HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-05-2003 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
November 5, 2003
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:12 p.m., Wednesday,
November 5, 2003, the Honorable Lee Beard, Commissioner and Richard Colclough,
Mayor Pro Tem, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Shepard, Williams and
Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hons. Bob Young, Mayor; Cheek, Commissioner.
Also Present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena Bonner,
Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by Rev. Delores Hankerson.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Beard: Next we have the Employee of the Month Award.
The Clerk:
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH AWARD:
September Employee of the Month
Mr. John Stearley
Augusta Regional Airport
The Clerk: Mr. John Stearley, along with Mr. Buster Boshears and members of
the Employee of the Month Committee, if you would just please join us here at the
podium. Members of the Augusta Commission, the employees recognition committee
has selected Mr. John Stearley with the Augusta Regional Airport as the Employee of the
Month for September, 2003. Mr. Stearley has worked for the city of Augusta for over 15
years. Mr. Stearley is employed as a vehicle maintenance shop supervisor. His duties
include overseeing airport vehicle maintenance, performing preventative maintenance,
and maintaining service records on all equipment. He was nominated by fellow
employee [inaudible] Owens who states: in the month of September, Mr. Stearley
obtained at no cost to the airport a bull dozer through the federal government surplus
program. This equipment has a value of over $200,000. In addition, he obtained several
new fire truck tires at no cost, saving the airport $12,600. Ms. Owens further states Mr.
Stearley has been recognized at airport staff meetings on four occasions for his efforts in
reducing the airport operating costs in the month of September alone. He is continually
being recognized for his accomplishments in acquiring government surplus equipment,
his relationship with the airport tenants, and assisting them with repairs, maintenance to
their equipment, and his exemplary work with his co-workers. The committee felt that
1
based on Ms. Owens’ recommendation and Mr. Stearley’s attributes he should be
awarded the Employee of the Month for September. Mr. Stearley is married is Jennifer
and they have four children, Michael, Benjamin, Gregory and Emily. The Committee
would appreciate you joining us in awarding Mr. Stearley Employee of the Month for
September. Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Beard: We want to thank Mr. Boshears, who has stepped into a very unique
position. He’s running two airports [inaudible] really feel for you. But when you have
people like this Mr. Stearley and I’m sure you have many of them out there doing that
kind of job, it makes your job easier. And on behalf of the Mayor and Commission, we
want to just thank you for the job that you’re doing, Mr. Stearley, and hopefully that you
will continue to doing this. These are the type people that we need, that we’re going to
have good government and good government help from other people in the community.
Thank you very much.
The Clerk: Mr. Boshears, would you like to say something?
Mr. Boshears: I think you’ve said it all. It’s been a pleasure working with people
like Mr. Stearley. He’s certainly made my job very easy out there. Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Beard: Our Administrator would like to introduce two new employees, and
we’re going to give him the opportunity at this time.
Mr. Kolb: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Members of the Commission, I’d like to turn
this over to Teresa Smith. We have two very key positions that have been filled recently
and we’d like to introduce those employees to you at this time.
Ms. Smith: Thank you. It is with great pleasure that I finally am able to
introduce to you our new Assistant Director for Solid Waste, Mr. Mark Johnson. Mark
comes to us from Sweet Home, Oregon, and has a very diverse background with respect
to solid waste operations and has worked for several large private companies. So we
would like to ask you to welcome Mark aboard.
(A round of applause is given.)
Ms. Smith: And it’s a double bonus out at the landfill because we have also filled
our Solid Waste Manager’s position and I would like introduce to you Mr. Robert
Williams. Robert comes to us from the city of Savannah where he served as the
sanitation supervisor and was responsible for overseeing the collections area in the
downtown historic district. Mark [sic] will be working very closely with the collections
contract and will be addressing citizen concerns, looking at ways to improve that
2
program. Again, I’m very pleased to be able to finally introduce to you the two new
people that we have to fill these two positions. Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Beard: I can imagine how pleased she is after all the time we have been
trying to fill those positions. So we are looking for better things from Public Works with
your two additional people added to that. George, I’m sure you’re appreciative of that,
too.
Mr. Kolb: Amen.
Mr. Beard: Next we have a delegation from the East Augusta Neighborhood
Association, and I’m going to turn this over to Commissioner Mays because he is the
person who has invited our delegation or requested our delegation to come forward, so
Commissioner Mays, you want to take the [inaudible]?
DELEGATION: (Requested by Commissioner Mays)
East Augusta Neighborhood Association
RE: ARC Public Works Maintenance Program
Mr. Mays: Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mitchell is with us today, as
well as some members of the East Augusta Neighborhood. And I say our District
because Commissioner Beard and I share it together. One observance that was made, and
I think I missed only one of the sales tax hearings that we’ve had, probably the largest
one attendance-wise that has been thus far has been in East Augusta. And while the
projects that were being presented were well received, there were a lot of things that were
concerning operations that are ongoing or, in some cases, the need of them to be done in
East Augusta. And in an area whereby the volunteer support has been great, the new
center that’s there, and in terms of the way the neighborhood association has embraced it,
at the same time coming historically out of an area that before the county provided fire
protection they actually built and maintained their own fire department and had it there
which soon our fire department will be moving out of it, but it was out of growth of east
Augusta and the people on that end of the county. But I’m going to ask our president to
come forward, because there are some concerns and I brought this out particularly
because we’re talking about doing some things in the south, the west, and all over the city
right now as it relates to reprogramming in terms of public works [inaudible] and they
have some very serious needs that are there. They’re not in the, the, the, so much the
love of nature animal business, but they’ve got some, some rodents, some snakes, and
some other problems that are there that people who are not residents are taking up
residence. And Mr. President, would you come forward at this time and to address us on
that particular issue, as well as some others that are concerning the residents of East
Augusta at this time? And we thought it very [inaudible] because this is one of the
highest voting precincts in this county and has been historically, and that while we were
there asking people to consider what we might be embarking upon in millions of dollars
3
in new projects, they already had existing problems that needed to be brought to our
attention. So I would turn it over to our president at this time.
Mr. Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Beard, Commissioners, I am Bill
Mitchell. I represent the East Augusta Neighborhood Association. I serve in that
position as president of the Association. I thank Mr. Mays for inviting us to come here
nd
today because at the SPLOST meeting on the 22 of October, which was held over in the
center, there were several things that were presented, the [inaudible] that were presented,
that [inaudible] with us when you consider what we’re going through in east Augusta. I
just want to take a minute to cover some of these things that we run into here in east
Augusta. For one thing, keep in mind this is a low area, a low area. Those who know
about this, know that it used to be a plantation out here. I remember collard greens and
turnip greens growing out there all in that whole area. [inaudible] area like this there’s
always [inaudible] and as Mr. Mays already mentioned, snakes and rats over there by the
College Bowl, the old College Bowl used to be there. And there also, the big issue we
have that’s a part of this is that drainage ditches are still open. There are drainage ditches
open that are behind the center. Now there was a concrete [inaudible] in that ditch back
there, but it still stays full of water, partially full of water when it rains. There is also
ditches open over in, on Kentucky Avenue. There are ditches open on East Boundary,
and there are ditches open in other areas down that that contain and hold water. A good
example is the ditch, the ditches along Sand Bar Ferry. We had a trash pickup out there
Saturday, and we all got out and went on and picked up trash all along Sand Bar Ferry
and that whole ditch down there from [inaudible] to Lovers’ Lane has green water in it.
And the biggest problem, another problem along that same line is yesterday I was out
working in my crops in the back yard back there and it’s warm weather now and the
mosquitoes are out. They’re back out again. I thought when it turned cool here – I talked
to Ms. Cheryl Turner about a month ago about the mosquito problem and she had assured
me somebody would be out to spray the area, but now we got mosquitoes that are back
out again due to the warm weather. And it’s hard to stay out when the, the, the
mosquitoes – and it’s warm and the mosquitoes start to come out. And most of all, you
have the problem we now know of this West Nile Virus. And we all need to be
[inaudible] because of West Nile Virus because of mosquitoes. [inaudible] lot of things
nd
that I mentioned [inaudible] the center last week, the 22 rather, is that a lot of big
projects have been talked about. I heard about amphitheaters, I heard about enlarging
tennis courts, I heard about the sports arena, I heard about other projects that are being
planned, all high tech future projects. We in east Augusta are still suffering from ditches
that are full of water and mosquitoes that are biting us. And I don’t believe that these,
this project should be treated as a SPLOST project. That ought to be just plain old tax
money. They should be fixing the ditches and coming in and taking care of this water in
these areas down here. Another thing that I would like to mention pertains to the clearing
and grass cutting. We have some entrance signs at East Boundary and Sand Bar Ferry
and East Boundary and Laney Walker. The problem is that we have a beautification
committee and their responsibility is to put flowers out there and to keep flowers
growing. Well, you can’t do it with buckets of water. And right across the street from
us, over there at East Boundary and Sand Bar Ferry, Olde Town has the same type sign
there and they have water, though, piped in water. And it’s always pretty. Ours are
4
always dead. As soon as you cross Sand Bar Ferry, you see grass growing that’s not
maintained properly. Ditches [inaudible] ditches behind our houses are not cut on a
regular basis. We just have some things that I believe, we’re asking the Commission to
take a look at these areas, and I’m appealing to – so we can get some of these things
taken care of. With all these high-tech projects going on, with the mosquitoes down here
and West Nile Virus, we won’t survive [inaudible] high tech projects, we’ll all be dead
from mosquito bites. So we just asking that the Commission could take a look at these
areas and give us a hand in taking care of some of these things. Once again, Mr. Mays, I
thank you for inviting us down. I thank you, Commission, for allowing me to speak.
[inaudible] how much they are going to do for us, I sure would like to have a timetable on
it too, folks. Don’t tell me y’all are going to do it and I don’t know [inaudible] it’s going
to happen. So I’m asking for your help in getting these projects taken care of. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to know, and I know this will probably end up
at some point of finalization through, through Engineering Services Committee, but at the
meeting that night we had representatives that were there from our various departments.
I’d like to know if there is anything at least in the preliminary works for increased
maintenance in the program that is, that’s there and it should already be done, whether it
be from – someone in Public Works or through general Administration at this time. In
terms of giving an answer. [inaudible] finalization partially, you know, fully, what may
be the plans, because this entails all of, every area of Public Works, so I’m glad to see the
solid waste people coming on, I hope we can send you a whole lot of stuff from East
Augusta real soon. He mentioned behind that recreation center that was most recently
cut. That’s been the only area of that, what we call the big ditch in East Augusta, that’s
the only area that has been cut. That’s behind the public building that we just built. The
rest of it [inaudible] gone to the dogs. There’s a lot of county easement property that runs
between the fences that border up on these streets, where you have manicured lawns,
front and back, by the neighbors, but the properties that we own are the ones that have
[inaudible]. And I think you’re going to have to come with a different level of planning
for an area that sits on its lowest elevation and that seemingly to a point of just saying
we’re going to get back and cut it. The median in Laney Walker Boulevard does at least
get some servicing there. But I remind you that people don’t live in the middle of the
median. The people live where these ditches run through their back doors, their back
yards, and something just needs to change to a point that when it gets dark [inaudible]
vampires are coming from the standpoint that you [inaudible] and you can’t go outside. I
know East Hall Street, Mr. Hicks and those, they were killing rats over there. They had
about seven yards dug up where rats had actually eaten into those sewers. Some that they
were having to smoke out. They were coming from that big field. So it’s a mess. And I
just want to know whether there is an answer today for something to get started in that
area. Cause we got a lot that’s on here today and I’m not going to, I’m not going to
[inaudible] anybody else’s area cause part of it’s the upper end of my area to serve. But
we’re in the reprogramming business today. We spending about close to $3 million on
reprogramming public works monies to do some needed projects. And as he said, this
isn’t about SPLOST, this is just about regular maintenance. And I need to hear whether
5
or not there is something to be done. This meeting was two weeks ago. What’s on to a
point?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mays, we’re going to hear from the Administrator [inaudible],
but I have an idea what I’m going to do, as presiding here, we’ll hear from the
Administrator first and I have something in mind that I would like to do.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Beard, members of the Commission, I’m going to turn this over to
Teresa Smith. We have, we were at the SPLOST meeting. There are many of the items
that we can probably speak to, but I would appreciate it if Mr. Mitchell could give us a
list that he talked from today and then we can give you a more detailed report. But there
are some things that we did take back from SPLOST that we can’t report to you today.
