Finance, and this one apparently just go through, we had co-
listed the item on both Finance and Engineering Services. One of the most successful
things we did at the last series of committee meetings appears as items 20 and 21 where
the SPLOST vote actually got eight votes in committee. And so I thought the policy of
this board was to co-list them. That way, if we had any questions in Finance, we could
ask them, and it just seems to work very well in the past. I’m not going to hold this
parking contract up today, but I think that the co-listing of items was a policy of this
board that we wanted followed by the department heads and the Administration.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, just a final quick question and obviously this is probably
going to go ahead and pass. But has there been, and I know [inaudible], but has there
been any response from Fort Discovery in this whole issue in terms of say for instance,
they, they, they welcoming this to get it off of their hands and to get it into somebody’s
situation? Or are they having to [inaudible] and need the revenue in terms of what we’re
doing. What’s been their position in this? Even though it’s our shot to call, what’s been
their position in this?
Mr. Kolb: In the agenda book, you have a letter from Fort Discovery where they
submitted a counter-proposal. We considered that. In effect, they would like to continue
to operate the garage. We would pay for their --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible], Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: No, I’m not. I’m trying to recollect, refresh my memory. They would
absorb the cost of the manpower to a certain extent, but they would keep 75% of the
revenues. Maybe you ought to explain it because I can’t remember.
Mr. Wall: Well, what they would do is charge their personnel costs at a rate of
$6.50 per hour, per man hour. And to the extent that there were revenues in excess of
that charge back against the revenues, that they would be split, 75% would go to Fort
Discovery and 25% would go to the City. And, now that is the parking fees at the
parking rate. That does not take care of the cleaning, and there would be some cost there
insofar as maintaining the parking garage. And their proposal really doesn’t address it,
except if we contract with Republic they’re suggesting that we contract with the National
Science Center to keep the facility clean at a rate of $6.50 per man hour.
Mr. Kolb: So we have had response from them. We looked at it and we felt that
the Republic Parking proposal was a better deal for us. We would get 100% of the
39
revenues and the revenues that they’re projecting did exceed the expenses that they were
talking about that they would be required to operate the deck. If anybody is guess
whether that formula would work, it did work in the Radisson. I have, and Commissioner
Beard and the Mayor probably know much better than I would, as to the traffic that goes
in and out of that deck, if it would support -- and they’re estimating something like 100 or
130 cars a day going through the deck. Now I don’t know if that’s true or if we can
somehow verify that.
Mr. Mays: I mean obviously, I mean I think you’re correct in terms of Lee and
Mayor, particularly Lee in terms of knowing more about it. I’m not, I’m not, I’m not
fighting really in terms of them getting it. I think they’re doing a good job and they’ve
got a wonderful reputation. I just was looking at it from a realistic standpoint of an entity
where we’ve made an investment and obviously we made a -- heck, we made an
thth
investment on everything that’s over there. From 13 to 5 we’ve got some money going
somewhere, whether it’s City money or pension money. You know, got dollars up and
down the line there. But what I’m looking at is the fact that I probably would have felt a
little bit more comfortable other than the letter if I had heard maybe for instance in that
discussion as to whether or not this is a, a minute impact on Fort Discovery per se, are
they going to be back, is it something we’re going to have to deal with in our budget
season to a point where they have control per se in price suggestions or what it’s going to
be, [inaudible] coming in, how will it affect their [inaudible] that they will be getting and
targeting? I think those are questions that are not per se, you know, well, go ahead, this
could have been resolved had it been placed in the proper committee, Mr. Kolb, but go
ahead.
Mr. Kolb: Okay. We’ve had several discussions with them. They do not make
money on that deck. They only operate the deck from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. And I think that
there is some free parking associated with people who come to Fort Discovery. We have
reason to believe that the deck is used even beyond those hours, before 10 o’clock and
after five o’clock in the evening. And that we’re losing revenue. And that is Republic’s
contention, that that is the case. So I mean they would not be hurt if we took it away
from them, other than the fact that they have some revenue coming from the deck that
would offset their cost of manning it from 10 to five. Now they would no longer have
that expense to incur, nor the expense of having to clean the garage which they also do
now. So it’s probably more or less a loss, or maybe it’s even better since they are
expending those dollars.
Mr. Mays: So the new contract gets them out of the cleaning business totally?
Mr. Kolb: That is correct.
Mr. Mays: Okay, I heard something in there that was a little unclear, the fact that
we were going to have to do a re-contract with them to deal with the cleaning.
Mr. Kolb: No.
40
Mr. Mays: I wanted to get that clear.
Mr. Kolb: That is one of their proposals, that if we take the management of the
garage away that they would be willing to provide maintenance, cleaning, etc. in the
garage for that same dollar per hour. However, in the Republic contract that would be
one of their responsibilities to make that happen.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: I just, I mean in reviewing that letter here, it seems though that
they still want to be a part of this, and I can’t see where it profits Republic that much and
I just hope we’re not getting into something that later on we added another parking lot
that’s not generating enough revenue that we are going to have to pitch in and give some
more from the City. Because they saying that even, I see in the letter here, from Fort
Discovery that they have about 50 paying customers each day, with the exception of
some of their main events where they get 1,000 people coming in at $1.25 per parking
fee. So I mean with only that small amount, what profit is going to be increasing the
revenue by giving Republic the contract? They still want to clean it. They asking that in
the letter. I just kind of feel -- I don’t feel good about approving a contract when you
have Fort Discovery, one of our organizations, one of our projects here in Augusta, and I
haven’t heard from them. I see the letter and we just want to amend, we didn’t come
back through the right procedure, coming back through Finance or co-Finance and
Engineering. I just, I feel uncomfortable about passing this today. And I really think that
we need to hear from Fort Discovery, work out these details on this before we present
this contract. Cause it’s just like Mr. Mays said and what I was thinking, if this provides
a revenue for them, then they going to be cut short. And quite naturally, they going to be
coming, asking, and we are going to have to provide.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams
: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’d like to make a substitute motion that, if
it’s in order, that all this be brought back to what I said in the beginning about local
business and local entities doing some things with us. I’d like to make a substitute
so we can ask any questions and discuss
motion that we send this back to Finance
anything [inaudible] discussed then, have a fully-understanding so it come back to
the Commission and vote on it.
Mr. Shepard: I’ll second the motion, Mr. Mayor.
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.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard and Mr. Kuhlke vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
41
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item. Next item, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
48. Motion to approve Memorandum of Understanding between Bell South
Telecommunications, Inc. and Augusta, Georgia regarding relocation of utilities on
Laney-Walker Boulevard. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
September 22, 2003)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is that you, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: I suppose. This is to move forward with the relocation of the
telephone lines and this is, will move this project forward and we’re recommending
approval. The cost of it will be $198,496, which we would pay within 90 days after
completion of the relocation. I ask, recommend approval of it.
Mr. Bridges: I move for approval.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I just want some clarification,
Jim, and I don’t know whether to talk about it in legal or not, but we had a [inaudible]. I
don’t know where we got to with that. But we been hearing a lot about utilities, what was
holding up the project, and what was going on. And I guess my, my question is that is
this going to solve this problem? Is this going get things moving as such should have
been done probably a year ago now, I guess?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir, this is going to get this moving, and insofar as the -- you’ve
got a different situation as far as the telephone company is concerned and Georgia Power
Company.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Wall: And I can brief you on Georgia Power Company, but we met yesterday
with Mr. Rice, [inaudible], the Mayor, Georgia Kolb, Ms. Smith and myself. Mr. Rice
has been [inaudible] come back within two weeks with a procedure so that insofar as the
power company is concerned, we don’t run into delays in the future.
Mr. Williams: So is BellSouth’s service going to be a pole service or a ground
service?
Mr. Wall: Pole
Mr. Williams: Going to be a pole service?
