HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-21-2003 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
October 21, 2003
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:06 p.m., Tuesday, October
21, 2003, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
Present: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Colclough, Shepard, Beard,
Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena Bonner,
Clerk of Commission.
Mr. Mayor: I guess that means there were judges there? Okay. They participated
along with other community theater organizations from across the state. The Players
performed the riveting drama “Agnes of God.” The conference culminated with a
banquet where the Augusta Players received awards for best play, best director -- Richard
Justice, best actress -- Avery Billians, with a tie for best supporting actress shared by
Sharon Brooks and Emily Hobbs. By receiving the award for best play, the Players will
have the honor of representing the state of Georgia and the city of Augusta in the
Southeastern Theater Conference in Chattanooga, Tennessee, March 3-7 of next year.
And I wanted to get you here so we could add our congratulations to the accolades
you’ve already received.
(A round of applause is given.)
Ms. Ballas: On behalf of the Augusta Players I would just like to say thank you
so much, Mayor Bob Young and members of the Commission, and members of the
community of Augusta. It was an honor to represent our city and we are extremely
honored and proud that we’re able to represent our city and the state of Georgia at the
Southeastern Theater Conference. Thank you so much.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Debi. I guess we’re supposed to tell you to break a leg
now, is that it? Okay. Madame Clerk, we will go ahead and call the meeting to order and
we’ll ask the Rev. George Holcolmbe, the pastor of Cavalry Baptist Church, to please
come forward with the invocation and then if you’ll please remain standing, I’m going to
ask Coach Clint Bryant, if he would, to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
The Invocation was given by Rev. George Holcombe.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Under -- let’s see, we have a resolution of condolence, Madame
Clerk.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
1
Mr. Mayor: We’ll take that up next.
The Clerk:
RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCE:
Honorable Jimmy Rainwater, Mayor
City of Valdosta, Georgia
First Vice President Georgia Municipal Association
The Clerk: Whereas, Mayor Jimmy Rainwater served as the Mayor of Valdosta at
the time of his death and First Vice President of the Georgia Municipal Association,
where he served in several leadership positions in the statewide association which serves
more than 500 cities; and
Whereas, Mayor Rainwater was a long-time friend and colleague of the Augusta
Recreation Department, as well as the Augusta Commission; and
Whereas, the members of the Augusta Commission were deeply saddened and
shocked to learn of the untimely passing of Mayor Rainwaters; and
Whereas, the family, friends and constituents of Mayor Rainwater, who many
remembered as a champion of city, of GMA, and Valdosta, and one who had a zest for
life, which was exemplified through his humor, his energy, and his leadership; may they
always remember and never, ever forget his love and concern for each of them, as he
shall forever live in their hearts; and
Therefore, be it resolved, that it is with our sincere care and concern that we, the
Augusta Commission of Richmond County, Georgia, send these humble words
expressing our heartfelt sympathy; may you find comfort in knowing that others care and
share your loss;
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the family and
st
friends of Mayor Jimmy Rainwater, this 21 day of October, in the year of our Lord
2003.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion for adoption of the resolution?
Mr. Colclough: I move we adopt the resolution.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. And just on a personal note, Mayor Rainwater chaired
the GMA Policy Committee, and we worked very closely with him on the GMA’s
position with respect to water permit trading and inter-basin transfers, and he was most
sympathetic to us, and we appreciated his support on that.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Boyles.
2
Mr. Boyles: Again, on a personal note, I in 1970 had the opportunity to meet
Jimmy Rainwater, and we worked together in recreation services. He worked for the
Lower Georgia Regional Development Commission. It’s changed names now. But we
worked together for a long, long time through Georgia Recreation & Parks. I say the
whole state of Georgia has lost a tremendous individual.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Commissioner. Anybody else want to add anything?
We’ll take a vote then on the motion to approve the resolution. All in favor, please vote
aye.
Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Boyles not voting.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item, the next item is a recognition.
The Clerk:
RECOGNITION:
CONGRATULATIONS! Commissioner Marion Williams was honored during the
October 2003 Annual Fall Policy Conference for completing the nationally
recognized County Commissioners Training Program which is co-sponsored by the
Association of County Commissioners of Georgia (ACCG) and the University of
Georgia’s Carl Vinson Institute of Government. ACCG Executive Director Jerry
Griffin stated “We are proud of all the graduates of the training program, because
each one of them is dedicated to providing the best local leadership possible for their
communities.”
The Clerk: Congratulations, Commissioner Williams.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: We have a request to delete from the agenda the Employee of the
th
Month and reschedule that for the November 5 meeting.
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH AWARD:
September Employee of the Month
Mr. John Stearley
Augusta Regional Airport
[Deleted from the agenda – to be considered at November 5th meeting]
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to doing that? None heard, so that will be
delayed. And then we have some presentations, Madame Clerk.
3
The Clerk: Mr. Heyward Johnson.Mr. Mayor, would you join Mr. Johnson as
[inaudible] accept this recognition?
PRESENTATIONS:
The National Committee for Employer Support for the Guard and Reserve
recognizes the Augusta-Richmond County Commission as a PATRIOTIC
EMPLOYER. (Requested by Mr. Heyward Johnson, Director Augusta Transit)
The Clerk: Patriotic Employer, for contributing to national security and
protecting liberty and freedom, by supporting employee participation in America’s
National Guard and Reserve Forces. To the Augusta Richmond Commission.
Mr. Mayor: I accept this on behalf of all the Commissioners and [inaudible]
employees. Thank you very much.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk:
Mayor’s Reception Committee
Mr. Wayne Hawkins, Chairman
Augusta State University Ladies Golf Team
•
The Clerk: Mr. Hawkins is chairman of the Mayor’s Reception Committee, and
at this time he’d like to offer two recognitions to the Augusta State University’s golf
team. Mr. Hawkins.
Mr. Mayor: Before Mr. Hawkins starts, let me just say that five years ago we
started what we hoped would become a Masters tradition, and that’s the Mayor’s
Reception on Monday night. And the thing has just grown each and every year. And it’s
grown to the point now where it’s become a very successful fund raiser, and I’m glad that
Wayne Hawkins, who is the chairman of the event, is here. He’s going to be making
some presentations on behalf of the committee and the effort that we did.
Mr. Hawkins: Thank you, Bob. Like Mayor Young said, we’ve been having this
for five years now. We started three years ago having a raffle as part of our Mayor’s
Masters Reception, and the ASU Golf Program at the time served as our volunteers for
this raffle. They would come in and stay during the whole event, sell raffle tickets, at the
end of the event we’d draw the raffle tickets and the winners received the prizes that we
had donated. We could not have, you know, been, as successful as we have without the
volunteers, and the ASU Women’s Golf Program has helped us a great deal. And I
would like to present them first with the certificate of appreciation, for your help, and
secondly, a check for $1,000 for the ASU Women’s Golf Program. And we hope that
they will continue to be successful as they have in the past.
(A round of applause is given.)
4
Ms. Speaker: Thank you. I don’t know if some of you know, I’m new to the
Augusta area. Unfortunately, I didn’t really have much to do with this, but we do look
forward to working with the community of Augusta in the future.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk: Now we would like the Augusta Recreation & Parks Youth
Scholarship Foundation, would you please come forward, a representative from the
Augusta Recreation Department?
Mayor’s Reception Committee
Mr. Wayne Hawkins, Chairman
Augusta Recreation and Parks Youth Scholarship Foundation
•
Mr. Hawkins: Another group that we could not put this program, these receptions
on without the help of is Augusta Richmond County Parks & Recreation Department.
Tom Beck is on our committee and they have just provided us with a tremendous amount
of support through the entire five years of this reception, with help and cleanup and like I
say, we couldn’t do it without their help. And when Linda came to us last year and said
that they were starting this Foundation where the kids that could not pay the fees, that the
Rec Department -- was really starting to put a strain on the budget and we all know what
the budgets have been looking like, and they were forming a Foundation for businesses
and community people to put money into that would defray the cost of some of these kids
being able to be in the Rec Department programs. And in order to do that, we are going
to donate $1,000 to the CSRA Foundation, the CSRA Community Foundation, Inc.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Speaker: Wayne and Committee, on behalf of the Recreation & Parks
Department and especially the kids that are deserving of [inaudible], we appreciate the
generous donation to the Recreation & Parks Department.
Ms. Hand: I’d also ask Mr. Boyles to say something on behalf of Richmond
County Recreation & Parks Department. In 1977, I coached the first soccer team that we
ever had. We had 12 players. The Y pulled up with a bus; they were loaded. It had
nothing to do with me, but today we have 400 soccer players, and we have 22 football
teams going on now. This money will be greatly appreciated. I’d also like to say thank
you to Tommy for always being there and supporting us, too. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Boyles: You have the remarks? For 12 years, Ms. Hand was my secretary at
Recreation and we changed her title to administrative assistant. But she always gave me
notes to read, she wouldn’t do it herself, even though she was a much better speaker than
I ever thought of being. But each year, the Recreation Department serves over 325,000
5
of Augusta’s boys and girls in the youth athletic program, with all sports combined. We
want every child to have a chance to play and have fun. In today’s economic situation,
some participants cannot afford the participation fee. Therefore, the scholarship program
was created. Every child is given the opportunity to play, and regardless if they pay or
not, they all get a chance. To the Committee of the Mayor’s Bash, Wayne Hawkins
particularly, I want to say thank you on behalf of the Augusta Recreation & Parks
Department and for the children that they serve. By supporting our program, you have
made a difference to the youth of our community and again, Wayne, we thank you very
much. Mayor Young, thank you very much for creating the idea to help those young
folks.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Hawkins: Just in closing I’d like to say that this was Mayor Young’s idea.
He came up with this idea when he first went into office and we’ve had it for five years
and it’s grown every year. It’s six years coming up, and I’m going to announce right now
that the sixth year Mayor’s Masters Reception is going to be bigger than any of them
we’ve had before, because we have got confirmation that Mr. Arnold Palmer will be our
special guest. It will be Arnold Palmer Day in Augusta. He will be presented with a key
to the city by the Mayor. We are moving the Mayor’s Masters Reception, unfortunately
from the casino, which we’ve just outgrown. There’s too many people to get in that one
building. It will be at the Augusta Golf and Gardens this year, and all I ask is that
everybody pray we don’t have rain. Cause it’s going to be a big event. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Wayne.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: The next delegation we have is from the Friends of the Augusta
Library. Mr. William Cashin, the president, is here to speak. Under the rules of the
Commission, you have five minutes.
DELEGATION: (Five minute time limit per delegation)
Friends of the Augusta Library
Mr. William A. Cashin, President
RE: Augusta Library Appropriations
Mr. Cashin: No problem, Mr. Mayor. Thank you and the Commission for the
chance to speak to you. I know you’re busy, have a lot to consider, so I won’t take much
of your time. One piece of paper. My name is Bill Cashin. I’m a resident of Richmond
County and president of the Friends of the Augusta Library. The Friends, an independent
association, feels that public libraries -- particularly our local libraries -- are a very
important part of our community, providing education, cultural and recreational services
for all our residents. I would like to thank the Commission for the support you’ve shown
during the past year. It is enabled the library to begin bridging the gap which has existed
within our libraries and those of our sister cities. I applaud you for your determination to
6
see our libraries improve and become points of civic pride for all of us. I and all the other
thousand or so members -- all 1,000 aren’t here but a few of them are, raise your hands --
of the Friends hope you will continue your efforts for the library by providing funds
needed, not only to maintain but to expand the many services the library provides. As a
businessman, I appreciate it’s a very difficult financial time. However, I feel that tax
dollars spent for libraries are among the most sound investments for the present and the
future that can be made with public revenue. We also urge the Commission to follow the
current recommendation of the SPLOST Citizens Committee and [inaudible] the
SPLOST referendum to the voters with full funding for a new headquarters library. We
feel Augusta is due for a new building and a great majority of its citizens will support the
funds for such a library. Thank you very much for your time, your attention, and your
service to this city.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you for being with us.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Next we’ll take up the consent agenda. We have an addendum
agenda, and I’ve just conferred with Commissioner Shepard, if we could add item
number 1, if there is no objection to adding that to the agenda, and if we could add that to
the consent agenda. That’s the first item on the addendum agenda. An appointment. Mr.
Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I have three items to forward to the full Commission
from our work session on Friday. Everyone has a copy of those. I won’t go into reading
them, depending on if it gets added or not. But three items requested from Engineering
Services work session.
Mr. Mayor: Did you want to add those to the consent agenda?
Mr. Cheek: No, sir, to the regular agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right, we’ll get to that in just one moment.
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
DELETION FROM THE AGENDA:
Employee of the Month (To be considered at November 5th meeting)
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
1. Reappoint Mr. Bernie Silverstein to the Augusta Aviation Commission.
(Requested by Commissioner Shepard)
2. Discuss budget for Judicial Center expenditure for projects and project cost.
(Requested by Commissioner Cheek)
3. Discuss 2004 Budget Workshop Schedule.
7
[No objections to adding Items 1 and 3 of the Addendum Agenda; Mr. Shepard
objects to adding Item 2 and additional memos from Public Works]
Mr. Mayor: Is there a motion with respect to the consent agenda?
Mr. Shepard: I’d move approval of the consent agenda with the addition if
item number 1 on the additions to the agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, is there a second to that?
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Gentlemen, do you want to pull any items from the consent
agenda?
Mr. Colclough: I just need to pull item 47 for clarity.
Mr. Mayor: Number 47 for Mr. Colclough. Any others?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I need some clarification on a couple of items on the
consent.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Williams, which items are those?
Mr. Williams: 13 is one, 19 and 39 and --
The Clerk: Just a minute.
Mr. Williams: 13.
The Clerk: 13.
Mr. Mayor: 13, 19.
Mr. Williams: 13, 19, 39 and 50.
Mr. Mayor: 39 and 50. Anyone else?
Mr. Colclough: 13 what?
The Clerk: 13, 19 --
Mr. Mayor: 13, 19, 39 and 50. Any other items?
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
8
PLANNING:
1. Z-03-79 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Cheri L. Smith, on behalf of Tom
Ledbetter, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a Family
Day Care Home per Section 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 2041 Greenland Road and
containing 1.14 acres (Tax Map 176 Parcel 30.03) DISTRICT 8
2. Z-03-80 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Michael Gentry, on behalf of
Abundant Life Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of adding
day care services to a church facility per Section 26-1 (A) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at
1920 Tubman Home Road and containing 1.21 acres (Tax Map 71-4 Parcel 118)
DISTRICT 2
3. Z-03-83 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Dennis Caddell, on behalf of
Jefferson Energy Corp. requesting a change of zone from Zone R-1 (One-family
Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located at 1718
Brown Road and containing 1.0 acres. (Tax Map 213 Parcel 13.1) DISTRICT 8
4. Z-03-84 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the overall density of the
development cannot exceed 2.5 units per acre; a petition by Otis Crowell, on behalf
of Homesites Ltd., requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to R-1C
(One-family Residential) affecting property located west of Barton Chapel Road and
south of Belair Road containing approximately 160 acres. (Part of Tax Map 53
Parcel 79.01) DISTRICT 3
5. Z-03-85 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) that a 30 foot
undisturbed, natural buffer be maintained on the property line adjacent to
Hillcreek Subdivision. Ten feet of this buffer may be incorporated into private yards
if protected by deed restrictions; and 2) that the developer agree to pay a pro-rata
share of the cost of a traffic signal if one is needed within 5 years of approval; a
petition by Land South Communities, LLC., on behalf of John Smith, et al,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-1E (One-family
Residential) affecting property located on the north right-of-way line of Amli Way
(Private), 420 feet, more or less, west of the northwest corner of the intersection of
Augusta West Parkway and Amli Way and containing approximately 57 acres. (Tax
Map 40 Parcels 44, 45, 46.1, 46.2, & 46.3) DISTRICT 3
6. Z-03-86 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by H. B. Warren, Jr., on behalf of
Augusta Lodge of Perfection, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A
(Single-family Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property
located at 2553 Washington Road and containing 2.75 acres. (Tax Map 19-2 Parcel
151) DISTRICT 7
7. Z-03-87 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Samuel W. Zabrdac requesting a
9
change of zoning from Zone LI (Light Industry) to Zone B-2 (General Business)
affecting property located at 2174 Gordon Highway and containing .61 acres. (Tax
Map 68 Parcel 24.06) DISTRICT 5
8. Z-03-88 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Mark Wilhelmi, on behalf of
Margaret Mayo Cordle Caughman, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A
(Agriculture) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located at
2554 Tobacco Road and containing 1.4 acres ( out of Tax Map 141 Parcel 4.4)
DISTRICT 4
9. Z-03-89 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) that as long as the
property remains on a septic system the proposed daycare can have no more than 12
children and 4 caretakers; and 2) that the property must hook up to sanitary sewer
as soon as it becomes available; a petition by Paulette Johnson, on behalf of Elijah
Wright, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) with
conditions to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located at 1943
Kissingbower Road and containing .73 acres. (Tax Map 71-3 Parcel 103) DISTRICT
5
10. Z-03-90 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the buffer requirements of
the Augusta-Richmond County Tree Ordinance be followed along the property line
that is adjacent to existing residential properties; a petition by Nordahl
Development Company West, on behalf of Thomas M. Lott, requesting a change of
zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-1E (One-family Residential) affecting
property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Roy Road, 2,000 feet, more or
less, southwest of the southwest corner of the intersection of Wheeler Road and Roy
Road and containing approximately 18.32 acres (Tax Map 30 Parcel 20) DISTRICT
3
11. FINAL PLAT – CAMBRIDGE, SECTION V – S-661 – A request for
concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve
a petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Nordahl & Co., Inc., requesting
final plat for Cambridge Subdivision, Section V. This residential subdivision is
located on Surrey Place, adjacent to Cambridge, Section IV and contains 33 lots.
12. FINAL PLAT – DEVEREUX SUBDIVISION – S-643 – A request for
concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve
a petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Metro Home Sites, LLC,
requesting final plat approval for Devereux subdivision. This residential subdivision
is located on Belair Road, west of Wrightsboro Road and contains 71 lots.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
13. Deleted from the consent agenda.
14. Motion to approve a request by Hee Ra Choi for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with AJN, Inc. d/b/a Ku’s Party Center
located at 1773 Kissingbower Road. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee October 13, 2003)
10
15. Motion to approve a request by Shewangizaw F. Mariam for a retail package
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with E T Food Store located at 503
East Boundary. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee October 13, 2003)
16. Motion to approve bid item #03-128, roof replacement at the Old
Government House, for $22,937 to Thomson Roofing. (Approved by Public Services
Committee October 13, 2003)
17. Motion to approve the transfer of $15,000 from airport contingency fund to
the airport marketing fund. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 13,
2003)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
18. Motion to approve purchase of bomb suit for the Richmond County Sheriff’s
Office in the amount of $17,504.00. (Approved by Public Safety Committee October
13, 2003)
19. Deleted from the consent agenda.
20. Motion to authorize the grant agreement between Augusta 9-1-1 Center and
Public Safety Foundation of America (PSFA) in an amount of $84,861. Approved
by Public Safety Committee October 13, 2003)
21. Motion to approve Resolution reaffirming the necessity of the 911 and the
wireless enhanced 911 charge. (Approved by Public Safety Committee October 13,
2003)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
22. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain
unsafe and uninhabitable properties in the Laney-Walker Neighborhood: 823
D’Antignac Street, 825 D’Antignac Street, 1230 Pine Street, 850 Adams Street, 1237
Tenth Street, (District 1, Super District 9); Bethlehem Neighborhood: 1104
Wrightsboro Road, (District 2, Super District 9); and waive 2nd reading. (Approved
by Administrative Services Committee October 13, 2003)
23. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain
unsafe and uninhabitable properties in the Harrisburg Neighborhood: 1639 St.
Luke Street, (District 1, Super District 9); Turpin Hill Neighborhood: 908 Eighth
Avenue, 912 Eighth Avenue, (District 2, Super District 9); Laney-Walker
Neighborhood: 1138 Twiggs Street, (District 1, Super District 9); and waive 2nd
reading. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee October 13, 2003)
24. Motion to approve Year 2004 Proposed Action Plan for CDBG, ESG and
HOME funds. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee October 13, 2003)
25. Motion to approve a request from the Board of Elections for the purchase of
voting equipment in the amount of $139,730.30. (Approved by Administrative
Services Committee October 13, 2003)
26. Motion to authorize the Public Works & Engineering Department to hire a
Safety Officer at a salary of $35,000 to be funded from the Highway & Street
Administration Budget. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee October
13, 2003)
11
FINANCE:
27. Motion to approve the performance of an audit of the hotel/motel tax.
(Approved by Finance Committee October 13, 2003)
28. Motion to approve recommendations of the Internal Auditor. (Approved by
Finance Committee October 13, 2003)
29. Motion to approve contract for Corporate Communications RFQ #03-056A
to The Alison Group. (Approved by Finance Committee October 13, 2003)
30. Motion to approve refund to Samuel F. Maguire of 2001 taxes paid in error
in the amount of $326.52 on property located at 811 Carriage Court known as Map
33-3, Parcel 197. (Approved by Finance Committee October 13, 2003)
31. Motion to approve refund to Thomas H. & Faye J. Ketch of 2001 taxes paid
in error in the amount of $361.48 on property located at 2397 Travis Pines Drive
known as Map 153, Parcel 169. (Approved by Finance Committee October 13, 2003)
32. Motion to approve the waiver of property taxes on three parcels of land titled
in the name of Richmond County Land Bank Authority and one parcel of land titled
in the name of Augusta, Georgia. (Approved by Finance Committee October 13,
2003)
33. Motion to approve the request from Fleet Management that items identified
at enclosures be declared excess and available for auction. (Approved by Finance
Committee October 13, 2003)
34. Motion to approve the purchase of tickets for the 42nd Annual Conference of
the CSRA Regional Development Center Board of Directors to be held on October
30, 2003. (Approved by Finance Committee October 13, 2003)
35. Motion to approve a request of abatement from Ms. Maggie Shannon
regarding her H2A exemption for the year 2003. (Approved by Finance Committee
October 13, 2003)
36. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Heavy-Duty Service Truck for
$106,248.68 for the Public Works Department – Landfill Division from Mays
International Trucks of Augusta, Georgia. (lowest bid offer on Bids 03-127)
(Approved by Finance Committee October 13, 2003)
37. Motion to deny a request from Cross Creek High School regarding a
donation. (Approved by Finance Committee October 13, 2003)
38. Motion to approve the abatement of 2003 taxes on the following properties:
Map 130, Parcel 466; Map 129, Parcel 18.01; Map 130, Parcel 310.04; Map 130,
Parcel 557.01 and Map 130, Parcel 872. (Approved by Finance Committee October
13, 2003)
39. Deleted from the consent agenda.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
40. Motion to approve a cost estimate for the installation of sewer on Tobacco
Road involving the property of Mr. Joe Newsome subject to cost sharing
agreements. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 13, 2003)
41. Motion to approve the award of a contract to Heery International, in
association with Dukes Edwards Dukes, for Program Management Services for the
Augusta Capital Improvement Plan for building construction and renovation. The
initial contract term is for three years with options for two additional one-year
12
renewals. The initial three-year contract is for a cost not to exceed $4,108,964. The
first one-year option is at a not-to-exceed cost of $1,579,349 and the second
$1,394,041. The total fees are not to exceed $7,082,354. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee October 13, 2003)
42. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering to reject the single bid
received from Alpha Construction Company in the amount of $159,853 for
reconstruction of the fountain at the 8th Street Plaza on Riverwalk, abandon this
project and continue to operate the fountain in its current configuration. (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee October 13, 2003)
43. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 51, Parcel 39,
which is owned by Martice Matthew Scott, Jr., Joan A. Scott Ruff and Jobyna M.
Scott as Co-Executors for the Estate of Mamie Ella Robinson Scott and the Estate of
Lola I. Gabriel, for an easement on the Butler Creek Collector Project, more
particularly described as 11,888.78 square feet, more or less, of permanent easement
and 11,688.97 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 13, 2003)
44. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 51, Parcel 39 and
Tax Map 51, Parcel 99, which is owned by Martice Matthew Scott, Jr., Joan A. Scott
Ruff and Jobyna M. Scott as Co-Executors for the Estate of Mamie Ella Robinson
Scott, for easements on the Butler Creek Collector Project, more particularly
described as 37,582.58 square feet, more or less, of permanent easement and
51,088.24 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement on Tax Map
51, Parcel 31 and 24,173.16 square feet, more or less, of permanent easement and
20,636.45 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement on Tax Map
51, Parcel 99. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 13, 2003)
45. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 138, Parcel
10.04, which is owned by Eugene Wilcox, Jr. and Sarah Wilcox, for an easement on
the Jamestown Sanitary Sewer Project, Phases II and III, more particularly
described as 574 square feet, more or less, of permanent easement and 369 square
feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee October 13, 2003)
46. Motion to approve execution of Georgia Power Company’s Governmental
Encroachment Agreement No. 31053 (Goshen-West Augusta/South Augusta-
Waynesboro-Wadley Transmission Line). (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee October 13, 2003)
47. Deleted from the consent agenda.
48. Motion to approve in conjunction with the construction of the sanitary sewer
extension on Woodlake Road, the Utilities Department requests the following:
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 13, 2003) 1) Approve
concept of constructing the sewer line extension along Woodlake Road and across
Windsor Spring Road in conjunction with the Independent Living Horizons
development. 2) Approve engineering cost of $4,590 to Stevenson & Palmer
Engineers for the design of the Woodlake Road Sewer Extension. 3) Allow the City
Attorney to negotiate an agreement between Independent Living Horizons and
Augusta, Georgia for the construction of the Woodlake Road Sewer Extension. 4)
13
Approve AUD to advertise at the appropriate time for the construction of the
Woodlake Sewer Extension.