Mr. Beard:
Let me go on and say what I was going to say. I think what we need
to do here is that we need to start something today with a timeline on it, and as the people
I think what we need to do is get the list,
of East Augusta are here, they [inaudible].
and I would like to appoint a committee of working with Public Works and Utilities,
because I felt [inaudible] water down there for the entrance, so that would include
Utilities, Public Works, and what I’m going to do is appoint a committee of
Commissioners to work with those, Utilities and Public Works, and also put a
timeline on that so that the people of East Augusta, to come back at the first meeting
in December and we would have answers that would include everything that Mr.
Mitchell had on that list and present to you and the Commission whatever need to
be done to complete that. That would give it a timeline, that would give everybody
an opportunity to sit down at the table and do that. So I would like to appoint the
chairman of the Engineering Committee to chair that, along with the Finance
Committee chairman, and Mr. Mays, to meet and bring that back the first meeting
in December. And anything else that Mr. Mays would like to add to that, Public
Works, Utilities, to add to that at this time, they may do so.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Beard: Yes.
Mr. Mays: I’d like to know if there’s anything at least that can be answered quite
frankly today, because – and I think that may need to be [inaudible] as well as the
residents to hear something because some of those things that were talked about that
night at the meeting were, were some that have been in the Augusta Cares hopper for a
good while. Repeated call-ins and, and I think we got a dual problem there. I think the
Committee can address on some long-range things, but I think we are going to have to
deal with – and Mr. Wall can help me with this – to a point of, of how can we deal with,
with what may not be in place, while we’re in the reprogramming business of funding to
deal with some very serious maintenance problems. Because I’ve heard you talk about
the crews, but what’s going on there just will not cut it on that same basis. It’s just not
working there. And I’m willing to listen to what’s tap today, but you know, I guess what
prompted me to ask them to come today, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, is the fact that – and as I
6
said I wasn’t going to rain on anybody else’s parade cause I’m going to vote for – I don’t
believe in playing that – if an area has a need then you go on and try to serve that need.
I’m going to vote for those other issues that are there. But in two days an agenda item
came up to deal with reprogramming nearly $3 million. And while it may have been age-
old to deal with that and the problem may have existed for years, there were folk who had
this same problem before this area was even built. So everybody’s got a problem. So I
want to know from Public Works did you have something today to tell me? I’m willing
to work with the committee but I want to hear from where you are from two weeks ago
and what you got in mind about doing right now.
Mr. Beard: Let’s hear –
Mr. Mays: I’m willing to work but I want to hear what’s on tap and it’s
something I think needs to get started today. Cause we got a lot on us. We got budget
stuff coming, we got the rest of it. I want to know where they can get some answers
today, at least in the pipeline to get us started on it.
Ms. Smith: With respect to the primary issues that were raised at the sales tax
meeting, one of the main issues or the main areas of concern had to do with the
maintenance on the drainage ditches. I’ve spoken with the maintenance department.
They have indicated that there had been maintenance performed on those ditches.
However, it has not be at the same rate that it is performed in some other areas. We were
not aware of the rodent problem out there. We’ve been made aware of that, and in the
discussions that we’ve had, we’ve looked at what actions we can take to try and keep the
vegetation better managed and help to control that problem with rodents out in the area.
It’s going to require some increased emphasis with respect to vegetation maintenance.
The request for irrigation was something that we were not familiar with. The other issue
on the ditches, it was, the issue was raised about open ditches on East Boundary. We do
have a 1% sales tax project that is currently in design to do some work on East Boundary
and to close those ditches. One of the things that we have discovered out there is that
there is a problem with the existing line that those ditches will be tying – excuse me, that
those pipes will be tying into. So we’re anticipating that the cost to complete that project
is probably going to increase somewhere in the neighborhood of $600,000 to $700,000.
It’s tied into an old brick storm drain system and it either partially clogged or partially
caved in. So there are some things we have that are under way. I also committed to
meeting with the neighborhood that night and we will be – I got Mr. Mitchell’s phone
number and will be contacting Mr. Mitchell so we can make a field visit out there to get a
better idea of where those problems are, because there are a lot of ditches in the East
Boundary area, that you cannot readily see where they’re located, and there may be some
areas that we’re not servicing at all.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Beard: Yes.
7
Mr. Mays: Let me respond to one thing, and [inaudible] Public Works won’t
think I’m beating up just on, on them today. I, I, I, I’ll give you one bit of reprieve, Ms.
Smith, on one thing that you said in there in reference to the East Boundary area and what
you’re running into with that old stuff that’s there. My only problem with that, and this is
why I preach it all the time about Commissioners, when you change priorities and what
we deal with and what we [inaudible] D.O.T. and change from year to year and this type
thing, they were talking about dealing with that project that’s on tap. One, maybe two
sales taxes ago, now your predecessors had that situation on their plate. That was one
that was, that was there before you. But to a point that how long it’s been there, and this
is why I made the statement this morning about us having to do some better PR work
with D.O.T. on what we are doing, the thing that D.O.T., the first thing they are going to
say to us is the fact that if we still dealing with East Boundary and work that’s down
there, some of that work was started when I had a W-A-I-S-T line, and now I got a W-A-
S-T-E line. I wasn’t as big as I am now to a point of when some of this got started. And,
and these people are familiar with those lines because they’ve heard the line when it’s
been promised. And so it’s getting to be age old and what I’m trying to do from a PR
standpoint is the fact you are going to lose a lot of folk east of East Boundary in this
upcoming referendum if we don’t take care of some old business. Because some of it is
just, quite frankly, too old to even be still talking about. And that’s, that’s just the way
that that is. [inaudible] old situations down there, I mean we had folk that were working
on that when we had two single governments. We knew there were old bricks and
situation that were down there. That’s, that’s nothing new. Some of those folk are still
associated with the government. So I mean, you know, not – I know you, you, you, you
walked into it, but, but it’s there. And that’s just like the new Commissioners coming on
in January, walk into something [inaudible] job this job’s yours. But what I need to
know, are you all thinking about or do you have something that’s going to come before
us that can deal with a funding mechanism to deal with a different level of maintenance
work there? Because [inaudible] needs to be done better than it’s being done. The
question is going to come up who is going to do it, what crew are you going to pull from
somewhere else to get it done? And so is there something in the pot that is out there that
we can look at proposing to deal with that area? Because obviously, what has been done
and the level it’s being done on will not work for the future. And I mean the immediate
future. Won’t work. Isn’t working. And I think that’s what administrative and Public
Works staff need to be looking at bringing to the table, to the Committee, to say you’ve
got to increase how this is being done. Because that’s, that’s just not, just not occurring.
And if y’all got something to say to that today, I’m, I’m all ears.
Ms. Smith: Unfortunately, Mr. Mays, we don’t have anything to say to that today
with respect to the level of service that we need to have in the East Boundary area in
order to address the issues that have been raised. Once we have a meeting with, with Mr.
Mitchell and we actually go out in the field and have a better idea of where some of these
hidden pockets are, that we’ll be able to come back and compare it to what the
information is that we currently have and be able to identify what additional resources we
need to have to address that problem. And that is information that we will be able to
bring to the committee.
8
Mr. Mays: Okay. One piece of help I might give, Mr. Beard. With all due
respect, y’all have got some folk that have been working out there forever. They are very
familiar with a lot of those ditches. I think to a point that a change of a little direction of
supervision of giving them some delegation authority and telling them to go out and get it
and do it, in plain, old fashioned, cleaning terms, they know where they are. They can
tell you in their sleep and on the back of their hand where they’re located. And I’m not
being harsh when I say it, but it bothers me when I’m being asked to reprogram monies in
other areas today, and I’m going to do it because it’s the right thing to do, I’m, I’m, I’m,
I’m bigger than that and I’m not that petty. What I got a real problem, when stuff that’s
age old in another area, [inaudible] and we get confused, we don’t know where they are
and we have to reinvent the wheel to get some of them done. [inaudible] that works that-
a-way ought to work that-a-way. Now I’m going help today going that-a-way. But – and
it ought to work that-a-way. Cause I got all of it. I got everything from the river to the,
to the north side of Tobacco Road. [inaudible] and I represent [inaudible] I just force my
way into them. But I, I, I need to, we need to get this [inaudible] off the ground because
all this stuff we’re talking about, about these big ticket items, they won’t mean anything
on that end of town of getting folk to come out and support them. They’ll show you
better than they can tell you. Cause if it’s not going to help them, that situation is not
going to change, then folk like me certainly not going to encourage them to do something
different. So y’all need to get a package together. And I thank you for putting me on the
committee, Mr. Beard, but I want them to give me some level of resources to get the
problem straightened out or either turn loose the folk who were cleaning it before, who
know how to get it done, and tell them to go do it. Now it’s looking worse than it’s ever
looked. And it shouldn’t be that way.
Mr. Beard: And that’s why the committee, as I [inaudible], the committee be
appointed because we need, we need some timelines, you know, I’ve been here since ’96
and we’ve been talking, we were talking about it [inaudible] ever since I’ve been on this
one, since consolidation. And we all know the [inaudible] that’s down there, but we must
set timelines and we must set people, the Engineering Services chairman, the Finance
chairman, and whatever y’all – and meeting in that direction. And I set, hopefully, in that
motion, it will be set a timeline, the first meeting in December to bring back [inaudible]
what you said and what Public Works director said, we know that there’s a need there.
They can get to work on it and they meet with y’all and tell you what they have and you
can have your input again as Commissioners, because I sure want to be a part of that so
that we can move forward on that. We have two things – Mr. Williams and then Mr.
Shepard.
Mr. Williams:
Thank you, Mr. Beard. I echo everything Mr. Mays said and, and
to Mr. Mitchell, I appreciate you, you bringing this forward. Mr. Beard, I would
certainly like to make sure that if there is going to be some discussion that at least two
other areas. And I remember three years ago we got a piece of property about six acres
wide behind some homes, that rodents are growing bigger than cats. Rob Sherman came
out and had the landowner to, to cut about six foot around the field. And, and, and it’s
still growing. Nobody else did anything about it yet. Now Mr. Mitchell, I understand
your, your plight, I understand what you’re dealing with East Augusta, I know exactly
9
but Virginia Subdivision, Wilkerson Gardens Subdivision have been suffering. We
brought it to this body. Rob Sherman went out and had his people to go out and look at
that area. And people are suffering drainage problems. Same problem. There is no
drainage. They got ditches in the front yard and ditches in the back yard. When the
water runs, it got to run from one house to the next house, it finally evaporate. The oldest
part of this city between Olive Road and Gordon Highway and between MLK and
Gordon Highway, that area has been just left there as if it doesn’t exist. So I mean it’s on
the record, but if we going do something, if there is going to be a timeline, I would
certainly like for at least these two areas – now I can name some more, now, I’m, I’m not
going go through the list cause we [inaudible] what we got. But I do want these two to be
considered to be looked at for the identical, same problem. Nothing new. Rodents.
Ditches that have not been maintained, that have not been cleaned. Virginia Subdivision
one of those areas that had the contamination from the treatment plant for the telephone
poles over there. Those people think that we have forgot about those. People talking
about how much noise you make. You need to make some noise when you got issues
like that, Mr. Mitchell, and [inaudible] you need to make an agenda appointment every
week, if you have to. Cause those are very serious issues that folk have to live with you.
Your children grow up with that stuff, and when something happen ain’t nobody going to
say a word. So, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, or Mr. Chairman, I was – if you going to have that
I would like to have at least Virginia Subdivision and Wilkerson Gardens
committee,
area looked at as well
because it ain’t no sense in looking at it twice. If these people
going to look at it, they need to look at everything while they’re looking.
