HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-02-2003 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
December 2, 2003
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:15 p.m., Tuesday,
December 2, 2003, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
Present: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Colclough, Shepard, Beard,
Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
The invocation was given by Rev. Marion Williams.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: -- two minute limit.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: The Chair, the Chair would like to welcome Commissioners-Elect
Smith and Grantham to the Chambers today. We’re glad to have you with us as we get
down to the end of the year. First we have a recognition, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
RECOGNITION:
Ms. Nicole Cisco
XXIV World Armsport Federation World Championship
The Clerk: Would you please join the Mayor here at the podium? Mr. Mayor,
Mr. Mayor and member of the Commission, Nicole Cisco is here to receive a certificate
of achievement for receiving a gold and silver medal at the XXIV World Armsport
Federation World Championship. The City of Augusta recognizes and applauds your
achievement in a course of arm wrestling. Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Nicole, we’re mighty proud of you [inaudible] City of Augusta and
represent [inaudible] as well. We want to recognize your achievement. Commissioner
Cheek has offered to take you on [inaudible].
(Laughter)
Mr. Cheek: She would have to tie both hands behind her back [inaudible].
(Laughter)
1
Mr. Mayor: We wish you much continued success and look forward to
[inaudible].
Ms. Cisco: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you for being with us. Merry Christmas. [inaudible]
The Clerk:
DELEGATION:
The National Association of Emergency Dispatch, Salt Lake City, Utah.
??
Mr. Greg Scott
??
Ms. Carlynn Page
The Clerk: Mr. Phil Wasson of 911.
Mr. Wasson: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I’d like to
take this moment to introduce myself. I’m Phil Wasson, the Director of the 911 Center
here in Augusta. Not from the National Academies of Emergency Dispatch. But bring
forward two representatives who have come here today from Salt Lake City for an
announcement to the Commission. The first person I’d like to introduce is Ms. Carlynn
Page. She is from the National Academies of Emergency Dispatch based in Salt Lake
City. The other is the gentleman back here, Greg Scott, who is with the Priority Dispatch
System portion of National Academies of Emergency Dispatch. And at this point, I turn
it over to Greg Scott.
Mr. Scott: Thank you, Mr. Wasson. I was the consultant who came here from
Priority Dispatch. You all hired, by the way, to help -- you all hired, by the way, to help
set up the Medical Priority Dispatch Program here in the 911 Center. And I came here
first about a year-and-a-half ago as a consultant to help sit down with the folks in the 911
Center, Mr. Wasson, and his staff, and also representatives from the emergency responder
groups -- the Fire Department and the Rural Metro Ambulance Service and law
enforcement agencies. And when I first got here, I wasn’t quite sure how all this was
going to work out, but one thing impressed me. Other than your old, historic buildings
and your slow trains, one thing that really impressed me was that there was a
commitment here to really kind of rally around a common goal and a shared vision, and
that was to make this happen. And what we were trying to make happen was to enhance
the 911 service, to provide it -- ultimately to provide a better service for the community,
and to develop, implement a first rate emergency medical dispatch program in the city.
And I think it’s important to understand this doesn’t just impact the dispatch center and
the dispatchers. It impacts a lot of different people in the system. It impacts the
emergency responders, the first responders out there, including the fire fighters who go
on a lot of emergency medical calls, the law enforcement people who go on these calls,
and also on the ambulance people obviously who go on virtually all these calls. So it
impacts the entire system. Everything, I think, flows from the 911 Center. It’s real
important to have a high quality emergency medical dispatch process in place. And that
2
was kind of the vision we had when we sat down 20 months ago. We weren’t quite sure
how we were going to make it happen, but we managed to get through it, and what we’re
here today is to announce the accreditation of the center as a Center of Excellence here.