49. Motion to approve professional services proposal from Khafra, Inc. in the
amount of $48,800.00 to obtain manhole coordinates and depths for the sanitary
sewer system modeling project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
October 13, 2003)
50. Deleted from the consent agenda.
51. Motion to authorize the Public Works & Engineering Department to hire a
Safety Officer at a salary of $35,000 to be funded from the Highway & Street
Administration Budget. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 13,
2003)
52. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held October 7, 2003. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 13,
2003)
Addendum Item 1. Reappoint Mr. Bernie Silverstein to the Augusta Aviation
Commission. (Requested by Commissioner Shepard)
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve the consent agenda then, minus items
13, 19, 39, 47 and 50. All in favor of that motion, please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Bridges abstains.
Motion carries 9-1. [Item 3]
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-2, 4-12, 14-18, 20-38, 40-46, 48-49, 51-52, Addendum
Item 1]
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Bridges: Can I have the record show that I abstained on item number 3 due to
a conflict of interest?
Mr. Mayor: The record will so note that.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: You want to go ahead and do that? Go ahead.
The Clerk: For those who are here for the planning petitions, these items
were approved by the Commission in their consent agenda:
PLANNING:
1. Z-03-79 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Cheri L. Smith, on behalf of Tom
Ledbetter, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a Family
Day Care Home per Section 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
14
Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 2041 Greenland Road and
containing 1.14 acres (Tax Map 176 Parcel 30.03) DISTRICT 8
2. Z-03-80 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Michael Gentry, on behalf of
Abundant Life Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of adding
day care services to a church facility per Section 26-1 (A) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at
1920 Tubman Home Road and containing 1.21 acres (Tax Map 71-4 Parcel 118)
DISTRICT 2
3. Z-03-83 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Dennis Caddell, on behalf of
Jefferson Energy Corp. requesting a change of zone from Zone R-1 (One-family
Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located at 1718
Brown Road and containing 1.0 acres. (Tax Map 213 Parcel 13.1) DISTRICT 8
4. Z-03-84 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the overall density of the
development cannot exceed 2.5 units per acre; a petition by Otis Crowell, on behalf
of Homesites Ltd., requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to R-1C
(One-family Residential) affecting property located west of Barton Chapel Road and
south of Belair Road containing approximately 160 acres. (Part of Tax Map 53
Parcel 79.01) DISTRICT 3
5. Z-03-85 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) that a 30 foot
undisturbed, natural buffer be maintained on the property line adjacent to
Hillcreek Subdivision. Ten feet of this buffer may be incorporated into private yards
if protected by deed restrictions; and 2) that the developer agree to pay a pro-rata
share of the cost of a traffic signal if one is needed within 5 years of approval; a
petition by Land South Communities, LLC, on behalf of John Smith, et al,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-1E (One-family
Residential) affecting property located on the north right-of-way line of Amli Way
(Private), 420 feet, more or less, west of the northwest corner of the intersection of
Augusta West Parkway and Amli Way and containing approximately 57 acres. (Tax
Map 40 Parcels 44, 45, 46.1, 46.2, & 46.3) DISTRICT 3
6. Z-03-86 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by H. B. Warren, Jr., on behalf of
Augusta Lodge of Perfection, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A
(Single-family Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property
located at 2553 Washington Road and containing 2.75 acres. (Tax Map 19-2 Parcel
151) DISTRICT 7
7. Z-03-87 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Samuel W. Zabrdac requesting a
change of zoning from Zone LI (Light Industry) to Zone B-2 (General Business)
affecting property located at 2174 Gordon Highway and containing .61 acres. (Tax
Map 68 Parcel 24.06) DISTRICT 5
8. Z-03-88 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Mark Wilhelmi, on behalf of
15
Margaret Mayo Cordle Caughman, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A
(Agriculture) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located at
2554 Tobacco Road and containing 1.4 acres ( out of Tax Map 141 Parcel 4.4)
DISTRICT 4
9. Z-03-89 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) that as long as the
property remains on a septic system the proposed daycare can have no more than 12
children and 4 caretakers; and 2) that the property must hook up to sanitary sewer
as soon as it becomes available; a petition by Paulette Johnson, on behalf of Elijah
Wright, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) with
conditions to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located at 1943
Kissingbower Road and containing .73 acres. (Tax Map 71-3 Parcel 103) DISTRICT
5
10. Z-03-90 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the buffer requirements of
the Augusta-Richmond County Tree Ordinance be followed along the property line
that is adjacent to existing residential properties; a petition by Nordahl
Development Company West, on behalf of Thomas M. Lott, requesting a change of
zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-1E (One-family Residential) affecting
property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Roy Road, 2,000 feet, more or
less, southwest of the southwest corner of the intersection of Wheeler Road and Roy
Road and containing approximately 18.32 acres (Tax Map 30 Parcel 20) DISTRICT
3
The Clerk: Are there any objections to those petitions?
Mr. Mayor: None are noted.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: It’s not an objection, but I need to get just a [inaudible] of clarification
on something on item number 5.
Mr. Mayor: Number 5? All right, Mr. Mays, what is that?
Mr. Mays: And I guess Mr. Patty and those can clear this up for me. And if the
developer agrees, I’m not the one to stand in the way of that, but I guess what I’m just
looking at hypothetically. Under part 2 of that, George, it says that the developer agreed
to pay a pro rata share of the cost of a traffic signal if one is needed within five years of
approval. And my only question, I know we’ve, we’ve gone in when there has been
certain massive development in areas and we’ve put in traffic signal going in, but I’m just
trying to find out what was the, the Planning board’s mindset on requiring one say within
five years. And I guess what I’m getting to, if the developer A develops something and
then the traffic increases because you have developers B, C, D and E to come in over a
16
two, three, four year period, then is it fair for that developer to come back and have to
bear the cost of that traffic signal, particularly say if other developers come in and their
projects increase the traffic just as much as his does? I’d feel a little bit more
comfortable if you were making the person put the traffic signal either in now, but to say
five years, I’m just trying to figure out how that works.
Mr. Patty: Normally I would agree with you, but the deal on this one is, it’s Amli
Way, it’s a private road that goes back and basically serves two properties. One is an
apartment complex that’s under construction known as Stonegate, and I think it’s got
200+ units. And it also serves this property which is going to have --- I don’t have my
file on it, but another couple of hundred units. So you’ve got approximately 500 units
going to be built back here, and there’s also one other property that could, could be
attached to this. But that would absolutely be it. So that’s all that’s ever going to be back
there. Where it enters West Wheeler -- I’m sorry, Augusta West Parkway, the current
traffic volumes wouldn’t warrant a signal. But you don’t know what the accident history
is going to be and you’ve got some vertical curvature around where the road is, so in the
future it could be warranted. It would only be because of these three complexes, these
two complexes if it was, and so I -- if you have to signalize that thing, it would be
because of this construction that occurred in these two developments. And I would think
you would want some way of getting them to contribute to that. If you, you know, if it’s
limited to five years then I think it’s a reasonable zoning condition. If it’s open-ended
where the developer could argue that it was increase in traffic on Augusta West Parkway,
then I think you could argue against development impact fee, which is not legal. So I
would recommend you stay with this.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] proposed development would be if it’s warranted, the only
one that can get in down to that particular area, am I hearing that?
Mr. Patty: There are two of them now, two of them right there together. The
other one was already zoned so we didn’t have the right to put a condition on that. This
one needs zoning, they’re agreeable to these conditions. [inaudible] contribute half the
units, so they, you know, they contribute half the cost of the light. And I’m sure that,
what that pro rata share is, to be worked out later if the signal is warranted. It’s probably
not going to be warranted, but if the accident is such that it is then I would think you
would want some sort of agreement on the front end for them to participate.
Mr. Mays: And I agree. I’m just looking at what you got there now. And when
you said a minute ago 500 [inaudible] in that area is a lot to be added. I’m just thinking
as a precaution if you taking it now, then you actually looking forward to having that
much increased traffic going in. Now it won’t be a problem for me in five years cause
I’ll be a has-been in two. But you know, I hope that my successor and other people up
here -- I tell you what else worries me about that. I hope that the way that this is worded,
that if that traffic is of that magnitude, within four to five years, or three years,
particularly -- I can argue about it two years and two months but if it’s needed, I hope we
then won’t put the burden on the folk in that area to say because the developer doesn’t
participate or it’s changed hands or they’ve left town and ownership has gone by three
17
different folk, because you know, you put something in with a lot of these folk who build
something and three years down the road, I mean, we got a whole lot that’s in that area
that’s not even the same ownership any more. And I just [inaudible] traffic conditions
five years down the road on something. If you see where it’s going to be that way and
it’s going to be bad, I prefer it being worked out now rather than what may happen in five
years. But if everybody is in agreement with that, I don’t have a problem with it. But I
just think it sets a shaky precedent because the next one will come in and you need to put
it [inaudible] and you say well, you gave the other fellow five years, to get his act
together in case the traffic [inaudible] come up. And that’s the only problem I got with it.
But if everybody is in agreement with it, those that -- whatever y’all worked out, fine.
But I just see that as something that could come back to bite some folk down the road
when you got a delegation of folk out here with it, three years from now, and you’ve got
traffic everywhere you need a light, and particularly ownership has changed hands. Just
an observance.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, thank you, Mr. Mays. All right, we have a number of
people here for one of the Planning items, item number 53. Madame Clerk, let’s go
ahead with that one.
Mr. Dickerson: Mr. Mayor, do I speak on 5?
Mr. Mayor: We’ve already approved number 5, Mr. Dickerson. It’s already been
approved.
Mr. Dickerson: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We can take up item number 53.
The Clerk:
PLANNING:
53. Z-03-81 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to deny a petition by Patrick and Maryann Fikes requesting a
Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a Family Day Care Home per
Section 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond
County affecting property located at 2720 Dan Street and containing .37 acres. (Tax
Map 13-1 Parcel 42) DISTRICT 7
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. Is the petitioner here today? Okay. Are there any
objectors here? Would you raise your hand, please, so we can get a count. Mr. Wall,
attest to the count, please.
[11 objectors noted]
18
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, you want to give us the background on this, please?
Mr. Patty: It’s in National Hills subdivision. And it’s, you know, a request for a
family day care home which is essentially a baby sitting service. They’re limited to six
children at a time. We had substantial objection. The usual objections. Increase in
traffic, potential noise, appearance of the house changing, the precedent of a business in
the neighborhood, all the usual objections.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke, did you want to speak to this?
Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll let the folks speak first.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll hear from the petitioners.
Mr. Fikes: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we’re requesting that you
approve our request to have this home day care, because we believe that [inaudible]
program is an excellent program. We believe that it can only help the community, not
hurt the community. We do not intend to change the structure in any way. She really
only wants to watch three to four infants or toddlers, but even if we went to the state
maximum, state supervised limit of six, that’s really not going to increase traffic any in
the area to any significant degree. We think the ability to have home day care, quality
home day care available enhances the desirability of the community for newer families
moving in. We do recognized the demographics of that community is changing, as older
families sell their homes to younger families. That’s an ongoing affair. So we ask the
Commission to reconsider the petition. I’d also like to thank the ladies from Lutheran
Services who are here to support us today. Lutheran Services is the state coordinator in
the local area for these home day care programs. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Do the objectors have a spokesperson, any of you like to speak?
Come up to the podium and give us your name and address for the record, please, and
then your presentation.
Mr. Murphy: Rick Murphy and I live at 1120 Oakdale Road, Augusta. And I’m
the president of the neighborhood, the National Hills Neighborhood Association. And we
are opposed to this request. As in the past, we have concerns that this request will set a
precedent and also we’re concerned with the safety issue, as George Patty mentioned just
earlier. Gracious, our neighborhood was built as a residential neighborhood. It’s been a
neighborhood that’s served the Augusta area very well as providing affordable housing,
schools for our young, and we are just concerned that any change in the zoning laws will
increase more business in our area. We are concerned that that change will bring a
decline to our neighborhood, a neighborhood that we have sought to keep in a good
position. We also are concerned with the increased traffic on a major thoroughfare. This
is a pathway to the elementary school. Dan Street leads right around the corner to
Northwood, which is the National Hills Neighborhood Association -- I mean the
neighborhood elementary school. Excuse me, I’m a little nervous. We appreciate your
thoughts on this. It’s not so much that we oppose anything as far as families are
19
concerned. We are opposed to other businesses opening up in the area. We feel like it
will lead to other businesses coming in and a decline in our neighborhood status as is it
right now. And we appreciate your hearing our concerns and ask that you do decline the
request.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to move that we uphold the decision of the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion or questions for the
parties? All in favor of the motion then please vote aye.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: Next item, let’s take up the other Planning item, number 54.
The Clerk:
54. Z-03-82 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to deny a petition by Randy Williams, on behalf of C. Thomas
Huggins, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to
Zone P-1 (Professional) with a Special Exception to retain use as a residence, per
Section 20-2 (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta –Richmond
County affecting property located at 2314 Tubman Home Road and containing .51
acres. (Tax Map 87-3 Parcel 91) DISTRICT 2
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here today? All right. Are there any objectors here
for this item?
[5 objectors]
Ms. Speaker: I also have a petition.
Mr. Mayor: If you’ll submit the petition to the Clerk, please. Mr. Patty, would
you care to give us the background on this item, please?
Mr. Patty: Yeah, this is a request for a P-1 zoning to have a beauty shop on this
property. It’s kind of hard to describe where this is, but it’s the old section of Tubman
Home Road south of, south or east of Highway 25. It’s a, it’s sort of a one-sided street in
there. I hope you can figure out where I’m describing, and the side that the houses are
on, there are about 10 or 12 houses located on that side, and there’s still -- you know, it’s
obvious pride of ownership, they’re all occupied, they’re all in pretty decent shape. The
20
petitioner has bought a house right in the middle of those ten houses, 10 or so houses, and
wants to operate a beauty shop in that area. There are no other businesses in that area,
although across Tubman Home Road, the old Tubman Home Road and then across 56,
which is adjacent to it, there is a triangle there. Across that, you do have light industrial
properties. You’ve got a golf cart business of some sort over there and some other light
industrial businesses, so there are businesses in the area. But this particular string of
houses on the -- I guess that would be the north side of Tubman Home Road -- is intact.
It’s not West Lake, it’s not Wood Lake, but it’s a pretty decent neighborhood. You’ve
got objectors. They don’t want it. I think the plan would support denial and that was I
believe a unanimous decision of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Patty. We’ll hear from the petitioner if there is
anything you’d like to say to the Commission, please go ahead.
Mr. Williams: My name is Randy Williams. I didn’t know -- me and my wife
didn’t realize it was going to stir up this much controversy, so we would like to pull it
without prejudice.
Mr. Mayor: You’d like to withdraw it without prejudice?
Mr. Williams: Yes, withdraw. I’m nervous, too.
Mr. Mayor: I understand. Let me -- do we have a motion?
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Motion from Mr. Kuhlke and a second from Mr. Colclough [sic] to
allow him to withdraw without prejudice. All in favor of the motion then please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: We have a number of people here for item number 56, so we’ll go
ahead and take that item up next.
The Clerk:
56. 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. (No recommendation from Finance
Committee October 13, 2003)
21
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, at the joint meeting of the
Engineering Services and the Finance Committee, we asked you to consider amending
the contract that we have with Republic Parking to manage the parking deck at Fort
Discovery. The reason being is -- well, in your packet there are two proposals, one for
Republic, one from Fort Discovery. We prefer the one from Fort -- from Republic
Parking because we believe that there are some revenue leakage in the parking deck. The
parking deck is only manned by Fort Discovery from 10 to 5, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. daily, and
we believe that a closer monitoring of cars entering and exiting the parking deck will
yield significantly more revenue. The committees considered both proposals and it
resulted in a no recommendation to the Commission. There are representatives here, at
least from Republic Parking. I have not spotted anyone from Fort Discovery.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Edwards is here.
Mr. Kolb: I just noted that someone is here. He snuck up on me. And I’m sure
that both of them would like to defend their proposals.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s hear then from the representative from Republic. Is
he here? Come up and identify yourself please.
Mr. Hoffman: Kurt Hoffman. I’m a regional manager with Republic Parking.
Mr. Mayor: All right, do you want to explain to the Commission, I guess, what
your proposal is?
Mr. Hoffman: Really --
Mr. Mayor: We have a copy of it here. They may have some questions for you.
Mr. Hoffman: I’d really just like to open it up to the Commission for any
questions they may have.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Are there any questions? No questions. All right. Thank you.
Joe is here from Fort Discovery. Joe.
Mr. Edwards: Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Well, the first thing I’d say is I think the
city’s interests are best served and certainly Fort Discovery’s interests are best served by
managing the parking garage. It’s our customers that use the thing. There’s honestly no
other business down there that anyone parks in the facility for. I arrive at the facility
about 6:30 every morning, leave between 5 and 7 o’clock every night and can tell you
that there is no one coming in early before you open the garage, there is no one leaving
with the exception of our employees, after hours, after the parking garage is actually
unmanned. Additionally, I’d like -- if we’re going to spend money, I’d ask that we
22
consider we spend it here within Augusta. Fort Discovery brings in $2 million of federal
money every year. This year $1 million from the state. Generates $1.5 million here
locally and employs 100 people. It is a non-profit. We can certainly use the revenue and
I think by using Fort Discovery, honestly I think we can hedge a risk for the city. I
haven’t seen any, haven’t seen Republic’s proposals, but any estimates above about
$25,000 per year revenue for that facility I think are wildly optimistic. In fact, as we
have seen attendance at the facility go up in double digits for the last 18 months, we’ve
seen attendance within the parking garage actually go down. And the reason is that
Augusta, folks in Augusta abhor paying for parking, and I can’t blame them, I kind of
feel the same way. But also, outside the facility there are 31 spaces in which you can
legally park and park for free, and that’s where people park. Additionally, I counted
them today, there are 62 spaces in the Chronicle parking lot and there are signs there
saying that you’ll be towed but it’s really an empty threat, and so the -- but honestly, I
like it being an empty threat. You know, I don’t want to scare people off from
downtown. Consider that there really are no other businesses that people come into that
area to park. Anyone that goes there comes to Fort Discovery. We like having a human
being down there checking people in rather than a machine that you may see in
Republic’s proposal. We have had a couple of people try to break into cars in the last
couple of year. We were able to keep people that look like they’ve got other intentions
out of the place. And we help maintain the place secure and we help maintain it clean,
from about 7 o’clock in the morning until around 6 at night. It helps the business, it helps
drive revenue, and it helps bring people downtown. Be happy to take any questions.
Mr. Mayor: Joe, I’ve got a couple of questions. Because certainly with the
financial situation we’re in right now, we need to do everything we can to maximize our
assets.
Mr. Edwards: Yes, sir, absolutely.
Mr. Mayor: Get what revenues we can. And the thing that concerns me about
your proposal is that we pay for the employee, and then on top of that we give you 75%
of the money that’s collected.
Mr. Edwards: No, you give us 25%. It should be 25%. 25/75.
Mr. Mayor: We give you 25%. So we pay the expenses --
Mr. Edwards: Anything over --
Mr. Mayor: Plus giving you 25% of the profit.
Mr. Edwards: Over and above the expenses.
Mr. Mayor: Right. Well, what would that number be? Do you know what it’s
estimated to be? Republic has put a financial statement with theirs, but you don’t have
one with yours.
23
Mr. Edwards: Over the last year, you know, the parking garage has essentially
broken even. And like I say, attendance over the past four to five months is up about
50% but the revenue and attendance within the parking garage has actually gone down
and folks just don’t want to pay to park in this area. We would happy to go for any
proposal that allows us to maintain control, any reasonable ideas that allows us to
maintain control of that, because it really behooves us to have that thing managed by
someone other than an absentee landlord. I believe it does. It does for our business, and
it does to keep people safe that are coming through the facility and keep it clean and
looking good.
Mr. Mayor: I said 75/25 because that’s the way it was written in your proposal.
It says any revenue generated from the garage in excess of the personnel expenses would
be shared between the City and the National Science Center in a 75%/25% ratio.
Mr. Edwards: Right. 75% for the City and 25% for Fort Discovery.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any questions? Marion?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, first of all, I been a strong
advocate of trying to do business in this town with local people. Certainly I think that the
present operator could continue to operate it. I have not heard anything about adjusting
or changing or trying to do something a little bit different to see whether or not we can
work together on either hours or pricing or something to give this to Republican [sic]
Parking, and I have no problem with them. The other parking deck I think they done
well. But I think it’s going to be something we need to look at very closely to keep this
where it is. And my reason is, I hear us talking about monies, but there’s a lot of other
areas that we are not addressing that’s affecting this city a lot more than our parking areas
and we going, you know, we going specialize in our parking. We going find where the
leak is in parking, but we got some serious holes and they ain’t leaking, they pouring. So
I still an advocate of working out something with them to let them continue to operate it
[inaudible] time period to see whether or not it’s going to continue to break even or it’s
going lose. I’m going to make a, a, a, substitute --
Mr. Mayor: Well, there is no motion.
Mr. Williams: Okay, I’m going to make a motion then, Mr. Mayor that we retain
the present operator that we’ve got, our present contract and let the Administrator and
any other entity work with them to try to adjust the hours or adjust whatever that’s
necessary to keep somebody downtown on that, that post, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Hankerson: Second the motion.
Mr. Mayor: Second to that motion. Further discussion? Mr. Shepard.
24
Mr. Shepard: Very briefly. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission and Mr.
Administrator, the financial impact of this is shown on our back-up materials as a cost of
$91,000 compared to revenues of $105,000, which means we’re making $14,000 on this
current project?
Mr. Kolb: That is the proposal, that our expenses would be about $91,000. We
would bring in revenues of $105,000. So the difference would go into the “parking fund”
-- (quote/unquote) -- which could be used to offset any debt payments that we have
remaining on the parking deck.
Mr. Shepard: So this is the proposal, that’s the impact of that proposal?
Mr. Kolb: That is correct.
Mr. Shepard: And the impact of the present, I didn’t see that to compare it and
my memory was failing me from the committee meeting.
Mr. Kolb: I would have to ask Republic to give you an estimate of what we’re
receiving now on the Radisson deck, but we are, our revenues are exceeding our expenses
for the first time since the deck opened. And I attribute that to the management of
Republic, and I’m just trying to transfer that to the Fort Discovery deck.
Mr. Shepard: And right now we’re not getting anything out of the Fort Discovery
deck?
Mr. Kolb: Not a penny.
Mr. Shepard: ?? profits?
Mr. Kolb: That is correct.
Mr. Edwards: Well, there are no profits.
Mr. Shepard: I understand.
Mr. Edwards: We’re just keeping the revenues.
Mr. Wall: We’re not obligated to pay the expenses, either.
Mr. Kolb: Correct.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: Whereas we’d be taking on these expenses of [inaudible].
25
Mr. Edwards: You would be, but they’d be much less than $91,000. Be about a
fifth of it.
Mr. Kolb: Unless we extended the hours of the deck, because I still believe that
we are having some revenue leakage between the hours of say 5 p.m. and 10 a.m.
Mr. Edwards: Sir, I disagree with you, but you know, we can certainly try it out,
and if we’re not getting any revenues in, then we can just drop back to something that’s
more cost effective. I mean the way I see it is really, you know, we’re not making any
money off of this thing. But I think we can put together a plan [inaudible] and I’d say
you know, it is a human being, it’s not a [inaudible] machine with a card reader and all
those kinds of things, but it helps keep the facility safe, it’s a whole heck of a lot cheaper,
and if we find that in the future that the revenues are going off the scale with whatever
proposal that we, whatever agreement that we come to, if you want to go with Republic
then, I mean, shoot, I’d be more than happy to see the money coming into the city
coffers, but I’d say let’s try something -- I’d recommend, I’d recommend that you
consider something that hedges some financial risk with this thing, and I think our
proposal hedges a tremendous amount.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I could add to that, too. One thing we got to look at
now, the, the Radisson parking, the visitation of the business that’s done at the Radisson
compared to what’s done at Fort Discovery is off the scale, too. If you going look at
what the Radisson is doing compared to what Fort Discovery is doing, we need to get
another measuring stick. I mean I don’t think we can use that. For months, that parking
area sit there with nobody attending it. I mean so I just think that’s the wrong measuring
stick to use when it comes to the Radisson and what they’re doing compared to what Fort
Discovery is doing and the people that’s coming in there. But I just think a local person,
a person in town would be a lot better to at least try some things and try a different
procedure than to go in and just give the contract out to someone else, depending on what
the Radisson is doing.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, I support the idea of denying the
contract with Republic, because I recall when we discussed the Radisson and I was
convinced, first reluctant about giving the contract out, but I was convinced that parking
was not for a profit. And I supported giving the contract to Republic. But in this
situation, I see that Fort Discovery is a part of us and we are a part of Fort Discovery.
Organizations come and we have to contribute to them or we contribute to them, and they
saying that they need this revenue. And I think that if they’re profiting, they need the
revenue and it’s helping them, that we should continue to let them operate it as in the
past. Because as the gentleman said, they are local. And it’s one of our organizations.