42
Mr. Wall: Yes. All will be on one side. Some of it will be underground.
Mr. Williams: Okay. That’s all, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. If we going to get
something moving, let’s move it while we got it moving.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and second on the floor. All in favor of
the motion --
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] moment, and I’m going to vote for the motion. I just
wanted to ask Jim a question. One, thanks for getting this moving along from the
standpoint of this agreement with BellSouth. And I know we got to deal with one
situation at a time, and I support [inaudible], got a business there. But one of the things
that came up that I think we should be mindful of that was when we were talking earlier,
that if we did not go to this procedure that was costing the City, that there are other things
that need to be done still in that Laney-Walker area that fall on the north and south of
Laney-Walker in reference to old lines and old equipment that’s out there. And you’ve
got building permits being issued, particularly north of Laney-Walker, and I know this is
the beautification side of it, but I just hope that we will continue to allow you, the
Administrator, [inaudible] whoever is going to be dealing with this, to deal with this on
an ongoing basis. This is one issue, part of it, but I would hope that as we continue to
work in there and to improve that we keep the lines of communication open per se so that
we don’t get into a log jam per se to deal back, you know, with BellSouth on anything.
Because there are still some things that I think we’ve got to work on and I think when
they were looking at possibilities of not going total underground then there was
commitment at the time to deal with some of those old lines and things, just for instance
when it gets wet, cause our communications can just go out. And those are not
necessarily on Laney-Walker Boulevard per se, but they’re a stone’s throw from it. The
weakest-armed quarterback in the NFL can throw to where they’re located. So I mean I
just wanted to make sure we keep those lines open and I think it’s good to have them as
an old entity to maintain the City’s business relationship with them and I’ve, if I had my
druthers I think and I lost that battle, but I think it goes to show that with old corporate
entities that are good citizens that employ people, that do more than just collect money,
that it’s good to maintain those relationships, and I think we’ve seen in terms of quick
jumping out for what we thought might have been good, that we paid dearly for it, and
quite frankly had to crawl back. And I think this is what’s caused some of the delay in
terms of probably we wouldn’t be going through this right now, but I appreciate your
efforts because of doing this and of getting that done and probably had we listened to
those comments [inaudible] done in legal to be able to do that, I think we would have
been further along with this project and the relationship between the City and that entity
probably would have never even been snagged. So I think you as a resident and a
43
business owner in that area. But we’ve definitely got to keep the lines open still, cause
this is just one part of it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We do 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: Okay.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
50. Deleted from the agenda.
51. Deleted from the agenda.
The Clerk:
52. Consider a request from the Ebenezer Seventh-Day Adventist Church at
1699 Olive Road for connection to the city sewerage system. (Deferred to October 7,
2003 Commission meeting.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Cheek.
Mr. D. Cheek: It’s going to be my understanding, after talking with [inaudible],
they agreed not to come here today. They felt that our meeting had been successful in
resolving their issue. [inaudible] what’s going to be needed, if it’s going to actually be
possible to tie, but in my conversation with him about 11 o’clock today he was, appeared
to be very satisfied with what we had come up with. We looked like we had almost cut
their potential cost in half with their plumber and with the City. So he seemed
exceptionally happy about that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Doug, I hear what you’re saying,
but one of the elders called me because they was confused about when the meeting was
going to be. They was thinking it was last Tuesday. Still very much interested and
wanted to come. And I understand how constituents can get tired of sitting and waiting.
But I hear you say they satisfied. But I need to know what, what have y’all come up
with, what’s the procedure, what’s the plan, and I’m not saying they’re not satisfied. But
I thought something was going to be brought back to this body to let us know what has
been done, what’s going be done and how soon it’s going to be done. So I need to hear
those things. And I hear you say [inaudible] across [inaudible]. But what exactly, time
frame and when and what has been done, Doug?
Mr. Cheek: That is another thing, too. That’s a good point. Pastor Jewett
expressed to me, it’s been going on, and after I looked back into it, this has been going on
44
for well over a year. For whatever reason, it didn’t get resolved and it wasn’t on behalf
of the Utilities Department, but looks like they may have had a change in command, so to
speak, with Pastor Jewell only being there for about four months, so he was kind of new
to the game. And after he and I met, basically I laid it out a little bit better for him, what
was going to be involved in the process, and he had a better understanding and the time
frame was a big desire of his, to get it resolved as quick as possible. And he needed
approval from his board, as well, which is what he -- actually a meeting this Sunday.
And the original price that was given to them to extend the line was going to be in the
neighborhood of $2,500 payable to the Utilities Department. And we’ve done everything
we can to get that done to around $1,200. And I can assure you that is cutting it to the
bone. And also, that helps them with the private plumbing expense, which was going to
go from around $3,600 now to about $1,000. So all said, it goes from about $4,200 now
to about $2,200. And other than that, it’s just a matter of them allocating the money
[inaudible] church.
Mr. Williams: Well, I understand, Doug, and I explained to Elder Jones that I
would be here and I would speak to this issue and I would try to relate back to him what I
know. I don’t this City to go to any unnecessary expense. I do want to be fair with the
church as much as possible. For when you run a [inaudible] on a septic tank, it can get
very expensive, and they have been dealing with this for quite some time. So what’s the
time frame? If they agree, and you know, I’m hearing what you say, but if they agree
with the amount, you said, and cut it to the bone, what, what time frame are we looking at
of getting the situation resolved?
Mr. Cheek: As soon as they come in and pay the fee, then we would be able to
begin work within a week.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Cheek: And then once we -- they cannot do anything on their private
property until the line is actually extended. So the City would have to do our work before
they could do their work. And so that would take anywhere from a week to two weeks
go get it completed, which is around three weeks once they pay their to a point.
Mr. Williams: Are you saying that the line is there for them already?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Then what expense does the City have to bear if the line is already
there? It’s up to them to get their, their plumber to do that. My understanding was that it
was across the street and was not over there.
Mr. Cheek: Okay, it is actually on the same side of the street. You’re obviously
familiar with the area. They’ve got the little school right there. Whenever we extend a
line, the standard practice is to have a tap or a clean-out touch the property, and basically
there was a manhole there, which is unusual, but good in this case. We tapped the line
45
and ran them a clean-out fright in front of the school, what I call the little school right
there. And basically that was to be the tap for the entire property. When they got a
plumber to come out and estimate what it would cost to run the church’s septic tank to
that line, it was in the neighborhood of $3,600. And it involved some unusual things,
having to go through a concrete sidewalk, real close to their sign, and across the parking
lot area. So basically when I talked with Pastor Jewett he kind of expressed, you know,
these were the concerns we had, if we could avoid that it would be you know, to our
benefit. Well, we looked at doing it another way, which was running the line along the
right-of-way, extending a [inaudible] service actually. And the unusuality here is they
have two separate buildings, almost where you could almost have two separate customers
per se. So it was, it was actually not completely out of the question to extend them two
services, two individual services, and that’s what we agreed to do. The original estimate
was $2,500 to extend that service. And we went and looked at some other things and
found a more cost effective way and was able to cut that down to $1,200.
Mr. Williams: Well, why are we cutting it down to $1,200 if there is, if there is a
possibility of two service needs and we supposed to provide that service for each, each
customer to tie into? Why, why, why should they pay, anybody I mean, not talking about
just this particular church, but why should they pay the $1,200 to have the extended line
run over to the other building? They got two buildings there. Why does the City not
have a line there for that other building anyway? Cause that’s, that’s what we supposed
to do. We take it to the property, you said, the property line, and from there it’s up to
them to tie into it. But if it’s where they can’t reach it, then I think we at fault. I don’t
think they should be paying for that now. That’s why I wanted to talk to the pastor.