And just to give you an idea of what the scope of this achievement is, is there is about
2,500+ agencies worldwide that have been trained with the medical priority dispatch
system, the system that I represent, and the Academy represents. And there are less than
100 accredited Centers of Excellence agencies around the world. And that includes
agencies from not only the United States and Canada, from the UK, from Australia, and a
big chunk of Western Europe, so I think it’s a real accomplishment and everybody ought
to be really proud of what they’ve done here. And ultimately it’s going to impact the
public. I think the people of Augusta are all going to be better off because they know that
when they call 911, in a medical emergency, if God forbid they’ve got a loved one who
has fallen ill, is in cardiac arrest, not breathing, or they have a baby who’s choking, or
any number of other emergency situations, they’re going to get help immediately over the
phone, even before the responders arrive, from a highly trained professional. So this is a
culmination of a lot of months of work, mostly from the people in the 911 Center who
have done all the work, but also with participation from the responder groups that are
here, the Fire Department, the ambulance crews, and the Medical Director, Dr. Schwartz.
So I just want to congratulate you all, and thank you all for your hospitality.
Ms. Page: Carlynn Page from the National Academies of Emergency Dispatch in
Salt Lake City, Utah. And just want to thank you for the opportunity I have to come and
bestow the highest honor that the Academy can bestow on an accredited Center of
Excellence, becoming an accredited Center of Excellence. We’ve presented this plaque
to the Augusta 911 Center and would like to show that to you as well.
(A round of applause is given.)
Ms. Page: And as you’re doing that, what I would like to do is just take just a
minute to recognize each of the dispatcher that are employed by the Augusta 911 Center.
This truly is an award in their behalf and shows to you what outstanding dispatchers you
have in your center. I’d just quickly like to go over each of their names. There’s Tamar
and Sharon and Zenobia, Janet, Annette, Beverly, Wanda, Jessalyn, Yvonne, Bianca,
Tangela, Larry, Kenya, Alva, Monique, Karema, Allan, Valerie, Yolanda, Debra, Mary,
Sheila, Shirley, Bill, Amber, Mitchell, Judith, Tagela, Michelle, Robert, Tyricia, Jackie,
Tanya, Patricia, Catherine, Colandra, Brenda, Reginald, Sonita, Ponda, Michael, Misha,
Phillip, Catherine, Juantaia, Aonna, Janice, Asonni, Sandra, Heather, and the Medical
Director, Richard Schwartz. Again, I’d just like to, on behalf of the National Academies
of Emergency Dispatch, just commend you on a job well done and give you my
th
congratulations and also recognize Augusta 911 Center as the 87 center in the world to
become accredited and one of only three in Georgia, and I think that that just speaks tons
of, of the dedication and support you have from the Administration as well as from the
dispatchers. Again, congratulations.
(A round of applause is given.)
3
Mr. Wasson: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I’d like to make one statement and
that is I had nothing to do with this, other than providing the impetus for it to go forward.
This is an award earned by the communication officers, not by me, and they deserve their
recognition. Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Phil, we want to thank you for the efforts that you’ve made, your
supervisors, your staff, your dispatchers [inaudible] it’s quite significant to become an
accredited agency. In fact, as I told you earlier today when we met you set a new
benchmark for your department and the only place to go is up. We’re extremely proud of
you and it just shows the return on the investment the taxpayers are getting for what
we’re doing with the 911 system over there. Thank you very much. Anybody want to
add anything? Okay. Madame Clerk, we’ll move ahead with the consent agenda.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Our consent agenda consists of items 1 through 31.
That’s items 1 through 31.
For the benefit of any objectors to our alcohol petitions,
once the petitions are read, if there are any objections to those petitions, would you please
signify your objection by raising your hand?
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Motion to approve a request by Dahyabhai K. Patel for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Jethalal Enterprises d/b/a Raceway
located at 1236 Gordon Highway. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services November 24, 2003)
2. Motion to approve a request by Bryan Boden for an on premise consumption
Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Club Argos located at
1923 Walton Way. There will be dance. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services November 24, 2003)
The Clerk: Are there any objections to those alcohol petitions?
Mr. Mayor: None are noted, Madame Clerk. Okay, gentlemen, what is your
pleasure with respect to the consent agenda?