So I think that we should consider that. Republic is doing a good job over at the Radisson
and we just renewed that contract, but here we have Fort Discovery saying we are
depending on this revenue. I hope that the Commissioners would support our local in this
one.
26
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. There is no revenue gain after five o’clock at
Fort Discovery. I wish that the maker of the motion, which I’m in agreement with, would
add a friendly amendment to that, that the Administrator and Fort Discovery -- I think
there can be some enhancement in that area, and I think he stated that he’s willing to
work with us on that, because I think there’s a lot of things that are needed. I’m not quite
sure what your motion was, but if you would agree to that as a friendly amendment, I
would like to see some things worked out between the two and I think it will be good for
Fort Discovery and us.
Mr. Williams: I’ll accept that, Mr. Beard. I was just saying the Administrator
along with whoever else. I didn’t want to put Jim in everything. He’s always in the
midst of whatever is going on, but if the manager from Fort Discovery and the
Administrator, the Deputy Administrator, it doesn’t matter. I just think we need to work
this thing out at home so we can keep it where it is.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Jim, I want to make sure I understand the
motion that’s on the floor. Are you saying that right now we don’t pay for the expenses
but with the present motion we will be paying for the expenses?
Mr. Wall: That’s my understanding of the motion. Correct. Right now they’re
responsible for the expenses and they retain the earnings because it’s pretty well been a
break even situation, and the proposal is that we obligate ourselves to pay the $6.50 per
hour with the potential that we will share in some revenue. But if we don’t, if revenue
doesn’t equal the expenses then we would be obligated.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, clarification. Are we not breaking even now? Is that
what we’re saying? Are we breaking even now, Jim?
Mr. Wall: I’m sorry?
Mr. Williams: Are you saying we’re breaking even now? I mean the money
that’s coming in to the parking deck now, we’re not making but we’re not losing any
money?
Mr. Wall: That’s what he’s indicated. We’re not losing any money because
we’re not obligated to pay any expenses.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
27
Mr. Edwards: We insure the parking garage, we clean it, and we, and we collect
the parking receipts [inaudible] never had a contract with the city. So just in our best
interest to do so. And for the city’s best interest, as well, I think.
Mr. Williams: So how will we be, how will expenses be added to us now, Jim, if
we, if we continue to work with them? And that’s what my motion was, to work out
something with either different hours or something. But --
Mr. Wall: My question, my statement earlier was intended to be a question so
that I understood whether or not we would enter into a contract along the lines of their
proposal, or enter into a contract carrying out what is currently happening, which is, as
we said, they are paying the expenses and they’re retaining the revenue. And so I was
seeking clarification and maybe it didn’t come across that way, because -- the proposal is
that we pay the expense.
Mr. Williams: I’m not going to call my attorney Steven Shepard to the floor right
now, but I think as a smart attorney you will be able to sit down and do what’s in the best
interest of the city and for the, the business we talking to right now, Jim. I leave legal
stuff up to you.
Mr. Wall: Well, what we worked out a number of years ago was the arrangement
that’s in place right now, where they’re retaining the revenue and paying the expenses.
Mr. Edwards: Well, there was no agreement.
Mr. Wall: Well, there was.
Mr. Edwards: The agreement was never signed, by default, to keep the parking
deck safe and clean --
Mr. Wall: But that was the arrangement that was worked out with Fort
Discovery.
Mr. Edwards: Well, no, the arrangement involved a significant amount of
revenue for Fort Discovery from the city actually. I suspect that’s why it was never
signed by the city. It was a pretty sweet deal.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, you wanted to continue?
Mr. Beard: Yes, I think I need to clarify something and maybe Jim can help me.
We don’t have a -- am I understanding, we don’t have a written agreement with them
now?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
28
Mr. Beard: Okay. So I’m going to make a substitute motion that the
Attorney, the Administrator and Fort Discovery get together and work out an
agreeable contract with the city and Fort Discovery and maybe present that to us
and let us accept it.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second, that’s a substitute motion. All right.
Mr. Shepard, did you want to --
Mr. Shepard: I don’t need to see anything. That handled what I needed to handle.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion on the substitute motion? Move ahead with the vote
on it then. All in favor of the substitute motion from Commissioner Beard please vote in
the affirmative.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Now we’ll go back to these items on the consent agenda. The first
item is number 13, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
13. Motion to approve a request by Hee Ra Choi for a retail package Liquor
license to be used in connection with AJN, Inc. d/b/a Kissingbower Liquor Store
located at 1775 Kissingbower Road. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee October 13, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Is Mr. Choi here today?
Mr. Sherman: Mr. Choi, well, Mrs. Choi is not here. Her sister is here and her
attorney is here to represent her. Mr. Choi and her husband both needed to go out of
town.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams, you asked this to be pulled. Did you have a
specific question?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I just needed some clarification, really.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Williams: If I’m not mistaken, Rob, is one that came to us before, that we
turned down for I think another business somewhere else? I mean [inaudible].
29
Mr. Sherman: This was on the agenda October 7 and it was under Mrs. Choi’s
husband’s name at the time. He was the applicant. At the committee meeting, there was
no recommendation. He withdrew the application. The reason there was no
recommendation, he was cited by the state for selling to a minor and he was fined by the
state. The Sheriff’s Department and the License Department recommended that it be
approved. During the committee meeting, there was no action, there was no
recommendation on the applicant. Rather than the uncertainty of him not knowing
whether it would be approved, he withdrew his application. His wife reapplied. His
name is also on the application. She is considered the applicant. It came back to you that
way.
Mr. Williams: Came back through committee as well, with her name as well?
Mr. Sherman: Yes.
Mr. Williams: Okay, I’ve got no problem, Mr. Mayor, I just remembered this one
and I wanted to see what had transpired because it was.
Mr. Sherman: This and number 14.
Mr. Williams: I recommend approval, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve item 13. Discussion? All in favor please vote
aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 19.
The Clerk:
19. Motion to approve the formation of a committee composed of representatives
of the Commission (Boyles & Cheek), the Richmond County Board of Education,
the Sheriff’s and Marshal’s Departments, Code Enforcement, Neighborhood
Alliance Association, Augusta Housing Authority, juvenile authorities to work along
with the Human Relations Commission to address the gang problems in
neighborhoods and within the city. (Approved by Public Safety Committee October
13, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams
: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I could have probably done just a little bit
differently, but we had a meeting on gangs and gang activity at Savannah Place and it’s
Ike Williams,
down here that the Board of Education be a part. But they have an officer,
30
and has been very active and I wanted to make sure that his name was added to this
list in order to help us. He is one of the School Board’s officers who has been very
active. He worked with the Augusta police, I think, back in the year, and even with
the Richmond County Sheriff’s Department. And I just wanted to have his name
added to this list, that he would be a part of this committee that will
-- cause I think
he will bring some valuable information and valuable help to us in this group.
Mr. Mayor: Are you making a motion to approve this with that included?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: I make a motion to approve this with Mr. Ike Williams to be
included with this group.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Boyles: I am in concurrence with Mr. Cheek bringing this up in Public
Safety last Monday, but also got the news [inaudible] clippings from Tuesday morning
and Wednesday morning about a committee that’s already in effect. And I just wanted to
know if we’re not -- be sure -- and I’m honored that Commissioner Shepard asked me to
serve [inaudible] but are we doubling up our efforts or what? Tell me what we’re doing
with it.
Mr. Cheek: Which committee is this?
Mr. Boyles: This is the one that you had brought up in the Public Safety
Committee concerning ridding the city of gangs.
Mr. Cheek: That’s what we’re voting on today.
Mr. Boyles: I’m saying there was a list of people that were already appointed to a
similar committee, and I just want to know are we doing the same thing or are we --
Mr. Cheek: Commissioner, to my knowledge there is no committee that exists in
the city that has the Sheriff’s Department, the Recreation Department, the --
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] meeting at Savannah Place with Rev. Fryer with the
Thumbs Up group who was very active in talking about this, Tommy. I don’t know
whether they formed a, a, a, a committee or anything of that nature. I was at that meeting
on that same night. The School Board was there, a lot of the officers. But Commissioner
31
Cheek had brought this to Public Safety for us to kind of get together and do some things.
So even if we duplicating the effort, I don’t think we can do too much at this point.
Mr. Cheek: This is not designed to duplicate effort. Rather it is designed to bring
about all of the forces, including this neighborhood and other groups in the city to one
body that can collectively work on problems throughout the city. So it’s not a replication
of services. In fact, the committee that we’re seeking to form could perhaps provide
some consolidated effort to resolving problems in this neighborhood and others, whereas
this group may have a solution to a problem that may never get aired in south Richmond
County or west Augusta or wherever other problem [inaudible]. If the city-sponsored
group is able to come up with some solutions, it is the hope of this Commissioner that
those solutions will be shared through this committee to other communities to help them
solve problems.
Mr. Boyles: Okay, well, thank you very much for the explanation. I appreciate it
and I look forward to serving with you.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion then please vote
aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 39.
The Clerk:
39. Motion to approve transfer of $100,000 to the County Attorney’s budget
from the Law Department’s unfilled General Counsel position. (Approved by
Finance Committee October 13, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you asked for this one.
Mr. Williams: Yeah, I wanted a little clarification, Mr. Mayor, from maybe Jim
to tell us what we’re doing with $100,000. I did read the back-up on this. But this is for
what, Jim? I mean --
Mr. Wall: So I get paid.
Mr. Williams: Okay. So you can get paid. This is for your, your salary, though?
This --
Mr. Wall: Well, it’s not a salary, but the hourly rate that’s charged by me and the
other attorneys, as well as some expenses that have been incurred within the operation of
the County Attorney’s portion of the budget. This is broken down into two budgets. You
have the portion that is for the Law Department that includes the expenses for the in-
32
house Law Department. Then you have a separate budget category for the expenses for
the County Attorney, including my time.
Mr. Williams: That’s what got my attention, when it was broken down like it
was, to, to approve it at this time, and that’s why I wanted to ask.
Mr. Wall: So this is moving money from the Law Department effectively over to
the County Attorney’s budget, and the money was put into the, in the Law Department
budget for the General Counsel position, which was never filled, and so that’s moving the
money over.
Mr. Williams: I so move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote in the
affirmative.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 47.
The Clerk:
47. Motion to approve award of construction contract in the amount of
$1,198,587.79 to Tommy L. Griffin Plumbing for the Butler Creek Interceptor
Extension Sewer project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October
13, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Colclough: Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I just need to get some clarification on it.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Colclough: Max, there was only three bids on this item?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: Only three people bid it?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: Did the bids go out to everybody?
33
Mr. Hicks: They did. And we had a pre-bid meeting with all those potentials,
and also there were qualifications that they had to meet. We wanted contractors who had
done large pipe, because this is going to be -- the smallest size is 36” and the biggest is I
think about a 48” and these are the only three bids that we got, but it was an open bid that
went out to the general contractors.
Mr. Colclough: So Tommy Griffin Plumbing has done large pipe?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir. That’s their name. They’re a firm out of Macon, been
around for a long time. They do large and small pipe. I’ve known of them for at least 30
years.
Mr. Colclough: Is this the first time they’ve done work for us?
Mr. Hicks: It’s the first --
Mr. Colclough: In the last five years?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, first time in recent years they’ve done work for us. In the past,
they used to bid regularly, back when the former city was doing work and we were doing
the raw water pumping station expansion and that sort of thing. They used to bid
regularly on city projects. But it’s the first time I’ve seen them in several years.
Mr. Colclough: But everybody did have an opportunity to submit a bid?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: Thank you. That’s allI make a motion that it be approved.
.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? All in favor then please vote aye.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 50.
The Clerk:
50. Motion to approve award of contract to Mabus Bros. Construction
Company, Inc. in the amount of $1,839,258.19 for the Warren Rd. Improvements
Project (Capital Project Number 323-04-296823314) subject to receipt of signed
contracts and proper bonds. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
October 13, 2003)
34
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you asked for this item.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Looking at the bids in the rear, Mr. Mayor,
I’m a little concerned. The amount of difference in the two bids and almost $500,000
difference between this bid and the rest of the bids. Are we coming back next month,
next six months, with a change order to bring this bid back up? I mean this, this, this is
one, this is one of the concerns I have, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is anyone here from Public Works?
Mr. Speaker: On the way.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams, would you like to hold this for a few
minutes?
Mr. Williams: I see Ms. Smith has walked in.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Will you repeat the question for her, please? Ms.
Smith, would you come to the podium, please? Mr. Williams, would you repeat the
question, please?
Mr. Williams: Yes, ma’am, I was asking the question, Ms. Smith, to you, or to
anyone that can answer. I see some $500,000 difference between the low bid and the rest
of the bids. The rest of the bids are about the same, the other three. There is four bids on
here. But can we be assured that in the next two to three months we’re not coming back
with a change order to bring the bids back up to that and -- I mean I’ve got a serious
problem with that much money difference in the bid.
Ms. Smith: What I can say to you, Commissioner, is that we won’t be coming
back to you with a change order to do the same scope of work that is included in the
contract. I cannot say to you that there won’t be changes required or there won’t be
additional work that needs to be done due to, due to some unforeseen problems that come
up in the field. What I can tell you is that for each one of these bids, the actual quantities
of work to be performed is exactly the same in each of these documents.
Mr. Williams: Well, I understand that, but you do understand my concern, when
you got $500,000 difference between -- they got four bidders and one is $500,000
difference and they won the low bid and we’ve got a history of that in this area, so that,
that does concern me.
Ms. Smith: If we add another 200 linear feet of pipe for some reason, then in my
opinion they will be entitled to have the contract, to have the contract revised to pay them
for that additional linear footage of pipe. If we add it. But we will not be coming back to
ask you to give them additional monies for the quantities that are already in the existing
contract document.
35
Mr. Williams: I understand, Ms. Smith, if we make a change, if we add pipe or
add any scope of work, then it should come back, but we are not talking about the city
coming back, we’re talking about the number of change orders that done come through
this city that we have not added to and it was changed. They come back with unforeseen
problems that they say. And unforeseen means just what it says. But people that have
been doing business in this city for 200 years and I don’t mean 200 years but for a long
time, doing this kind of work ought to have a, a idea. If there are other bidders, other
bidders are bidding in -- and I don’t mind a person bidding in, I just hate the fact that they
come back through a low bid and then come back and saying well, you know, we done
run this stuff [inaudible] unforeseen so that’s my concern. My earlier issue is that this is
the same contractor that’s done work for us before. Have we settled, have we gotten
straight with the last contract? We had a bunch of problems. Have we gotten straight
with a contract on them as far as them completion and everything else?
Ms. Smith: We have not had a pre-construction conference with the contractor.
We typically have that meeting with the successful bidder that the contract is awarded to
once the contract is awarded. There are several issues that were raised on the other
contract and we will be attempting to meet with them and to make sure that there
measures put in place to prevent those same types of issues from arising. But we have
not had that meeting with them at this time.
Mr. Williams: So you’re saying if we award this bid, then we’ll sit down and talk
with them?
Ms. Smith: We would have a pre-construction meeting before they go to
construction to make sure that any concerns or issues that we have are addressed with
them.
Mr. Williams: And if those concerns and issues are not addressed, then that
contract would not be awarded?
Ms. Smith: If they’re not able to provide us with some type of quality control
plan or some type of public information plan, and that’s something that we’re requiring,
then we would certainly be able to come back to the Commission and indicate such to
them, such that it would, a recommendation or request could be made to go to the next
low bidder.
Mr. Williams: No, ma’am, I need to talk to Jim Wall because I’m not asking you
-- my question to you is, you said once we approved this plan you would have a pre-
construction conversation with them. My question to you and to Jim now is that has the
obligations been fulfilled in our previous contract with this company? If they have, I can
understand awarding this contract. If they have not, I do not understand. Jim Wall.
Mr. Wall: Well, let me, let me say this. There are several contracts outstanding
with Mabus Brothers, and not all of them are in Public Works. And in fact, there is
currently a matter that there will be a meeting with Mabus tomorrow. Unfortunately, I’m
36
not going to be able to attend, but I’m aware of the dispute, and it does involve a paving
issue, although it’s a Utilities Department project. So there are some issues with Mabus
Brothers, not all of which have been worked out at this point.
Mr. Williams: Well, I guess I’m the only Commissioner that, that [inaudible] not
going to say nothing and --
Mr. Wall: They have not been excluded from bidding at this point.
Ms. Smith: Mr. Mayor, in Engineering Services Committee, we did request that
this particular item not be forwarded to the full Commission for approval until after we
had received the notice to proceed document from the Georgia Department of
Transportation, because this is the project that we will be having our state aid contract on.
We were working some things simultaneously. And we are, have reached the point
where we’re ready to award the contract but we have not received all of the documents
from the Georgia Department of Transportation that gives us a release to award the
contract. So we wanted to make sure if there were any discussions or concerns that need
to happen, that there was an opportunity for that to take place. However, at this time, we
would request that the item be pulled and brought back to full Commission for approval
after we receive the state aid contract giving us notice to proceed, which allows us to
award the contract to the contractor.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead.
Mr. Boyles:
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’m sorry, I didn’t realize you were chairing.
th
This is in the -- I guess the heart of the 7 Commission District and I guess we’ve waited
a long time for this project to take effect. But if the Public Works Director is comfortable
or would be more comfortable of waiting another two weeks to award this contract, then
I’ll make a motion that we pull this from the agenda today and add it two weeks
from today for our meeting on November 5th.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and a second on the floor. Any further
discussion on the item? Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Never mind, Mr. Mayor, it, it, it gets into the area that I’m talking
about, about these agendas period. And y’all have heard that enough and I’m not going
to deal with that today. But you know, it’s a $2 million project and it either needs to be
on here or off here. And you know where I’m coming from with it. I’ve made enough
comments about doing this. It either belongs today or it doesn’t belong today. And that’s
all I’m going to say about it. And I hope it’s the last time that I’m going to say that. And
wherever that falls, whatever mule carries this backpack, I hope it’s the last time. I said
mule today, but you know, but it’s beginning to be a kind of jackass type situation of
37
where we are out here with stuff to a point that either we need to be dealing with them or
we don’t need to be dealing with them. Now I’m going to end it right there.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the
motion please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mayor, I turn it back over to you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Colclough. The next item on the agenda will be item
number 55.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY:
55. Discuss First Friday guidelines. (No recommendation from Public Safety
Committee October 13, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Who is prepared to discuss those? Whose guidelines are they? Does
anybody want to take ownership today and talk about them?
The Clerk: It was forwarded from Public Safety.
Mr. Mayor: I thought we had already approved some guidelines for First Friday.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I can, and Jim might need to clarify something. We
talked about this in committee, about First Friday guidelines. And I had several vendors
and several people talk to me about letting the vendors stay on the street until at least 12
o’clock. After 10 o’clock, First Friday, it’s really a great event and people are starting to
put out, but after 10 o’clock people walk up and down the sidewalk with nothing to do.
The vendors are taking up. I talked to a camera person who was [inaudible] cameras and
out taking pictures and he didn’t want to close down, but the guidelines call him to do
that and he ended up closing down. So it got to committee, we came out of committee
with no recommendation. Had a business person there who was in agreement, that we
ought to not demand them to stay but not demand them to leave at 10 either. If the, if the
vendors are making money, me and the Attorney had a conversation -- I knew it would
get to this floor so I told Jim we wouldn’t discuss it the, we would discuss it one time and
get it over with. But First Friday, if I’m not mistaken, Mr. Wall said do not come under
the umbrella of the Commission. Is that not what you said, Jim?
Mr. Wall: Well, First Friday is an event put on by Main Street.
Mr. Williams: Put on by, but under the umbrella now. Let’s, let’s, let’s, let’s -- if
we do lawyer thing, we going to do today.
38
Mr. Wall: Well, umbrella means a lot of different things. But what --
Mr. Williams: [inaudible]
Mr. Wall: I mean --
Mr. Williams: Under the umbrella, the guidance of this Commission, we make
decision on what goes or not goes or what’s done or what’s not done.
Mr. Wall: Well, the -- we obviously approve the First Friday guidelines. And so
the city has had a role insofar as approving guidelines, making recommendations insofar
as guidelines, etc. But the ultimate responsibility for the event in my opinion rests with
Main Street. Because Main Street is the one who puts in on. They’re the ones that have
the risk of liability. And it’s their function.
Mr. Williams: You know, when we talked about the guidelines and we agreed to
let those guidelines go because we knew there was going to be some things that we
needed to come back and talk about. And I disagreed with some of those things and I
probably disagree with half the things [inaudible] but still that doesn’t change them.
We’ve got businesses that dictates or okays or not okays for other business to come in
and I really feel strongly against that because we ought to have a neutral person who is
not in business down there making decisions about other business. I mean if I’m selling
sport coats, Andy, and you come down and want to sell sports coats, I’m not going to let
you sit in the same area or in -- I mean that’s human nature. But those are one of the
things that caught my attention, along with the people wanting the vendors to be down
there. And the vendors wanted to be down there.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, if I could interrupt you just one second. You said that
they have to leave by 10 o’clock?
Mr. Williams: Right.
Mr. Mayor: I don’t see that in the guidelines anywhere.
Mr. Williams: Well, then you may -- I think Chris probably could address that,
Mr. Mayor, that’s one of the things that been put out and the vendors are leaving.
Mr. Mayor: It just says that Main Street will be responsible or liable until 10
o’clock. But it doesn’t say that anybody’s got to close their activity and leave. It doesn’t
say that anywhere in here.
Mr. Williams: Well, I understand that, but if Chris would just chime in for a
minute and, and, and I can get some vendors to come in here to tell you what they was
told. And that’s where the problem comes in, Mr. Mayor, we, we’ve got different
information out there. And I think Main Street has done a good job and I think First
39
Friday is something that is going to really continue to grow. But we can’t stifle the
people by saying at 10 o’clock you’ve got to take up your, your, your vending machines
and whatever. Mr. Wall told me on last week, and I was really concerned, if, if it doesn’t
come under the umbrella or doesn’t come under the guidelines of the Commission, any
business person can buy themselves a license, open up shop downtown, as long as they
meet the guidelines of the city, and Main Street or Broad Street or no other street can say
anything about it, as long as they within the law. We’ve got businesses who has got
peddler’s license, who has paid Main Street, and still can’t set up downtown. On First
Friday. But if they meet the guidelines of the law and they’ve got a peddler’s license --
we had one young man that came in here who has got a hot dog stand. Jim, we gave him
thth
the right to travel from Walton Way to Reynolds Street and from 13 to 5, I believe it
was. And he’s got that right. He’s on the sidewalks, I mean he’s not in the way, he is not
causing a problem. I just name him because he is a legal businessman. So if anybody
else that want to go into business and buy their license from the city of Augusta and set
up on First Friday or first Thursday or last Monday, they will have the right to, to do that.
And it doesn’t come under the umbrella of, of, of, of Main Street. Is that right or not,
Jim?
Mr. Wall: I agree with that.
Mr. Williams: Okay, well, and, and, and that’s what I said, so if a business
person, whether it be a, a, a vendor, anybody who meets the guidelines of the city, by
them a license, got, meet the guidelines, can set up downtown and you don’t have, you
don’t have to leave at 10 o’clock. Cause I got people crying to me about leaving at 10
o’clock because that’s what they was told. And people are doing that because they want
to obey the law.
Mr. Wall: As long as they, as long as they have a peddler’s license and they’ve
got the necessary permits, then we cannot exclude them or tell them what hours they can
be open on First Friday or any other night, you’re correct. But First Friday is responsible
for this event, and the idea behind the guidelines was you are going to give them control
over the event, set up guidelines so that they’ve got control of the area. And if you want
to have one set playing by one rules, which is the city rules that falls outside of Main
Street’s responsibility, then you can do that. I’m not sure that that’s the way to operate.
Mr. Williams: I, I, I agree, Jim. I agree and I don’t want to do that. My other
point, and I’m going to let the Mayor take over or somebody else can speak on it, was
that police protection -- we talked about Main Street was paying for police protection.
And after 10 o’clock it wouldn’t be responsible and people would sort of like be on their
own if something happened downtown. If something in this city is going on, whether it
be a, a, a business person with a license, with the permits to operate, then the city of
Augusta is still the governing body for law enforcement for them. Is that right or not?
Mr. Wall: No, the Sheriff is the one responsible for law enforcement. Not the
city.
40
Mr. Williams: Okay. Well.
Mr. Wall: We provide the budget for them.
Mr. Williams: See, you going to be a lawyer again. I need Steve right now. You
want to twist the words. Jim, the city of Augusta, when you talk about the city of
Augusta, when we talk about the garbage we talking about city of Augusta. We talking
about the Sheriff, we still talking about the city of Augusta. So the Sheriff’s Department,
who is elected official who we govern his budget, is the, the deciding factor about police
protection in this town. We don’t have a -- we can’t have individual police officers from
somewhere else coming in here patrolling, and I mean he’s the governing authority when
it comes to law. He’s to protect the rights and the property all citizens, all people in
Augusta at the time they are in Augusta.
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Williams: Okay. That was easy, that was easy.
Mr. Mayor: Let me ask this then. If, if Main Street is charging $25 each First
Friday to set up on the street, that’s $300 a year if you went down there each month.