That’s why I needed to talk with you. If that’s the case, we ought to be putting that line
in before they pay any money. In fact, they shouldn’t have to pay any money. That line
should be run to their property so they can tie into it. Now we shouldn’t go on their
property and do anything. That’s private. But up until that point. The City needs to have
that facility for infrastructure up to that line where they can reach it and tie into it. Do
you agree?
Mr. Cheek: And it is available at this time, and it would cost them $3,600 to tie to
that point. We’ve already ran the to a point. [inaudible] did not want to incur that
expense.
Mr. Williams: Okay, am I missing something? Are you talking about, you say
there’s two facilities, possibly could be two services. The school is one, the church is
another one. Are you saying that the other facility have to go under the sidewalk, by the
sign and all this other stuff, but the adjacent property which needs one as well -- I’ve got
a piece of property out on Lionel Street that we had the same problem, they came in and
put in the infrastructure. There is a vacant lot there and the people was going to go by
and not put a connection there. They said there’s no house on it. I said what happens
when a house gets built there? You know you are going to have to come back out and
put one then. I mean that’s a potential, that’s a lot for a potential home. So that services
should be put there because it’s the right thing to do for them or anybody, for that matter.
46
Mr. Cheek: And it is there and available there. They have two separate service
taps at this time.
Mr. Williams: Okay, that’s why I mentioned it cause I thought you said once they
come in and pay the $1,200 or what they needed to pay, y’all can begin to work to put --
Mr. Cheek: We actually, by normal practice, we have gone above and beyond
what we would normally do for anybody. We actually ran them a tap at their request.
They paid for the tap, and we went and ran it. They came back after they got a price from
a plumber and said that’s going to be too expensive to tie to that point, we don’t want tap.
We refunded their money back, but the tap’s still there. Then they requested that, well,
we would like to extend the line. This is a special request. This is not something that is
necessarily, it is something that is purely to convenience the customer. And that was
going to cost the City $2,500 to do.
Mr. Williams: Okay, let me just, let me just [inaudible]. Let me get with the
pastor. I’m going to get with the pastor next week, well, probably tomorrow. Go out and
talk with him and take another look. From what I understand you were saying, there was
a need that could have been two services cause there are two businesses in there, there’s a
school and there’s a church. And if the line is there, if we need to run the line to that
other facility, I’m thinking that’s what we need to do, regardless of the other building,
other school. That may be one line, too. But from what I’m hearing, you ran a line and
after you ran the line they said that’s going to be too expensive to go through to get there.
So let me get with the pastor and let me talk with him.
Mr. Cheek: If it’s a convenience to you, I actually have a meeting set up with him
for Thursday at noon to discuss this finding to give him a document to carry before his
Board of Elders.
Mr. Williams: Okay, where are y’all going to meet at?
Mr. Cheek: Meet at the church Thursday at noon, yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I’ll try to make that one.
Mr. Cheek: And it is difficult to discuss. You almost have to be on the grounds
to get a full picture of it.
Mr. Williams: Okay, Doug. Thank you, now.
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do we have a motion?
Mr. Williams: What’s the recommendation? To let them go ahead do what
they doing now, the final meeting? I make that motion, Mr. Mayor.
47
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. All in favor of the motion,
please signify by the sign of voting.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATOR’S EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE:
53. Approve recommendation from the subcommittee to use the current
evaluation form for the Administrator for this year and then to use that form as a
discussion document for working toward a performance based evaluation system
with the adoption of goals and objectives for the Administrator to be determined
and adopted before the first meeting in March, 2004.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Second: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Discussion? Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, just a couple of things. One is that we do need
to follow up on providing our Administrator with a list of achievable goals early on in the
year, and just a reminder that we need to go ahead and prepare our list of Legislative
items for our pre-Legislative meeting with our working committee, which we haven’t
done. We need to improve in this area of providing guidance to our staff and I just hope
they are some things we will do in the future.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, thank you. The Clerk has done a great job of
putting our motion together, and I just wanted to lift up that Mr. Williams and I and Mr.
Cheek were of one mind that we set a goal that we work against time-wise, and that is the
first meeting in March, to have this process, this adoption of goals and objectives
completed. So we need to mark our calendars, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Further discussion? Motion, we have a motion and second.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of
voting.
48
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
Addendum Item 7. Discuss request from City of Albany/Dougherty County,
Georgia regarding site visit to Augusta to meet with local officials regarding
consolidation. (Requested by Commissioner Mays)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I had this placed on, and I guess this would
probably be the most non-controversial item that we’ve got on the agenda today. And
hope and ask for your participation and support. I had an initial conversation with Rep.
John White down in Albany, and they wish to come to us -- when I say they,
representatives from both the City of Albany, Dougherty County, members of their
Chamber, probably in their group between 15 and 20 people in reference to having an
informal discussion, approximately that would last from maybe 10, 10:30 in the morning
to maybe four in the afternoon, with a lunch break, and just getting ideas in terms of what
we went through during the consolidation period. Also in terms of talking with, with
current Department Heads, as well as people who may have been in those similar
positions, a few of them, prior to consolidation. And we have some unique situations.
My colleague to my left here, my good friend who was Director of the only real
consolidated department prior to consolidation, Recreation & Parks, and now serves as
Commissioner, and I mentioned that to John during our conversation, as well as the
availability of us being able to contact some other persons who are still in the area that
served in capacities in both City and County. The Clerk has been the central person for
doing coordinating and [inaudible] two good rounds in a row, as I kind of threw this one
on her, as I do a bunch of stuff [inaudible] Clerk’s office, but the meeting is scheduled
[inaudible] we found that our non-meeting meeting day, a Monday or Tuesday, was what
th
I suggested to them. They kind of agreed for that -- what is that, the 20, Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: October 20.
Mr. Mays: October 20. Of using our own facility there at the boat house. They
will be coming primarily by bus here and will be able to eat and use a facility that we
own there, take the break and do it, and what I was going to suggest, not only for your
support in this, but any ideas you might have of people that might need to be contacted,
that Ms Bonner might now have, from each of you as Commissioners and the Mayor, of
funneling that through here in terms of suggestions of persons that might need to be
called, that could help to give input to that group in terms of the fact that they just sort of
consider this move in what they’re doing and they’re looking at it because some of them
were kind of the same position, Tommy, that you were in prior to consolidation and of
being a departmental head person so they are bringing people as they currently exist from
both sides. And I thought it would be a good idea to deal with in some cases the before
and after in terms of what we’re doing, and that’s just a suggestion. But it’s open and to
49
contact the Clerk’s office with that. I hope that as many of us that can be there will share
in and doing it some. You may not be able to stay all day, but maybe contribute some
time during the day since they will be coming in as our guests from out of town. And
that’s basically it. And I can answer any other questions that you might have.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any questions of Mr. Mays? [inaudible] motion.
Mr. Kuhlke: I move we receive it as information and set the date for
October 20.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in
favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mays: Thank you, gentlemen.
The Clerk:
Addendum Item 3. Approve payment of invoice from Turner and Associates in the
amount of $96,530.99 for site selection study.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, as you will recall, as we went through the
process on the Judicial Center, we had started with this facility here. We expanded that
to the river, to May Park. There was some interest in looking at Regency Mall, and there
th
was some interest in looking at the property at Telfair and 9 Street. We were instructed
to have the architects and planners to come back and investigate all five of those sites and
come back to us with their recommendation. We did that through the subcommittee.
They made, I think two trips here to make presentations to the Commission. As a result
of doing that work and all the investigation that took place in that, this was the cost that
was submitted to us for that additional work to come up with the site selection. I can’t
give you any more detail than that. We did have a provision in the original contract that
if we asked them to do any work outside of the scope that was already presented to them
that it would be done on an hourly basis, and the invoice that was submitted to us is
broken down on a hourly basis, and Mr. Wall has a copy of that invoice. So if you have
any questions, I’m not sure I can answer them, but Jim might can.