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and second. Do we have any items you’d
like to pull from the agenda? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: 24.
Mr. Colclough: 15.
4
Mr. Mayor: 15 for Mr. Colclough.
The Clerk: 15 for Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Mayor: Any others?
Mr. Bridges: 22.
Mr. Mayor: 22 for Mr. Bridges. Do you wish to pull any other items?
CONSENT AGENDA:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Motion to approve a request by Dahyabhai K. Patel for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Jethalal Enterprises d/b/a Raceway
located at 1236 Gordon Highway. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services November 24, 2003)
2. Motion to approve a request by Bryan Boden for an on premise consumption
Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Club Argos located at
1923 Walton Way. There will be dance. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services November 24, 2003)
3. Motion to approve a request by Augusta Richmond County’s License &
Inspections Department to renew all the Alcohol Beverage Licenses located in
Augusta Richmond County for the year 2004 to include all dance and Sunday sales.
Districts 1 through 8. Super Districts 9 & 10. Approved by Public Services
November 24, 2003)
4. Motion to approve Augusta Public Transit’s grant application to the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) and to the Georgia Department of Transportation
(GDOT) for FY 2003 Discretionary Statewide Bus Program. Approved by Public
Services November 24, 2003)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
6. Motion to authorize the Utilities Department to hire a Safety Officer at a
salary of $35,000 to be funded from the Utilities Department Administration
Budget. Approved by Administrative Services November 24, 2003)
7. Motion to approve offering an annual salary of $50,000.00 to the candidate
for Fire Department EMS Coordinator which is equal to the entry salary offered to
the previous Coordinator. Approved by Administrative Services & Public Safety
Committees November 24, 2003)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
8. Motion to approve grant funding of $28,349.00 for the Fire Department.
(Approve by Public Safety Committee November 24, 2003)
9. Motion to approve the purchase of an emergency replacement washing
machine/extractor due to the failure of an existing machine in the jail. The
replacement of the inoperable machine is to accommodate the daily laundry of
5
bedding and inmate items necessary for the maintaining of the health and sanitary
conditions of the facility. Funding is provided in existing county funds. (Approved
by Public Safety Committee November 24, 2003)
10. Motion to approve expenditure maximum of $200,000 for the purchase of a
Mobile Command Post. These monies to be supplied out of federal seizure monies
with no additional funding required from general budget. (Approved by Public
Safety Committee November 24, 2003)
11. Motion to approve $28,555.64 of residual SPLOST funding for installation of
necessary equipment into Fire Administration offices located in the ANIC Laney-
Walker office building. (Approved by Public Safety Committee November 24, 2003)
FINANCE:
13. Motion to approve a request from HarvestPoint United Pentecostal Church
for an abatement of 2003 taxes in the amount of $1,132.81. (Approved by Finance
Committee November 24, 2003.)
14. Motion to approve declaration of items listed as surplus and available for
auction. (Approved by Finance Committee November 24, 2003)
15. Deleted from the consent agenda.
16. Motion to approve the purchase of 28 video camera units at $4,750 each
totaling $133,000 from Kustom Signals, Inc. (sole source vendor). (Approved by
Finance Committee November 24, 2003)
17. Motion to approve the abatement of 2003 taxes on Map 140, Parcel 7.02.
(Approved by Finance Committee November 24, 2003)
18. Motion to approve refunds of taxes on ten accounts paid in error for various
reasons; see attached for years and amounts. (Approved by Finance Committee
November 24, 2003)
19. Motion to approve Augusta Public Transit’s grant application to the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) and to the Georgia Department of Transportation
(GDOT) for FY 2003 Discretionary Statewide Bus Program. (Approved by Finance
Committee November 24, 2003)
20. Motion to approve additional funds in the amount of $125,000 for court
appointed legal services. (Approved by Finance Committee November 24, 2003)
21. Motion to approve the abatement of 2003 taxes on property acquired by the
City. (Approved by Finance Committee November 24, 2003)
22. Deleted from the consent agenda.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
23. Motion to adopt Resolution abandoning that portion of Garlington Avenue,
at Government Street, adjacent to Castleberry’s Food Company, located on Tax
Map 58-2 and authorizing sale to Castleberry’s Food Company for the sum of
$1,000.00. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 24, 2003)