Now if you went and bought a peddler’s licensing that might cost you $100 and you
could use that all 365 days. So it would be cheaper and to the advantage of somebody
who wanted to sell on the street to get a peddler’s license than to pay the Main Street fees
every month to go down there.
Mr. Wall: That’s true. But you’ve got First Friday who is trying to regulate the
event, is trying to pay for the extra law enforcement, who is trying to host an event. And,
and I think it was reasonable for them to charge that to have control over where the
merchants are going to set up, to afford the people who are coming down there to the
event, and so that was the rationale behind it, and I think it’s a reasonable rule. If you’re
going to open it up where anybody can go out and buy a peddler’s license and come up
and try to take priority over where First Friday is trying to set it up, you’ve got two
conflicting situations, and I think it’s going to make First Friday more difficult to operate
because y’all are trying to set rules for vendors, they’re trying to set rules for vendors,
they’re the ones responsible for it. I’ve been trying to keep the city out of it from a
liability standpoint and the more we inject ourselves in the process, the more likely we’re
going to be the target of a lawsuit, in the event something does happen.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, you wanted to say something.
Mr. Cheek: I’m going to yield to Mr. Shepard, he was up before me.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. Well, what we’re saying here is vendors
would not be bound by the hours of operation. You know, there are guidelines, like the
child support guidelines that are darn near law, and other guidelines that are advisory.
These are just advisory, Jim? The vendors?
41
Mr. Wall: The guidelines? Yes, I mean, they’re the guidelines that First Friday
has insofar as the vendors that they permit and allow to come in and set up. Now if -- we
currently have at least one street vendor, peddler, who has a hot dog stand, and if he
wants to sell hot dogs down there at 2 o’clock in the morning, he can do it. And, and
nothing to prohibit it. But you know, that’s sort of an isolated situation. You start having
20 vendors down there promoting people buying vendor’s license and coming in, and,
and not having to respond to First Friday’s rules about where they can set up, not having
to check with First Friday about where they can set up, you are making it difficult for
First Friday to operate, and that’s not to say that they can’t do it, but at some point I’m
afraid that you are going to have the merchants in the First Friday who’s sponsoring the
event kind of throw up their hands and say you know, if y’all want to run it, run it, and
we’ll let y’all have it. And send a Recreation Department down there to head it up or
whoever. But we’re getting volunteer work out of a lot of merchants and everyone down
there, and I think that these requirements are reasonable. But if somebody wants to get a
peddler’s permit and hopefully they’ll cooperate with First Friday. If they don’t
cooperate with First Friday, I guess they’ll be back down here asking for some further
control.
Mr. Shepard: So Jim, we’ve delegated some authority to this group.
Mr. Wall: We’ve said it’s their function. That they are allowed, Main Street is
allowed to host the First Friday event down there. It’s their event, they are responsible
for it, they make the rules, they enforce the rules.
Mr. Shepard: But some of it, it seems to me, some of the rules that we have in our
existing ordinance may supersede their, their rules.
Mr. Wall: There is no question but what, you could have a peddler’s permit and
you could have a peddler going down there. However, I mean the idea is that First Friday
was to operate as, as an event, you appointed a committee because there was concern that
you know, you needed to have someone independent looking over it. That committee is
there. And how many layers are we going to have looking at this event?
Mr. Shepard: That’s all I have, Mr. Mayor. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, thank you. I think from the get-go we all recognized that
this is a work in progress. The Main Street and the First Friday program provides the
city’s monthly event at no cost to the taxpayer, the additional security is paid for by the
people downtown, they have parameters that they operate the event under till 10. If
vendors want to check in with the First Friday program and conform to that event, and
then stay beyond 10, I don’t have a problem with it. But the bottom line is, these, these
folks have gone out on their own and as has been said, volunteered their time and labor to
create a very nice destination event for this region. We need to support them in those
42
efforts. We need to adjust whatever rules and regulations there are. But we started this
thing to work as partners with Main Street, to have the information brought to us that
would help us better decide how to develop our ordinances that affect the downtown area.
Downtown is making a very concerted effort to become self-sustaining, to provide
quality entertainment and food services and so forth, without being dependent upon this
government. We need to trust First Friday’s program and Main Street to operate this
event. We need to use the guidelines that are in place, trusting in their I guess faithful
operations and of holding those guidelines, but the bottom line is we don’t need to be in
to everybody’s event, telling them how to run it. This is the same as Arts in the Heart or
the Garden City Music Festival, as far as First Friday blocked out on the calendar as an
event. We need to let the people that are coordinating it and have brought order to the
process with our help, run the event, and then make adjustments based on the business
needs and interests and the development of the downtown Augusta area, which will come
back through Main Street to us. That’s the process that’s been established. It works very
well. Again, I don’t have a problem with somebody staying there past 10, but the
liability falls on them if they stay past 10, not on Main Street Augusta, not on the city of
Augusta. Mr. Mayor, that concludes my comments. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: If I recall, I think it was here on the Public Safety Committee
[inaudible] agreed in essence that everybody agreed this was a good thing and I don’t
think that anyone want to impede the progress that is going on on First Friday. And I
thought we had asked Chris to present to his body and that’s why we have this group of
the --
Mr. Naylor: Downtown Advisory Panel.
Mr. Beard: Downtown Advisory board. And present the problem that was
bothering some of the Commissioners, Commissioners at the committee meeting. And I
thought he was going to bring something back and he may have it, but I don’t think
we’ve allowed him to speak yet. But I thought that was the general idea, and maybe I’m
a little confused on all of this. But I think that’s why we have the board, so that they can
communicate between the two bodies and, and, and if things aren’t where we think they
are, we can pass this back to them and I thought that’s what we did in the committee.
Am I off on that, Chris?
Mr. Naylor: I may have misunderstood. I, while we were at the committee
meeting, thought that it was not to go back to the DAP but it was going to come directly
to the Commission, so I did not pull them together. I will be more than happy to do that.
Mr. Beard: Well, I’m going to make a motion, then, so we can get off of this, that
you present it to the Advisory Board, because that’s, those are the stakeholders in all of
this.
Mr. Naylor: Absolutely.
43
Mr. Beard: That’s what we did. I remember when we started [inaudible] going to
have representation from all areas. And that board is supposed to be comprised of all, all
the people.
Mr. Naylor: Correct.
Mr. Beard: So what I’m going to do is I think you should present the
concerns of this Commission to your board and then let them know our concerns
and then bring it back, and if we’re in conflict again, let’s, let’s deal with it.
Mr. Naylor: I’ll do that.
Mr. Beard: That’s in the form of a motion.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I seea business owner, Brad Owens. I want Brad to
come and I’m not the only one out in left field here. I’m not trying to shut down First
Friday or to even get a division between the general public and First Friday. But like you
say, it’s not written, but that’s what the word is, that people have to leave because they
wouldn’t be under the protection, and I don’t know what protection that is because we,
we don’t have anything but our local Sheriff’s Department, [inaudible] protection of First
Friday if they stayed. And people starting to leave. And it’s a growing event. People
wants something to do in Augusta, and if you tell them to leave at 10 o’clock, some of
those are leaving and some of those may go to another location. And I’m not saying that
they got to stay. You [inaudible] demand them to stay. But I want to hear from Brad
Owens, who is a business owner downtown.
Mr. Owens: Thank you, Mr. Williams. There are no vendors on the Downtown
Advisory Panel that take place in First Friday, so that’s, you know, not everyone is
equally represented. But when Main Street brought, I was not here, and Chris knows I
would have been right in the middle of this had I been here, not overseas when this was
brought down. And I’ve been fighting these guidelines for quite some time because I
disagree fundamentally with why they were being put in place. I thought that First Friday
needed some more organization and not regulations. So therefore these types of
guidelines brought to you [inaudible] what I consider overkill. I never supported
bringing it to you all and getting you involved because I agree with Mr. Wall that this
was a downtown event, that we did not need the city basically coming in and either
inadvertently causing problems or putting guidelines that would hurt downtown. But you
know, I’m down there every Friday at my shop. And there’s vendors -- the hot dog guy,
he’s down there every day of the week. He’s down there every Friday. And so you
44
know, the idea on having vendors on First Friday was to get people who don’t normally
come downtown to set up to bring things downtown that would get more people to come
down and visit downtown. The idea is more people downtown would bring more dollars
downtown. And it was working and we had a, like I said, an economic engine. I mean
this First Friday even was just pushing downtown’s recovery. And because of an
unfortunate incident we had a year ago in October, which by the way some of us saw it
coming because there had been a big deal made about alcohol consumption, no alcohol
consumption, and then no additional police were added. My problem I have with the
vendors is, vendors fees, is this. Vendors are charged $25. There are told to set up by 5
and break down by 10; right, Chris?
Mr. Naylor: Correct.
Mr. Owens: Okay. But the police stay until 2 a.m.; correct?
Mr. Naylor: That’s correct.
Mr. Owens: Okay. So you’re asking vendors to pay for additional police
protection for four hours past when they’re there. Who benefits from that? The bars and
restaurants that stay open after that. And they’re not asked to ante up. So you’re hurting
the vendors, which bring business downtown, and you’re giving benefits to other people
that don’t pay into it. So what I’m saying is, if they’re paying for police protection
through 2 a.m., why put a restriction on it? Let the market decide. If a vendor’s making
money, why shouldn’t he be able to stay open? We should encourage people, business to
come downtown and not discourage it. And that’s the thing I just, you know, every time
there’s something in the newspaper about First Friday, it’s always a deterrent to people
coming downtown. It’s a deterrent to economic growth. And I just wish that you would
at least modify. If you go to charge vendors’ fees, which I don’t think is necessarily fair,
but if you’re going to charge vendors’ fees, then let them stay as long as the police that
they’re paying to stay there and protect them. And also, like I said, let the market decide.
I mean it’s, help us encourage business to come back downtown and not discourage it.
And there’s other guidelines that need to be addressed, too. I thought when this was
passed that it was going to be a work in process, that it was not going to be something
that was set. So either the city -- I thought Main Street is a government entity. Is Main
Street not a government entity? Okay, well, then, I can’t understand why Main Street
brings guidelines to you and then asks you not to enforce them. I don’t know. I just --
let the vendors stay as long as they’re making money and encourage economic
development. That’s all I’m saying.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion on the motion? All in favor of the substitute
[sic] motion, please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, could we have the motion reread, please?
Mr. Beard: The motion was that --
45
Mr. Mayor: The substitute [sic] motion from Mr. Beard.
The Clerk: From Mr. Beard, that Chris Naylor communicate Commission
concerns to the Downtown Advisory Panel and report back to the Commission.
Mr. Williams: What’s the original motion, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Beard: There was no original motion.
The Clerk: There wasn’t a motion.
Mr. Beard: I don’t think there was. This was the first motion in reference to that.
The Clerk: First motion.
Mr. Beard: If I said substitute, I’m in error. But my motion was, people, that you
set up, we set up an advisory board down there, and I think what -- Brad, I don’t have any
disagreement with what you are saying basically, but I think we should follow the rules
and let it go through the committee, and if we have strong objections to that, then -- I just
can’t see us saying that, making a motion up here that we’re going to allow people to stay
down there, [inaudible] Commission, you stay down there until 2 o’clock. You may be
able to do that, and this is not for conversation, I’m going to call for the question when I
finish.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Beard: What we need is, is an agreement -- be in agreement, that’s all I’m
asking, that we set up an advisory board, either we tell them they need to look at this. If
any vendors, and I hope Chris will notify the vendors, to come to meetings and express
their opinion to the Advisory Board, Committee. And that’s all I’m saying, Mr. Mayor,
and I call for the question.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Williams: Clarification on the motion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: What is your question?
Mr. Williams: That the guidelines does not call for a time for vendors to take, to
take down. So if that’s not one of the guidelines verbally we been going around lying to
folks downtown. So if that’s in there, then people need to know there is no guidelines or
no time limit for them to [inaudible], and I agree with Mr. Beard, that’s what’s in there.
Mr. Mayor: All right, let’s move ahead with the vote on the motion. He’s called
the question.
46
Mr. Williams: Is that what the, the, the, the guidelines say?
Mr. Mayor: The guidelines are in the backup, and they are written, written very
clearly.
Mr. Williams: And they say there is no time for vendors to tear down.
Mr. Mayor: It does not address the tear down time at all, it’s not mentioned.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, all in favor of the motion from Mr. Beard, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is item 57 and 58, which are identical items, so.
The Clerk:
FINANCE:
57. Approve the Augusta Traffic Calming Program and $12,000 from General
Fund Contingency to allow the Public Works and Engineering Department to
initiate the program in 2003. (No recommendation from Finance Committee
October 13, 2003)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
58. Approve the Augusta Traffic Calming Program and $12,000 from General
Fund Contingency to allow the Public Works and Engineering Department to
initiate the program in 2003. (No recommendation from Engineering Services
Committee October 13, 2003)
Mr. Bridges: I move for approval.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I, I think the program is a real good
program, the traffic calming, but I think the timing right now is, it’s not the proper time
for us to pull from Contingency to start any new program. I don’t think that this
Commission should approve [inaudible] any new program because we have budget
session on, starting this week, and we have to look and see whether we are going to have
that kind of finance, or it’s talking about the $12,000. It’s going to take $100,000 to
operate the program in various communities. I also thing that neighborhood associations
should be educated on what this traffic calming program is all about, because of the fact
that it asks that a certain amount of constituents or residents, citizens meet to, first to
47
evaluate -- there is a cost of the first evaluation. 15 people in a community can meet, and
that’s the cost of that evaluation then. After that, a great number meets to approve that.
And then after, if it’s approved, then it’s, it’s paid for just like our lighting district. It’s
another fee, it’s another tax increase. And they need to really understand that because
when a certain group of people implement this, it’s going to affect the whole entire
subdivision or area. So I think that at this time, it’s very good. We have problems in our
community of speeding and we need better traffic control. We know we are going to
have to address the law enforcement. Every year we have to increase law enforcement
for more protection from the Sheriff’s Department. But I think right now the Sheriff’s
Department, we’ve already, we have placed funds there and I think a call to the Sheriff’s
Department to beef up some traffic in these communities will take care of that right now.
But we need to just wait until after the budget session or work on this during the budget
session to see whether we have those funds, so I object of going into Contingency at this
time. Do we already have a motion?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: No, there’s not -- oh, a motion to approve.
Mr. Hankerson: I’d like to make a substitute motion to deny this.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second to deny. Before we get to any of the
other Commissioners, let me just ask a question of clarification. In looking at the back-
up, it says on page, page 2 of the backup, an additional $100,000 new program request in
’04 budget to fund city responsibilities. So if you spent the $12,000 now, you’d still have
another $100,000 to spend next year. If the $100,000 for next year is not approved in the
budget that we’re considering, then we don’t get much for our $12,000 that we’ve spent
this year. Is that correct?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you. All right, Mr. Boyles had his hand up and then
Mr. Mays. We’ll just go down the line here.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, great minds must think alike, because that was exactly
the same question that I had.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you for asking it.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further?
Mr. Boyles: No, sir.
48
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: That was the sentiment for denial, Mr. Mayor, on the Engineering
Services side of it. Three of us were present. It was a 2-1 vote. And I think it’s a good
program that’s been proposed but my exact question came up on that day to a point that
word-for-word what you just said. If you’re going to do it, then I think the proper time to
do it, not that it’s not a good program, is just the fact that it needs to go through the
process and be fully funded. I also made some additional suggestions along with this,
because they said they needed to get people informed. Well, we are having hearings right
now in communities throughout this city on proposals for sales tax. I even suggested
well, announce and piggy-back on the sales tax hearings and bring people out from that
particular department to get citizens’ input on those particular nights as to how that would
be done. The second thing is, and to further go into the maker of the substitute motion’s
suggestion, is the fact that you’re talking about neighborhood assessment. I think that
needs to be studied very carefully. It did not say a percentage of a neighborhood. It said
15 people. Well, 15 people for instance in Richard Colclough’s neighborhood of
Pepperidge, one of the largest subdivisions in this county, if not the largest, to a point that
you could get the first 15 people and them make a decision and then all of a sudden
everybody is assessed. While it may be a good program, but then everybody needs to
have some input on it. So I think if you use the process right now that’s in place of
ongoing meetings which are taking place, that people can come out to and staff can do
basically for free because most of them have got to be there already to deal with sales tax
projects. Secondly, if you’re going to talk about assessments coming on, it’s not a good
PR to deal with that when you are getting in the middle of budget, when you’re talking
about sending out tax bills, as the same time that you’re talking about dealing with
whether or not you’re going to pass a SPLOST referendum. When you deal with
assessment, that’s interpreted to a point that you’re asking me to pay something. If
you’re going to sell the program, do the educational side of it, as the maker of the
substitute motion has said. You have a neighborhood alliance, the largest one in America
of organized neighborhood associations, take that program there, sell it to them, since
you’re basically talking about organized neighborhoods in suburban portions of this
community. Deal with it there. And I think then you’ll get support for a good program.
Rather than getting it shot down while it’s still inside the stall. Good program. Terrible
timing. I think we need to put it on hold. $12,000 is not a lot of money, but to a point of
getting this killed before it even gets anywhere, I think put it back and then bring it back
at the right time and get your money in place before you do it.
Mr. Mayor: Come down the other side here. Mr. Shepard and Mr. Beard.
Mr. Shepard: They had their hands up first.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, we’ve been working on this program for three years.
This is something that did come from members of the alliance, that did come from
neighborhoods across Augusta. Based on the Sheriff’s statistics for police coverage on a
given shift, there is one deputy per 7.5 miles. We pull them to put them in every
49
neighborhood, how many other streets and neighborhoods go unpatrolled for speeding?
This is employed in many other cities across America. Traffic calming is something that
we’ve enjoyed. Going to Savannah, going over to the convention center, some of the
[inaudible] in the roads, you go to Springlakes, you see it there. This has been well
thought out. It was presented. The worst thing a government can do is come in the first
of a year and throw a wad of money onto the top of a program without some preparatory
steps to take place. Education costs money. If you look at ¾ of your tax bill, that is
going to education. In order to educate, to go out and do the studies, to look at the
appropriate areas to do the pilot program, we need to begin the program now. This is
something the people have been asking for for years. This isn’t something that came up
in the last few months or is the result of a couple of questions. This is something that
Public Works and Engineering Services has been working on at the request of
neighborhoods across the city. Gentlemen, let me remind you, and a wise man gave me
this statistic, that you go out and you go to your tax bill for $1,000, home, factor out the
¾ that goes to the school board, divide that by 12, and you’re -- for police, fire,
recreation, libraries and everything else, is less than basic monthly cable service. Let’s
put things into perspective. The neighbors and the people of this city are the ones asking
for traffic calming. A stop sign or cop on every corner is not the solution. Passive
means, a mixture of which are appropriate for each geographic area, each neighborhood,
is what we’re trying to develop here. The worst thing we can do is throw $100,000 out
and say go do. The best thing we can do is ramp the program up and look at improving
and maintaining the quality of life in neighborhoods and what’s at stake here is people
being able to walk through neighborhood streets in the evenings. What’s at stake here is
kids being able to walk to school safely. What we’re doing here is addressing a problem
with a very thoughtful study presented by our Public Words Department. So let’s put it
off, the timing’s not right. The timing is never right for new programs. The timing’s
never right. Is this something that we’re going to do, we’re going to take a step to try to
preserve, and this is what I’m hearing from neighborhoods all over the city, preserve their
ability to walk at night, preserve their ability of their kids to walk to school or play in
their yards without fear of people coming through at 90 miles an hour. Again, this is a
proven technology. The time is right. Yeah, the budget is tight, but this is something that
can maintain the quality of life in our communities, something that other neighborhoods
and cities are doing, and I might remind you that there is an exodus from Augusta to go
to these communities that are working and investing in their recreation and quality of life.
These are some of the reasons they’re leaving the city. Not that we have a high tax
structure, cause dad gum it, the city of Augusta is 1/3 that of Albany, or Columbus,
excuse me. We are not the tax burden on the people, and that’s where the place should be
placed, where it’s properly -- where it can be properly addressed, and that’s with the
school board. The city of Augusta is scraping to get by. And this is, this is a program we
worked on for three years, and dad gum it, the people have asked for it. We’ve done the
proper study. I just urge support for this measure.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I, too, agree with Commissioner
Cheek in this regard. This is not new. This is not something new that’s out there in
50
regard to these calming programs. In fact, when we had a traffic engineer, he was already
working on some things that I see in the backup here. And had plans to use those, pick
neighborhoods and use some of these programs as test cases. So this isn’t something
new. This is something that people have been asking for. And it does come from the
neighborhood associations. The requests I’ve had are coming from people that are not
officially as the neighborhood association but are representatives on the neighborhood
associations or officials in them. So I know that it’s something that these groups are
desiring. And it’s not, it’s not recent. I’ve been hearing about these things for the eight
years I’ve been in office. And when people call and they’re concerned about speeding in
their neighborhood, and I do mean neighborhood, I mean residential streets and speeding
going on, there is not much we can do. If it’s 25 miles an hour through the neighborhood
and they’re speeding, you can’t radar it because you can’t radar 25, a street that’s limited
to 25 miles an hour. The policemen cannot just sit there and wait for somebody to come
by speeding. The Sheriff’s Department, and rightly so, they desire for their patrolmen to
be moving, to be constantly moving, if they’re not involved in arrests or an incident or
assisting a taxpayer in some way. They desire those cars moving, not sitting idle, waiting
for some speeding to come. So that’s really not a viable option. But what we have here
is a program that does present some viable options, that we can take the initial steps and
move with, with the $12,000 that’s proposed here. And I think that’s money well spent.
I think it’s something people have asked for, and I would hope the Commission would
approve the motion to support the public, support the neighborhoods and efforts to have
better speed control within their neighborhoods.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was in support of this in committee. In
looking through the back-up materials, we’re spending $12,000, are we getting training
of employees, are we getting employee time, are we getting computer software,
equipment, what are we getting for this $12,000?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I’ll let Ms. Smith speak to it,
also, but it’s start-up monies in terms of doing neighborhood assessments, in terms of
buying the equipment, paying persons to set up public hearings. There are brochures and
forms that have to be printed up, for the petitions, other written information. So basically
it’s start-up costs for the program.
Mr. Shepard: Is she going to address it?
Ms. Smith: Yes, we were also looking at having one of the, one of the devices
that the Sheriff uses. He only has one, that you set up and it tells you what the speed is as
you’re coming into the neighborhood. What’s it called? A what? A speed trailer, is
what it’s referred to as. But it, the radar gun shoots and it tells you how fast you’re
going. As we start with the initial assessments, but we were also looking at some
additional features being on that particular item that would assist us with counting traffic
and collecting some data on vehicles as they enter the neighborhood.
51
Mr. Shepard: And did I just miss that? Is that in the backup here?
Ms. Smith: It doesn’t specifically say in the backup.
Mr. Shepard: I read program, I was just trying to figure out what program meant.
Ms. Smith: Right. It doesn’t specifically say in the backup.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Colclough: Ms. Smith, this program, and I’ve been in support of for a long
time, also, how much will this program cost the neighborhoods? Total I mean. We’re
talking $12,000 for an initial setup, for trailer and monies to pay people to have public
hearings and brochures. Once this program is initiated, how much would it cost that
neighborhood to implement this program?
Ms. Smith: It all depends on what kind of problem the neighborhood has and
what kind of solutions we agree on to put in the neighborhood.
Mr. Colclough: But there is a cost to that community.
Ms. Smith: There would be a cost.
Mr. Colclough: Let me ask, has that been communicated to the people out in the
community?
Ms. Smith: No information has been sent out on this program to the community.
Our intention was to first come to the Commission and get feedback or information from
you on the program before we went out and did anything in the community with the
program.
Mr. Colclough: Wouldn’t it be more feasible for the program if the communities
know that -- I mean I understand my colleagues say everybody asks for things, but they
don’t realize they have to pay for them. Okay, now, wouldn’t it be more feasible
[inaudible] hearings, to let the communities know that even though this is a traffic
calming situation for a better quality of life, it will cost you?
Ms. Smith: And as Commissioner Mays has recommended, we can certainly pull
some information together to put out at the hearings that are already set up, but included
in the program is if a neighborhood says we have a problem and we think that we’d like
to have some type of traffic calming activity put in place in our neighborhood, we meet
with that neighborhood and we go into details with them on what the traffic calming
program entails.
Mr. Colclough: Yeah, but like my neighborhood, I have 2,000 home out there.
15 people can’t represent 2,000 homes.
52
Ms. Smith: The process requires that -- and it --
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] 15 people.
Ms. Smith: If we get a call from someone or from some set of people that says
that they’re interested in traffic calming in the neighborhood, the only thing that that does
is to cause us to have a neighborhood meeting and to put some information, prepare and
present some information on traffic calming, and to try to get an idea of what kind of
problems there are out there in the neighborhood. We would do some preliminary
assessments, most of which are assessments that would be done by the Traffic
Engineering Department, if anybody called in and said we have a problem. If it turns out
that things like additional stop signs are not the solution, or if other types of standard
traffic operational-type functions do no assist, then it requires 51% of the neighborhood
to sign a petition before we start to spend traffic calming type money that would be
assessed against the neighborhood for any of this program to go into place. So it takes
51% of the neighborhood that will be included.
Mr. Colclough: Wouldn’t it be much easier or feasible to hold, to go to these
neighborhoods and say okay, these are some of the issues? I mean most of us have the
same issues in neighborhoods, which is speeding, people running stop signs, etc. But
wouldn’t it be more feasible to hold meetings and say okay, we can put something in
your neighborhood to help you calm this traffic, but there is a cost associated with it?