Mr. Beard: I think they have two different problems here [inaudible] and we’ve
st
given a timeline of December 1. We know other problems exist in Public Works and
with Utilities. I think it would be a little unfair to dump everything on them and ask them
to do this within that framework. We have kind of two different problems there. I do
understand your problem at Virginia Subdivision and like you said, I could sit here
myself and name three or four others. But we don’t want to – we want to get something
accomplished, and once we get this out of the way, and we’re dealing with the December
timeline, then we give them something else to do at that point and bring the other areas
into that.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem., I –
Mr. Beard: I have the floor.
Mr. Williams: Clarification, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Beard: I’m not finished.
Mr. Williams: Just some clarification when you finish. I can wait.
Mr. Beard: I’ll do it when I finish. We have another problem also [inaudible]
would be Mr. Sherman and his agency. I think that all that needs to be brought in
because [inaudible] I was down there the other day and we ran into a problem in East
10
Augusta and this lady had a manicured yard, next to her was snakes, rats and everything
else, and we shouldn’t have to live in that type of environment, especially when you’re
trying to keep yours up. Mr. – what is the point of clarification?
Mr. Williams: I need point of clarification. You claim they’re two different
issues. I’m talking about snakes and rates. That’s all I’m talking about. Now if Mr.
Mitchell has got different kind of snakes or different kind of rat, I mean maybe we’re
different. But if you going to look at those issues – now I’m not talking about the
drainage problem. I’m not talking about sewerage and, and, and septic tanks. I’m talking
about people who are suffering with a six acre field behind their home and about 20
homes like this, where somebody used to farm and just left it.
Mr. Beard: What is your clarification point?
Mr. Williams: My clarification is, is where you slaying we talking about two
different issues. I thought you was going address the snakes and the rate problem.
Mr. Beard: Address everything in East Augusta that the Public Works director
has outlined and Mr. Mays has talked about. That’s the point of clarification. Mr. –
Mr. Williams: Is that not the same thing, Mr. Beard, though?
Mr. Beard: No, it’s not. We’re going to have the next person who is going to
talk. Steve.
Mr. Shepard:
Mr. Chairman, I was going to – I don’t think we had a motion, did
Well, I was going to put your recommendation, Mr. Chairman,
we, Madame Clerk?
in the form of a motion and that those appointees be appointed andif you would
permit it, if we’d move the deadline back we’d have a little bit more time, the second
meeting in December, I’d take on those two areas that Mr. Williams likes, if that
would be in order.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Beard: Okay. We have a motion and second and to add Virginia Subdivision
to that and what’s the other subdivision?
Mr. Williams: Wilkerson Gardens.
Mr. Beard: And Wilkerson Gardens. Any discussion on that? And what is the
deadline now? The second meeting in December?
The Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: Commission meeting.
11
Mr. Beard: Commission. Okay. All in favor –
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Beard: Yes.
Mr. Mays: Let me just ask this. And I, and I agree with Commissioner Williams,
I don’t have any problem with us hearing that, taking it on. But can we, can we divide a
little of that up, go on and start dealing with East Augusta and then let that one be the
ending one, per se? Cause you are going to have some more coming.
Mr. Beard: I know you’re going to have some more coming.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] take that one and, and get us back here on the original
timetable. What I’m afraid of is that if we trip this up until the middle of December,
everybody is going to start looking for Santa Claus. And we going be ready to get away
from Christmas and I’m going to be trying get back [inaudible] and we’re going to be in
the middle of that argument of dealing with it. I’d much rather stay where we were on
coming back, as much as we can [inaudible], start with East Augusta, add that one to the
list, and let them be items A and B and go on and move with it.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mays, I just –
Mr. Mays: Personal opinion.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mays, [inaudible] you know, I’m going to accept whatever the
body wants. But in reality we ought to understand that you can’t do three or four of these
things at the same time. And that’s just common sense. All in favor, let it be known by
the usual sign of voting.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Beard: Again we want to thank the people from East Augusta for coming in
today. We hope that this will get something moving down there for and, and we can get
something going. Thank you. You can, you can leave if you want to. Be happy to stay if
you want to, but that take care of the delegation from East Augusta.
The Clerk: Go to our consent agenda now?
Mr. Beard: Yes.
The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1 through 13. that’s items
1 through 13.
For the benefit of any objectors to our alcohol petitions, when the
petitions are read, and if there are any objectors, would you please signify your objection
by raising your hand?
12
PUBLIC SERVICES:
2. Motion to approve a request by Paul M. Davis, Sr. for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Gopher’s
located at 724 Broad Street. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee October 27, 2003)
3. Motion to approve a request by Gregory A. Safford for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer license to be used in connection with Crossroads located
at 1102 Broad Street. There will be dance. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee October 27, 2003)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions? No objectors, Mr.
Beard.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Beard: Commissioner Boyles.
Mr. Boyles: If I may, from the Engineering Services Committee meeting that we
held right before this, and in the absence of Chairman Cheek, I would like to request that
we add items 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 –
Mr. Beard: Hold it. I’m not that fast.
Mr. Boyles: I’m sorry.
The Clerk: You’re talking about our regular agenda Engineering portion.
Mr. Beard: Okay. She’s getting it. Slow it down.
Mr. Boyles: I’ll slow it down just a little bit.
The Clerk: I got it.
Mr. Boyles: Got a good announcement to make toward the end of one item.
Mr. Beard: Would you start again?
The Clerk: I got it.
Mr. Boyles: Okay. Ready? 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. 25 was handled as
information.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
13
Mr. Boyles: And I have an announcement. We have in committee asked to defer
item 25A, waiting on some information back from the Georgia D.O.T. That information
came in at 1:42, and I’d like to add item 25A back to the agenda and place it on consent.
The Clerk: And 16.
Mr. Boyles: 16, I think we wanted to pull from consent for –
The Clerk: You can pull it. You want to add it on the consent agenda and then
pull it out?
Mr. Boyles: And then pull it out? Okay, we’ll add item 16 also, Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: Okay. And 25, what you want to do with that one?
Mr. Boyles: 25, we –
Mr. Beard: 25A.
Mr. Boyles: The committee had voted to defer that to the next meeting, but we
would like to add it back because of information received at the end of the committee
meeting.
The Clerk: You want to add it to the consent agenda items?
Mr. Boyles: Correct. Add 25A –
The Clerk: A.
Mr. Boyles: -- to the consent agenda.
The Clerk: Okay.
The Clerk: So the consent agenda would consist of Items 1 through 13 on the
consent agenda and under the regular agenda, the Engineering Services portion,
items 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25A.
Mr. Beard: Okay. Steve.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask that we add the consent
agenda item 26 and the pension items, 30, 31 and 32 as recommended by the Pension and
Audit Committee.
Mr. Beard: That’s 26 and what else?
Mr. Shepard: 30, 31 and 32.
14
Mr. Beard: Anyone have any objection to those being added or any more added?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Kuhlke and then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Chairman, I just, I move that we approve the consent
agenda.
Mr. Beard: did you have anything add, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: No, I had something to – item 25A I need some discussion on that
before I allow it to be added, or I can pull it off the consent, either way you want to do it.
But I did need to discuss that, 25A.
Mr. Beard: 25A?
Mr. Williams: Correct.
Mr. Beard: All right. You want to just pull that one?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. That will be fine.
Mr. Beard: We can approve it and pull it, right, Madame?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. I just need a second to the –
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Beard: Any other – Mr. Hankerson, you have your hand up?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, I was going to pull 16.
The Clerk: Okay. Are you ready to pull?
Mr. Beard: [inaudible]
The Clerk: That’s Mr. Williams wanted 25A.
Mr. Hankerson: 16.
The Clerk: 16. Mr. Hankerson, number 16.
Mr. Beard: 16?
15
The Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Beard: Is that on the regular?
The Clerk: That’s on the regular agenda. Engineering Services portion.
Mr. Beard: Okay.
The Clerk: Item 16.
Mr. Beard: Okay. Any others to be either pulled or –
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Motion to approve a request by Kathy Boone for a Therapeutic Massage
license to be used in connection with Augusta Center 4 Massage Therapy located at
211 Pleasant Home Road, Ste. B-3. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by
Public Services Committee October 27, 2003)
2. Motion to approve a request by Paul M. Davis, Sr. for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Gopher’s
located at 724 Broad Street. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee October 27, 2003)
3. Motion to approve a request by Gregory A. Safford for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer license to be used in connection with Crossroads located
at 1102 Broad Street. There will be dance. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee October 27, 2003)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
4. Motion to approve the city becoming the pass-through agency for the 2004
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) formula program.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee October 27, 2003)
5. Motion to approve the retirement of Mr. Robert Burnett under the 1949
Pension Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee October 27, 2003)
6. Motion to approve the Final Version of Year 2004 Action Plan for
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG)
and HOME Investment Partnership funds. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee October 27, 2003)
7. Motion to approve the Resolution authorizing Submission of Year 2004
Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant, Emergency Shelter Grant
and HOME Investment Partnership Funds. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee October 27, 2003)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
8. Motion to approve allowing the Augusta Youth Center to move into Fire
Station No. One once the building is vacated and subject to the
16
Administrator and Attorney working out a suitable lease agreement. (Approved by
Public Safety Committee October 27, 2003)
FINANCE:
9. Motion to approve the abatement of city property taxes on Map 34-1, Parcels
317 and 318. (Approved by Finance Committee October 27, 2003)
10. Motion to approve a waiver of property taxes on a parcel of land titled in the
name of the Richmond County Land Bank Authority. (Approved by Finance
Committee October 27, 2003)
11. Motion to approve an appropriation from Commission Promotional Account
to purchase frames from Augusta Art and Frame Shop for the Mayor’s Office
subject to available funds. (Approved by Finance Committee October 27, 2003)
12. Motion to approve correcting an account error to change to the Promotion
Account the catering bill from the Gordon Club for the welcome reception at Fort
Discovery for the Blue Angels inaugural appearance in Augusta in 2002. (Approved
by Finance Committee October 27, 2003)
12A. Motion to approve a request from the Richmond County Sheriff’s
Department for additional funding in the amount of $250,000 from the Law
Enforcement Contingency Fund for prisoners’ meal allowance. (Approved by
Finance Committee October 27, 2003)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
13. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular minutes of the Augusta
Commission held on October 21, 2003 and the Special Called meeting held October
28, 2003.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
16. Deleted from the consent agenda
17. Award bid for the Tapping and Line Stopping System to the lowest and only
bidder, Severn Trent Services (Hydra Stop) for the total amount of $47,122.85.
18. Approve the proposal from Johnson, Laschober & Associates, P.C. to design
the Horsepen Phase II Sanitary Sewer Collection System for the fee of $192,300.
19. Approve the proposal from Johnson, Laschober & Associates, P.C. to design
the Highway 56 24-inch water main and the adjoining 8-inch sanitary sewer line.
20. Authorize purchase of hardware and software related to document imaging
technology in order to implement automatic scanning and endorsing of customer
checks at Utilities customer service locations at a cost of $27,725.
21. Approve Supplemental Agreement Number Two with Gannet Fleming in the
amount of $16,000 for additional professional services for the Augusta Brownfields
Pilot Redevelopment Project to be funded from the existing EPA Grant.
22. Approve the use of $1,100,000 in One Percent Sales Tax Recapture to fund
the Pointe West Drainage Improvement (CPB #323-04-203823372-Phase III
Recapture) and the Pinnacle Place Drainage Improvements Project (CPB #322-04-
203822642-Phase I for $211,000 and Phase II for $289,000) in the amount of
$600,000 and $500,000 respectively.
17
23. Approve award of contract to Blair Construction Company, Inc. in the
amount of $897,894.80 for the Raes Creek, Section III Improvements Project (CPB
#326-04-288811357) subject to receipt of signed contracts and proper bonds. Also
approve Capital Project Budget Change Number Two in the amount of $280,000 to
be funded from One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III, Recapture.
24. Approve removal from the SPLOST Phase II & III Program and add to the
SPLOST Phase V Program the North Leg Bridge Widening ($22,000), Berckmans
Road Improvements ($2,713,000) and Washington Road Sidewalks ($66,000). Due to
projects not being feasible at the present time.