Mr. Mays: Commissioner Colclough had to step out for just a moment. Did you
need to respond right now, Jim, in reference to Mr. Kuhlke’s comment there? If not, I
can move on to Commissioner Cheek. I think he had his hand up.
Mr. Wall: I can respond to any questions.
50
Mr. Mays: Andy, you want to go ahead and start?
Mr. Cheek: Question. What is the running total of what we’ve expended on this
project to date?
Mr. Wall: Outside of this invoice?
Mr. Cheek: In addition to this invoice. I can add the two up, whatever. They
must have had an entire department work on this site selection, looks like.
Mr. Wall: In the --
Mr. Cheek: Does this include soil analysis and --
Mr. Wall: No, it does not.
Mr. Kuhlke: Andy, what we had, if you recall, we were into work authorization
#1, and that particular work authorization had a value to it. We have the information.
They had earned roughly 74% of that work authorization at the point that we stopped and
did the additional work. But I tell you, we got so much paperwork on it. We can get that
number for you. I don’t know exactly what the number was, but Jim, you don’t know
what the value of that work authorization #1 was?
Mr. Wall: Yes, it was -- well, the fee was $374,000. $425,000, and they had
earned all of that but $146,522. They had basically earned $230,000 on work
authorization #1. Now in addition to that, we have paid for $12,000 worth of surveying
for this property. I’m not sure of the exact amount that we have paid for environmental.
Mr. Kuhlke: None. On this property, none. We did no environmental work. I
don’t think so.
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible] pass this today, if it passes, and we’re going to be pretty
close to half a million dollars spent without any design or anything else, no
environmental.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] because that’s what identified the fact of how much space
we were going to need and the fact that it would not fit on this piece of property.
Mr. Kuhlke: And I might add, Andy, that we are not through with project
definition. The schedule, from what we approve today, the revised contract with the
architect, the schedule is to finish the project definition phase of it, hopefully the first part
of December. So the remaining part of the original contract will take place from now
until the first of December. And one thing that we had done is the revised contract has
cut the work authorizations from 11 down to four. And so we, I know we spent $12,000
here on the survey. The $96,000 is for the site evaluation of all five sites, plus the
51
$200,000-some-odd that we’ve already spent in the project definition phase. We brought
this up as a separate item because it’s totally outside of the original contract and we felt
like that was the only way we could present it to the Commission.
Mr. Cheek: I guess in -- you know, I’m used to dealing with the federal
government, I’ve had some experience with school board projects and different things.
But you know, half a million dollars and we’re not even through with the project
definition phase. It’s no wonder they want $89 million to do the project. It just seems
awfully high to me. And you know, here again, and I’ve said this from the beginning,
this is the only project that I can remember that seems to be, have a life of its own
without any real defined budge ceiling that we’ve imposed. It’s just a tremendous
amount of money per site for that kind of evaluation and you know, I know we’ve
ordered the thing and we’ve done it, but there just doesn’t seem to be an end in sight. It’s
like a black hole, sucking the taxpayers of Augusta’s money down into it, with, in my
opinion, very little tangible results. I’ve had my say on it.
Mr. Kuhlke: Andy, I will say this, that -- you mentioned half a million dollars.
As we go through the total project, half a million dollars represents less than 10% of what
the total fee is going to be when we get through.
Mr. Cheek: And Commissioner, that scares, frankly, scares the hell out of me
because this is one time we are looking it -- like I said, we -- it seems that this is a gold-
plated -- I’m going to try to be kind. It just seems an awfully high price that we’re paying
for something, a lot higher than we should have to be paying for it at this point.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I just want to clarify
something to Commissioner Cheek. They mentioned about the figure for what we doing
and in lieu of this new facility. But it’s been said many times that we are looking at
Telfair Street for this facility. The site that I brought and the site that I chose, and I need
to be very clear on this, was not necessarily Telfair Street. What the site that I brought
th
was Walker Street to Fenwick and from 9tn Street to 11. Now I thought if we needed
to, maybe if we had to later on, we might acquire that property on Telfair Street or
something else. But it’s been said that we’re talking about Telfair. I’ve had several calls
from businesses saying y’all going to put us out of business, why y’all can’t work around
us and this and that and the other. But I never mentioned Telfair. It always been the
piece of property, we talked about the railroad track. Somebody said we can’t do it. I
say well, why can’t other cities build facilities and have the train tracks run right under
the parking deck or right under the building, and the building still operates. So that
should not be a factor. Somebody asked about the, the stream that runs through there
that’s supposed to be contaminated. That still does not have to be moved. So I just
wanted to get some clarification today and if there was any studies being done or any,
any initial monies added to because of Telfair Street, need to be pulled back, need to be
pulled out. We had never said Telfair Street. The new facility or the piece of property
52
thth
talked about was that property on 9 to 11 from Walker to Fenwick, which is two
square blocks.
Mr. Wall: Well, let me address that, because the contract amendment defining the
thth
project defines the site as being from Telfair to Fenwick and from 9 to 10. And what
th
we have undertaken is a survey not including the buildings that front on 9 Street,
between Telfair and Walker Street. And that was --
Mr. Williams: Well, Jim --
Mr. Wall: That was the motion that was made and that’s what we have
designated as the site, that is what we have been proceeding, all the plans are being
th
developed with that being the site, and I have -- we specifically excluded between 10
ththth
and 11 because you have more businesses located in there, not between 10 and 11
south of Walker Street.
Mr. Williams: The businesses, the businesses that’s on Walker Street on the back
side, Jim, on the opposite where there was [inaudible] meat packing company used to be,
and what I was going to say earlier about the minutes that we keep and about the records,
and if you check the records and see what was proposed. And y’all know I get off of it a
lot of times, but I think this time I may be on it. Check the records and see what was said
and what was proposed. I brought a map in and showed those areas. Now if we needed
Telfair Street, I mean I wasn’t against going in that area. We could [inaudible] that
th
property on 9 Street. We’ve got two blocks. Ain’t but one business that would
probably be impacted in that whole area. It’s a steel plant that’s back on the other side.
That property we looked at they say was contamination, I called, I checked, and found
out some clean-up has been done and it’s good for anything except residential. So Telfair
Street was something that was tacked on. I heard it and I said then that that was not
proposed site to say Telfair Street. So the minute ought to show somewhere what was
brought, what we looked at, what the boundary line was, that that ain’t the first thing that
got off track. We done had a lot of stuff, that we go down Broad and we come up on
Ellis Street when we ought to be coming back on Broad. But I just wanted to clear that
up cause I’ve got several calls about businesses downtown and I explained to those
businesses when I talked to them that I never said anything about Telfair Street. And if
we did, we ought to be able to work with those businesses and work around them, rather
than to move them. So I, I don’t know how in the world we can designate or we put I
won’t say orders, but we vote on issues and the thing that we vote on still don’t come out
like we voted on. So I mean I’m willing to check the records on this one and see where
we at cause --
Mr. Wall: The whole presentation showed it fronting on Telfair Street and talking
about matching the architecture on the Greek Church on the opposite side of Telfair
Street.
Mr. Williams: Who gave that presentation?
53
Mr. Wall: Everything that has been presented that y’all have voted on has been --
Mr. Williams: Who brought that presentation to match the Greek Church? Cause
the map that I brought --
Mr. Wall: The architects.
Mr. Williams: The architects? Well, who instructed the architects?
Mr. Wall: I mean I guess you may say that I did through the --
Mr. Williams: Okay, wait, wait.
Mr. Wall: -- the cooperation of --
Mr. Williams: If you instructed the architect, Jim --
Mr. Wall: Mr. Kuhlke and --
Mr. Williams: You, Bill, whoever instructed the architect than that’s where the
ball stops at, now.