Ms. Smith: Most definitely.
Mr. Colclough: Do you want it?
Ms. Smith: Most definitely.
Mr. Colclough: I think that’s basically what most people [inaudible]. [inaudible]
I would rather see that happen [inaudible].
Ms. Smith: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, first I want to say that I’m for this program, but I am
opposed to pulling it out of Contingency to get it started. Rather see us go through the
budget process. My other concern is this. As you move forward on this, while there’s
going to be a cost to people that are already in subdivisions, I see this from a far reaching
standpoint that it also will eventually go into the development plans of new subdivisions.
Ms. Smith: Yes.
53
Mr. Kuhlke: And I think there needs to be some feedback from people that do the
developing in this community on these programs, also. So I’m going to support
Commissioner Hankerson’s substitute motion.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just in closing, Teresa, will it cost us any money to
develop the brochures and the information packages to hand out to neighborhoods, or do
we already have that on hand?
Ms. Smith: We have not put those together and made copies of that to be
distributed yet, so there will be some cost associated with it.
Mr. Cheek: I guess we need to pay staff to prepare that and to cover the cost of
preparation of documents and setting up meeting boards and other things?
Ms. Smith: Basically.
Mr. Cheek: And so to, to say that we need to start the program without some
allocated funding source would basically say then we don’t need to start the program; is
that correct?
Ms. Smith: Basically.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Bridges: Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I’d like to get some more information on the
substitute motion. I can, I’m like Commissioner Mays, I can learn to count, I’ve been up
here, and I don’t think the original motion is going to pass. But the substitute motion,
what concerns me is exactly what Mr. Cheek has pointed out, that basically it dies here.
Could I have that motion re-read or maybe some explanation?
The Clerk: Motion to deny.
Mr. Bridges: Motion to deny. And basically it dies. That’s what I thought.
Okay, I can’t support that one, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me just say this before those of us that may vote for
the substitute motion get perceived as the grinches that took down the stop signs and the
speed bumps and humps. That’s not the issue at all. And even though it delays it today,
if that motion passes, it does not kill the program, it does not kill the idea. What it does,
it brings back common sense to a process. Now I’ve had things that have been close to
54
me and dear to me, too. You talking about this has been on the table for three years. I
made the comment before I voted in committee the other day when I heard that it had
been out there for three years, with all due respect to my chairman, he’s doing an
excellent job, but I’m, I made the statement jokingly but seriously I got grass that’s been
up for three years. You know, you got some things to a point that have been around for a
long time, if we going to count what’s been around for a long time and what’s been a
problem. So you know, I mean there’s nothing new about, you know, who’s coming first
to the table about some things being around. The only thing that I’ve said is we’re going
in the budget process. I’ve had to tell some folk that wanted to come to this table to get
some things on an emergency, some things that have run out, some places where state
budgets have been cut, that needed programs, that have been in existence to a point. And
I say hey, look, we’re going into a budget season. That’s the time to fight and to deal
with it. Only thing I’m saying is, Ulmer, it’s not dead, it’s not dead, Andy. What you do
is get your alignments together and we put the budget together, make sure the program is
funded. I will support that, as one Commissioner. It’s a worthwhile program. It needs to
be funded in its entirety. It’s good. But to start it and have no means to continue it, what
have you got then? You basically are back at the $12,000 you proposed, and then it falls
then, quite frankly, then totally on the neighborhoods that you will assess, and you’ve
cranked up folks’ excitement about what’s going to change in the neighborhood and then
you don’t have the funding to carry it out. Do it properly, bring it to the table, and then
that’s the time to do it. And that’s what I said about timing. Not about killing it. But
doing it through the proper procedure, that everybody else is trying to go through right
now. I’ve got some I could have [inaudible] in here, too. I got some I could put on every
week. But I’ve said to folk who have come to me I’m not adding anything right now, and
I’ve got four Districts to represent by vote, eight of them by choice. But I will help you
with it when you go through the proper channels to deal with it.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll move ahead. Mr. Hankerson, you wanted to say something?
Mr. Hankerson: Yeah, my final comment on it is that we, we do support this plan,
this calming measure here, traffic calming measure. We know that many communities
need it. But I think that they need to be educated on it, because it’s, it’s a lot of different
things. Mr. Colclough asked how much it would, it costs for a community, and in the
background information it’s a lot that I think that the citizens need to know so that they
can decide what kind of calming measure that they would need in their community. They
need to know how much it’s going to cost them, the fees and so forth. So I think it’s a
good plan and we want Public Works to go out and when they do the education on it, to
educate the community with the plan that they have in the book so they have choices and
know exactly what they want and what they do not want. So I hope that this, that the
motion is supported.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, the motion that you have on
the table to deny in effect is really telling us officially that you do not want us to
undertake the program. May I suggest that perhaps you may want to consider a motion
55
not to implement it for 2003 but to refer it to the budget workshop for consideration for
funding for 2004?
Mr. Mayor: We already have two motions on the floor. Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I just, you know, I’m heading -- I don’t want to make
everybody mad with me, but political double speak, just like we did with the training
programs and other things. Oh, we support it, we’re with you, we ain’t going to do a
damn thing. I mean we’re either going to start the program or we’re not. I mean we’re
either supporting it or we’re not. We kill it today, let’s brush it under the table, parade
around with good intentions, but not do a thing. The education process costs money, just
like training. You’ve got to have certain up-front capital to begin the process. This is
fundamental business. We don’t have to start this today and like Ulmer said, my mentor
down there, Commissioner Mays, I can count, too. I’m not going to win today, but the
bottom line on this is gentlemen, we’re only fooling ourselves if we say we’re going to
go through and start this new program. Right now everybody’s talking a good story, but
we just are not putting our, our money where our talk is. We need to support this
program, we need to move forward with it, it’s a good program, you need some initial
capital to start it up with. We can go through the budget process, but we’ll see where all
the cards fall when it comes time to bring it back up and vote for an additional $100,000
for a new program.
Mr. Hankerson: I’m not a liar, Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke, you have the floor.
Mr. Kuhlke: I’d like to ask the maker of the substitute motion if he would
accept an amendment that we postpone any action on this and put it in the budget
process to possibly fund it for 2004?
Mr. Hankerson: That was the intention. I accept that.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to the amendment to the substitute motion?
Mr. Mays: I don’t have an objection, Mr. Mayor, I’d just like the parliamentarian
to ask me what’s the difference on what’s the floor and what’s there. Because it
automatically goes into the budget process and the makers and the pushers of it have a
right to do that. It does the same thing. And that’s why I disagree with Mr. Kolb’s
interpretation. It does not say we will not come back and do that. It says what it say. It
is dead for right now until you get some money to do it with. And I can agree with the
amended version of it. I’d like the parliamentarian tell me what is the difference to a
point of the two. It’s automatic. I mean it can come back every week.
Mr. Wall: The practical effect is probably none. I think it’s perception that --
probably document for the record that it go to the, as part of the budgetary process.
56
Mr. Mayor: For a point of clarification, Mr. Kolb, is there $100,000 in your
budget, your proposed budget for 2004 to continue this program?
Mr. Kolb: No, it is not in the basic budget. It is in as a new program request.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right, we have a substitute motion on the floor that’s been
amended. Anybody need the motion read back to them? We’ll go ahead with the vote
then. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote in the affirmative.
(Vote on substitute motion with amendment)
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Mayor: I think we need a Commission calming program right now, so the
chair will declare a five minute recess. Thank you.
(Recess)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ll start with 59.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
APPOINTMENTS:
59. Consider recommendation from the Downtown Development Authority to
reappoint the following DDA members for a four-year term.
??
Commissioner William “Bill” Kuhlke
??
Dr. James Carter
??
Mr. Phil Wahl
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Just a quick question. Do we have any of the -- and I haven’t looked
at the list of representatives on this board -- but any of the newer entrepreneurs that are
basically causing a lot of the resurgence of growth in the downtown Augusta area on this
board? I just maybe -- I don’t know, Bill, you’re on the board.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: I would say that Mr. Wahl, obviously -- Phil Wahl -- being there
with the bank is involved with that. You’ve got Julian [inaudible] and his group on the
old J.B. White building. So those, those two, I would say either represent or are involved
in what’s happening downtown.
Mr. Cheek: My concern is to have somebody, a one restaurant owner or operator,
somebody like that, representing I guess the bottom end of the --
57
Mr. Kuhlke: One thing, Andy, that you probably would be interested in is at
every one of our meetings, we have representatives from Main Street Augusta to give us
a report, so there is some real interaction between the DDA and Main Street. Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: My name is on there, but I would like for my name to be
withdrawn from consideration on that.
I do think it’s important to have a
Commissioner on the DDA board, but obviously I won’t be here next year, so I would
like to remove my name from that list.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: I’d like to make a substitute [sic] motion that we add
Commissioner Cheek to that place, taking -- Commissioner Kuhlke took his name
off.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. Is there any difficulties in adding Commissioner
Cheek’s name where Mr. Kuhlke’s name is? Hearing none, I’ll take that as an
affirmative vote. Can we get a motion?
Mr. Shepard: I move the nominees be elected by unanimous vote, by
acclamation.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any discussion on the nomination? We have a motion and
second. Any discussion on nominations? All in favor of the nominations please signify
by the sign of voting.
Mr. Beard out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 61. Item 61, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
ATTORNEY:
61. Motion to approve Skywalk Agreement between the Board of Education and
Augusta for a skywalk connecting the City’s parking deck with the Board of
Education Administrative Offices.
Mr. Shepard: I move approval.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
58
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion? Hearing
none, all in favor of the motion please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Beard out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 62.
OTHER BUSINESS:
62. Motion to approve the rescheduling of the November 4th regular
Commission meeting to Wednesday, November 5, 2003.
Mr. Shepard: I move approval, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on item 62. Any discussion? Hearing
none, all in favor of the motion please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Beard out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Before we get to this last item -- move ahead to the last
item, number -- let’s go ahead and dispense with the addendum agenda.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: You do not have unanimous consent on item 2 and the additions to
the agenda. [inaudible] memo items, these were put on my desk here today, and I simply
need some more time to go through those numbers and I just can’t vote on it today.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Both these fail without having unanimous consent. We will
now take up the last -- that the last item, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: We have item 3, item 3 on the addendum agenda.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Chairman, I was under the impression that Commissioner
Cheek had added, had asked that several items be put on the addition. Am I correct?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir, items 4, 5, and 6. Listed as 4, 5, and 6 for the addendum
agenda.
59
Mr. Shepard: If it’s this memo that’s from Mr. Thompson, then you don’t have
unanimous consent. I don’t object to the discussion of the budget workshop, but the
Judicial Center and this memo that was just brought to us today with the backup handed
us in the middle of the meeting --
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: I cannot go through it in that kind of time and you do not have
unanimous consent.
Mr. Cheek: Point of privilege, please. It’s just to give the Commission a heads
up on it. The information on 4, 5, and 6 will come to Engineering Services on Monday.
What happened was Friday at our work session, we went through sales tax, round --
phase I, II, III, all the way to the present, and looked at programs that had -- projects that
had been completed and recaptured monies, and are recommending some reallocations
for a portion of the funds, with some other commentary that will be provided at the
Engineering Services meeting on Monday, but that we did find in excess of $5 million to
be used at various, on various projects for drainage and Public Works, basically by
recapturing those funds at the work session Friday.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Madame Clerk, take up the budget work session,
work shop schedule.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir.
Mr. Boyles: Let me go back to that. I thought that Engineering Services had a
place holder on here for these items, and they were being brought to us, because we spent
a great deal of time Friday.
The Clerk: The agenda was published Thursday. So it was already --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It was already out.
The Clerk: [inaudible] placed on the addendum agenda.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Right.
Mr. Boyles: So when will it be considered?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] Engineering Services Committee.
60
Mr. Cheek: Engineering Services Committee meeting. Bring forward.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
Addendum Item 3. Discuss 2004 Budget Workshop Schedule.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, attached
to your addendum agenda is the budget workshop schedule revised. As you recall, we
thth
did have scheduled for Friday the 24 and Saturday the 25 all day for your budget
rd
workshops. They have been deleted. In lieu of that we have put Thursday the 23 from
2 to 6 and Friday from 11 to 6. If that is acceptable, we ask that you approve the
schedule submitted. Everything else is pretty much the same.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Administrator, I don’t see
here where we’re going to discuss the early retirement program and the provisions of
potential savings. Talk to the vice chairman of the Finance Committee, and if that
presentation is ready for Thursday, I would like to hear that number one.
Mr. Kolb: Well, we had decided to discuss many issues related with employees,
th
personnel, on Thursday the 30, under human resources.
Mr. Shepard: I’ll yield to my Vice Chair. He’s very interested in that. I’ve been
told over several months that that would be a way to save money, and I am quite
interested in that. I’m wanting to know when that would be. If that’s acceptable with Mr.
Hankerson, that’s fine with me.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: I have been wanting to present this proposal. I was asked before
to hold it to our budget session, our work session, so I’m prepared. I would like to
present this on Thursday to begin with, the budget, because it’s definitely a saving of
over $2.1 million and I think we need to look at it very seriously entering into this budget
process.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Kolb: I have no objection. It’s your workshop. We’re presenting to you a
suggested format to discuss the budget. Thursday was going to be devoted to just an
overview of the budget, but if you want to discuss that, that’s fine.
61
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ll add that to the agenda for the schedule for Thursday.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen, any further discussion?
Mr. Shepard: So we ought -- excuse me, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. So we’re going to
discuss that Thursday; did I understand that correctly?
Mr. Hankerson: Do I need to put that in the form of a motion?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It’s just going to be added on.
Mr. Hankerson: We’re adding on?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Just add on, yes.
Mr. Shepard: I move approval of the schedule. [Includes presentation of
early retirement option on Thursday, Oct. 23, 2003]
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion to approve and there is a second. Any discussion?
Hearing none, all in favor of the motion please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Beard out.
Mr. Williams votes Present.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Last item, Madame Clerk, item 60.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATOR:
60. Consider appeal hearing request from Ms. Brenda Byrd-Pelaez, Director of
ARC Human Resources Department.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Pelaez.
Ms. Pelaez: Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, did
you all get an opportunity to get a copy of my statement? It actually corresponds a nice
little packet that was put together by the Administration’s office, so when I mention A-1,
A-4, A-3, so that I didn’t have to put anything else together for you, this is the packet that
I am referencing. There are some duplicative items in this packet, but just kept that in
62
mind. I stand before you today with a request, a request to overturn the Administrator’s
decision to suspend me for five days without pay. This decision is extremely severe,
especially when no policies have been violated. I would direct you to look at Tab A-4.
What has happened to me is a clear demonstration of what can happen to any of our
employees in this current environment, where there are no clearly defined goals and
objectives by which to measure one’s performance. Employees that have a total quality
program implemented with a core focus on principle centered leadership, [inaudible]
mutual respect and build a complementary team where each strength is made productive
and each weakness is made irrelevant. These past few years, I’m sad to say, have been
the most difficult of my career in the public service. I have received no positive
leadership or guidance. I stand before you, as my grandmother said, just bone tired. But
I have a continuing resolve to do a good job and fight the good fight. In the absence of
clearly defined goals and objectives, uncommunicated expectations and misconceived
perceptions that are [inaudible] in our government. There are two sides to every story,
and then I’ll sensibly [inaudible] the truth lies somewhere therein. The truth is
unalterable and it’s unambiguous. It applies to everything. The world of perception,
however, is based on interpretation, not facts. Perception is always inaccurate because
one tends to see only the reality that they themselves have created or that they themselves
want to see. The perception being perpetuated by the administration is that I have
violated policy and procedure. The truth will demonstrate that I have not. The
perception being perpetuated by Administration is that I am the problem with the
government today. The truth will unequivocally demonstrate that I have an example of
the type of employee, supervisor, leader, mentor, coach that this government needs. The
facts: on October 1, 2003, I was presented with a letter suspending me for five days
without pay. I did not have an opportunity to discuss and address these issues with
Administration prior to this letter being presented, which is in keeping with common
courtesy and principle centered leadership. The Administrator in his January 5, 2003, to
his written reprimand concerning his [inaudible] stated, and I quote, of utmost concern is
the fact that I did not have the opportunity to personally discuss and address your
accusations prior to this letter being present, presented. End quote. Although he felt that
common courtesy and due process should have been extended to him for a written
reprimand, he did not in turn extend the same courtesy to me for a more severe
disciplinary action, five days’ suspension without pay. My five to seven minute meeting
with the Deputy Administrator and the Administrator informed me that there is a problem
in Human Resources and that they thing it is in management, therefore I was
recommended for a suspension without pay. As my appeal letter states, I was really
taken aback. I literally was knocked off my feet. I was completely unaware that
Administration was of the opinion that my actions violated Augusta policy and
procedure. I later reviewed the suspension letter to [inaudible] what specific policy that
they felt I had violated. Now, as I know you all are aware, as Human Resources Director,
it is my responsibility to know the employee handbook inside and out. But for the life of
my, I could not find the policies 1.75 and 1.76. These policies were not in the packet the
Administration prepared for my hearing and they’re not in the employee handbook. In
Tab A-4, those are the policies, 1.75 and 1.76, that they state that I have violated. Mr.
Mayor Pro Tem and members of the Commission, could it possibly be that the
[inaudible] or the Deputy Administrator made a mistake? [inaudible] specific violation
63
and error was made on three occasions? The Administrator and the Deputy
Administrator failed to realize that we do not have a policy 1.75 and 1.76. The Deputy
Administrator went as far as to present me another letter on October 3 which indicated
that he – he apologized to me, that he failed to clearly indicate that my suspension was
without pay. Which was also a mistake, because the letter presented to me on October 1,
which once again I point you to Tab A-4, clearly states that his recommendation to the
Administrator, that it was without pay. I’ve had more conversations with the
Administrator as it relates to this particular suspension than I’ve ever had with him as it
relates to strategic planning for the Human Resources Department. Now of course,
gentlemen, [inaudible] I do not think that this time off was going to be with pay. I knew
that this time off was going to be without pay. But in this October 3, 2003, letter where
the Deputy Administrator was attempting to clarify this without pay issue, he again failed
to clarify the specific policy that I allegedly violated. See Tab A-5. Now I do not stand
before you today purporting to be a perfect individual, and the Administrator in his
January 15, 2003, letter admitted that he, too, was – quote – certainly not a perfect
individual but because of dedication to my profession I have attempted to provide the
best possible service I can to the Commission and Augusta. End quote. I am a dedicated
public – professional public servant that has attempted to carry out the best possible
service by performing [inaudible] duties that should be performed by the Deputy
Administrator, as well as my Human Resources duties. If Administration had first sought
to understand the process, instead of seeking to find something wrong, they would have
realized that this matter occurred as a result of human error. This matter has been
resolved and monies are in the process of being recouped. As a matter of fact, just less
the five minutes ago I was meeting with one of the very employees that needed to come
in and sign the letter that stated that his money would be recouped back to the
government. This matter has been, these monies will be recouped during this month and
the next month. And staff – I have to thank the Staff Attorney, Ms. Vanessa Flournoy,
Assistant Finance Director, Ms. Donna Williams, the Payroll Supervisor, Ms. Betty
Griffith, for coming together with my staff while I was out on the suspension, and
working with them to resolve this issue. This is how this issue should have been handled
in the very first place, with staff working as a team, not with staff in an adversarial
position pitting against each other. Notwithstanding the facts of the monies being
recouped and Administrator has been informed of this fact, the Administrator stated to
me that the mistake should not have happened in the first place. I’m not above making a
mistake, and as I have pointed out to you, neither is the Administrator or the Deputy
Administrator. Now I understand and I support being held accountable for my actions,
but what I do not understand is why I was suspended for five days without pay when my
actions as team leader of the Human Resources Department violated no policy and no
loss of taxpayer dollars. On September 5, 2003, I empowered my Human Resources
manager to review the September 5 memorandum from the Deputy Administrator. This
memorandum was received in my office on Friday, mid-day, and it stated that it was, it
thth
was – it was sent to me on the 4 September in the September 18 letter. That is not
th
correct, because it was sent to me on Friday, September 5, mid-day, with the request to
th
have all of the information back to him on the 8 of September. This deadline was met
within the stated time frame. See Tab A-2 and A-3. I instructed my manager to address
the situation accordingly and I let him know that I would support his decision. This
64
gentleman is managing for results, empowering your people to work within established
boundaries, and supporting the decisions made therein. This is the type of guidance and
leadership that I should be in turn, that I should in turn be receiving from my superiors
because we are on the same team. My manager proceeded by gathering the facts,
analyzing the matter, and proposing a resolution to the problem. His analysis concluded
that a human error occurred, thereby causing the new hires for the month of July not to
have premiums, the premium deductions come out of their first paycheck as originally
intended. I must stress that at no time was any of our employees in danger of not having
medical coverage. My manager at that time indicated that in order for us to meet our
Monday morning deadline, he instructed the benefits coordinator to call everyone
affected by this error and inform them of the error and the need to pay these deductions
and follow it up in writing. As for the disciplinary action, he felt that this was an
unintentional part of the employee that he directly supervises on a daily basis. This
employee acknowledged the mistake and apologized for making the mistake. My Human
Resources manager therefore only wanted to issue a written record of a verbal reprimand.
I told him if this is what he felt was proper, I would support his decision, and I did. See
Tab A-3. At the root of all interpersonal problems is the failure to thoroughly understand
each other. Administrative mistakes are often magnified and compounded when there is
an inability to see and understand the process. There is a tendency here to misunderstand
and therefore [inaudible] the motives [inaudible] and mostly, most importantly, the
process. Administration was [inaudible] in advancing its own ideas, defending its
position, attacking contrary opinion, they did not stop for a moment to list to the team
leader of the Human Resources Department to explain the process. They did not have an
intent to understand the process, but only to respond based upon their perceptions and
uncommunicated expectations of my performance. These uncommunicated expectations
have had a negative effect on my health, my morale, my productivity, my creativity, and
the morale of my team. Uncommunicated expectations is the basis, gentlemen, for the
imposition of this unnecessary disciplinary action. Because of uncommunicated
expectations and misconceived perception, Administration blocked out what really was
going on in this situation because they were firmly wedded to their opinions of what they
think should have been happening, that they did not stop to realize what actually had
happened. The Deputy Administrator indicated that he felt that I had provided erroneous
information to him. See Tab A-4. As my supervisor, he never asked me to explain this
difference in this information that I supplied and the information that he believed to be
genuine. If there had been a conversation, it would have clearly explained the answer as
to why I stated that there was not any other group of new hires affected other than the
July new hires. In our response, we/HR were looking at a group of employees as it
relates to benefits start dates. The employees hired in the month of July for both
orientations were entered in the system as one batch because those benefits are to begin
the first full 30 days after their initial date of hire, which was the first pay period in
September, which is the issue that we are now discussing. Therefore, when the issue
regarding the non-deduction of premiums was brought to our attention, the July group
data had to be changed. And there was never an intent to hide any information. I could
simply have explained how the process worked as it relates to hire dates, as benefits start
dates to clear up this miscommunication. This was one of the reasons why the calendars
were included in the close-out packet that I sent to Administration so the importance of
65
the dates could have been seen. See Tab A-3. If the time that was taken to put together
this new little [inaudible] packet with me as a team member, then I would not be standing
before you requesting that you overturn this suspension. Gentlemen, I did take this
matter very seriously. And I wanted to make sure that a process was in place and sure
that an error such as this would not happen again. Continuous process improvement is
necessary for an organization to move to the next level. We need to establish bench
marks and targets for our performance. Keep in mind that this error would have been
discovered by my department even if the Deputy Administrator did not bring it to his
attention or the person that brought it to the Deputy Administrator’s attention. We would
have found the error, because this error would have been discovered through our monthly
auditing of the Blue Cross Blue Shield bill. The Benefits Coordinator, the HR manager
and myself, the HR team leader, will review the bill prior to its being sent to Finance for
payment. This is an example of implementing a quality control process. The Deputy
Administrator states he is concerned with my ability to manage my department. His
justification for questioning my, for questioning my management skills is based upon my
application of the [inaudible] policy in my department. Now gentlemen, when I arrived
to this government in 1997, this government did not have a written progressive
[inaudible] policy. I formulated a policy and presented it to this very Commission for
approval. I provided training on this policy and I assure you that I am more than capable
of understanding how to carry out discipline. The Deputy Administrator is in charge of
grievances and he has overruled department directors’ disciplinary actions against their
employees with no adverse disciplinary action being taken against that department
director or questioning their managerial ability. Terminations and suspensions are often
overruled. No other department directors have been suspended or disciplined. Why am I
being subjected to such scrutiny? My decision to support my manager’s recommended
disciplinary action is being touted as not consistent with policy and it is insinuated that
that something else should have been done, although the something else has not been
communicated with me. This is another reflection of no clearly defined standards.