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
26. Approve renaming the remaining two blocks of 9th Street, between Broad
Street and the Levee, James Brown Boulevard/9th Street.
ATTORNEY:
30. Motion to approve Ordinance amending the investment provisions of the
1945 Retirement Plan for employees of Richmond County.
31. Motion to approve Ordinance amending the investment provisions of the
1949 Retirement Plan for employees of Richmond County.
32. Motion to approve Ordinance amending the investment provisions of the
1977 Retirement Plan for employees of Richmond County.
Mr. Beard: All in favor – did we get a second on your motion?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Beard: All right. All in favor of the motion at this time, please vote by the
usual sign.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 8-0. [ Items 1-13, 17-24, 26, 30-32]
Mr. Beard: [inaudible] the audience, maybe they’re waiting on some items.
The Clerk: If there are petitioners here under Public Services for the alcohol and
[inaudible] petitions, those have been approved. All items on the agenda, items 1 through
13, with the inclusion of items 26, 31, 32 and 33 [sic] have been approved. Also, 17, 18,
19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 have been approved. Item 16?
The Clerk:
16. Consider a request from Mr. Charlie Nimmons for an exemption from the
Solid Waste Collection Program.
The Clerk: This request was denied by the Engineering Services Committee in
today’s meeting.
18
Mr. Beard: Someone pulled that.
The Clerk: Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Hankerson?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, we discussed number 16, and I think we have Mr. Nimmons
here that wanted to make his request be known before the full Commission.
Mr. Beard: Where is he? He’s not here. Maybe he’ll come in before the, before
we adjourn, and we can listen to him at that point.
The Clerk: Item 25?
Mr. Beard: Okay, we’ll take item 25 and after that, there has been a request and
I’ll go into that after 25.
The Clerk: 25A?
Mr. Beard: Yes.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
25A. 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-deferred from the Commission October 21, 2003)
Mr. Beard: Commissioner Williams, you pulled that.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Beard. I just needed some clarification. Looking at
the backup here and we going with the low bidder on this project, but I’ve got two issues.
And one of them is that, I mean this bid is almost $500,000 lower than the other three.
We had four, four bidders. That’s a concern to me to be that much difference. We been
having a serious problem with low bids, then come back with these great change orders
where we end up spending twice as much as, as, as the low, as the normal bidder have
come. The other, the other part I wanted to address was that the previous project that
this, this, this firm has done, have Public Works gotten I guess straight with that? Have
we got the contract in place from the previous work already or what? Where are we with
that? I mean before we award a new contract. I think we waiting to get, to meet with
somebody and I don’t know just yet whether have they met. Has that been addressed?
19
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Beard, if I may address.
Mr. Beard: Go ahead.
Mr. Kolb: If I understand your question, on this particular item we were waiting
for a notice to proceed from the Georgia D.O.T. We could not by their rules award this
contract until we received that notice to proceed. We received that notice this afternoon.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I’m not asking about whether or not you had the
authorization to proceed. I’m asking about the low bid, which is $500,000 cheaper than
the rest of the bids. The other point is that the previous contract that this firm did for us,
was there not some guidelines that supposed to been met? And I want to know have
those guidelines been met on the timeline and everything else with the previous contract?
Before we go and award another contract to the same firm that have not completed – I
mean if we holding people to, to accountability, to, to a contract, is that not right to do
that, Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: I understand what you’re saying. I’m just not, I’m not clear about the
guidelines on a previous contract. We have, we have met with Mabus Brothers on
several occasions to discuss several issues, and we have come to terms, we’ve come to an
understanding of how he was to proceed on specific contracts or on resolutions of issues
that we may have with them.
Mr. Williams: Well, I guess I need somebody to share with me what was the
terms of the contract for the project that they are now doing on Laney Walker? And if
that, if the terms of that contract have been fulfilled, I guess I have no problem going
with a, with a $500,000 lesser bid than anybody else. But the terms of the first contract,
have that been, have that those obligation been met?
Mr. Kolb: As far as I know, and I’ll turn it over to Ms. Smith. There are no
issues with the Laney Walker contract.
Mr. Williams: So the timeline has been met and the project supposed to been
complete on the timeline and that’s been met already? It’s completed? I mean they, they,
they, they, they through, they don’t owe us anything, we don’t owe them nothing, they
going to the next project?
Mr. Kolb: Well, the project is still in process. They are still working on that
project.
Mr. Williams: So – Ms. Smith, will you come to – I can’t – maybe I can talk to
somebody who is out in the field out there. Has the timeline been met that we put in
place, those standards been put in place for that contract? Yes or no?
20
Ms. Smith: The change order that was brought before the Commission, for
change order number 13, also included a request for additional time for Mabus to perform
the work that was included in the contract. The change order was approved, the work
was approved, and the funds were approved. But the time extension was not granted to
Mabus.
Mr. Williams: So that means a no?
Ms. Smith: Correct.
Mr. Williams: Okay. And here we are now thinking about considering awarding
a contract that has not been completed because they asked for a timeline and did not meet
but this body decided not to do that and we going to still turn around and award another
contract [inaudible] Tommy, I’m not trying to stop your project, Tommy. I mean that I
think you been waiting and I think it needs to go. But we hold people accountable and
then some people we don’t. If we going do it, let’s do it the same way all the time.
Yeah, I need and answer, Mr. Beard, from the Administrator or somebody. I mean is,
can, can we legally proceed with that, Jim? Can, can, can we do that when – I mean –
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir, you can go forward with it because Public Works had
recommended the time extension and the change order. The Commission has not yet
approved it. Neither has the Commission debarred Mabus Brothers Construction from
bidding on projects. So they’re still allowed to bid on projects. They are the lowest
bidder. You would have to have a valid reason for not awarding the bid to them. Now
the fact that we’ve had some disagreements with Mabus Brothers on a couple of projects
perhaps is justification. But they certainly at this point are entitled to bid or entitled to be
considered and I think what you’re hearing from Public Works, no, they did not complete
the Laney Walker project within the original time period but a contract extension through
a change order has been sought but has not yet been approved by the Commission. And
the other situations, to use Mr. Kolb’s term, we have come to terms and reached an
agreement with them as far as completion of those projects and resolving those issues.
Mr. Williams: But Jim, if it had not yet been approved, then I mean it
disapproved. I mean it can’t be but one way or the other. Ain’t no in between. If we had
not approved it, that mean we disapproved it.
Mr. Wall: Well, I’m not certain that that’s correct. I know that the vote was
postponed at one time, but I’d have to refresh myself on the minutes. I don’t know that it
was denied as such outright. I think it was, it was postponed and I’m not sure it’s ever
come back before on a vote. Now I could be corrected on that, but I don’t remember any
vote saying we were not going to, or the Commission was not going to grant the, the
change order.
Mr. Williams: You know, we have people come in here and not do us a good
service for what we’ve paid and they debarred themselves, using your word, Jim.
Because they didn’t do a good job, we choose not to work with them. And we shouldn’t
21
work with people who don’t fulfill. We have to stand behind what we say and what we
do. So if we got a firm, regardless who it is, that don’t do what they supposed to do, then
they really debar them own self. They really, I mean, they – in my opinion, and I just got
one, but they shouldn’t even be considered for the bid in the first place.
Mr. Wall: Well, there’s a process to remove somebody as an authorized bidder
and we have not gone through that process with Mabus Brothers, nor has anyone
suggested it. They’ve got bonding, payment bonds and performance bonds and those
bonding companies are obligated to stand behind the work, and we’ve not gotten to the
point on any of the contracts where the bonding company has had to step in. Yes, we’ve
had disagreements with Mabus, but they have reached agreement with the appropriate
administrative people about correcting what we view as being deficiencies and moving
forward.
Mr. Williams: All of the time and all of the trouble, all of the confusion, all of the
mess, all of the complaints, all of the insurance stuff that we had to pay, all of those
things we -- I had people’s cars that was tore up, we had businesses that was disrupted,
you know we gave them a timeline and we done everything we know to do to be fair.
And we going to sit here now and act like we, you know, it’s not a concern? I mean –
Mr. Beard, I don’t have anything else. I mean I’m not going to support it, but I can’t see
how we can, with other bidders – now I can see it was a job nobody else could do. We
got three other bidders. Not one, not two, but three other bidders who bid it and they was
competitive. We got a firm here now which is $500,000 less and that concerns me, too,
cause we done had some serious change orders to come about when people come in low
like that. Cause they didn’t know what was in the ground and they been doing work for
200 years in this city but they didn’t know what was in the ground. But I don’t have
anything else, Mr. Beard. I can’t support it. Maybe the other Commissioners can.
Mr. Beard: Okay. Thank you. We have Bill Kuhlke and Mr. Bridges, in that
other.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to move that we approve Item 25A.
I
would like to say that I know Mr. Brigham worked on this project for a number of years,
I know that Mr. Boyles has been working on it since he’s been on the Commission. The
Laney Walker issue is a separate issue altogether. This project needs to go. And I would
hope that the Commission would approve it.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Bridges, you need to talk?
Mr. Bridges: No.
Mr. Beard: Okay, all in favor – any discussion?
22
Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Beard, just, just one question I’d like to ask of Public
Works or either the Administrator. Does this project have a [inaudible] contingency left
in it?
Mr. Kolb: Yes. Yes, there is a, a budget for it in the SPLOST account.
Mr. Mays: What is the amount?
Mr. Kolb: Okay, Teresa, help.
Ms. Smith: Typically the contingency is approximately 10% of the construction
amount, so I’m going to say – and I don’t know the exact number, but it’s going to be
somewhere in the neighborhood of around $180,000 to $200,000 in contingency.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Mr. Beard: All in favor of that motion, do so by the usual sign of voting.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Beard: Do we have – I’ve been requested to take 28 and 29 into legal
because some Commissioners, they have to leave early. Do we have any people in the
audience waiting on – [inaudible] take that and go into legal?
The Clerk: What, 28 and 29?
Mr. Beard: Yes. We were going to take that, but if we had anybody else who had
another item in the audience that we needed to take care of, I would hate to just go into
legal and, and leave these people who are waiting patiently since 2 o’clock.
The Clerk: Yes, sir, I do know we have some folks here for 28.
34. LEGAL MEETING
??
Discuss real estate matter.
??
Discuss pending litigation.
??
Discuss personnel matters.
The Clerk: I do know we have some folks here for 28.
Mr. Beard: So we’re going to have -- we have to take that into legal anyway.
JUDICIAL CENTER:
23
28. Review and approve layout of Judicial Center on "Telfair Street" site and
authorize the City Attorney to proceed with acquisition of property, subject to
environmental analysis of site. (Deferred from the October 28th Called Meeting)
29. Discuss cost cap for the project of the Judicial Center. (Referred from the
October 28th Called Meeting)
Mr. Wall: On 29 the cost cap, except to the extent that real estate acquisition is
involved, is not going to be appropriate to take into legal. We can only discuss the real
estate portion of the cost of the project.
Mr. Beard: So we can only take --
Mr. Wall: Only discuss the real estate portion of the cost of the project.
Mr. Beard: Okay. Those people who requested that -- Mr. Shepard, do you want
--
Mr. Shepard: I’d make a motion -- Jim, can we take all the other legal matters
while we go in there?
Mr. Wall: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: I’d make a motion, Mr. Chairman, that we go into legal for
the purposes of discussing real estate matters, pending litigation and personnel
matters.
What about number 27? Do we want to go ahead and do that? Or is that
something that --
Mr. Beard: I think that’s going to take a little time because there are so many.
Mr. Bridges: I’ll second the motion then.
Mr. Beard: I just didn’t want to leave the people in the audience if we had other
issues.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Beard: Yes.
Mr. Mays: Just so I can end up going back to church in peace, I got one of my
church members there with a whole back row back there -- [inaudible] class with us
that’s in attendance as our guests today, and I wonder if you might recognize? They’ve
got a spokesperson of where they’re from.
24
Mr. Beard: We’ll be happy to. We always like to have people down to witness
our procedure and see what we’re doing. Do we have a person who would like to speak
to us? Yes?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
The Clerk: [inaudible] delegation of students.
Mr. Speaker: I’m sorry.