Mr. Kuhlke: Marion, I took your map which had Telfair Street on it.
Mr. Williams: Okay. And my map may have had some other streets that we not
going to use either, Bill, so you can’t go by what street’s on the map cause if you did that,
it probably would have went over to Greene Street. What was proposed was the property
thth
that’s down on 9 to 11 Street and from Walker to Fenwick that could be used for that
facility, and I even mentioned about the railroad tracks and the creek that runs through
there and all that, about how abandoned it was, how wasn’t nothing going on, how good
that could be to put some life in that area, would be closer downtown, there’s, there were
[inaudible] mentioned about that could have been used for some other facility, too. But
Telfair Street never came out of my mouth. And if the records show what was proposed,
and if you wait a minute, I can run downstairs and bring that same map back cause I still
got it. So if, if, if, if, if y’all what to see that. But that’s not what we proposed.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. May I address this to
Commissioner Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yeah.
Mr. Boyles: When the project started, we were simply talking about this building
here, am I right?
54
Mr. Kuhlke: Right.
Mr. Boyles: And then the next phase, it became the entire block that we’re on
right now?
Mr. Kuhlke: No.
Mr. Boyles: No?
Mr. Kuhlke: No. When we, when we discovered, after going through the portion
of project definition that we went through, we were, we could accomplish about 230,000
square feet. The project definition defined that we would need a minimum of 300,000
square feet. When that happened then we began to, we had to consider if we stayed here,
we would have to buy the remaining portion of this block. Then at that time we looked at
the river property and we looked at May Park. When we decided to look at that, then
Commissioner Hankerson wanted to look at Regency Mall and Commissioner Williams
th
presented his location on 9 and Telfair, back to Walker Street, that location. The
architects were then asked to stop the project definition phase, to go and do the study on
all five sites, including buying this additional property, and come back to us with a
recommendation.
Mr. Boyles: Correct. And then this Commission authorized --
th
Mr. Kuhlke: This Commission chose the Telfair/9/Walker Street location as the
#1 site and this is the #1 [inaudible].
Mr. Boyles: But we also authorized the study of the other, the total of five sites?
Mr. Kuhlke: We did. That’s the only way we could come to a consensus on
where we wanted to go.
Mr. Boyles: And we made, this Commission made the commitment to the
architectural firm to do that?
Mr. Kuhlke: Exactly.
Mr. Boyles: So I think in that case, I think we should go ahead, and I make the
motion that we go ahead and approve the bill from the architectural firm.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion on the floor. Second. Motion and second. Andy.
Mr. Cheek: Has there been a -- have we voted on a cap for the project, a cost cap
for this project?
55
Mr. Wall: Included in what you approve today insofar as the architectural
contract is concerned, you have approved 300,000 gross square feet, assuming
construction costs of approximately $50,748,000. That’s excluding preconstruction
costs, fees, furniture and fixtures, audio visuals, telephones, data costs, and escalation and
contingency costs. What was presented -- you have imposed that cap.
Mr. Cheek: Let me stop you real quick, Jim. Now we are saying we need
300,000 square feet?
Mr. Wall: Correct.
Mr. Cheek: So that’s essentially the White’s, Ward’s and Belk building at
Regency Mall stacked on top of each other? Okay. Just a little visual aid there.
Mr. Wall: It’s a nine story building.
Mr. Cheek: Okay.
Mr. Wall: And as a part of the presentation, and I will refer to the minutes as far
as what was actually presented, but you had before you a cost presentation which showed
the, the estimated cost of the various construction at the various sites and the one that was
presented insofar as the Telfair Street had a total development cost of $74.8 million
roughly. And that includes the $50 million construction cost, the site land acquisition
cost of $2.5 million, the site contingency cost of $1.65 million, an escalation number, a
contingency number, FF&E cost, audio visual, telephone and data costs, coming up to the
$74.8 million.
Mr. Cheek: Every department in this City is held to budgetary constraints. This
is one case of where for some reason we seem to want to fund it to what I consider
extreme gold-plated limits. I will remind everybody that people do not come to cities to
look at courthouses. They come to enjoy recreation facilities, sporting venues, gardens,
museums, historic places. They don’t come to see courthouses, yet we seem to be
limiting all these other projects, quality of life amenities for the citizens of this city, while
this one enjoys a free ride. And I for one cannot stomach that. It concerns me that the
price has continued to go up. I’ll be surprised if this is the last time we see that. If that
$79 million or $74 million figure holds, I’ll be very surprised. I have very deep concerns
about this project and the cost, especially in light of the fact that we will be adding
300,000 square feet to heat, cool and to staff for cleaning and other things, in light of our
future, our present and future budgetary situations. I know we need the space, but I really
think this is a gross, a case of gross overkill and certainly overkill in the budget arena.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Mayor, let me, let me ask a couple of questions here.
Because, and some times we can say it jokingly, sometimes we say it seriously. I guess
to lighten this up a little bit, and I remember joking the other night at Lee’s roast about,
56
about us sometimes commenting about Marion going crazy. But now I’ll tell him this to
his face sometimes, I say sometimes when you roam, you roam. Sometimes when you
dead right, you get dead right. Now we back up just a second, because I think if we owe
the money, we’ve had a lot of sites that people have had to look at, a lot of planning to go
into them, a lot of things to come back that cost money. It doesn’t come cheap. But now
let’s get, let’s get back a minute to his map that he brought in. Now I know we defined
this as the Telfair Street project per se, but gentlemen, let’s be, let’s be honest, let’s be
realistic, the map that Marion brought in, the area that some of us went and walked, the
one where I ran over the open manhole cover that blowed off on Walker Street, was
down there looking at his spot that night I called him from home about it and I told him, I
said my car’s out of line, you going to pay for it, cause I went to look at this site. But
gentlemen, we were concentrating, and I’m not saying we left that in terms of what we
said for folk to look at, but the primary focus of property in that area was not on property
that was business occupied. It was on property that was basically run down, weeded and
abandoned. And that was the main reason for looking at that as the primary purpose. My
feeling was that I was thought, and I be honest with you, I’m not going to give a yea vote
to -- I can be wrong on, on, on the minutes, Jim, but I think that we talked about Telfair in
light of the fact of some things that we might need, some that did not have an existing
business per se that was in an operative mode. So if I’m hearing in these costs that no
soil samples have been done per se on a, on a, on a, on a expanded basis, if it’s not been
determined that you’ve got mass contamination over there in terms of where this is to be
done and if so, then where are the limits of it, the property that was brought back on that
th
map dealt with Walker to Fenwick on 9, and in discussions that I remember having, was
that we talked about particularly because it was there in light of the new federal
courthouse across the street from the United States Post Office, and that the property
between Telfair and Walker came up as a secondary measure in this Telfair Street
scheme. Now I’m hearing to a point that you’ve got architecture that’s been designed.
Well, the question I ask, Mr. Mayor, is that if you are paying this amount of money and if
the soil has not been deemed as such, what happened to the property on Mr. Williams’
map that he brought in as the primary site, how did it get to be the nothing site or the
second part of his site? I need an answer to that before I, before I can vote personally on,
on expenditure, because I think there has been a fundamental shift, and if it’s property
that’s unusable then we ought to say it’s unusable and the [inaudible], as I said before, I
told them that day, they knew how to put a skyscraper between [inaudible] and squeeze it
in. They are very professional folk. They know how to get things done. Not knocking
their ability on what they do. They are top notch folk. But to a point of what we asked to
look at, if it has not been deemed that that property is unusable, when was a decision
made to basically make the concentration primarily between Walker and Telfair? Now I
need to, and I think if we, we got a whole lot to deal with with minutes, I think we need
to talk about it. But we all know that what Marion brought in, and I’m going to defend
him on it, Marion did not bring in a map that with a concentration for this thing to be
built, was to be built on what we were going to do in terms of primarily knocking down
those businesses over there. It was to be dealt with on run-down, abandoned property,
where you’ve got undesirable things going on and where you needed to have some
vibrant growth to be put into it. And I’d like to get an answer to that from somebody.