Discipline is supposed to be a corrective action and rehabilitate an employee. The focus
is supposed to be on counseling and mentoring, not punishment and control. Disciplinary
measures should be administered in an objective and constructive manner with the
intention of motivating the employee toward proper conduct in the future based upon
clearly defined goals and objectives. Progressive discipline establishes a process of clear,
timely documented communications with an employee that is designed to ensure that
there is an understanding of their job expectations, the appropriate training is provided,
and regular performance evaluations are conducted. Yes, the employee in question here
has been disciplined in the past. However, the disciplinary action was not for an incident
of this nature. And it has been over a year since that disciplinary imposition. In
reviewing this employee’s performance evaluation, the employee has made significant
improvement and received on her performance evaluation ratings of 8s, 9s and 10s in the
quality and quantity of work and overall job performance. The supervisor did not believe
this incident was an illustration of a behavioral problem. He did not expect to have this
issue reoccur. There are mitigating factors that I also took into consideration with
supporting my manager’s decision, such as that the conduct was not intentional, the
employee accepted responsibility for the error and worked with the necessary parties to
correct it. As a [inaudible] leader, I use progressive discipline not as a control
66
punishment mechanism, but as a means to [inaudible] be fair and clarify my expectation
of reducing errors and improving work performance in the Human Resources
Department. It is extremely difficult to work in an environment that is pervaded by fear
and perpetuates negative behavior. If Administration would devote its time to securing
facts in an impartial, objective way, my worries and fear and my team’s worries and fears
would evaporate in the light of knowledge that they would receive in the process. But
what is the process here? Well, if [inaudible] facts at all, they hunt like bird dogs after
[inaudible] and ignore all the others. They only want the facts that justify their position,
the facts that conveniently fit into their wishful thinking and justifying their preconceived
prejudice. The second issue, that of customer service. Now for [inaudible] reasons, I
really will not go into great detail regarding this Mr. Eubanks issue, but I can tell you that
I was not made aware of the lodging in, if you will of this complaint by Mr. Eubanks to
Administration prior to its insertion in the five days’ suspension without pay letter and
cited as a serious breach of proper discipline. There were no attempts by the Deputy
Administrator to gather the facts from me, analyze and interpret them. Once again,
misconceived perception. This issue really deals with the decedent, Mr. Eubanks, and his
widow. [inaudible] provisions were explained to his son, Mr. Vincent Eubanks, in a
meeting back in June or July, that the topics really should only be discussed with the
widow. However, exceptions were [inaudible] to be made to provide him as much
information as possible. This letter states that I did not return the calls of Mr. Eubanks.
What this letter does not state is that I had delegated this matter to my HR manager, who
was working in conjunction with the Benefits Coordinator and the Attorney to make sure
that whatever course of action that needed to be taken was proper. Mr. Eubanks did call
me on September 2 and I delegated this matter to my manager and I followed up with
him on September 9 and he informed me that he had not received an answer from the
Attorney’s office but indicated that he had spoken with Mr. Eubanks about the matter and
he seemed to be okay. I did – and I can tell you that I did tell my assistant and benefit
coordinators to please relay the information to Mr. Eubanks, who often comes into the
office to deliver mail from the Sheriff’s Department to my department. And so when he
came in, it was instructed to let him know that we did not have an answer as of yet. Mr.
Eubanks, even though he stated that he appeared in my office on three different
occasions, he never requested to schedule an appointment to see me. Now I’m one
person wearing a variety of hats and it is very difficult for my internal staff to
communicate to me, to communicate with me on a daily basis because of the grievances,
the meetings, the seminars, telephone calls, emails, etc., Commission meetings.
However, I do my best to delegate matters that can efficiently and effectively be handled
by someone else on a regular basis. Mr. Eubanks did not indicate that he didn’t receive
the information that he needed. This information that was provided by the HR team is
the same information that I had. This situation was resolved on September 16 after
several conversations with our Legal Department and our pension administrators. Now
with over 2,600 employees I cannot have an open door policy. However, if you schedule
an appointment to see me, I will to the best of my ability accommodate the request. I am
deeply concerned that when I am directed to accomplish a task within a requisite, short
requisite time frame and do so, that I am rewarded with a suspension without pay,
without any attempt to sit down and discuss the situation. I [inaudible] not appreciation
for continuing the duties of the equal opportunity office, which should be performed by
67
the Deputy Administrator, as well as carrying out the duties of the Human Resources
department. I have not been derelict in my duties to the Administrator. I’ve not been
derelict in my duties to the employees. Nor have I been derelict in my duties to this
Commission. My performance has never been evaluated in accordance with policy and
procedure, and during the course of my time here, I’ve actually gone from one position
and being promoted to another, so in all aspects, one would think that they were doing a
good job. I have never received formal notice of a verbal or written reprimand
concerning poor work job performance. I certainly did not deserve this five day
suspension without pay. I was never insubordinate. I never failed to follow a direct
order, which is a definition of insubordination. If you would look at Tab B-7, they are
pointing to insubordination as being excluded from the progressive discipline policy. But
my actions nowhere in here indicate where I failed to follow a direct order. [inaudible]
discipline policy in your packet points insubordination, as I’ve said, I would love to stop
and be able to meet with each employee, retiree, spouse, citizen, small business owner
that decides to make an unannounced or unscheduled visit to the HR Department, but
regrettably I am unable to do so. Other department directors make mistakes and the
Administrator will stand in an open Commission meeting and say that it was just a
mistake. A department director implemented a policy that was in direct violation of the
current Commission approved policy and it was unmistakably told by him, by the
Administrator to him to table this policy until further notice. This department director
blatantly disobeyed this order, thereby causing us to spend tax dollars unnecessarily, yet
no disciplinary action has been imposed against this individual. Employees that are
clearly in violation of the substance abuse policy get a do-over when they appear before
the Deputy Administrator who feels empathy towards them and allows them to keep their
jobs although they violated a substance abuse policy. Department directors and managers
who sexually harass employees either get no punishment or after a period of time they
have their salaries reinstated. Yet here I am empowering my team to work to their ability
and realize that mistakes that will be made, but ensure that we continually work to ensure
a reduction of errors and improve job performance, and I am being disciplined. Now in
closing, gentlemen, this government clearly needs define performance measures by which
to hold its people accountable. These measures must be based upon the government’s
strategic goals and objectives. Clearly defined objectives will remove some of the
subjectivity and partiality that was just demonstrated in my particular situation. I am on
the committee that is working to put forth performance measures for this government, but
what I simply need to know is what are the clearly defined standards by which I am being
measured so that I can carry out my departmental mission and directives according to
these clearly defined objectives. Admittedly I am displeased as to how this matter was
handled. My integrity, my veracity, my ability has been unfairly called into question.
However, the purpose of my appeal was not to disparage anyone in an attempt to lift
myself up. I need to work in an environment where employees are encouraged not to cast
blame and point fingers but rather encouraged to work together as a team to accomplish
the common governmental objectives. I enjoy my job. It is an honor to be a member of
this organization. And I will continue to carry out the duties to the best of my ability,
even in the absence of clearly defined standards, knowing that I run the very risk of
standing before you again. The only person that has never made a mistake is a person
that’s never worked a day in their lives. Now once again, I respectfully request that you
68
overturn the decision of the Administrator to suspend me for five days without pay, and
work with me to implement a total quality program that is based on principle centered
leadership. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Ms. Pelaez. Mr. Kolb would, you like to
respond?
Mr. Kolb: I will turn it over to Ms. Flournoy.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay.
Ms. Flournoy: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, I will be
responding on behalf of Administration.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Could you speak into the mic, please?
Ms. Flournoy: I will be appearing on behalf of the Administration, and as we
make our presentation I want you to keep in mind that you’re here today to make two
decisions. The first decision you need to make is did she indeed violate the policy?
Second, if she indeed violated the policy, was the punishment appropriate? Unlike Ms.
Pelaez, we’re going to present you the facts and not mix them up with other issues.
Ironically she said we should work together as a team. And that’s exactly what the
Administration, the Administrator’s office was attempting to do. Let’s look at the
th
summary right in front of your booklet. On September 5 –
Mr. Boyles: What tab is that, please?
th
Ms. Flournoy: It’s at A-1. On September 5, Mr. Hornsby, the Deputy
Administrator, sent a memo to Ms. Pelaez identifying a problem and requesting some
information. And basically what he had stated in that memo is, it was brought to my
attention that no deductions were withheld from any of the new hires who were hired on
July 7, 2003. And he goes on to ask questions. Basically he’s asking her why did it
happen, what happened, who caused the problem, what we going to do about it, and how
we stop this problem. What he wanted her to do is provide the information necessary so
that we could fix this problem. We’re a team. Mr. Hornsby is the Deputy Administrator
assigned to supervise Ms. Pelaez. And he’s asking this information and she needs to
provide the information he’s asking for. Yes, she had a short period of time to respond.
th
And she did in that time frame. Her memo is dated September 8. And in that memo,
she provides the answers. And I want to draw your attention to specifically number 4, are
there any other instances of this happening with any other group of new hires? She said
no. Now his question was, on his memo, was that the employees, the new hires who
were hired on July 7, 2003. Her answer simply is no. Unlike today, on that memo she
doesn’t give an explanation there. Maybe we using wrong terminology. Okay? And if
she felt there was a miscommunication it was on her part. She failed to give them the
information they needed to adequately review this situation. The other issue you need to
look at is number 6, what financial impact or potential financial impact could this have on
69
the city and the employees? Not just the financial impact, but the potential financial
impact. Well, when you don’t take the deductions out of the employees’ pay checks,
most people would just think it’s their medical benefits, the HMO. But gentlemen, it’s
not just the salary that the employees are concerned about. It’s the benefits. You get
HMO, AAFLAC, vision insurance. You get a flexible spending account, and you get a
pension. And when that deduction didn’t come out, that’s what it affected. And
thst
approximate amount is about $2,100 for the employees from July 7 and July 21. There
were indeed two pay periods. And one of the persons that were affected by it was the
st
new staff attorney, Mr. Harry James, who started on July 21. And I use him as opposed
to other employees because I feel more comfortable using that. I didn’t want to expose
st
other employees. But in looking at that, he was hired on July 21. That was his
orientation date. And his deductions did not come out on the appropriate check. Okay?
Now why is it so serious? Why did the Administration think it was so serious? Because
you are dealing with an employee. That is a human resource department. We are trying
to be proactive, work as a team, find out what’s the problem, how bad is the damage, and
what do we need to [inaudible] to find it? But she did not give them that information.
And it appears to be intentional on her part to misrepresent material facts. They were
seeking information and she did not provide it. And using that miscommunication that
okay, I understand. She understood that it was one group for the month of July. I did not
when I reviewed it. I did not understand that. So she failed to communicate the
information. Now she says she only had a short period of time to respond. She
thth
responded on September 8. She provided additional information on September 18.
Why couldn’t you clarify it then? Now – and I’m not attacking her veracity – but I’m
just putting the facts to you, gentlemen. I want you to look at the packet under A-3. It’s
back in the packet but it’s a disciplinary action form. And it relates to Ms. Robin
[inaudible]. Number 1, disciplinary action is being taken for the following reason,
including dates of infraction and violation of stated policies. On the payday of
September 5, 2003, none of the benefit deductions scheduled to, for the employees who
th
began working on July 7 were deducted. Nothing about employees with a start date or
th
for the month of July. It says July 7. Okay? Now she needs to get the facts right. Once
[inaudible] response to Mr. Hornsby, he reviewed the situation. And this is the situation
he had. He now knows that more than one class of employees have been affected by this.
There is some financial impact on Augusta. And right now we’re still working to recoup
that money. The other thing we’re looking at is in her response Ms. Pelaez says, number
6 again, [inaudible] a phone call will be made and a follow-up letter will be mailed to all
of the employees impacted by the error. Now why Ms. Pelaez, in her letter she says that I
worked with the team. And my job is, I’m in a different role than the Administrator. I
work to prevent problems and try not to – to reduce situations that will pose potential
liability for Augusta. And in looking at the situation, it was determined that nothing had
been sent to the employees. That we didn’t have the authorization to make that
deduction, because I wanted a copy of those authorizations just to make sure everything
was in place. As a result, we did get together as a team to try to resolve this. And it
wasn’t about Vanessa, it wasn’t about Brenda, it wasn’t about George, Betty, Donna. It
was about the employees and Augusta. And indeed working as a team. Coming together
and working to a solution. And if she had provided the information they requested, we
wouldn’t be here. And she could have gotten with the Administrator’s office and
70
resolved the problem. Okay? Now that’s the third instance of misinformation. She gave
the wrong number of people affected by it, the wrong group. She said there is no
financial impact. Then she says I’m going to send out a letter. Okay? She gives them an
update, yet even in that update she doesn’t say anything or clarify what her position is.
So what were they left with? They were left with one decision: what do you do with a
situation like this. And she goes on and one about a mistake. But gentlemen, she does
not understand. She was not punished for making a mistake. She was punished for
basically giving erroneous information, to be polite, and what some may call as a lie, or
maybe it was a cover-up. That’s [inaudible] ineffective in her duties. Because I don’t
know the ISIS system which we use. They use [inaudible] information. I was able to go
to the payroll supervisor and say is this correct on this employee? And getting the
information. If Mr. Hornsby had stopped at the point where she provided information to
him, and not verified it, where would we be now? It is a serious problem, because we’re
still working to fix it. And not only did he look for himself, he verified the information
with Ms. Betty Griffin. I don’t know who provided information to her, but the letter the
Administrator received was signed by Ms. Pelaez. Insubordinate? Well, you [inaudible]
breach of proper discipline. It is improper to provide folks erroneous information to the
people that they are set to supervise, they are there to supervise her, provide her guidance.
She was guided. That’s what they were seeking to do. And this is one of those times
when we actually were being proactive as opposed to reactive, when it becomes a big
problem, trying to figure out what’s the problem, trying to resolve that problem. It’s a
very serious issue. I have available to give y’all all the information you need, the
information that the Deputy Administrator considered in making his decision. He is
available to make a statement if the Commission would like to hear that. Also, I have
Ms. Betty Griffin here to address the issue relating to the two pay periods, if the
Commission wish to hear that. I have Mr. – Deputy Eubanks in the chamber also to
address the issue about the customer service. The disciplinary action, in regards to Ms.
[inaudible], it is a serious offense and maybe it was a human error. I take particular
offense to – I keep pointing back to this, but if you will look at the discipline information
sheet provided under A-3 and the disciplinary action, the second page of it, I’m not sure I
understand what all the reaction is and I think that is the attitude that was taken. What
are they talking about and what’s the problem and why are they asking, almost as if they
didn’t have the right to hear that. Okay? In light of everything and Ms. Pelaez states that
the employee has not been disciplined in the last year. But if that’s case, those items
should not have been in her personnel file, and that files under the responsibility of HR
Department, and they are indeed still in her personnel file, and the policy states that in
considering appropriate discipline for an employee you look at their past history and their
performance and you make a decision. And in light of that, the Administrator thought
that this was not inappropriate punishment and she should have taken it a little bit more
serious. The customer service issue, at a time of death an employee don’t need to hassle.
The family don’t need to hassle. And when you have elderly parents and you’re trying to
ease that burden on them, you doing everything you can. Now yes, there may be a law
that prohibits her from talking to him. But she didn’t know what he was calling for. And
he is an employee. She never responded. The next issue you must look at is this a
serious enough offense to justify the punishment? She was suspended without pay for a
week. But what you must understand, gentlemen, is that under the Fair Labor Standards
71
Act, you cannot suspend her for less than a week. She is a salaried employee as opposed
to an hourly employee. And that means she gets her salary per week and she’s not paid
by the hour. So in order to suspend her, you have to – without pay – it must be for a
week. Is this a serious offense? Yes, it is. They were seeking to get information. Now
when you discipline a child, you may say certain things. You may say okay, don’t do,
don’t do. Eventually you may slap their hand. And if it continues to progress, you spank
them. But we all know, as we were kids, and as parents, there are certain things that
[inaudible]. You know you’re going to get a butt whipping if you do this. Okay? And
now this situation. She has a duty and I think she should be held to a higher standard.
She is the Human Resources Director. They asked her some questions. If there was
some confusion, if she didn’t understand, she never went back to say look, Mr. Hornsby,
what are you asking? Or can I explain? She gave him information, but not accurate
information. It’s not as simple as she says. Now I want to address some of the things she
brings up in her letter. Looking at page 2 of her letter, yes, she’s correct, the cited
violations are not 1.75 and 1.76. It’s 1F.5 and 1F.6. Yes, it’s a mistake. But if you’ll
look on page 1, the third line from the bottom, she made a typo also. And I’m not being
petty. I’m just saying we’re all human. But she was not punished. I don’t want you to
get confused that she was punished for making a mistake. She was punished for
misrepresenting information. Not providing and not keeping the Administrator’s office
apprised of what was going on. Because even in her memo she said she would provide
an update later. She had that option. Now make note this memo went out, the original
thth
memo, went out September 5. Her response is September 8. She updated on
thst
September 18. She didn’t get this letter till October 1. She had adequate time to
assess the situation, provide additional information, do whatever was necessary. She
didn’t communicate with them. And didn’t give them any updated information. And she
says that she’s not perfect. Certainly they are seeking for her to be perfect. They just
want her to do her job. And I’ve already addressed the part, the part about the team
coming together. One of the things I want to note is on the bottom of page 2 is that it was
st
represented also that they money would be taken out of the October 31 check. In that
meeting, based on information provided by Ms. Donna Williams and Ms. Betty Griffin, it
st
was explained to us that we cannot take the money out on October 31. Now again,
that’s misinformation. And what it really comes down to is she’s misrepresented
important facts [inaudible] administrative process. And under Tab B-7, certain things are
excluded from the disciplinary policy and will justify termination without that. And one
of those are misrepresentation of important facts in seeking information in an
administrative process. Now I submit to you this is excluded from the progressive
disciplinary policy. But if should have been termination and it was a suspension, that is
progressive discipline. As a department head, she serves at the pleasure of the
Commission. She is – the Deputy Administrator or the Administrator is authorized to
punish her. It says so, B-6. Not directly but by implication. A department director has
the right to appeal any disciplinary action taken against him or her by the Administrator
to the Mayor and Commission. So by implication he has the right to discipline her. It is
a serious matter, and if you don’t think it’s serious, gentlemen, when you get to the point
where you need your medical insurance and you don’t have it, a day could make the may
the difference in an employing have to pay $20 co-pay as opposed to $500 for not
receiving any medical benefits. I [inaudible] the difference between being able to get a
72
pair of glasses or opting out of it because you can’t afford it. This is about the
employees. It is serious. We need to correct this problem, work together as a team.
[inaudible] that. She asked that they seek the information in an objective manner. They
did. They asked her for the information. She has the information, and they must rely on
that information. She did not give them the information in order that they may make an
intelligent decision, knowing decision, as to what should we do with this situation. On
page 4 she says as my supervisor he never asked me to explain the difference in the
information I supplied and the information he believed to be genuine. She never
explained. She goes on to say I could have simply stated, simply explained how the
process worked as it relates to hire date, benefits start dates, to clear up this
miscommunication, misconceived perceptions. But it was nothing. I have no problem
understanding what Mr. Hornsby asked. He asked was any other group affected, other
th
than the new hires of July 7. She simply said no. Yes, she could have, but she didn’t.
We will present the additional information if the Commission wants to hear that. We
would ask that the Commission uphold the Administrator’s decision to suspend and that
this is a serious enough offense. She was ineffective or incompetent in the performance
of her duties. She was insubordinate or breach serious discipline. This is a serious
enough offense that it warrants the suspension. We would ask that you uphold that
decision.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Colclough. Let me ask one question and then we’ll
go the Commissioners. I’m sorry I had to leave the room. I had a meeting that I had to
take care of, but I have read Ms. Pelaez’s statement, I have read the packet submitted by
the Administrator. I just have one question. As a result of this incident, two people have
been disciplined. The person at the bottom of the food chain who made the mistake and
then the person who is the Director of the department, the person at the top of the food
chain. But clearly there is somebody in the middle of the food chain, and I would like to
know the supervisor of this employee, what action – if any – has been taken against the
supervisor. What disciplinary action has been there? I just don’t see you can have
somebody at the bottom disciplined and somebody at the top disciplined, and the people
in the middle, the supervisory staff in the middle, what’s happened to them?
Ms. Flournoy: It has been Administration’s position that they will not micro-
manage. If Ms. Pelaez will not discipline her employees, they will discipline her. But
it’s her responsibility to manage that department and take the appropriate disciplinary
action.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir. Quite lengthy here. Heard quite a bit, so before the
Attorney starts speaking, let me just ask a few questions so I can make a decision on this.
That was a good question you asked, also, and I can read in the letter from Ms. Pelaez
that she did not attempt to micro-manage her manager, her. She gave him the authority
to, to discipline the staff, so I can see why that gap is there, so she didn’t micro-manage,
73
also. I just have a problem with the communication here. Why is it so much paper when
something is so important? Seem like some of this could have been eliminated with a
meeting, just sitting down at the table and talking. But I mean it’s information. When I
first received this, I didn’t understand everything by just what I was reading. The more
information I received today, the more I understand how some things could have
happened, how some human errors on, on Ms. Pelaez’s part of not giving all the
information that was asked. I have a problem with not just communicating verbally.
What happened to the verbal man-on-man communication is this government or in this
world? I think that some of that could have been eliminated. I have a problem with, with
that. Also, was a policy violated? I’m not quite clear on whether here, as far as by the
book something was violated. I’m not clear on that. My other question, and maybe the
Attorney could answer this and I’d like to continue, is, is there another, any other form of
progressive discipline for a department head other than five day suspension? Is that the
first one? Is that the first step of discipline, a five day suspension?
Ms. Flournoy: No, sir, it’s not.
Mr. Hankerson: And then my question is then why was – I don’t see whether, I
don’t see here where any other progressive discipline was used in this matter against the
department head. And also I’d like to address the, the erroneous information that has
been accused here, that – well, I think since I’ve been sitting on this Commission I’ve
received some erroneous information, also that someone come before us that we did not
really discipline when we find out that what we received was not proper. Found out later.
I’ve asked the question not too long ago is there anything else that we need to know.
And only a week later I find out that we had a tax digest problem. And I wasn’t given
that information. And I asked it for a reason because I thought I did kind of sense
something else was going on. So it wasn’t no discipline there or anything in that area,
too. So I think that we need to make sure that all, all employees are treated equally when
it comes down to discipline here. Cause I do see some loopholes in here. I see some
things that I think that if we would just have sit down and would have talked about this.
So I have a concern about the, the amount of discipline here that was placed, the five day
suspension, whether or not there should have been something else, another form of
discipline rather than the five day suspension. And another question I need to ask of Ms.
Pelaez.
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: Could you tell us how many jobs that you hold down in this
government? How many jobs are you responsible for?
Ms. Pelaez: The Human Resources duties and also the Equal Opportunity duties,
which entails me taking grievances and dealing with the [inaudible].
Mr. Hankerson: So you are actually handling, holding down two positions?
74
Ms. Pelaez: Which now have been converted to two separate positions. You
could actually say three positions. Because we’ve actually divided the DBE and the EEO
duties into two separate positions.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. Thank you. One other thing. I don’t think that we should
bring up in this appeal about the incident with the death or whatever the information was
that, the information that the officer was seeking in that, because I recall you pointed out
that it was told that this is a issue that is, a person have to be [inaudible] power of
attorney or administrator to receive certain information, so I don’t think that should
weigh heavily against, but it’s something very important that, you know, it need to be
taken care of, but not in violation. I’m not saying that. And I think we should be
sensitive to individuals that come in the office and somebody should take care of that, but
there are some privacy also that cannot be given out. So I just, in making my decision on
it, I wanted to just bring out those things cause it seems – I hear the Attorney say in
resolving this on the suspension after Ms. Pelaez was suspended, that they went to each
other and they sit down to resolve this problem. And I think that’s the way it should have
been in the beginning. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Hankerson. I’ve just been polling the Commission
while Rev. Hankerson was speaking to see whether any of the Commissioners wanted to
hear from any of the witnesses. The Attorney had said we have some witnesses here.
And there has been no request other than Mr. Shepard had a few questions for Mr.
Hornsby. Any of the people who were asked to be here today as a witness, you’re
welcome to stay if you’d like to but we don’t intend to ask any questions of you. I also
should mention, too, that the Commissioners can take this back to legal session to discuss
their positions and what-not on this. Can do that back in legal session. But then we’d
have to come out here for any vote. So if there are some things you want to say about
this that you’d rather say in the legal session, you’re perfectly entitled to do that. We’ll
just go around the table here. Tommy, did you want to –
Mr. Boyles: I did, Mr. Mayor. I’ll address this to the Attorney. I’m looking at
th
the letter that was sent from Mr. Hornsby to Ms. Pelaez. September 5, which was a
Friday. And it was asking for answers to specific questions. And I’m looking at the
th
letter back on Monday morning, the 8, which is a short period of time with the weekend
involved. But that’s neither here nor there. But from a Commissioner’s standpoint, it
looks to me like the request for information was answered. All right, now my main
question after that is where did it go so sour? What happened after that? The
Administrator asked for information, and employee responded with that information
th
within the time, followed what was asked to be done, on September 8, and then it just
seems to for some reason to go, to go further sour. I don’t know. That’s the concern or
the questions that I have. What did happen after that point? I’ve not heard that addressed
yet. In Ms. Pelaez’s letter and the response from [inaudible], there’s just even, with all
this volume of information we’re given here, it still doesn’t add up to me. I’m a little bit
lost on what, where we’re supposed to be with it.