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Ms. Speaker: [inaudible] group from Augusta State University, just doing a basic
study on the Commissioners and the politics of Augusta and [inaudible].
Mr. Beard: Delighted to have you with us and you’re invited to come back.
We’re going into, I think we’re going into legal in a few minutes, and if you want to wait
[inaudible] we’ll come back out and finish our agenda. Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to withdraw 16. 16 that I was
holding.
Mr. Beard: We have a motion on the floor we have to take care of.
Mr. Hankerson: Withdraw it.
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Hankerson: Yes.
The Clerk: [inaudible] take action.
Mr. Beard: We have a motion on the floor, don’t we?
The Clerk: No, sir, because you delayed it [inaudible].
Mr. Beard: I’m not talking about that, but we already have motion to go into
legal. Wouldn’t we have to take care of that first?
Mr. Bridges: Call the question, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Beard: Let’s hear from the Attorney.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] motion.
25
Mr. Beard: A motion is already on the floor to go into legal. Don’t we have to
dispense with that first?
Mr. Wall: We do.
Mr. Beard: Thank you.
Mr. Wall: You can vote no and then vote on this other motion and then come
back and have another motion on the -- or you can just withdraw the motion to go into
legal and then have this other.
Mr. Hankerson: Just leave it on until we come back out.
Mr. Beard: We could come out of legal and take care of that, if you don’t mind,
Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: No problem.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’m glad you’re here, because I’ve had it today.
Let’s [inaudible] the motion and you can take over after that. Thank you. All in favor of
the motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting.
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 9-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
35. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Wall: I would ask that you add and approve the settlement of Workers’
Compensation claim of Gladys Forston for a lump sum payment of $35,000.
Mr. Shepard: I move we add and approve.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Motion carries 10-0.
26
16. Consider a request from Mr. Charlie Nimmons for an exemption from the
Solid Waste Collection Program.
Mr. Hankerson: I move that we accept the recommendation of Engineering
Services to deny the request.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Motion carries 10-0.
LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITEE:
27. Discuss/approve 2004 Augusta Priority Legislative Issues as recommended
by the Subcommittee.
Mr. Kuhlke: I move that we accept the recommendation from the sub-committee
and in addition to that, that the letter that was passed out by the Administrator possibly
adding those two items to that list.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Bridges: I didn’t see on there the suggestion that Mr. Kuhlke had made
regarding SPLOST funding and that was that the legislature could set aside some
SPLOST funding or a percentage for maintenance of these capital projects that are
approved by the voters, built and then need to be maintained. I wondered if that could be
placed in there for discussion as well. I’ll make that in the form of a motion to add in.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Beard: I would make a motion that each commissioner submit six items by
Friday and we’ll consider those that show up the most on each list.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Hankerson: I’d like to make a substitute motion that we send this back
to the sub-committee and ask them to limit this to the six items that they think
should be priority for us and bring it back to us.
Mr. Boyles: I’ll second it.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
27
28. Review and approve layout of Judicial Center on "Telfair Street" site and
authorize the City Attorney to proceed with acquisition of property, subject to
environmental analysis of site. (Deferred from the October 28th Called Meeting)
The Clerk: Do we need to take this in conjunction with the other item?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, we need to go with that one.
The Clerk: This one item? Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and members of the Commission,
I have been in two courthouses today and I can see the benefits of both. This morning, I
was in a facility in Columbia County that was just completed this year that replaced a
facility that was long in need of replacement and there are concepts in that building, built
into that concept, that are very current with what we are encountering in the judicial
system today, which is mainly the total separation of the circulation of judges and victims
and incarcerated defendants. Something that we don’t, we don’t have in some of the
facilities that have been built a few years ago. Then I came here in a facility that is
th
nearing its 50 anniversary. It was built certainly with the idea that it would be built for a
long time. It was clad with marble, it was built with a great deal of fore thought, I think,
at the time. And so I think as part of this process for the [inaudible] –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 28.
Mr. Shepard: Am I on the wrong item?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No.
Mr. Shepard:
Okay, good, thank. But anyway, let me bring this to a head. And
I think we have to realize that we are trying to do with this project not only a, a center
which will serve justice, but we are attempting to also achieve the goals of economic
redevelopment of an area. We are trying to hold a profession that has been loyal to
downtown and its investment with its rents and its mortgages it has been paying. That’s
the attorneys. We are trying to, trying to do a lot of things with this facility. And I
appreciate the work that has been done to date by the professionals. I think we do have a
good, professional team assembled. The, the building projections have been useful to me
to show how you would array different courtrooms, particularly the idea of one judge and
one courtroom where the judge holds all his proceedings, civil trials, hearings, whatever,
and would not have scheduling problems. There’s a lot in this decision that must be
handled, and handled well and handled carefully and handled thoughtfully. And I would
28
like to suggest that in this process we look at what we refer to as the site – we call it the
I’d like it of record that it’s the site that’s bounded on the
Telfair site, but of record,
th
north by Telfair, on the west by 10 Street, on the south by Fenwick Street, and
then again on the east by James Brown Boulevard
– that we do, do move in a
deliberate fashion through this process, and this is a process that is going to result in a
result that we will live with in this community probably for the rest of our lives. And I
hope longer than that. And so that having been said, as part of this selection process, I
think we need know, if we can, the exact area within that site and, and have a good area
chosen and have the price and the cost of those acquisitions determined as well. So that
would make the motion that we authorize the attorney to
having been said, I
negotiate option contracts with the property owners that would be interested in
talking to us for the purposes of area, specific area and specific costs, with those
owners of record and that that information be brought back to us and he would
confine his work to those property owners of record within the site and that he
bring that back to us at our next committee meeting, I’m sorry, our next full
Commission meeting so that we could make a decision with those quantities, those
quantities or those variables known, that is, tying down cost instead of an estimate,
tying down exact area instead of a guestimate within that site. That, I think, would
aid this decision. We could talk very specific information to those who are
interested and he could bring that back to us and then we could make a further
decision as to which one of these four options within the site that we choose. That is
in the form of a motion, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and a second on the floor. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. The agenda item says review
and approve the layout. I’ve got no problem with what Mr. Shepard said but Mr.
Colclough, we, we, we need to be about the business. I’m ready to make a decision on
one of the three locations or four locations. I cannot accept, I cannot accept going back
renegotiating and talking with either side or whatever. I think, you know, we need to
make a decision on the site that we had and that’s what I’m here today for. I want to
bring that to the table whether I got support in that or not. I’d like to make a substitute
motion that we look at the three, the four sites, make a decision on that and then whatever
decision we make on those, one of those locations, if there is some land or there is some
properties involved, then direct the Attorney can do that. But to go and, and, and to talk
about that, then come back and look at that and see what it going be and then make a
decision, we need to make a decision now. We, we at the table here. Let’s go ahead and
serve the food. Let’s go ahead and do something with what we were supposed to do. We
got four sites here. I’m prepared to look at the, the view and make a decision on it.
That’s in the form of a motion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion on the floor.
29
Mr. Mays: Can I ask the gentleman, Mr. Mayor, to clarify – he’s saying to vote
on one of the four sites. Are you suggesting a site in terms of the motion?
Mr. Mays: Well –
Mr. Mays: Like some clarification.
Mr. Williams: Well, in, in, in your clarification it says on this agenda item to
review and approve. I’m, I’m, I could make making a suggestion on one of the sites, but
I thought we was going look at it here and now, review it again, which, you know, I
didn’t participate in going over to view the sites cause I had already looked at those sites.
I knew what sites that, you know, already were in my mind thought would be a good site.
There was several others that was brought to the table. But I think we need to make one
of those decisions and if that doesn’t work, then we may have to look at something else.
But I mean, we, we been looking at some, look at another aspect of it that we had not
th
even addressed the first part yet. So the James Brown or the 9 Street site would be, the
entranceway would be my first choice, Mr. Mays, and if I need to make that in the form
of a motion, I add that to my substitute motion and we use that for the, for the entrance,
building on that site, like we had anticipated, and begin.
Mr. Hankerson: Is that a formal motion?
Mr. Mays: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, we have a motion. A substitute and a second on the
floor. Discussions?
Mr. Hankerson: I’ve got questions to ask Mr. Williams. Now what option is
that?
Mr. Williams: Well, I’m not, I’m not looking at the plan for it. If I remember
correctly, that was option 4, I believe. It may have been 3, Jim, but the entrance, we can’t
confuse that now, so if – as long as we go the entrance and I brought to the point and it
was, it was worded Telfair and it should have been worded differently on the thing.
th
Mr. Wall: Option 4, 9 Street and Walker Street.
th
Mr. Williams: Option 4, 9 and Walker.
Mr. Bridges: Point of information, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m sorry?
Mr. Bridges: Point of information. Is that the one that faces the post office exit?
Mr. Wall: The loading dock.
30
Mr. Bridges: The loading dock, okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a substitute motion and second on the floor. Any
further discussions?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: I can live with whatever is done today. I have to live with it. I just be
glad to be living. But you know, I said this earlier. This is put on to, to vote for a site.
And everybody was in a mad rush to get to a site and everybody was saying well, we are
holding up, we’ve got to move. We came to the meeting the other week. Now all of a
sudden we get in there to break dancing or where you want to slow down to deal with
negotiating and coming back. I support Commissioner Williams’ substitute motion on
site number 4, particularly for one reason. One, is that it, it entails us to be able to build a
facility and not be able to do, not have to do two things. To take out any existing,
ongoing businesses which are there. Secondly, not to remove any historical structures
which are there and would give the opportunity for the proposed economic development
to be able to come back into that area and to match the blending corridors which are in
that proposal that are on the other side. That may fly, it may not fly. But I think to a
point that this did not have to be to a point of, of being at this stage today, wherever says
you’ve got to go ahead on and you got to deal with a site. When you talk about
negotiating on, on properties for the whole area, that is a very open, broad non-specific
statement that could include everything that’s down there being negotiated. And then
you run the risk, I think, of putting fear factors and pitting property owners against other
property owners, and then the next thing you know that you, you, you, you’ve checker
boarded to a point of you don’t know what stays and what’s gone. Then you achieve the
purpose then of getting done what you said you were not going to do in the very
beginning. And that’s the reason why I support the, the substitute motion that’s out there,
Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard.
Mr. Mays: And also I think it can be built – we talk in this government about
money, what we don’t have, how we going to have to be able to extend it, and I think to a
point just from the point alone of acquisition – we got to acquire something, yes. But I
think to a point that when you look at barren fields, blight, non-existing businesses per se,
and nothing being there, versus taking out ongoing businesses and the fact of those that
are being historical to deal with it, then evidently some of us must know where some
money is buried somewhere or got a magic wand to be able to get it in a strapped
economy, that we are not talking about, and anytime that anybody wants to discover that
pot, I’m willing to go to them to get it and I’ll put the leprechaun in the back of a
limousine and chauffer him there if that’s the case. But I don’t, but I’m not seeing that
money that somebody else is talking about, so if we talking really about being prudent in
31
this whole thing, then I think we need to talk about the possibilities of what could really
happen in that area and a chance for real development, bringing back a lot of those
structures, everything from the – those in the 1860’s, 1870’s, to even the historic nature
of a fully renovated, ongoing again [inaudible] recreation of hotel that was there and
entertainment in the early days of this century, a lot of things that could happen in that
block, for its potential. Other than the fact of bull dozing it and making it a parking lot.
And, and that’s what, that was why I support this particular motion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard and then Mr. Kuhlke.
th
Mr. Beard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I have no problem with the 9
Street entrance. I see on the agenda here it says site. I thought this, and I’m not sure we
th
have done this or not, approve this site, the – whether you want to call it Telfair or 9
Street or whatever you want to call it – I thought that’s what we were coming in today.
If, if we can get to the point, and my position has always been in the last week or so as I
talked about this, that I thought there is enough land in the area that boundaries – from
th
James Brown Boulevard over to 10 Street to the canal to Telfair Street – that there is
enough land in there without destructing anyone, anything, any historical event, there is
enough land in there to do whatever we wanted to do without doing that. I said we’d
have the architects from Atlanta. They can put that building in there any kind of way
they want would to, in a historical or stately stature that we wanted to do. But it was
brought to the attention that there are possibly some other elements there that we could
deal with, and, and maybe without still interrupting anything. And that’s my main point.