57
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mays, I don’t have the plan that they submitted to us. But in
th
their presentation of all five sites, they gave us a layout on the 9 Street, Telfair Street,
crossing Walker Street, taking down all those dilapidated buildings. And I think they
gave us a couple of different scenarios. These were all preliminary because we didn’t
have the surveys done at that point. So you know, the, the site that they will be, that they
are working on is a site that was approved by this Commission. And they had drawings
to indicate where the building was going to be, where the greenspace was going to be,
and where the parking was going to be. So, you know, I don’t, you know, I think where
all this is coming from, because Marion has gotten calls, I’ve gotten calls, we’ve got Mr.
Clements sitting out there at C&C Automotive, he doesn’t want to move, you’ve got
Gold Cross that doesn’t want to move. And you know, we’ve got issues that we’ve got to
deal with. But my comments to him have been this, until we get the surveys and until we
know whether we are going to be able to work out a deal with, with Wachovia on some
property that they have, it’s, that’s what we are going to be done from now through
December, is trying to come up with that. But we’re not proposing anything that this
Commission hadn’t already seen and voted on. That’s all I, that’s the only way I can
answer.
Mr. Mays: And I, and I, and I respect you from that perspective, and I stand to be
corrected. And it won’t be the first time in life that I’ve been wrong on something. But
from the standpoint of what the Commissioner presented as an alternative site to be
primary, what I’m saying is how did it get to the secondary part of that site when that was
brought in as the primary? Because nobody every brought in -- you had to have Telfair
on there, it wasn’t just a map where you drew down between Walker and Fenwick Street.
The [inaudible] where he got it at Mr. Reece’s office or wherever he got it from, it
contained property on both the north and south sides of that square. But the primary part
that was highlighted was the part that was in there that’s abandoned. Now I don’t ever
remember us, and we going to talk about that then it seem to be there should be some
minutes or reflection of discussion in terms of business acquisition and to do all of that
stuff in there, in those numbers, and to deal with it, of an active, ongoing business or
businesses, and one of the reasons I went ahead and voted for that one was because of
primarily the amount of vacant space that we had in there. Now that’s why I cast the vote
for it. And if that was done to a point of where you know, and I said that particular day I
was going to go along to stay with it with downtown as long as y’all stayed reasonable.
Now you know my site lost anyway. Cause you know, y’all know where I am on that. I
was going to build a new May Park and deal with the one y’all got down there next to the
jail. But I lost that deal. That’s water over the dam. But to the point that you know,
what was going to be a win-win situation for people downtown and to be able to have a
first class park, and to move and for y’all to deal with that on law enforcement of what
you already own, what you would not have had to buy, and it’s not necessarily, wouldn’t
be the first time businesses to be located, but to me that was not in the gist of that
discussion of primary. It was still the primary part of that map, was between Fenwick
and Walker, and what I still have not got an answer on is how did that property just
disappear off the radar screen? If that was what was brought in and everybody was
58
saying well, Marion, this is what we are going to consider and we’re going to bring it in
here, now how did that just disappear? Now because we’ve not just made that, that
decision. All along we been [inaudible] just the name [inaudible] because it’s Telfair.
Because I mean, you know, if anybody has been through the hassle of dealing with y’all,
it’s been me. And about what you tear down in order to have to deal with and suing y’all
[inaudible] and counter-suing and then [inaudible]. I be the last one to say I want to deal
with somebody getting put out before I deal with some vacant property. So I’m saying if
you got a choice on either side of the street, how and when did that shift and how did that
just become unavailable? And I still have not gotten a definitive answer to that. I don’t
care what was put up on a screen [inaudible] anywhere. It still was what was brought in
and the primary site was what was vacant, and the question became we could maybe
[inaudible] problem we going to have and I let you bring up about Wachovia a minute
ago. Well, then if that’s the case and if that’s unsettled and we cannot deal with that, then
to me I’m now piggybacking on what Andy has said, it’s become one hell of a cost to a
point that if you still don’t really know where you’re going. Because if all you’re going
to do was to turn around and put those businesses out and deal with Telfair Street and not
going to be able to do anything, with all that other vacant blight back there, we would
look as stupid as a bunch of fools who turn around and put a federal courthouse on one
corner, a city municipal building on the other corner, and then have folk sleeping out
there and [inaudible] and vacant buildings right in the back door of it, unless you going to
build a 50 foot wall to surround it. So I mean that, that’s just crazy. Somehow or
another, I think that has been purposefully lost in the shuffle. I won’t cast a vote for it.
And y’all probably going to pass it anyway the way you passed the other one. But I’m
getting a little leery to a point of what’s been brought in. That was not what was on the
central issue to be done, and if they’ve got that done, and if I’m hearing particularly that
it’s not been environmentally ruled out, then how can you turn around and say that’s what
you’re going to do? Because if you are going to look at that, then you’ve got to look at
the automotive business that you are going to get into in terms of moving it, you have
other businesses that were over there, you [inaudible] Johnson’s for years before it got to
be C&C, so if anything you got all and everything else that’s over in there to a point of
where at least it’s vibrant now. If you are going to talk about what’s environmentally,
what not, may not be sound. So I think, I think y’all, if you [inaudible] Jim, I think you
got to get us to a point of where we wrap that one up and we pay it up, but I think
somewhere in there we need to answer the question of whether or not that property is
unusable and whether it can be used or not and how do we deal with that question. If not,
I think y’all are fixing to lose this Commissioner to another location.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams, Mr. Beard, Mr. Shepard, then Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Several things. Excuse me.
Several things was mentioned. And one of them the fact about a nine story building.
Something else I said, and I said it frequently in this Chamber and out of this Chamber.
You talking about a nine story building. I remember talking to Commissioner Kuhlke
and he said, man, that’s all we need. But I say Bill, in the next eight to ten years we
going to need another nine story building. Let’s build a 26 story building and just
renovate what we need right now and then as we need it, you know, maybe we could go
59
ahead and renovate the next floor [inaudible] all the way up. Most cities build a building
and rent it out to lawyers, and we talked about the people downtown, Steve. But if we
build a nine story building, it’s going to be like this building in another ten years. We
going to need another building. And $74 million to build a [inaudible] story building and
I can’t build, well, I probably do better than Willie building a chicken coop, but I’m not
even good at that. But something is wrong when we talking about building a nine story
building for $74 million. When I brought the, the, the, the land or the map to show where
there was nothing going and just standing there and it could be used, someone did
mention about Telfair Street. And I said then if we needed that, then maybe, you know,
we could do something with that. But we have not even looked at what we’ve got there
already that’s plenty of room. That’s two blocks either way you look at it. Then
somebody, you know, like I say earlier say we can’t do because of the train. But if we
get creative, we can do some things to make this city realize and understand the potential
growth that we have and we ought to be able to start moving in that direction. But I want
to know, like Commissioner Mays -- Jim say he gave the direction, he was a person --
something had to be written down somewhere. In the minute or somewhere. To use
Telfair Street as the basis of where we start and half of that [inaudible]. We did not say
that in this Chamber. We make the decisions. And the buck stop with us. And
somebody ought to have something written down somewhere as to what we’ve done and
what we said and where we going to start at.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. It appears we have two
problems here. You know, one is dealing with the $96,000 that we, from Turner and
Associates, a bill that we are going to have to pay. Whichever way you go. The other
problem is there seem to be a conflict of what was interpreted as what Commissioner
Williams talked about and what they’ve done. And I’m going to say that, I guess what
we should do, and maybe make it in the form a substitute motion, I think, if we have a
motion on the floor, that we need to -- and I have to ask Bill and Jim a question. How far
along have we gone on the site down there as far as the question about Telfair Street or
Walker Street or whatever streets, how far have Turner and Associates been involved in
that? Because we are going to have to make a decision here, whether to you know, go
back and look at the records and see what is what, but we also have the bill here, which
we are going to have to act on and pay anyway. And I’m, I’m going to make a motion in
that regards when I hear where we are, because I understand [inaudible] this morning the
$96,000, that wasn’t including work that they were doing down there on Telfair Street.