75
Ms. Flournoy: Well, from my understanding, during that period of time after the
original memo and response, Mr. Hornsby was in the process of reviewing and verifying
the information to determine if any other group was affected, contacted Ms. Griffin, and
it was determined based on the information she provided that there was another group
affected. During the time he’s verifying the information, Ms. Pelaez does provide
updated information which is tabbed at A-3.
Mr. Boyles: A-3, did you say A-3?
Ms. Flournoy: Yes, sir, that was the updated information. A-3.
Mr. Boyles: A-3 seems to be the same. What am I missing?
Ms. Flournoy: Excuse me?
Mr. Boyles: What am I missing? I’ve got A-3, I’ve got the same letter again
from Mr. Hornsby and I’ve got an email with no deductions [inaudible] from Mr. Burns,
and then I’ve got the same letter, it’s got file copy duplicate across it, that was Ms.
Pelaez, I’m assuming, her response. And then on – response to Mr. Hornsby but
response from what? Now I’ve got a calendar, dates [inaudible], dates [inaudible], notice
of disciplinary action. Somewhere in between I’m missing something. Something’s not
fitting into the pattern.
Ms. Flournoy: The updated information [inaudible] benefits [inaudible] terminate
benefits is a new calendar that Ms. Pelaez’s staff provided. The confusion, from the
information that was given by Ms. Pelaez, there was problems with the calendar used,
getting the dates mixed up by the employees, so they made a decision to separate the
dates [inaudible] benefits and dates to terminate. Separate those in an effort to not have
this problem occur again. But that’s the updated information.
Mr. Boyles: Simplify a little bit for me. In other words, a person came to work
for this city and the Human Resources Department failed to deduct what? Blue Cross
Blue Shield, pension, social security, we just came people, if they came to work say for
$1,000 we gave them a check for $1,000, we didn’t take any deductions out?
Mr. Hornsby: That is correct.
Mr. Boyles: So but at some point, wouldn’t it be caught? I mean –
Mr. Hornsby: If I may –
Mr. Boyles: I mean everyone would know, and an employee should know that
people come to work for a gross amount, you’re going to get net out of it.
Ms. Pelaez: It would have been caught.
76
Mr. Boyles: I’m sorry. I’m not very clear on it and I don’t quite understand.
Mr. Hornsby: Yes, sir, it would have been caught and it has been caught. It’s
been caught over the last two years in the audit. Whereas, we were paying premiums for
individuals that did not, did not deduct those premiums for their share. That was
[inaudible] and I’ve got copies of it. But you all have already been given that. That is
the audit itself. Also, we just received the last audit, and I think we had [inaudible] last
meeting, I believe. The POS and the HMO [inaudible] those discrepancies. It showed up
there. This is, in my opinion, one of the reasons for that particular error.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Hornsby, don’t – with all the millions of dollars we spend on
computer systems, that wouldn’t pick that up automatically? It has to be entered by
human hands probably.
Mr. Hornsby: That’s correct.
Mr. Boyles: Garbage in, garbage out.
Mr. Hornsby: Garbage out.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We’ll continue around the table. If you have questions –
I was just talking to the Mayor Pro Tem, and we would encourage you to engage your
discussion when we get back in the other room, but to continue if you have questions for
the parties involved, if you need clarification please don’t hesitate to do that. Mr. Mays,
do you have anything?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I do. I’m going to probably jump on both sides of
this fence, cause I’m a little like Tommy and Bobby. We got a lot of information that’s
been provided by both parties, from the Administration and from Ms. Pelaez. I’m a little
bit unclear about one thing, before I ask questions now. We say we’re going to
[inaudible] the deal with some form of executive session. And one of the things I’ve
always hated throughout three governments is what’s been known as public trial per se
because it, it, it, it’s all ready a matter of the public being in it. And quite frankly, I don’t
think there’s anything you can probably say to a point that you’re going to deal with any
of it legal session. You’ve got two folk’s reputation out here in public, it’s the rule of the
game that they be discussed in this forum. So you know, I’m prepared to probably say to
either one of them whatever I’m going to say out here and, and, and, and, and let
[inaudible]. One, the question I would have is that I’m a little unclear in reference to –
and I won’t go back to tab [inaudible] or tab that on [inaudible], and I guess maybe I’m
asking this for both side that can answer. First question I’d have is I’ve heard that we’ve
gotten the situation straight in reference to – and I realize that his involves Mr. Kolb’s
integrity and Ms. Pelaez’s integrity. But I’m also following up on the Mayor’s question.
I’m going to start with where you left it off, Mr. Mayor, in reference to the food chain
item. Have we gotten, and I’m ask the Administrator’s side of this first. Have we gotten
77
this situation under control in terms of in the benefits area of this department? Because it
seems to me there is a discrepancy to a point that either it’s stopping, it’s ongoing, I
mean, you know, what is that situation? Because as a policy maker I want to know from
the other [inaudible] employees where we stand with that
Mr. Hornsby: If I may, we think that we have obtained enough attention of those
individuals involved in making that transaction that it will taken in a serious manner now,
and while the companies are only billing us on a monthly basis, and we deduct every,
twice a month, then I think that now it’s a clear understanding on the part of staff that this
is a serious matter and we need to do checks and balances. Those that are – have
discussed it with, have indicated that there is a process in place now of balancing the
premiums from the insurance companies against the deductions from the government.
Mr. Mays: Ms. Pelaez?
Ms. Pelaez: I appreciate that question in regards to where we are in the benefits
area. Unfortunately, it’s kind of clouding the particular issue here. But let me explain
that during the surprise audit that we did get about a year ago in regards to how we were
[inaudible] brought to my attention that although we were of the opinion that the
employee [inaudible] it was not. And that has been taken care of. [inaudible] over a year
now. This particular issue would have been caught as a result of the process that had
been put in over a year ago. I wanted to, to kind of go back to answer the middle person,
and how we’re talking about what happened to him in the misrepresentation of the facts
and all of that. But what was understood is that the middle person had provided the
information to the top person, who provided the information to them, so to say that there
was a misrepresentation would mean that there is an intent to [inaudible] deliberately not
provide it and that was not the case. And I did empower my manager to review all the
information and make a decision based upon his review. So that’s why there has been no
disciplinary action taken against that person, because that was, that was the boundaries in
which he had been given and we were not made aware that there was confusion. So the
question that was asked about why did, what happened to this [inaudible], well, that’s
where I’m going with my staff. When you’re assigned a project [inaudible] that tells me
everything that you did and I want the file closed. And so after I had not heard from him
for ten days, I was assuming hey, they liked the information, send the project close-out
form, that should be it. And here we are.
Mr. Mays: Could you stay for just a minute?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: Ms., Ms. Vanessa.
Ms. Flournoy: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: Pardon me on the last name, I’m getting old. I forget sometimes. But
have the employee that has been suspended, Ms. Pelaez, have there been any evaluation
78
of this employee since she has been in this position or under the watch of the current
Administration as it reflects upon what is called for I believe [inaudible] in policy or in
contract or how to deal with department heads of this city?
Ms. Flournoy: A review of her personnel file did not reveal any performance
evaluation reports. There was none in her personnel file, so you know, based on that I
concluded there was not an evaluation. It was reviewed during this process and there was
nothing in her personnel file.
Mr. Mays: If I’m not over the line, and I’ll step back from it, is there anything in
there then just pertaining to this suspension and its, its trail of events that are located in,
without revealing anything else that might be in her file, pro or con, is there anything in
there to reflect upon this paper trail of events that’s in the file of the employee?
Ms. Flournoy: I would have to say I don’t know, Mr. Mays. I have not looked at
it since this process started, so I don’t know.
Ms. Pelaez: That’s it right there.
Mr. Mays: Well, I’m going to have to ask because to a point I’ve got – I won’t
classify it as a Mexican standoff to a point I think when the Administration presents
something you want to be thorough and you would like to be thorough and you would
like to support, but I have to ask the question to a point that if I’m relying on something
that seemingly did not take place over a one day period or a one time, one conversation
situation, then I’m trying to find out whether there is something in there that would then,
could be brought upon that reflects a, a situation that would, where you would take that
level of suspension. And I’ll ask the employee the same question.
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir. Since –
Mr. Mays: In terms of evaluation and in terms of where that has been.
Ms. Pelaez: in my tenure here since 1997 I have not been evaluated, nor have I
ever been verbally reprimanded or received a written reprimand.
Mr. Mays: Ms. Flournoy, what is in the process of the city government that calls
for in reference to the evaluation of department heads by the Administrator? Either by
policy or by contract.
Ms. Flournoy: From my recollection, it requires an annual performance
evaluation of the department head by the Administrator.
Mr. Mays: How long then has the employee that’s been suspended been under
the supervisory watch of the current Administrator?
79
Ms. Flournoy: Since I believe May, 2001 when he started, she’s been under his
supervision ever since.
Mr. Mays: So that then would lead me if it’s October 2003, I’m presuming then
that at least two, two evaluations according to what is city policy should be within that
employee’s file or any other department head of this city; am I correct?
Ms. Flournoy: That’s correct, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Okay. Has this particular employee, and I guess maybe I need to ask
this question, cause a lot of this is going to boil down, quite frankly, to where, where you
deal with it on character. Now, cause I’m getting, I’m getting different things and
different sides of this and trying to be fair to everybody. Has this particular employee
been asked per se to do anything that would be contrary, that would be in violation of city
policy by the Administration of this city, where it be in terms of records, whether it be in
terms of altering information, be it etcetera, anything that would be in violation of that
policy? And maybe you need to confer with Mr. Kolb since he is not answering and I’m
asking him, but if it’s through that process I’m asking you.
Mr. Kolb: I will answer that. Not to my knowledge. I don’t, you know, I’m not
sure what you’re referring to, but no, I don’t ask any department head or any other
employee to not follow a policy.
Mr. Mays: And in being fair, I’m going to ask the employee the same thing, so
that I’m not – tit for tat in this. To Ms. Pelaez, have you been asked to alter, to remove or
to change anything that would be in violation of city policy by the Administration?
Ms. Pelaez: Well, let’s just say this. I’ve been asked to implement a salary, to
reinstate a salary for an individual that had gone before the Personnel Board and had that
salary reduced, and we recently received a personnel action file that stated that we needed
to give that person their salary back although the Personnel Board had indicated that they
would be removed from their position and have a decrease in salary. And that’s, if that’s
what, I don’t know if that’s what you’re asking but that would be something that I would
have to come before the Commission.
Mr. Mays: What I’m saying, either orally or in writing, have you been asked to
alter anything that would deal with anything that comes to your office through
Administration in terms of records, in terms of times, in terms of any documentation as it
relates to any employee of this city?
Ms. Pelaez: Not by – there’s been a conversation in regards to the user service
board, the Deputy Administrator – we were attempting to seek whether or not he
qualified for the pension plan and the retirement and we were asked to – you know, what
if we put in the estimate of three years. But I mean we did not, we did run an estimate
but we are not using that. I’m just being honest. Those are the things we have been
80
asked but we didn’t actually go into the system and change his hire date. If you look at
the hire date it was not backdated. It does indicate the actual date that he was hired.
Mr. Mays: But you were never asked at any time to alter any of those dates,
though?
Ms. Pelaez: No.
Mr. Mays: By anybody?
Ms. Pelaez: No.
Mr. Mays: And I think we discussed, the whole Commission probably did in
terms of hypotheticals in reference to it, but in terms of no way were you asked to do that.
Ms. Pelaez: No, sir.
Mr. Mays: Or your department was asked to do that?
Ms. Pelaez: Not, not to my knowledge was any member of my team asked to
alter a file by anyone in Administration.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I guess my last question would probably be to
Administration in reference to where we are on this matter regardless of the suspension.
Because I think that once we make a decision on to uphold or to deny or whatever the
case might be, I’m, I’m still a little worried to a point that I know everything can’t be
solved at one time, but I think it does weigh heavily with the Commission to a point that
is there seemingly an end in sight to a point of what was a problem or perceived
problem? Are we in a direction that’s getting to that, has that been done at this point, or
where are we in that frame?
Mr. Kolb: If I can respond to that. That is the whole purpose of discipline, is to
provide a process for correcting behavior. We are hoping that this will not happen again,
that our audit will prove that the benefits process that we use to reconcile our statements
and our employee deductions will be resolved finally. If it’s not, we will be back. We’ll
have to take some type of an action. With respect to performance evaluations, as we have
discussed in the past, we are in the process of putting together performance agreements
for all of our department heads. I have talked to all of them. We have had discussions
about performance, including with Mr. Pelaez. So even though it has not been a formal,
written type of a document, we have had conversations with everyone about performance.
So I don’t, I don’t want you to get the impression or the feeling that we have not at some
point in time had a discussion with directors, including Ms. Pelaez, discussions about
performance in various areas.
Mr. Mays: If I might respond, Mr. Mayor, and I’ll be through. My only reason
for bringing that question up was not to be pointed at the suspended person or the, the
81
Administration, because the uniqueness of this, and I say it not in a joking way because
it’s serious. This involves reputations of two people that are out here, their integrity, and
their lifestyles. It’s going out on the news media, it’s a public situation, so it’s not
something that’s being discussed in some closed room anywhere. I, I, I brought that up
because I even joked at one time in reference and, and it’s not the day to discuss it, but I
think this ever so drives the need that came out of subcommittee and which Mr. Beard
allowed me to chair and which I’m glad it’s moving on. Gentlemen, if you don’t
consider anything else in budget season that the need to deal with a full time, independent
EEO officer for this city I think will, will, will, will, will relieve a lot of pressure that
occurs within the Administration and to the point of 2,700 employees, be they the most
highest paid and decorated, or be it the person who’s here just simply to a point that’s
been the last person to come in the door of this city. It could never been more prevalent
today than [inaudible]. And I even used the illustration what happens if the first time we
have a problem it’s between, quite frankly, y’all have heard me say it, between the two
people that we’re dealing with today in this hearing? The HR Director and the
Administrator. And I said that to a point and maybe that’s a good thing to a point that if
there has to be a head, then maybe this just proves the need of what’s got to be done. But
I brought that out to say that in the evaluating process, it was not to condemn or to say
that anybody didn’t understand, cause I think that, that employees that work under Ms.
Pelaez have to be evaluated and that’s the responsibility of dealing with by her, but also
employees that come under the [inaudible] of the Administrator has to be dealt with, and
I’m mentioned this is legal. I have no problem sharing it with the public and I will shut
up, Mr. Mayor. What I said on that day, the cases that we have had to come back to bit
us have been because we have not done up and down the food chain the proper
documentation and the proper paperwork and evaluations, be it from departmental
employee or people that have been at the top of this government. And that is something
that I think has been a deficient area and [inaudible] to a point of circling the wagons and
deciding who is going to shoot who, it’s something that we need to come together as
governmental family and try and get this whole situation resolved. I’m hoping this is the
last of these so-called public trials that we will have for a long time in this city, because
we could much better take up this time to a point of dealing with how we are going to
balance a $100+ million budget then to a point of how this has been, but people have got
to follow procedure and they’ve got to do it, and it makes our job easier when we have
that before us and we don’t have to deal with so many question marks as to whether or
not some things are clear or some things are not clear, and whether or not you, you
excuse because of a technicality or to a point that you need to on the other hand deal with
disciplining to a point if something that has been done wrong, and I think that’s, that’s a,
that’s a hard decision that’s been put before us to have to deal with that to a point if the
procedures are followed, that the policy makers have set and have put upon everybody in
this government to follow, then I think we’d be a long way towards resolving that, and
that’s, that’s all I have for the whole afternoon, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke, you have anything?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, just one or two comments. First, to me, it bothers me a
little bit that a memo goes out on a Friday and asks for a response to that memo on a
82
Monday morning. I’m assuming Ms. Pelaez and her staff worked all weekend to get
whatever information they had to get. And I don’t think that’s the appropriate way to do
something. She’s a good employee. I’ve tried to support the Administrator on issues, on
major issues, but frankly I think some things were done here in haste. I don’t think there
was enough verbal communication in this regard. And you know, I don’t know what I’m
going to do at this point, but [inaudible] getting close to Halloween, but you know, as you
go through this thing it almost looks like a witch hunt, and that bothers me.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough, do you have anything?
Mr. Colclough: I just have a few questions. I was sitting here and listening and
I’m going to Administrator and the Deputy, how often do you meet with the department
heads to supervise them?
Mr. Hornsby: It depends, and if [inaudible] all over the place because, well, as far
as those that are in my [inaudible] which includes Ms. Pelaez, there are various and
sundry – we meet, I don’t meet with my [inaudible] on a regular basis. We meet on an as
needed basis [inaudible]. And as far as the, there was a question asked earlier about the
discipline, prior discipline. No, there was no prior discipline per se. There were
suggestions and strong suggestions by both the Administrator and I that we initially had,
and even in the meeting here, about [inaudible] perform better. In the initial meeting
when we talked with Ms. Pelaez, we indicated to her right at that time we have problems
in HR. Her answer was yes. I think she realizes it. And I also went so far as to say that
this [inaudible] action is meant to get attention of the individuals who are in charge so
that they can better the operation. And that was the reason for the disciplinary action.
Mr. Colclough: Ms. Pelaez, how often do you meet with your managers in
supervisory sessions?
Ms. Pelaez: Probably if not daily, every other day. And if we don’t get together
every other day, there is an appointed time that they are to sit down so that we can go
over what we’re doing. But we communicate via email and then actually my office is a
staff of nine, so we, I always am consulting with them.
Mr. Colclough: No, I’m asking –
Ms. Pelaez: That’s my supervisors, yes.
Mr. Colclough: Okay, so you have a set time that you meet with your managers
for supervision?
Ms. Pelaez: Fridays, definitely on Fridays. Everyone on my staff knows that
Friday is staff day, and I meet with everyone on Friday. But then that doesn’t say
Monday through Thursday there’s no conversation. So for me there’s not a set time, it’s
when the issue arises we meet. And we’re constantly communicating.
83
Mr. Colclough: So in both issues, neither you nor the Administrator has set times
that y’all sit down with your managers to, to go over issues that is going on in the
department?
Ms. Pelaez: I don’t have a set time with my supervisor, no. However, my
department, if there is an issue we’re going to go over it right then and there.
Mr. Colclough: But what I saying now, you don’t – and I heard the [inaudible]
say he don’t have a time to sit down with you [inaudible]?
Ms. Pelaez: No, we don’t.
Mr. Colclough: Let me ask another question. In your general supervisor sessions
at both – in your general supervisory sessions, is the issues brought up, I use the word
issues brought up of what’s going on in the department, how is the department
functioning, what things could be done to enhance the, the function ability of the
department?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir, as a matter of fact, on Thursdays we have our department
head meetings and I supplement – my assistant attends those meetings and she writes
down what is stated in this meeting, in the department head meeting, and then I
supplement those notes as well, and then when there is a need, there are a lot of things
going on, for instance say one [inaudible] we do have a staff meeting. I’ve even gone as
far as to have a two day retreat so we can come together to talk about the [inaudible] of
job performance so that we can get focused on our mission, and that’s what we continue
to do.
Mr. Colclough: So do your staff, do your staff have performance evaluation on an
annual basis?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, they do.
Mr. Colclough: All your staff has been evaluated for this --
Ms. Pelaez: My managers, I have to evaluate them, but the line staff has been
evaluated and I need to sit down with my –
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible]
Ms. Pelaez: Well, they are completed. However, I wanted to allow them to
supplement the information. I don’t like to simply assume all of the things that they’ve
done –
Mr. Colclough: How many times a year do you supervise your managers? I
mean evaluate. Not supervise. Evaluate them. Is there –
84
Ms. Pelaez: The new process that we’re going to now requires, that I just put in,
requires us to do it on a quarterly basis. It’s on a management review form. So every
quarter now you’re supposed to be sitting down with all of your employees to review
their job performance and see whether or not they need improvement, they’re meeting
standards, or they’re exceptionally performing. That’s supposed to be done for everyone
now on a quarterly basis because what we’ve found in the performance evaluation
process what happens is either the halo effect or I can’t remember the other one, but
people always remember what you did wrong a couple of days before, so we have
implemented this process so that that doesn’t happen, that throughout the entire year there
is some type of communication between the supervisor and the employee.
Mr. Colclough: One last question for you. Have the problem with the deductions
or the insurance premiums, have that been solved?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, we have, and my coordinator is here, so let me ask. All of the
letters have been signed with the exception of five. And they are in the process of being
contacted to sign the letters to let them know that these are the premiums that they owe
and that they either have the option of paying once in a check or – a lump sum in a check
thth
one payday, November 14, the 14 and the 28 of November they would, they are being
thth
allowed to take half of those deductions, pay one on the 14 and one on the 28.
Ms. Speaker: May I?
Mr. Colclough: Let me just finish. Now I can understand your, your supervisors
and your upper pay people kind of taking that hit, but what about your lower paid people
who have to come out of, with that one lump sum payment or that two time payment?
How is that going to affect them? If I’m making $13,000 or $14,000 a year.
Ms. Pelaez: The largest amount, according to my benefits coordinator, has been
$40.
Mr. Colclough: $40. If I’m making $20,000 a year, and if I divided that up by
50, $40 would be a good chunk.
Ms. Pelaez: True. And we have had those instances when an employee has gone
out on leave without pay, and we do realize, so we do stretch that amount so that it is not
a hit. We know that they are working second jobs and we do take that into consideration
and I believe, and I [inaudible] if someone had stated that they had a hardship that we
would have extended it into another pay period.
Mr. Colclough: And that would affect, would not affect their benefits?
Ms. Pelaez: No, sir. Because the, the issue here, we as the employer are paying
80% of their benefits, so they have coverage. What we’re saying is we want the other
20% of, that you owe us. At no time was there any employee during this period that if
th
they had gone to the doctor on September 5, they would have been covered.
85
Mr. Colclough: Thank you.
Ms. Pelaez: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Let me ask a few questions, Vanessa or
somebody. Who has the burden of proof, the Administration? If we think it’s equally
balanced, do we know who? I mean is there – who has the burden of proof.
Ms. Flournoy. Mr. Wall?
Mr. Shepard: Jim, who has the burden of proof? Is it the Administration?
Mr. Wall: Ms. Pelaez.
Mr. Shepard: Ms. Pelaez does?
Mr. Wall: Yes. She’s trying to overturn the decision.
Mr. Shepard: Okay. I had heard this cost this city money, and I’ve heard the
figure $2,100. Can anybody tell me how much money is at stake here in the aggregate? I
mean we talked about $12,000 in the budget and bandied about millions of dollars in
engineering services because it was always big ticket projects, but how much money are
we talking about here, that we’re having our employees repay? Does anybody know?
Ms. Flournoy: Based on the information that was given to me by Ms. Robin
[inaudible], I had my secretary add it up, and it was about $2,100. But I’m getting
information from Ms. Griffin right now that some of that information may be incorrect.
So at this point, we have go again and get together and figure out exactly what. There
may some other problems. And I think should would be better able to address the other
problems and why we have to go back and look at it.
Mr. Shepard: I’d sure like to know.
Ms. Griffin: [inaudible] research, it does not involve just your insurance
deductions, but it also involves your pension deduction.
Mr. Shepard: How about tax deductions?
Ms. Griffin: No, sir. Well, yes, in a sense it would because of [inaudible] your
insurance is being pre-taxable, then of course that would alternate what your federal tax
and your FICA tax deduction would be. If your insurance deduction is in there then of
course it would reduce the amount of federal and FICA tax.
86
Mr. Shepard: Because we have the cafeteria plan?
Ms. Griffin: Absolutely.
Mr. Shepard: Okay. And then, Vanessa, you asked did she violate the policy. In
your opening statement you said did she violate policy? And your answer is yes,
obviously?
Ms. Flournoy: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: And what tab would you refer to to support that answer?
Ms. Flournoy: I was particularly – I believe it’s Tab –
Mr. Shepard: Is it B-6, page 2 or do you have another one? Help me answer that
question. That was your question.
Ms. Flournoy: I don’t believe a copy of the policy was included in that, but the
employee handbook was used, and it’s actually 1F5 and 1F6 of the employee handbook.
Mr. Shepard: Do we have that before us? Do we have a copy in our book? Is it
Tab B-6? I’m just asking. I’m not trying to trap anybody, I just want to know.
Ms. Flournoy: No, sir. No. No.
Mr. Shepard: What is all this?
Ms. Flournoy: Well, it was my contention that she misrepresented important
facts. She was actually charged with violation of 1F5, 1F6, and I believe Mr. Hornsby
has a copy of that.
Mr. Shepard: Well, do we have 1F5 and1F6 up here?
Ms. Flournoy: No, sir.
Mr. Shepard: We do not? Well, then what is – so the next question you asked,
you said it violated the policy. What was the punishment? Now apparently the most –
the punishment already, if we don’t reverse it, has been suspension without pay for one
week?
Ms. Flournoy: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: And then what are the, what are our alternatives, if any? Because I
think you said the Fair Labor Standards Act mandated the amount of time, so that was
triggered by that federal law; correct?
87
Ms. Flournoy: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: What can we do that’s lesser than that?
Ms. Flournoy: It is my position that because this is an appeal, you can only
uphold or overturn the decision.
Mr. Shepard: So either it’s an all or nothing thing then?
Ms. Flournoy: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: There’s no –
Ms. Flournoy: That would be my position.
Mr. Shepard: Well, let me ask these questions, and this is – I’d like Ms. Pelaez to,
if she would, if you would come back up, please, Brenda. Walter, too, pay attention. I
know you are. But are there – you asked, Walter, are there any other instances of this
happening with any other group of new hires? Brenda, your answer was no?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: Have you ever amended that answer?