Don’t want to interrupt anything on, on this existing site. And secondly, I also don’t
want to tie myself in to if we select 4, that’s as far as you can go, and I guess that’s what I
need some clarification on, because I would hate to tie ourselves up into 4, because what
I’ve seen with all four of these sites that once you select that site, then they’re going to
proceed with what they having and I’m just thinking that if we have an opportunity to
expand in any way in that area to make a more stately site or whatever we going to do
with that, I thought we should give it the opportunity to do that. That’s why I saw no
hesitation in giving the Attorney the authority to, to proceed with acquisitions there. And
we say, you know, we’re not going to disrupt anything. Is that it now? If we select 4, do
we, do – there is no, within that boundaries that we are going to disrupt anything?
Because I’m not that familiar with the site that I can recall not disrupting anything if we
select 4. Those of you who are familiar with that, George or Jim.
Mr. Wall: You talking about the site option number 4?
Mr. Beard: Yes. Do we disrupt anything down there with option number 4?
Mr. Wall: Option number 4 could be constructed without taking any existing
business that I’m aware of. Obviously it shows parking that goes from Walker Street to
Telfair Street. I think there may be one building in there, but to my knowledge there is
no business in that building.
32
Mr. Beard: Well, since we have the architects here, before I vote I would just like
them to tell us what’s involved in, in, in, in, in 4. Because I just don’t want to, just jump
off here and vote for –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do we have the architects? Give us your name and where
you’re from, sir, for the record.
Mr. Greene: My name is Frank Greene and I’m principal of Ritchie Greene.
Architects. I’m part of the Turner Ritchie Greene Woodhurst team that’s designing the
project for you. I think it’s worth noting that in both options 3 and 4 there are no
th
disruptions to either ongoing businesses or to the historic buildings along 9 Street. So
it’s true of Option 4. It’s also true of Option 3. That you would not disturb any of the –
th
C&C Automotive or the ambulance service or any of the historic buildings along 9.
Mr. Beard: Where would the entrance come from in Option 4?
Mr. Greene: Well, in Option 4, I think the only option that we could come up
th
with that we drew in the book was to put the entrance on 9 Street. I think it’s also
possible to put the front door on Walker Street, but I think then you lose even more
th
prominence at that front entrance. It could also be at the corner of 9 and Walker. So it
thth
could be on 9, it could be at the corner of 9 and Walker, it could be on Walker
theoretically and still have street access. Again, we’re at the point in the process where
we’re trying to answer those questions as well. Really, what we’re – and certainly what
we’re trying to do is create, identify all the possibilities and not narrow down to just a
finite answer [inaudible].
Mr. Beard: So in other words, you’re still working, this is a work in process, you
say working on?
Mr. Greene: Where we are in the process right now is we’re not really even
designing the building yet. Obviously we’re trying to select the site. But even were we
to fix a site, what we’re doing is what’s called project definition. We’re really just trying
to answer really fundamental planning questions. And once those questions are defined,
then the next stage is to start schematic design where you actually design a building. We
could tell you what it looks like, where the front door is, where the back door is, which is
sometimes almost as important, and how it works [inaudible] in detail.
Mr. Beard: And in narrowing the scope of land, and I’m not going to get too
much into that, but would it make a difference in the, the construction as to where things
are?
Mr. Greene: You mean amongst the four options or –
Mr. Beard: Yeah.
33
Mr. Greene: Is there, is there a construction difference between the four options?
I really don’t think so. There’s nothing that comes to mind that’s significant, right.
Obviously in Option 1 and Option 2 because you have more footprint and you’re able to
decide between a high rise building, a low rise building, so you have more kind of design
options and functional options for the court to choose between, but things that are really
cost driven, that from a construction standpoint you could say that such-and-such option
will mean a cheaper building or more expensive building, I don’t think you can really say
that except to say that the, the two, the first two options give you the possibility to
explore more options and you might discover economies within those options themselves,
not withstanding the cost of taking down the buildings [inaudible].
Mr. Beard: My last question, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, is not a special question to
him but it’s, it’s more or less I guess a statement of that we want to see the best possible
building there is in this site. Now to Jim or whoever, have we decided on a vote on the
site itself, including the boundaries that were mentioned before?
Mr. Wall: Well –
Mr. Beard: I mean have we, we haven’t – nobody [inaudible] yet, have we
definitely – I know it says to do it today, but we have never decided on the Telfair or
whatever.
Mr. Wall: There are some of us who thought we had made that decision. There
are others who said there was confusion about it, and that’s the reason we’re where we
th
are. When the PowerPoint presentation was up, it showed the 10 and Telfair Street
corner being included in the site and the historic buildings there. But that was discussed
at the last meeting and Commissioner Williams said that is not the site that he had
identified and that’s the reason we’re where we are.
Mr. Beard: So what we need to do today, I’m assuming, is either select a site –
there’s about three options here – of the site that we have not selected, cause we have not
selected the Telfair Street site. So what we’re here asking to do today is to select an
option within the Telfair Street area. Am I correct on that?
Mr. Wall: That’s fair to say.
Mr. Beard: Okay. And you know, I guess the only problem I have with that is I
am for the Telfair Street area, I will probably be for Option 4 in that, but I have hesitation
and I don’t want to rush into anything at this point. I would like to see us select those
boundaries, what we have incorporated, but hopefully we don’t go any further than that
today.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Kuhlke: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Basically what I want to say is
I’m going support Mr. Shepard’s motion simply because I think it gives us the
34
opportunity to look at what reasonable options we really have in those boundaries. The
second reason I’m going to vote for his is cause I’m not going to vote for Mr. Williams’.
We’re talking about a significant project, we’re talking about some project that needs
some prominence to it, it needs some identification, it doesn’t need to be across from a
loading dock of the post office, and it is one of the two that the architects, who are the
professional in this regard, did not recommend to this body. If I had a preference in the
four that we’ve got, my preference would be number 2, and I think that the decision that’s
going to be made, and it may not be made till I’m off the Commission, but I think it’s
worth taking the time to look at that whole area up there to see if we’ve got some options
to look at some other alternatives other than what we have right now. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. What I wanted to say some
echoes what Mr. Kuhlke said, and I noticed that the architect did not recommend Option
4. And when I look at all the projections that are associated with Option 4, I every time
see the main line railroad not next to us like we are in the street here, but running through
the middle of our parking lot. There’s parking on both sides of that railroad track. I
know you could do a pedestrian bridge and you can do other things, but that site to me is,
is not to be jumped on today. If there is a possibility of by consent negotiating with the
property owners within the boundaries I described in my motion, that we could perhaps
relocate it to a more prominent spot than Option 4. The professionals do not recommend
it and I think we have established that the main line traffic going both to Spartanburg and
to Atlanta on the CSX will pass there now and whether we do any part of railroad
relocation, the traffic going to Spartanburg will always pass through there. So I think this
is a compromised site and that we should take a little more time – it may, like I say, it
may be to the next meeting – but this is a decision we want to make for the ages. And I
for one, if I’m rushing at one point and slowing down at others, I think that’s just part of
the price that I’m willing to bear and the criticism that I’m willing to bear to get this thing
done right. Because bottom line, it’s when we all leave here, we should think we have
done our very best for the community and have done something that will be a legacy
project in this area and that will promote the economic development of the downtown and
the neighborhood as it moves to the, to the south. So I would ask my colleagues to
support my original motion, which would give us time to let the Attorney do one more bit
of groundwork, to know what we were dealing with perhaps, and make a better informed
choice on where we’re going to put the footprint of this building. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I beg to differ from my attorney
who sits on the board with me, Mr. Shepard. There is no parking on the other side of this
track that has been there for almost ever. There is no parking. The creek is there. Next
to that. The projection of the booklet shows that the rail is close up to the parking area,
and that’s not true. The site was not recommended, but it was put on the radar screen.
Evidently it was a, a, a possibility to do. The architect who we hired do what we instruct
them to do cause we’re paying them. If it was not a doable site, I don’t think they would
35
of even put it on there in the first place. So we can dance around this thing all we want.
We can say what we want to. We talking about a present. We can fix this building, if the
right people fix this building we would never know that the post office, which is the rear,
which is not that bad. I got some other situations I can show you in a lot worse shape
than that. But if we fix this building right, it would enhance the post office over there. I
mean it would, it would, it would bring something to it. But the money we talking about
spending and we ain’t never got to that part yet, Commissioner Cheek been on that. The
money we talking about spending, we got to be cautious, we got to be careful of what we
talking spending and how we talking about spending it. So you know, if, if, if it don’t go
today, then I understand. But this is a doable, it was on the radar screen, the architect
brought it to us, y’all rode over there and looked at it, I been looking at it all my life,
from the back door of the Red Star, getting food out the window, I can tell you exactly
how many bricks on the wall on the [inaudible] building over there. So let’s make a
move. Let’s do something. Let’s go ahead and either go up or down with it. But we
done danced around long enough. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, that’s all I got to say.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir. I hope that we can move on. I wish we’d put a time
line on [inaudible] we going make this decision, cause I recall when we decided about the
sites now, we here now trying to decide on four different sites or options. And I
remember when we decided when the Telfair Street came in or the site that Mr. Williams
recommended, we had five sites, we was deciding for. And, and that was the one on
Walker Street. We had this original building. We had May Park. We had Reynolds
Street. We had Regency Mall. And I remember or recall clearly the motion was made if
you cannot if the, if the – I’m calling it Telfair Street. Excuse me, Mr. Williams, but
that’s the only way I can identify it. If that did not, if we did not accept that, the second
option would be we come back here. So why we keep going around? Now we on four,
I’m on four options, I wasn’t for either one of them. Y’all know where I was, I was at
Regency Mall. I didn’t vote on any of them. And now I’m here trying to, I made up my
mind to compromise with four, four different options down here at one place, and we had
five to decide from and we saying if we couldn’t get it to work over there, then we’ll
come back to this building right here. Now [inaudible] that’s what we said, we can’t,
seem like we can’t get it to work over there. It just seem like we can’t get it to work over
there, so the motion was said then that Mr. Beard would you accept – I’m repeating the
motion. Mr. Kuhlke asked the question that if this one did not work would you include in
the motion that this would, then we would come back here to the Municipal site, and
that’s what was decided. And so I hope now that we just go ahead and, and make a
decision, put a time line on when we going to get this passed and move on to something
else. Cause as I said, I made my decision. I know that site, the site option that I have
selected and it’s been in my mind now and I’m not listening to anybody else that comes
and want to sell, they want to whatever, they want to give away. They can come all the
way they want to. My mind is made up, and that’s the one I’m going to vote on if I vote.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard.
36
Mr. Beard: Well, I guess I’m probably the only one in here who probably has not
made up their mind on – I can deal with any of those options over there, I think. But –
and I have to [inaudible] idea of, I came with an idea that we were going to accept the site
over there and work it out in some way. But I’m going to have probably abstain on both
sites.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussions?
Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: We may, we may move away from this thing tonight, but I just find it
almost comical that we, that we in a hurry when we think we got enough votes to get
something done, we’re in a slow down mood when we don’t think we can get something
done. We were in a [inaudible] rush to get this done, avoiding what we voted on in
Engineering Services, to bring the engineers back, talk with them first, not have a plan
that was presented, but some folk were so sure that it would be done that day and that we
would just go through the motions. Now when that wasn’t done, now we got a different
option that’s out here today, to play with another angle. Now we been playing with that
site long enough to a point that quite frankly, with all due respect, and I think – no
disrespect to Mr. Wall’s integrity, cause it’s of the highest degree – but we could have
talked about negotiations and of about dealing with numbers and property from the very
beginning over a month ago when we dealt with dealing with that area over there.
Whether you want to call it the Telfair site, the Fenwick Street site, the Walker site, or the
James Brown site. Either one could have been dealt with. But we seem to be getting into
a, a, a game of, of, of words about it. Let me tell you what also I got a slight bit of
resentment about. Y’all have to forgive me if you interpret it wrong. Prominence is
somewhat like the so-called canon of beauty. It’s somewhat in the eye of the beholder.