Mr. Wall: Well, the $96,000 does include the site analysis, which included the
Telfair Street location and included a relatively small parcel of land that was on the south
side of Walker Street. It did not include any of the Wachovia/First Union property. And
you will recall that I discussed with the, with you in legal session the acquisition of
additional land so that we would ultimately own all of the property that would be located
on the south side of Walker Street, which would include the First Union property, both
north of the canal, south of the canal. There is an issue about a small, triangular piece of
property that’s owned by Sprint. There’s also an issue concerning a small, triangular
60
piece of property that’s owned by the steel company. And I don’t think, I’m not
proposing that you acquire the property that’s owned by the steel company. So the
building that they designed, the building that was presented to you, the site that was
approved by the Commission, showed the property, the building on the north side of
Walker Street and showed parking on the south side of Walker Street. The amendment to
the contract that y’all approved earlier today identifies the project site as being bounded
th
on the north by Telfair Street, on the east by 9 Street, on south, on the south by
th
Fenwick, and on the west by 10 Street, comprising 13.5 acres. So that is all of Telfair,
th
all the property on Telfair with the exception of the buildings that front on 9 Street and
th
it includes all of the Walker, 9, Fenwick Street property. And they have since, since the
site was originally presented, everything has been focused on the property located north
of Walker Street, with the exception of parking on the south side of Walker Street. All
the plans that y’all have seen that have been looked at, that have been approved have all
shown that arrangement. And so, and that’s what the committee has seen and approved.
I mean you asked me where we stand, I mean, I think --
Mr. Beard: You’re saying we have to go back through the whole procedure.
Mr. Wall: I mean, yeah.
Mr. Beard:so I’m
Well, it looks like we’re going to have to get off [inaudible]
going to make a substitute motion that we pay the $96,000 because that’s the bill
that we have here and that we direct -- we have Jim and the Clerk, to go back and
research the minutes to make sure that we are on and bring it back to this body at
the next meeting, where we are and what their records say.
Because I still think
we’ve got two different things here that we are going to have to deal with. And we need
to separate the two. And if that’s necessary, you know, if it’s necessary to go back
through whatever you have to go through, we may have to do that. Or you may be able
to do something different. But unless someone can come up with a better idea, I think
that’s what we are going to have to do at this point. I make that in the form of a
substitute motion if we don’t have one on the floor.
Mr. Shepard: I’ll second it for purposes of discussion, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard.
And I’d appreciate the maker of the substitute
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
motion or the maker of the primary motion entertaining this following amendment,
that we talked earlier in the day about how Finance should approve financial
decisions and how Engineering Services should approve infrastructure decisions,
and I think this is an excellent case to apply the methodology that some of y’all have
suggested, and I would suggest that the amendment to the motion, either one of
them, be that the Clerk and the Attorney and the Administrator furnish that
information to the Finance and Engineering Committees.
We have delegated this to a
very significant committee, which is chaired by Mr. Kuhlke and which Mr. Beard and
Mr. Kuhlke serve, and I think they have done an extraordinary job of moving this project
61
along. It’s a complex project, it’s an expensive project, and it’s a project that’s key to the
continued public safety of this community, which I think is the first responsibility of any
government. So I would that we could have that information in time for committees. We
could then look at it, perhaps it wouldn’t be necessary to come back to this body other
than in a formality. But that device worked extraordinarily well with the renovations to
the Joint Law Enforcement Center. I joked that it got eight votes in committee, and it
did. And I think that way we pay these architects. If there is some question about what
we’ve done up here, we’ll resolve it as quickly as we can, and we’ll refer to the minutes.
And I would hope that one of the makers of the motion would accept that.
Mr. Beard: I’ll accept that.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. That’s all I have. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kuhlke. We have a substitute motion on the floor.
Does anybody need the substitute motion read?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, point of clarification. Are we requesting now that it go
back to the Finance Committee? We’re just --
Mr. Shepard: No, no, we’re just going to -- we’re just going to review the
information at an earlier time and we’ll do it jointly with the Engineering Services
Committee. If we want to clear the air, I say -- we had it coming back to this body next
time for action. I said let’s move it through those two committees and go ahead and get
the information on out to the Commission. If we are having trouble in our project
definition, if we are having trouble with our project location, let’s just do it at the
quickest opportunity in terms of -- it would be almost a work session, as I see it.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Chairman Shepard, I think that the, the motion that I made was
to go ahead and pay the bill. Now the other discussion that came up about location
seemed to be not germane to the original motion that I made. So I did not accept the
substitution on the amendment that you made.
Mr. Beard: That’s why [inaudible], we’re talking about two different things here.
We owe a bill and then we started into location. And I think we’ve got --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The second motion was to go ahead and pay the bill.
Mr. Beard: Correct. And deal with the problem that you have on location. And I
accepted --
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I invited either maker of either motion to
accept my amendment, and the maker of the substitute motion, Mr. Beard, accepted my
amendment.
62
Mr. Kuhlke: Clarification. Your amendment, just for my information, it’s not
holding up moving ahead on anything, it’s just a suggestion of how we proceed in the
future. Is that right?
Mr. Shepard: It’s just an effort to get all of the references that we have made, the
various minutes, diagrams, location, get it on out at the most early opportunity.
Mr. Beard: And I think it also would, you know, give us time to really talk about
this and work it out. Whatever need to be worked out. Whether you going one way or
the other on the second part of this, you know, but it gives somebody, it gives everybody
an opportunity to work this out. And I don’t think we can work it out right now. And it
may be -- but we need to look back and see, since we’ve talked about so many things
here, we need to look back and see what really took place. And you know, maybe we can
deal with [inaudible], but I think we need to know.
Mr. Kuhlke: If I could just make this comment. What I’ll try to do at the next
Engineering Services Committee is to bring back that information to that committee. I
want to follow up on a question Lee had. We have ordered appraisals of the property in
that location. We have ordered environmental studies. And we have ordered appraisals
on all the property over there. So that work on that location is already in the process.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Andy.
Mr. Cheek: I’m not going to muddy the water here today, but when this does
come back to committee, it is my plan to bring forth to the floor a recommendation that
we put a $50 million project cap on this thing to keep it from growing and growing and
growing. Here again, you -- [inaudible] some of our work sessions a paradigm shift in
this city. We continue to put money into things like this while people in Columbia
County and North Augusta, let alone Macon or Columbus, are putting money into qualify
of life things that encourage people to come live in those communities, and then we
wonder why the heck people are moving out. This is consuming, this $74 million, two
full years of sales tax money plus. There needs to be a cap put on it somewhere. We
don’t, you don’t go out and buy a car and say to the salesman how much is it, here’s my
check. You say I’ve got this much money, what can I afford. We haven’t said that on
this project yet. It’s got be done at some point in time and this is one Commissioner that
plans on bringing it to the floor when this comes to committee.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I need some clarification from Mr. Kuhlke, if I can, Mr.
Chairman. He said that some studies was being done on the property. Now the property
that was in question was Telfair Street, and you know, I disagreed with that being part of
the part that was brought. But what properties are being studied, Bill? Just the proposed
thth
area from Telfair Street or the entire area from 9 Street to 11 and from Walker to
Fenwick? What area?