Ms. Pelaez: No, sir. This answer, actually all of these answers, as I indicated,
were provided by my manager. And when it was stated to me in my suspension letter
that I had provided erroneous information in regards to that answer, that is when I gave
my explanation, but I was never asked prior to that to supplement that answer, because I
thought that the answer I’d given was sufficient.
Mr. Shepard: But there was another group of hires affected, was there not?
Ms. Pelaez: The group that – the way we, the way we enter the benefits, the
orientation for July we enter it in one batch because every person that was hired in July,
st
their benefit commencement date is the 1 of September. So for us, we’re looking at the
benefit, the group. The group is July, so there has never been another group of June,
March, April, May, August, September – well, no, not September. August, December,
November in the past that has made this error. That was how I read that question.
Mr. Shepard: But you’ve since learned there was another group affected?
Ms. Pelaez: Well, if you look at the two groups, yes. But – and see that’s where
we are. If you consider it two groups, yes, but in the inputting of the benefits, it’s one
group. It’s one batch. The July batch.
88
Mr. Shepard: I, I – Walter, let me, help me with your letter of September 18
[inaudible] in your third paragraph you said, you asked Ms. Byrd-Pelaez if there was any
financial [inaudible] or any potential financial impact on Augusta or its employees. The
answer is none. And then you’d attached this Exhibit C. You thought there was financial
impact from other groups. Can you –
Mr. Hornsby: That is correct because –
Mr. Shepard: Tell us in your own words.
Mr. Hornsby: In my own words, there was a group of new hires that came on
thst
board on July 7. There was a group of new hires that came on on July 21. I asked
th
about the group on July 7 [inaudible] I asked that question were there any others, any
other group that’s messed up? Okay. And the answer was no. But then I found out, and
those, in my opinion, were separate groups of people. They came on at separate times.
Mr. Shepard: Well, did you have some other information to make you dig?
Mr. Hornsby: I found out when I got to checking that there were others, and
st
that’s when that July 21 group didn’t get deducted, either.
Mr. Shepard: And here again, this is pension and insurance benefits there, or is it
taxes?
Mr. Hornsby: Pension, insurance, any of those non, well, tax-type deductions.
Any [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: Did you think that was a misrepresentation then that there were
other groups affected?
Mr. Hornsby: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: And I mean the answer was no, and in your opinion it should be
yes? Is that correct?
Mr. Hornsby: It should be yes, because there were other groups affected.
Because I consider them as two groups of individuals. They were two people, two sets of
people that came on at different times and began work.
Mr. Shepard: And so you made a recommendation to George based on this?
Mr. Hornsby: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: And, and did you consult the Fair Labor Standards Act, or how –
go through that.
89
Mr. Hornsby: I was familiar with it.
Mr. Shepard: You were?
Mr. Hornsby: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: And so you knew that that was the – given as her status, isn’t she
exempt, I think? I don’t know.
Mr. Hornsby: Yes, she’s exempt.
Mr. Shepard: Being exempt, it’s just an all or nothing punishment? Excuse me,
it’s a week minimum punishment or it’s no punishment, is that what it was?
Mr. Hornsby: Yes.
Ms. Pelaez: That is not exactly correct.
Mr. Shepard: Well, I’d be happy to hear from you on that.
Ms. Pelaez: Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, an exempt employee has to be
paid for any day of the week in which they work, so if you work on a Monday you have
to get paid for that entire day. You can – and they [inaudible] but the Fair Labor
Standards Act does not say that you cannot verbally reprimand an exempt employee or
provide a written reprimand to an exempt employee. It only states in terms of
compensation that if you’re going to suspend an exempt employee it has to be in terms of
a week.
Mr. Shepard: In this question 6, Brenda, it says what financial impact or potential
financial impact does the error have on the city and the employees, and you said none.
But it certainly had some potential, didn’t it? I mean when you’re standing down there in
State Court, you got a potential of going to jail. I mean you may not, but wasn’t there
some potential loss of money to the city if these repayment agreements all didn’t get
signed and performed?
Ms. Pelaez: From the information provided by my manager, all of this, at that
time he was under the impression that all of the monies would be recouped back in the
third paycheck of October, so that was right around the corner and there was no –
Mr. Shepard: But the, but the, that’s the best case scenario.
Ms. Pelaez: Right.
Mr. Shepard: That’s the best case scenario.
Ms. Pelaez: That is the best case scenario, yes.
90
Mr. Shepard: But what about the worst case scenario?
Ms. Pelaez: The worst case scenario would be that the employee would quit.
Mr. Shepard: Or die.
Ms. Pelaez: Or die or – well, now, but we have that last check so I could get my
money back, yeah. So that’s where, there would have been, even if he died or quit or
something, any vacation accruals, I could have gotten the money back because we were
talking a small sum of money.
Mr. Hornsby: Excuse me.
Mr. Shepard: Go ahead.
Mr. Hornsby: But there is the possibility that an individual could have been
hospitalized with heart surgery.
Ms. Pelaez: And he would have been covered.
Mr. Hornsby: He wouldn’t have the check funds, his last check wouldn’t cover it.
Ms. Pelaez: The coverage is not based upon employee’s check. Okay. That’s –
let’s kind of clear that one up.
Mr. Hornsby: [inaudible]
Ms. Pelaez: Yeah.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let’s have a little order, now.
Ms. Pelaez: Here’s the –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible]
Ms. Pelaez: I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Have a little order. Go ahead, Steve.
Mr. Shepard: So the coverage continues on for a while after the last deduction,
Brenda?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes. In order for an employee not to be covered, we would have to
go into the system and put an end date for those employees’ benefits. We had already put
in a commencement date so they were covered. They were covered in the Blue Cross
91
Blue Shield system. And our ISIS system in terms of deducting it out of their wages, that
is where the error is. Not in coverage for Blue Cross Blue Shield. So if someone had to
have heart surgery, they’re covered.
Mr. Shepard: It’s just that their 20% share of the premium wasn’t being –
Ms. Pelaez: Was not being paid, that is correct. [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: So if it’s not being paid from their funds –
Ms. Pelaez: It is being paid from our funds. Exactly. And so that is what we
were working to recoup, was the 20% that we had compensated for that coverage that the
employee owed us.
Mr. Shepard: And everybody signed up?
Ms. Pelaez: With the – from speaking with my coordinator, we have five people,
but they are already of the letters coming and they’re signing it.
Mr. Shepard: Well, what’s the total number of recouping signups you need?
Ms. Pelaez: She’s not here, I think it was 21 or 22.
Mr. Shepard: In the group that Mr. James was in, he was in the second group?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: Okay. Just to identify. What about the group that they later
discovered?
Ms. Pelaez: I don’t know because we have them in one group. When I look at
my, the list of when we put it into the system, it’s one group, so I would have to go back
th
and look at the hire date to see the difference between July 7 and July –
Mr. Shepard: Well, if there were 20 in the second group –
Ms. Speaker: I believe, if I may.
Mr. Shepard: Go ahead.
Ms. Speaker: I believe the total number was about 21 or 22. They were all
grouped together when we did the process to correct it.
Mr. Shepard: And you identified that group when?
92
Ms. Speaker: This was done not last Friday, but Friday before last when we, Ms.
Williams, Ms. Griffin, Ms. [inaudible], Mr. [inaudible] and myself met to get these
agreements out. We identified the entire group at that point and grouped them together.
thst
And we didn’t identify whether they were hired on the 7 or the 21. We just knew, we
identified them as effective –
Mr. Shepard: So you had 20 identified about week ago, is that – ten days ago?
Ms. Speaker: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] a group of 20, and out of that we’ve got 14 signed up, if
you say 20’s the right number?
Ms. Speaker: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: We’ve got six that have not been signed?
Ms. Speaker: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: And I take it the letter is not real complex, is it?
Ms. Speaker: No, sir.
Mr. Shepard: It’s just I agree to repay the city X dollars or something like that?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, because our – even though in the handbook it says that we have
the authority to make salary adjustments, our Attorney wanted something in writing that
the employee actually knew. But from my standpoint, they were aware when they signed
up for the medical benefits that they owed it so we could go get it, but legal – with my
Attorney -- we’ll will get it in writing.
Mr. Shepard: But wouldn’t it be better if we had all those contracts signed up?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes. We have five remaining.
Mr. Shepard: Well, why is it so difficult to get them in to sign such a short thing?
Do we have any idea?
Ms. Pelaez: [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: Are they like on leave or something?
Ms. Pelaez: They’re in various training classes, and when we contacted the
departments, they’re not there. That is what I’m being told. They’re in IT classes and
RCCI training classes. Because the employees, my employees have been going to
93
departments to get them to sign the letter and when we get there, we learn that lo and
behold they had to go to an IT training class.
Mr. Shepard: And help me again, we spend a lot of time on it, obviously we spent
some time putting this book together, you spend time putting your answer together. The
amount of money that’s still at risk is what?
Ms. Pelaez: I don’t know. Well, the total I’ve just been given is the complete
total of $2,112.20, but then we would have to go back and look at the five people that
have yet to sign up to discern how much that is.
Mr. Shepard: It’s still just around $2,000?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: And the group from before, is that all –
Ms. Pelaez: That is the entire amount.
Mr. Shepard: So both groups have been worked, I take it.
Ms. Pelaez: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: In terms of getting the agreements done.
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir. And of both groups, we have five people that we need to
have the letters signed.
Mr. Shepard: But I mean wouldn’t you agree that in answer to question number
6, the potential negative impact was really not even – I mean you didn’t really mention it,
I mean, did you?
Ms. Pelaez: I suppose – and I understand why my manager answered it that way
and I did not correct that answer. It is because we’ve been going through the audit
process and in our environment right now it’s very – we’re hesitant to say that there a
potential liabilities because that lands us into trouble. So yes, I would say yeah, you
could have said there was potential liability but there was fear to put potential liability in
there because we’d be disciplined, we didn’t put in there we were disciplined. So I would
agree, yes, there’s always a potential liability.
th
Mr. Shepard: And, and please answer, at least for me, his 7 question. What will
eliminate this in the future?
Ms. Pelaez: What will eliminate the confusion? If you look in that tab, you see
how confusing those calendars were the employee was using.
94
Mr. Shepard: That’s why I asked it, because I didn’t understand it.
Ms. Pelaez: Exactly. Exactly. But no wonder you would get your dates messed
up. So we actually have a clearly outlined calendar with the commencement of benefit
in, benefit beginning, benefit ending, and that is clearly written down now for the
employee to review, and of course the supervisor went back over, please make sure you
check your work, yes, we’re very busy, but you need to check to make sure you’ve used
the correct dates.
Mr. Shepard: Is this, is this a computer entry process or is it a manual?
Ms. Pelaez: It’s a computer – well, it’s a manual, a data entry. We have to
manually enter in those dates, and so that’s –
Mr. Shepard: So if you put the wrong entry in –
Ms. Pelaez: That is correct.
Mr. Shepard: -- it throw the whole thing off.
Ms. Pelaez: If you transpose the numbers, your benefits will not begin on the
required date.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you both.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: One question, Ms. Pelaez, and I’ll go to – I’m coming down
that way.
Mr. Cheek: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: With all the money we’ve spent on computer programming
in this government, there is not a computer program or there is not someone who can
write a computer program to help you out with this process other than doing it manually?
Ms. Pelaez: [inaudible] my manager has asked on several occasions if there was a
report we could run in test mode to see if we had made any errors, and we have, to date,
that has not been possible. So it really requires you to double check your work.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So your department could not put in a request for a program
that would eliminate the data entry clerk in making a mistake and using manual calendars
– I looked at it, too, and it was confusing to me. I didn’t know what it was. We spend
millions of dollars around here every six months for this magical computer program, and
you couldn’t get one to deal with this?
Ms. Pelaez: Well, let me – the ISIS system as it currently is, they are now coming
around to areas in Human Resources that we need to have addressed, such as applicant
95
tracking and the various things that you’re talking about. And is in the updated of
[inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, let me ask this question and I’m going to move on.
Let me ask this question.
Ms. Pelaez: [inaudible] it’s not coming, never mind.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me ask this question. Have you put in a requisition for
one?
Ms. Pelaez: It is not – okay, how do I explain this? The requisition wouldn’t go
to IT. This is –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Where would the requisition go?
Ms. Pelaez: It would go to Bi-Tech, but they are the ones who –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] I mean don’t you have to clear a requisition
through your manager or somebody to get this stuff?
Ms. Pelaez: No, sir, see –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] Bi-Tech?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, they implement different phases of the program and upgrades,
and we’re on that list, and this is what they’re discerning.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] Andy.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you. Just to recap here. We have no annual employee
evaluation since ’97; correct?
Mr. Kolb: That is – no, we have the annual evaluations for all employees. But
department heads are not included in that group.
Mr. Cheek: Well, I’m speaking to the case at hand, though, so department head,
we have no evaluation. Have there been any interim meetings? How frequently do we
meet to discuss problems, goals, objectives? As needed is what I think was discussed
earlier. I guess my concern – I’m going to put on my HR hat – we are asked to take a
department head who was promoted two years another from another upper level position
and a situation devolved from someone who is one of the lead team members of the
managing for results or governing for results committee, to be accused of insubordination
or a serious breach of proper discipline or inefficiency or incompetence in the
performance of the employee’s job. Is there any oral, written or otherwise, any types of
96
communications in the past two years to communicate to this employee that there has
been some concern about her lack of performance?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, there have been oral and some written communications about
areas, other areas of her performance.
Mr. Cheek: Okay. Is that phrased as areas for improvement or areas of –
Mr. Kolb: Yes, noting that there needs to be correction in processes or other
behavior procedures.
Ms. Pelaez: The conversation that he is referencing has to do with –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Pelaez.
Ms. Pelaez: I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Pelaez, please.
Ms. Pelaez: I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Don’t do that again.
Ms. Pelaez: I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible]
Mr. Cheek: Well, I’m close. This just put us in a quandary in that we were,
we’ve asked for two years for assessments for our department heads and now we’re asked
to render judgment without having the benefit of records. And why again were we not
using the other steps of progressive discipline as far as – I guess we’ve had a verbal
contact and a written contact it sounds like. Do those appear in her file?
Mr. Kolb: No, they do not appear in her personnel file. We hold department
directors to a higher standard than we do our normal employees. And when we have
problems with department heads, we work with them, coach them, talk to them about
corrective action. If necessary, we may put a letter that doesn’t say discipline, but it may
say you need to work on this particular issue. So we hold them to a higher standard. But
if they don’t, aren’t responding, then we have to take other actions.
Mr. Cheek: What would the next step – I guess is the next step where we’re at
today?
Mr. Hornsby: Correct.
97
Mr. Cheek: So we would not put anything written demonstrating lack of
performance in the file?
Mr. Hornsby: [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: Can’t hear you, Walter.
Mr. Hornsby: I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Speak into the mic, please.
Mr. Hornsby: I would be very reluctant to put it into the file as a written
reprimand of [inaudible] employee. I would be reluctant.
Mr. Cheek: But that’s, that is part of the understood process of progressive
discipline, is a written reprimand prior to any type of suspension with or without pay. I
have no further questions. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You want to respond to the question that [inaudible] you
started to before?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir. And I apologize for that interruption. When a person is
reprimanded, they should know that they’re being reprimanded. If you’re having a
conversation in regards to what is your opinion about how the application process should
be handled and then there is a disagreement, and then you agree to okay, I disagree but
you’re wanting to handle it this way and that’s how we do it, and then you formalize that
conversation, that this is the process that you need to use, that to me is okay, I’m your
supervisor and this is how you’re going to do it even though you’re telling me you don’t
have the staff to do it. That is the conversation that he is referencing. That is not a
reprimand.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, without going into detail, that is not the only
issue that I talked about. I don’t need to have words put into my mouth. I’ve had
numerous conversations on the issue of performance.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Ms. Pelaez, I’m not going – we
already established the fact that something happened and we here now to talk about
something else. We going through this whole thing as if we trying to prove something
did or didn’t happen. You admitted that, something did happen. The Administrator said
there was a verbal reprimand and a, and a written one but it’s not in your file. Well, to
98
me, I need to see something. If it’s not there, then it ain’t there. Whether you hold the
department head to a higher standard or not, there ought to be something to say I agree to
disagree. And if you disagree, sign right here. If you talking about how you hold people
or how you hold department head to a different level, these people are employees, they
got guidelines, is that guidelines said you can give them a letter of reprimand and they
can appeal, they’ve got to have something in their file. I mean what good is there for a
person to appeal a case if you got letters and documents or emails or some, something in
black and white to show? We wouldn’t even be in this point, I don’t think. I think the
Human Relations, I mean the HR person would, would be respectful enough to know if
you had documents in your file, in her file, that it wouldn’t be any use to come in here
talking about you know, to overturn something. So whether we hold them to a different
standard or not, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I done heard from, from every angle, from past
history. We talked to the Administrator about evaluation. I was criticized because I
asked for the Fire Department to be evaluated. We evaluated those guys under them,
under the Chief of the Fire Department, but the Chief had not been evaluated. We have
been two years getting a process together. We was going to put something together and
we was going to use that once we got it together. It ain’t got together yet, going into the
third year now. So I’m mean, we, we, we, we minor on the major and major on the
minor. We need to take a vote, we need to go ahead and do what we going do, and let’s,
let’s get on with the next agenda item, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I don’t know what Mr.
Bridges got to say, but I heard all I need to hear. I don’t see no evidence. My, my
associate, Mr. Shepard, have taught me one thing, that you got to have facts, that you got
to have not just fiction but you got to have some facts to go along with that, and I haven’t
seen that yet. I agree something happened, that something did happen. I agree that there
was a, a, a error. But I remember we paid a cell phone bill for a whole year and nothing
happened with that. A whole year an employee was not in this government, we paid the
cell phone bill. But nothing came before this Commission in that department. So let’s,
let’s, let’s, let’s, let’s play the same ball all the time, y’all, let’s quit changing balls up
when we feel like it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Bridges: I yield to Mr. Cheek. He said he had a question.
Mr. Cheek: Just a quick one. All of us have been here for a long time. When this
flag went up that there was a problem, how many phone calls and personal visits were
made between Deputy Administrator and the department head to resolve this before it got
to this floor?
Ms. Pelaez: None.
Mr. Cheek: Doesn’t look like much of a team. That’s just a comment. Just
speaking from a management standpoint, view us as the customers, y’all should have
worked this out in-house before it got to this floor. It should have never got to this level.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Bridges.
99
Mr. Bridges:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won’t be long. I think Vanessa did a
good job presenting her case. I just, you know, have some concerns about how good a
case that is and how well documented it is. Vanessa mentioned that Ms. Pelaez is being
punished for giving erroneous information, and she repeated that statement, and I took
that to mean that she was not being punished for lack of discipline or supposed lack of
discipline, discipline for her employees. But on Mr. Hornsby’s letter, which is Tab A-4
for those who want to look at it, in the last paragraph he says that he is concerned with
Ms. Pelaez’s failure to properly manage her department, particularly the discipline of her
employees. He goes on in that regard. So obviously there was some question. Part of
this is the employee discipline thing. And you know, it was mentioned that the reason the
middle was not reprimanded is because the Administration does not micro-manage its
department heads. But you know, there’s no secrets in the courthouse, as Mr. Mays has
said before, and I don’t, I don’t know as that’s necessarily the case. I think when a
department head is given the responsibility of taking corrective action against an
employee that I would think the Administration would normally support that unless they
could prove grounds otherwise. And I don’t think they’ve done it today. I think we have
to be consistent with department heads as well in supporting or not supporting them in
regards to their discipline of employees. As a for instance, if Ms. Pelaez had denied a
week’s vacation to one of her employees because he did not have particular projects
completed and I don’t think the Administration should give him permission to take that
vacation without at least talking to Ms. Pelaez about it, and I think that’s no secrets in the
courthouse, you know, that’s happened. So I think this whole issue, once again, comes
down as, as Commissioner Hankerson says, communication, paperwork. We see all this
paper going back and forth, and I think it simply could have been handled with a phone
call or you know, down two flights of stairs or something. Ms. Pelaez, from what I see,
she was given some questions to answer, she responded to those questions. Maybe it
wasn’t the words you wanted to hear or in the format you wanted to see, but she
responded to that given a very short period of time to do so. The, the idea of, the fact that
there’s nothing in her personnel file. I understand that Administration has some issues
here, and I think they’re probably legitimate issues in regards to Human Resources. But I
don’t think that in this case it’s been handled in the proper manner and in proper order.
We talk about she’s had no reprimands since 1997. Well, part of that’s our fault. She
worked for us as the EEOC officer for a long time directly for us. We didn’t do any
evaluating. I don’t think we can hold that against the Administrator for in the past two
years not doing anything. Having said all that, I think Ms. Pelaez has proven her case
here in regard that there is not grounds for the disciplinary, type of disciplinary actions
So Mr.
that were taken. Nothing in her file. No documentation. No communication.
Chairman, I make the motion that we reimburse Ms. Pelaez for one week’s pay and
that no record of this be in her personnel file.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. Mr. Hankerson.
100
Mr. Hankerson: I don’t have no further comments. [inaudible] spoken most of
what I was going to say.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Further discussion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Just very quickly. I think one thing to add to this, and as I said I hope
this is the last one of these trials that we have. We got too many people on board to
trying [inaudible] and that’s not to abridge anybody’s rights, but I’m – two things, I’m
still plugging for getting my EEO officer in that department funded and to get it
independent and so it’s, doesn’t [inaudible] with anybody within this government. But I
do think that this is what happens, and not to predict this vote, but this is what happens
when we are put in an either/or position where there are no alternatives, and I know what
the law says on one side of the policy that you can do, but [inaudible] not prohibitive in
terms of other forms of discipline that you can deal with, or would could have been done,
and I think at that point if you had something else in between, the Commission has no
choice other than consider what’s on the floor, and that is for the five days or the
overturning. And I plan to support the motion that’s on the floor.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible]
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, before closing I do want to say this, though. I’d like
to say this to the Administration and to the department head, that we do expect, you
know, the job to be carried out with efficiency and so forth, and we really don’t want to
have to face this type of situation again, and we expect customer service in the
departments from all department level, and sometimes that is not done properly, too.
And if the Administration, if you want me to make a decision on something we must
have some, some evidence, and some better evidence than what we shown today, cause
your word against theirs is not just good enough, and I’m really addressing that on
department heads we don’t put any type of written reprimand in their file. Well, we want
that. And the reason we want that, because of the fact that department heads have money
to sue. I mean lower departments, on the lower level, they may have to just to on and roll
with it. But I think in, in those positions, department heads, I think we need to have some
evidence. If they’ve been reprimand orally or whatever, it need to be some form of
record in their file that we, when it comes before us, it’s not a reason or a doubt that this
person has been disciplined about the same thing and that we can make a quick decision
on it and move on. So I just wanted to say that.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Boyles.
101
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I, let me just say this, that in my
almost two years down here, I think this is the most disappointing I’ve ever – the most
disappointing situation I think I’ve been in since I’ve been down here. Some of you may
remember I served for 22 years as a department head. And I can see, when I look at this
information, this volume of information we have, if you look at one side it sounds right,
if you look at the other side it sounds right. And somewhere there is a big gap in the
middle. I can understand what the Administration was saying because we need to get the
attention. And I think all of us as Commissioners can tell you that. We need to get the
attention – Mr. Williams has said it many times, that we need to get the attention of some
people. But we got to be fair in doing that. We all have been faced with a lack of
response, even from Ms. Pelaez’s department. And other departments. There’s been a
lack of response from questions. Not all, but a lack of response. And we all know that.
We all can sit here and say that. And the thing that pains me, even though I’m going to
vote with the majority, I’m sure, is that somehow we’ve got to back up one day and say
that we’ve got an Administration that we’re going to support. We’ve got to do that one
day to get this government out of the negative perception that it has. And I don’t know
where we begin that process, but I think it’s something that we are going to have to face
as, as the ten of us are going to have to do it at some point. So I’m going to be honest
with you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, this is probably the most disappointing discussion and the
most disappointing decision I’ll probably ever make on this Commission.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other discussion? Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor. And what I do see charged was under
section 1F10, the making of false statements. And to me when, I’m not pleased with any
of it. And, and when the information came to hand that or came in your possession that
there was another group of new hires made, I think there should have been some
amendment, at that point both sides should have amended it, and it shouldn’t have come
all the way to this floor. And I, if it didn’t rise to that level, I’m, I’m just, I’m just not – I
mean my vote shouldn’t be counted as an endorsement for either side. This is one of the
most difficult decisions I’ve had to make down here, I’ll tell you that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Having no further discussion, all in favor of the motion to
overturn please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Beard and Mr. Kuhlke out.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Bridges: Call for the order of the day.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Wall, are you ready for legal?
Mr. Wall:
63. LEGAL MEETING.
102
??
Discuss personnel.
Mr. Wall: I’d also like to discuss litigation and give legal advice on a matter.
Mr. Shepard: I so move we go into legal session.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion and a second.
Mr. Beard, Mr. Williams and Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion carries 7-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let’s call our meeting, let’s go ahead and adjourn the
meeting, the Commission meeting. Do we have a motion we adjourn?
Mr. Shepard: No, we need to approve the affidavit.
64. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion to approve the affidavit?
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. All in favor?
Mr. Beard, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 7-0.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
103