You know, for some reason I’m picking up a, a stench that somehow if the courthouse
does get on James Brown Boulevard then it won’t be prominent. I remember a certain
medical entity that didn’t want to be involved in the, in the health department, Lee,
because they felt everything in the world would happen to them on Laney-Walker
Boulevard. And they’ve had more incidents with their folk parking lots, everything else,
and my folk around there, my neighbors at the health department come and go just as
freely and safely with no problems, and brighten up a whole area that was blighted, and
uplifted a community. I’m detecting the same thing as thought something is going to be
wrong that if it ends up down there on the boulevard. I hear the joke about the loading
dock. Well, do you turn a certain way when you come out the federal building now or
you pass the loading dock if you’re going in front of the courthouse or you’re going to
the Civic Center? The same folk who pass the loading dock been passing that going
everywhere else. Unless you going to put a one-eyed patch on like a pirate, turning a
different direction and say the loading dock isn’t there. That’s crazy as the devil. You
build a new federal courthouse across from it, you just going to be looking sideways at
37
the loading dock, you going to be looking front ways at it, and there’s cosmetic work that
can be done even on that side of the street to do it. Building a cosmetic design, if you
want to deal with something along the sidewalk corridor, that makes that whole area look
aesthetically fitting and debonair on the boulevard of the godfather of soul costs a lot less
than buying an ongoing business and moving it at knows what the cost might be, in a
strapped budget that you all hadn’t figured out how much money you going to be able to
collect on [inaudible] because it’s based on sales tax only. Now the only reason I’m
throwing this out today to be this kind of sarcastic is folk that was in a hurry [inaudible]
doing [inaudible] put it back and just let it go, and if you want to wait two weeks, fine,
but we had an opportunity to do that when y’all was in a hurry. But y’all was in a hurry
when you were on the river, too. [inaudible] done. They couldn’t go anywhere else but
on the river. Wasn’t going to see nothing else. They was in a hurry when we left this
spot to get it done. It would up $25 million more from the last time you left it. And
[inaudible]. So you know, for all those that accuse me from time to time saying you
don’t want to make a decision, I already made one today. It may not pass, and I’m
willing to wait till we, everybody else get ready to make one, but I just find it very
amusing that to a point that folk that were in a terrible hurry when you counted numbers
two and three weeks ago, now that number’s changed, all of a sudden here come the
brakes, we want to be very prudent about our prominence. Yeah, you right. [inaudible]
prominence it’s to a point that y’all were going to slum dunk it, what you were going to
do, and now that you can’t slum dunk it that way and you couldn’t make Marion look like
an idiot in terms of [inaudible] he had changed his mind, now he can get crazy but he
wasn’t crazy about that. Everybody knew exactly what he brought to the table. So now
you know, y’all, y’all go ahead and, and, and do what everybody wants, wants to do with
it, but you know, I just have a little bit of resentment from the fact of, the fact that since
th
my family started a business on Campbell Street that later became 9 Street, that’s now
James Brown Boulevard, and we been on it quite frankly longer than anybody else. It’s
almost demeaning to say that nothing good can be on that boulevard. I think there’s
some folk that would like for it to just be raggedy forever, and that’s what they’d really
just like for it to do. No disrespect to the governor there on Telfair Street, but to a point
that it might be good that if one day your most famous known son that you could have
something on there other than something raggedy and the back of the post office dock.
And it would give rise to the other economic development that could finally go into that
area and you could put something on there and prominence many times is not deemed
[inaudible] upon those who think that’s what it is. Prominence can be what you make it
and what you put your ideals and set to do and to turn an area around and to make it
[inaudible] to what it should be.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: I’m going to just make an observation here and I ask Commissioner
Hankerson to hold on for [inaudible] minutes. I, you know, I can understand what Mr.
Mays said. [inaudible] Laney-Walker and I know all of that. My thing was I don’t have
a problem with Option 4, as I said before, but I don’t want to lock ourselves in so we
38
can’t expand in that area if we have the opportunity. Now if the make of the first motion,
I’m not sure whose it was, Mr. Williams’ motion, would include Option 4, with the
opportunity to expand in that area, wherever is possible, I can support that, if he’s willing
to do that, we can call for the question on whatever we have on the agenda here. But I
need some help here with expanding this and I’ve already made my statement so I’m not
talking about what area we coming into, because I don’t mind coming in from the James
Brown area, I just never thought all the things that Commissioner Mays was talking
about. But if we can go that way, giving the opportunity to expand once we selected
Option 4, to expand land available in that area without disrupting any businesses or
[inaudible] on there.
Mr. Williams: I got no problem with that, Mr. Mayor, I can amend my motion to
include that.
Mr. Beard: I call for the question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a motion and a second on the floor.
Mr. Mays: Well, let me ask you something about that, cause I seconded it. When
you say expanding on any area, but not disrupting, but not disrupting what? I’m just
trying to get clear on what you don’t want to disrupt. Cause what I don’t want to do is
decide on one of them, a year later you come back and you wipe them folk out that you
said you wasn’t going to wipe out by condemnation. If we got the opportunity to expand.
Now what are we talking about not doing? Are we talking about –
Mr. Beard: We’re talking about any vacant land without disrupting or displacing
any business.
Mr. Mays: That’s what I was just trying to get clear on. I’m clear with you, I’m
with you, I’m with you.
Mr. Beard: I put on my referee shirt today instead of you, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Greene, as I see site Option
th
4, 9 Street and Walker Street, I see the new projected structure, its footprint, only
several parking spaces away from the main line railroad tracks. Is, is – I mean let’s not
look at how it smells, let’s look at how it is. You’ve got a main line railroad track right
through your parking. Isn’t that right? For the record, sir?
Mr. Greene: That is correct. That is the option that places the new building
closest to the railroad tracks.
Mr. Williams: Point of clarification, Mr. Shepard, if I can. [inaudible]
clarification now.
39
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: May I finish?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let him finish, Mr. –
Mr. Williams: Okay, but I need to get some clarification on –
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You can –
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] question, please.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: And there are, there are two tracks there?
Mr. Greene: Correct.
Mr. Shepard: And the one that is toward the, closest to the building is a spur
track; isn’t that correct?
Mr. Greene: Correct, I believe that’s close to where they split, though.
Mr. Shepard: Right. But the switch is where – I mean could you tell me from
some scale here what is the distance from this new projected building to the switch?
Because the switch has got to include both lines. I think Mr. Williams would agree that
the switch, there is –
th
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] 11 Street, it don’t even come in –
Mr. Shepard: No, sir, this switch – I can take you out there tonight. I’m sorry,
th
there’s no switch there at 9 Street, you’re absolutely right, but the evidence of where the
switch was –
Mr. Williams: Used to be there, yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard, could you kind of [inaudible] gentleman here?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, I’ll try to remember that. But my point is from the,
from the projected structures to the main line track is how far?
Mr. Greene: Less than 100 feet.
40
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if I can ask the question now. Mr. Shepard
asked the question was there a main line track in the middle of the parking area at this
location.
Mr. Greene: That’s correct.
Mr. Williams: No, sir, you’re not correct. The switch that Mr. Shepard is talking
th
about, it’s at the crossing at 9 Street. That used to be a spur truck that’s showing on
your piece of property that’s not there any more, meaning that it’s not in operation. It
don’t go any father than 20 – from the street to the gate is about 25 feet at the most,
which is not available any more. I mean it’s a spur that goes dead into a old steel mill
that used to, that used to receive cars in there. The main line switch that brings the train
thth
in from two railroads, from two sides, is at 11 Street. It is called the 11 Street switch.
Now 27 years, if I don’t know nothing about this Commission, I do know about railroads
and I do know where that switch, that track is located. There is less then five to six feet –
I’m going to say ten feet to just be on the safe side – to the creek on that side over there,
but there is no other parking. That track does not go through the middle of that property.
Now we can – I did not go on the bus trip, but I’m willing to drive my car tonight to show
anybody that want to be seeing that it does not go through the middle of that property.
And I don’t want to mislead the people up here that that track, main line, run through the
middle of that property. That’s an out and out miscalculation. Ain’t what I want to say,
but that’s what I will say.
Mr. Greene: May I respond to that?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir, go ahead.
Mr. Greene: What we’ve shown on that map that Mr. Shepard was holding up is
that there is, there is a main line that runs through the site, and that there’s a spur that
runs off of it, that if you, if we were to go out there you would see that that switch is no
longer there, but based on our observations on the site, based on the maps that we’ve
been supplied, and actually aerial photographs as well, that’s the evidence that we’ve
gone on to draw it the way we’ve drawn it –
Mr. Williams: But if [inaudible]
Mr. Greene: [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: Y’all have physically walked and seen that property; right?
Mr. Greene: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: So regardless of what the map say, you say you –
41
Mr. Greene: The bus tour actually went past it and –
Mr. Williams: But you physically seen that, that track is between the, the parking
area of that property?
Mr. Greene: That’s correct. As did the people that went on the bus tour.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead and respond, sir.
Mr. Greene: Well, it’s actually only in this Option 4 that that parking area is
needed, because the other three options have more efficient parking layouts. What this
one does, is it puts the building right in the middle of the land where you can get the most
efficient parking layout. So that’s why you have to use the land on the other side of the
track.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, thank you, and I would agree with you, Mr.
th
Williams, that the switch is at 11 Street where the two lines come together is not on this
map. But this main line carrying both the traffic from Atlanta and Spartanburg is through
the middle of this parking lot, as Mr. Greene indicated. And I’ll go out there with you
after the meeting, too.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I’ll drive my car.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, may I just ask this, though? As a point of clarification to
go on the record, while the track, one or two, spur or not, may be on the southern side of
that proposed building, we’re talking about that as though that’s the only part and parcel
that will be dealt with for parking. Aren’t we talking about using the center section of
Telfair Street which is between the historic buildings and bordered on the east side and
C&C on the west side, which takes the middle section of that block out, that can be used
totally for parking? So, so why are we dwelling with that almost as though that’s the
only piece that’s going to be used for parking? When you got the center section of the
block right next to it, that’s also there for parking. So I think on, with one side if you
going to tip that way, then let’s [inaudible] the other way. You got a whole block
[inaudible] of it on Telfair that you are using for nothing but parking, and the last time I
checked we [inaudible] Walker Street. So at least if you buy that, you can turn around
and you can, you sure can, you sure can [inaudible] access of a street better than you can
anything else if you’re a city. So you’ve got all of that portion to run in between there.
And, and I think, too, we need to – I’ll say this and I’ll be finished, Mr. Mayor. I heard
also that we didn’t know where the front entrance of those, Option 4, might be. I only
heard that we didn’t know where the front entrance might be until we start putting
another dim light on Option 4. It was always talked about, I thought, as being on that
James Brown Boulevard side. Now if you going to throw it on a side street and say
42
[inaudible] it might be on Walker, it might be on James Brown. Well, you know, I
wouldn’t vote for it, either, because then it looks as though you’ve got the courthouse
going in on a side street. So I mean I’m just sick and tired of all the different negative
terminology that looks as though everywhere that you get [inaudible] it’s almost like
[inaudible] makes a joke, you know, they talk about crack heads. Every time you look
around, you get one question [inaudible] then somebody else jump up with a different
kind of answer to a point in doing it. And I just, just tired of it.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, can we call for the question?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. I think there’s an adequate discussion on this
issue. Are you ready to vote? Anybody need the motion reread?
Mr. Boyles: The substitute, we’re voting on the substitute first?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The substitute first. Ms. Bonner –
Mr. Shepard: I’d like the substitute reread, please.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Ms. Bonner.
The Clerk: The substitute motion by Mr. Williams and seconded by Mr. Mays
was to selection Option 4, with the amendment that the opportunity to expand on any
available land without disrupting any existing businesses.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen, all in favor of the substitute motion, please
signify by the sign of voting.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Bridges, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Cheek, Mr. Shepard and Mr. Hankerson vote
No.
Motion fails 4-6.