63
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Williams, the property that’s being studied is the property that
was approved by this Commission, and based on the defined areas that were shown in
that presentation by the architects to the Commission, it was approved, and it goes, takes
in part of Telfair, it goes back to Walker, it crosses Walker Street, it takes all those
dilapidated buildings on the south side of Walker Street. I mean that’s the area that
they’re going to be looking at. It takes into consideration the canal. Am I correct, Jim?
Mr. Wall: Correct.
Mr. Kuhlke: The canal. So it’s the area that you’re talking about. I think that
what I need at the Engineering Services is to make a presentation to a committee that
shows the outline of the area that we’re working on. And that’s what I’ll do Tuesday.
Mr. Williams: Okay, I think that helped me a little bit in the clarification as far as
what was being studied. I was wondering was, in addition to [inaudible], everything
should have been studied in there for contamination and whatever. We’ll talk about this
next week. I mean I’ve got several things I could bring out now but I won’t. I’ll wait on
those things. But if we back up just a little bit from Telfair Street, I think we going to
save a great, significant amount of money in building a facility that won’t have to entail
moving businesses and buying other buildings and other properties. If we set that
property on that other area, I think we going to save a great amount of money by, by
doing that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a substitute motion on the floor. Would anybody
like to have the substitute motion read? If not -- yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: I’m going to vote for the substitute motion and I think even the
motion that was made originally would probably [inaudible] closer together on this than
maybe we are apart, but I do think that one thing that needs to be added to the equation in
that if we are going to come back and we are going to discuss something in the
committee, and we going to look at this presentation I think somewhere along the line if
we are paying top dollar, we got professional folk doing it, somewhere in there, to up or
down the property that’s dilapidated and vacant, there needs to be, since we’ve started
procedures to get appraisals on folks’ property where they have active, going businesses,
then we ought to at least have definitive answers on the property that’s vacant. Status of
it. Environmentally. What it will build. What it will hold. Positions of the ownership
that’s current. Willingness to sell. Or what may be [inaudible]. I don’t think we ought
to play this thing on the south side of Walker Street by one set of rules and the north side
of Walker Street by another set of rules. We going to go that far to deal with on one side,
then when it comes to committee, we need to have it on the other side. And I remind the
committee of this. I’m glad [inaudible] cause I’m going to go on the record and say this.
If y’all going to move Telfair Street as a primary part of the map that Commissioner
Williams brought to us, and we still are dealing with sales tax funds, and Jim, you know
where I’m fixing to come from. If we are going to displace active, ongoing businesses, I
am not going to a participant to a point unless you are going to make active, ongoing
businesses whole. I been down that route. Couldn’t raise hell when I was on the cross,
64
The Clerk: We haven’t done that item yet. [inaudible] add-ins to the agenda but
you haven’t addressed it yet.
Mr. Mays: Oh, y’all got me on that, didn’t you? My only point of this conflict --
I just asked for clarification on it. I’m [inaudible] but I’m just looking at the, the
clarification, motion to consider personnel matters after legal session. I know you cannot
make motions in the legal session, but is it not redundant, or am I missing something
that’s going to pass me by that I’m not supposed to deal with. Why are we dealing with
motion to consider personnel matters after legal session, when if you’ve got it under legal
meeting to discuss personnel matters, you can discuss that when you come back to the
floor? [inaudible] have to deal with a decision per se to make, and I just want a
clarification on that. After legal session.
Mr. Wall: It is a space holder. Yes, sir, you’re exactly right, it’s a space holder,
depending on what comes out of legal session.
Mr. Mays: Well, nothing can come out of legal session in the form of a motion
other than what’s inside the legal session, so therefore you don’t have to have a space for
a space holder because you can make a motion on any one of the three items that’s up
there.
Mr. Wall: Well, that’s not been the ruling in the past. It’s always taken
unanimous consent to get something added to the agenda following legal session and we
have been unable to take action and so in the past I have added space holders in exactly
the same language to deal with matters that I anticipate coming out of the legal session.
Mr. Mays: Jim, I must be real old today. I’ve never seen an addendum item after
legal session item on it.
Mr. Wall: I --
Mr. Mays: And I, I, I, I been over here three governments and going on 23 years
and I never seen an after legal session space. And it’s not a big issue but to a point what
I’m saying is does it drive at something that’s supposed to be there? If you discuss it in
legal and it has been advertised and you meet for the purpose of dealing with it being
legal, then you can make a motion on that certain item if it has been discussed in that
legal meeting.
Mr. Wall: It --
Mr. Mays: It does not require, it does not require unanimous consent to make a
motion on that which has been discussed adequately in legal.
Mr. Wall: That’s not been the ruling in the past and that’s not the practice that
we’ve followed. We’ve always put the space holders [inaudible] additions the agenda
66
following every legal session, if there is something to be voted on there has been a
motion to add it to the agenda and to approve it.
Mr. Mays: Maybe it’s just the wording. I just had never seen a after legal session
item. That’s all
Mr. Wall: All right.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] debate that, but if you find me one in the past, y’all show it
to me.
Mr. Wall: Okay.
Mr. Mays: And then I’ll take everybody to dinner cause I don’t think you got one
with a after legal session motion.
Mr. Speaker: Do we get to pick the restaurant?
Mr. Mays: No, you don’t get to [inaudible] and you don’t get to pull the minutes,
either.
Mr. Bridges: I think Lena can answer that question right here.
Mr. Mays: After legal session item? After legal session.
The Clerk: After affidavits, then you’ll see an agenda item after affidavits on the
agenda.
Mr. Mays: But I’m talking about --
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: An addendum. An addendum.
The Clerk: No. No, not an addendum.
Mr. Mays: Okay, that’s right then. That’s what we talking about. We talking
about addendum. So I don’t owe you no meal, Jim.
(Laughter)
Motion carries 10-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
67
56. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Wall: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, we need a motion to approve the open meeting
affidavit.
Mr. Kuhlke: So move.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion on the floor. Second?
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of
voting.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Wall: I would ask that you add and approve moving forward with
leasing three modular offices for the purpose of providing space for Indigent
Defense at an estimated cost of $89,520 for a four-year lease period.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion?
Mr. Mays: Need unanimous consent, don’t we?
Mr. Wall: Need unanimous consent to add.
Mr. Mays: You got it.
(Laughter)
Mr. Wall: I need six votes to approve.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion to approve and add.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of
voting.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 8-0.
68
Mr. Wall: I need a motion to add and approve the settlement of the claim of
Ann Douglas for 511 Scotts Way for a sewer backup for a total amount of
$37,320.12.
Mr. Shepard: I move to add and approve.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in
favor of the motion please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Cheek and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Wall: Next I need a motion to add and to approve settlement of the
claim of Ann Douglas -- I’m sorry, Deborah Arnold arising out of an automobile
accident that occurred on December 6, 2001 for the sum of $150,000.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. All in favor of the motion
-- go ahead.
Mr. Bridges: The source of funding?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Source of funding?
Mr. Wall: The source of funding will be the Sheriff’s office.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. All in favor of the motion, please
signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Cheek and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Wall: Next I would ask that you approve the settlement of -- approve
the retirement of Walter Hornsby effective January 1, 2004 in consideration of the
execution of a release and covenant not to sue to pay the sum of $25,000 on January
1, 2004.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I move to add and approve as stated by
the Attorney.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
69
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. All in favor of the motion,
please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Cheek and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other business to come before this Commission?
Mr. Wall: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, as a matter of personal privilege, I would ask that
you allow me to tell the public what I told you privately, and that is that I will not be
seeking reappointment as City Attorney for 2004, and I’ve enjoyed working with you and
I appreciate the opportunity, and I’ll continue to work with you in the transition and other
projects that may be assigned, and I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you.
[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 October 7, 2003.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
70