The Clerk: The original motion was to negotiate with property owners of record
for the specified amount and area on the properties as noted by Mr. Shepard. You need
those boundaries?
Mr. Shepard: I would like you to read them for the record, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: Okay. West -- in the proposed Judicial Center site, east by James
thth
Brown Boulevard/9 Street, Telfair Street north, 10 Street west, Fenwick.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir.
43
Mr. Mays: On clarification, those are the boundaries on the elementary geometry
or geography, rather? I’ve got my G’s mixed up after a long day. But I quite frankly, for
the sake of the people that were not allowed to say anything here today, and we’ve
moved along in this dialog, I’d like to know specifically where you’re talking about
negotiating now.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Who want to respond to that? You?
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] as I understand it, every building that lies – every property
thth
owner that owns property between Telfair and Fenwick and 10 and 9 Street would be
included.
Mr. Mays: So that means everything is in the possible line of fire?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Mays: That’s what I wanted to get on the record for clarification.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] intend to negotiate with CSX Railroad, I mean [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: But everything is in the line of fire?
Mr. Wall: All the properties that are [inaudible] exception of the railroad.
Mr. Mays: Only thing I say is y’all get your best [inaudible] cause it’s going to be
one hell of a fight. [inaudible] clarify.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek. You finished, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: Further clarification, just based on a comment from out Attorney, we
do plan to negotiate with CSX to see about relocating that rail line, correct?
Mr. Wall: I will have that discussion [inaudible] studying that as part of the
relocation of that bridge. Yes.
Mr. Cheek: That will solve a whole lot of problems if it’s, if that in fact comes
into fruition for this particular site. No further questions. Thank you.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman. I would like to say that. Whether it gets there or not, I
hope with – and I’ve seen this company build some fantastic structures – I would hope
that we end up going over there, that we would not be stymied by the fact of the
creativity of a railroad. For those of us that were in National League of Cities stepped in
a nice, quiet Hilton, where the railroad track ran underneath and beneath the two
buildings, where in the [inaudible] Floyd Building, folk catch the train inside the building
44
and don’t even go outside. So I know y’all got the capability of doing that, so I just don’t
want you to think you know just cause we way down here [inaudible] I-20 that
[inaudible] stupid as hell to figure you can’t design something that can be creative and
blend with our historic city values at the same time.
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question.
Mr. Mays: I don’t care about the question being called, my hand was up and you
recognized me, you went to Mr. Mays, so you can call for the question ten times.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I was going to call on you, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Okay, well, you, you, you, you, you gave me that – let me go
ahead.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: Let me go ahead and finish. First of all, if that rail is in the middle
of that parking area that is being proposed, then it goes directly between the part – the
auto shop for the postal service and the building over there. It don’t run beside Fenwick
Street like it has been for the last 200 years. In fact, the, the, the, the part of the, the
portion of the yard that Billy Morris used for the horse manure that they piled up over
there, Tommy, it would be in the middle of that rail, as well. But since it’s on the right
side next to the road, I got a serious question with the people doing the work for us if we
can’t determine whether the middle of the lot and the end of the lot is where it is. So that,
that, that, that’s all I got, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. Gentlemen, all in favor of the motion, please
signify by the sign of voting.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Williams and Mr. Mays vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, Ms. Bonner. Next item.
The Clerk: Somehow we skipped by 15. Do you want to continue with 29 or go
to 15?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let’s go to 15.
Mr. Cheek: I’ve got to leave.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, we’ll come back to it.
Mr. Cheek: I’ve got to leave here 15 minutes ago.
45
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] we could lose a quorum.
The Clerk:
29. Discuss cost cap for the project of the Judicial Center. (Referred from the
October 28th Called Meeting)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I brought this up and taking a
lesson from Commissioner Williams, I brought it up a couple of times and for one reason
or another we weren’t able to address it in full. We are looking at building a building
roughly three times the size of this building. Heating and cooling and maintaining it in a
time when we cannot afford additional staff to care for grass and drainage and many
other vital needs within this city.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We just lost a quorum, I do believe. Six.
The Clerk: Seven. Mr. Beard.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: He’s gone out the door.
Mr. Boyles: He’s coming back. He just went to catch Mr. Williams.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Oh, he’s coming back?
Mr. Boyles: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Want to hold up just a second until we get a quorum back in
here?
Mr. Cheek: I’m holding.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. Go ahead, Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you. Just to restate, we’re anticipating building a building
three times the size of this. Heating, cooling and cleaning, in addition to whatever
routine maintenance may be necessary during its initial life span. We’re also looking at a
cost of $74 million projected. We’re also having to build an additional jail pod and the
renovation costs of this building, which have slowly be bled – the fund, which has slowly
been bled over time for essential repairs – leads us into three full, approximately three
full years of SPLOST expenditures in the next round of the sales tax initiative. If you
look at the list that’s being proposed, the software upgrades for IT that we need to bring
our – resolve problems within our operation system, our Tax Assessor’s office, aren’t
there. Over half our Parks & Rec centers are not there. Every other project being
46
recommended for, requesting full funding is not there, with the exception of this project.
If we embark upon a seven to ten year SPLOST with the economic clouds on the horizon
of Fort Gordon and Savannah River and the Medical College, which is struggling through
tight financial times, that will place many needed amenities in this city – which I might
remind everybody – are being funded in surrounding communities – parks, rec centers,
greenspaces and other things – at least ten years out if the economy does not change.
Longer if we go with a dollar value over time. I think it would be very great and
wonderful if we had unlimited money to spend every dime that we thought we had and
have the mahogany and gold and marble and many other things that make a courthouse
special and unique, but these things were built in different times. We need to look at this
potential judicial center from the context of the jail, the courtrooms downstairs are not
always booked. I do not believe giving every judge a courtroom is essential to
operational efficiency, and I think it is foolish for us to heat and cool facilities and clean
facilities, building them for the next 15 years, when we can’t even afford to keep up the
ones we have. This project has come to us. They’ve done a very good job of showing us
a cost based on the square footage. But gentlemen, we have in many occasions said that
we don’t want something convenient and central when we did, when we looked at
potential for Regency Mall, and there’s other precedents set to where funding something
to provide a central location convenient to everyone wasn’t a main priority. But here
we’re willing to give an unlimited carte blanche budget to a project that, one, we can’t
afford, two, it’s going to gut every other program, and gentlemen, rest assured the next
round of SPLOST shows $40 million or so for infrastructure and drainage, but as we get
into funding much needed projects essential to the operations of this city, that number
will be diminished, as well as our Rec centers, our fire stations, our libraries and
everything else to fund this project. This project, in my opinion, does not deserve the
above all others status that it has somehow achieved. I think that in order to bring this
thing down to some reasonable semblance of affordability that the total project should be
limited to around $60 million and that we instruct our architects to build what we want
for that amount of money. And if it requires occupying courtrooms in this building, I will
remind everybody that it will cost, I believe we have about $7 million left in the account
to renovate this building, if we remove the judiciary from this building it will still need to
be renovated in order for the rest of the people that will stay in this building to stay here.
Its useful life expectancy on wiring, the inefficiency of the existing lights, and many of
the other things that will have to be done, not to mention asbestos abatement, heating and
ventilation improvements, and other things to make it energy efficient, will far consume
that $7 million, and therefore this building will be left for the next ten years not being
fully renovated. There are just so many reasons why this project being fully funded while
thumbing our nose at the remainder of the needs of this city just doesn’t make sense. So I
just want to recommend and I brought it to the floor. I won’t bring it again. But I want
to recommend at this point and make a motion that we cap this project at $60 million
dollars and that we instruct our architectural firms and construction companies to work to
that price instead of giving them a $74 million price tag without any ceiling.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is that in the form of a motion?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir.
47
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’ll second your motion, Mr. Cheek. Any discussion? Mr.
Kuhlke and then Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I fully appreciate what Mr. Cheek is saying
and know it’s going to be difficult as you go through the SPLOST in determining what
we spend money on. But I’ve been working on this particular project for a long time. I
don’t even know how long now, but we’ve hired an architect. They’ve gone through the
process of determining if we build a judicial center what we need. We’ve just looked at
sites. We haven’t picked out how the layout is going to be. But based on the
requirements needed in the judiciary, they have presented us with a budget of $74
million. Now that $74 million, if you look at the breakdown on the, on item number 29,
includes a budget of $50,740,000 for the judicial center. But then when you begin to
look at other costs involved in it – property acquisition, contingencies, professional fees
and so forth – that’s what builds up the cost to a total of $74 million. And I think I
brought this up before. We’ve got $20 million already set aside for a judicial center. So
the amount of money that would be going into the Phase V SPLOST would be $55
million; am I correct, Mr. Kolb? So I’d like to make a substitute motion that we establish
the budget for the new Judicial Center at $74,840,773.00.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. – it’s getting late.
Mr. Bridges: Ulmer Bridges.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Ulmer.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you. I’d like to ask the architects a question, if I could. Can
you do, can you build the same square footage – the proposal you have for $74,000 [sic]
there, can you do the same thing for $60 million? What I’m asking now is can you build
a building – could you come to the mic, please?
Mr. Greene: We were just debating who should come up.
Mr. Bridges: Can you build a building with – what was it, 320,000 square foot, is
that what we’re looking at?
Mr. Greene: 300,000.
Mr. Bridges: 300,000 square foot? Can you build a building that would
accommodate the courts and the judicial system with 300,000 square footage for $60
million?
Mr. Greene: Project cost, total, all [inaudible], $60 million?
48
Mr. Bridges: Everything.
Mr. Greene: Unlikely.
Mr. Bridges: Why?
Mr. Greene: Mostly because you would be – possibly if it was a one story
building. If you didn’t need any elevators, you didn’t need a sophisticated mechanical
system. Or something at the scale of residential or light commercial. But when you go to
an urban site and you’re doing a multi-story building that has to have the kind of
emergency evacuation systems and sophisticated life safety systems, sophisticated air
conditioning and cooling, never mind the elevatoring, you’re going into a different
category of construction.
Mr. Bridges: So you’re saying at the $60 million you might could possibly do it,
if it was just one floor, if you didn’t have to go up several floors, it has nothing to do with
mahogany walls? I mean I’m asking.
Mr. Greene: It has little to do with interior finishes. I was sort of assuming you
would finish out the courtrooms to still look like courtrooms, just reduce the cost of the
overall building. It’s almost –
Mr. Bridges: I’m not looking for marble and mahogany and that kind of thing.
Mr. Greene: That’s not what I’m talking about. Because the cost level that this
building is established at is pretty carefully, we think, calibrated to be on a par with
what’s been done in other counties, but certainly, I guess I would say it’s not built to the
standard of this building. Certainly. We’re not even thinking about marble, I mean.
Mr. Bridges: Okay. The problem with a difference in cost then has to do with the
fact that you’re going up instead of spreading out?
Mr. Greene: Really, the – well, $60 million is an arbitrary number, it’s not a
number that we created. The only, in my view the only way that you could make a
substantial cost reduction like that would be to reduce the size of the building. I would
not recommend trying to do a building that costs less on a dollars per square foot
standpoint, because the county would pay the price in maintenance for one, and two, I
think you would also pay the price in terms of image. It wouldn’t look like a courthouse.
Mr. Bridges: So either way, the interior, it will not be, probably any different at
$60 million or $74 million; that’s not the costing issue then?
Mr. Greene: No. You would have a smaller building if you went to $60 million.
Mr. Bridges: I’m, I’m like Commissioner Cheek, I’m concerned about the rest of
the SPLOST, those drainage projects that we’ve got out there. We’ve got – at one time
49
we had $90 million in drainage projects and I see $40 million coming up from the
committee. I mean, you know, what happened to the other what’s that, $50 million? You
know, I’m concerned about that. I appreciate your response. I understand what you’re
saying.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’m sorry, but you’re going to lose your quorum.
I really have to go.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Boyles: I yield. If Mr. Beard has to leave, I yield.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen, we just lost our quorum.
Mr. Shepard: I move we adjourn, I mean there’s no other – I think we just
adjourn, don’t we?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s all we have to do.
[MEETING ADJOURNED DUE TO LOSS OF A QUORUM]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on November 5, 2003.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
50