24. Deleted from the consent agenda.
25. Motion to approve deductive Change Order #1 to the Raw Water Meter
Installation Project. This deductive change order is intended to adjust contract line
items that were not fully utilized during this project. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee November 24, 2003)
6
26. Motion to ratify funds in the amount of $18,325.79 for payment for
emergency repairs to the Augusta Canal Bank at the Raw Water Pumping Station.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 24, 2003)
27. Motion to approve execution of the MEAG Governmental Encroachment
Agreement No. 31086 (Bath-Dum Jon Transmission Line). (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee November 24, 2003)
28. Motion to approve execution of Georgia Power Company’s Governmental
Encroachment Agreement No. 31087 (Jefferson EMC #5 Bath 46 KV Transmission
Line). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 24, 2003)
29. Motion to authorize the Utilities Department to hire a Safety Officer at a
salary of $35,000 to be funded from the Utilities Department Administration
Budget. ((Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 24, 2003)
30. Motion to approve the abatement request in the amount of $731.25 from Mr.
Ed Copeland solid waste charges. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
November 24, 2003)
31. Motion to approve a resolution supporting a ‘Joint Land Use Study’
sponsored by the Regional Development Center for developing and addressing land
use issues around Ft. Gordon. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
November 24, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have motion to approve the consent agenda, minus items
15, 22 and 24.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Hankerson: 15?
Mr. Mayor: 15, yes.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, can I get some clarification on 23, too, please?
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to discuss it, Mr. Williams, or do you just want to ask a
question about it right now?
Mr. Williams: Ask a question about it.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Go ahead.
Mr. Williams: And I guess my question is on the street [inaudible] I’m in support
of the industry and what they’re trying to do. I have not heard from anyone in the
neighborhood. Is that going to affect any of the traffic or movement or anything in there
when they close it?
7
Mr. Wall: No. Garlington Avenue is already, it dead ends at both ends. We are
only abandoning one portion of it. Castleberry owns all the property on both sides of it,
so it’s not going to impact anything.
Mr. Williams: Okay. That, that’s the only question. We don’t have to pull it.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Need to pull any other items? If not we’ll go ahead and
vote. All in favor of the consent agenda, minus items 15, 22, and 24, please vote in the
affirmative.
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Colclough vote No on Sunday sales portion.
Motion carries 10-0. [Item 3]
Motion caries 10-0. [Items 1-2, 4-14, 16-21, 23, 25-31]
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, let it be known I vote no on Sunday sales.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridges: And the same here.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: The record will so reflect that. We have a delegation here for item
24, so let’s go ahead and take that one up first, if we can. 24.
The Clerk: 24?
Mr. Mayor: 24. If you want to read the caption.
The Clerk:
24. Motion to approve resolution finding that that portion of Katherine and
Pickens Streets shown on the attached map should be abandoned. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee November 24, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, you asked this be pulled?
Mr. Shepard: I did. I was contacted by Mr. Moretz, who may be a delegation of
one, I don’t know, but he asked that this be specially considered and I wanted to yield my
time to him in behalf of the neighbors in Summerville.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Moretz?
Mr. Moretz: My name is David Moretz, and I live at 2345 McDowell Street,
which is about 150 feet from Katherine Street that’s impacted by this request for
abandonment. And I’m opposed to the abandonment for multiple reasons. I’ve been an
8
Augustan for years and a neighbor of these streets and a user of these streets for quite a
long time. We had not prior notice of the reason for these streets to be abandoned. I
appreciate -- I think I sent everyone a copy of this letter -- some opportunity to discuss
the need for the abandonment. I use this thoroughfare [inaudible] Katherine, Pickens
[inaudible] Walton Way to avoid the red light at Johns Road and Walton Way. That
[inaudible] itself is clearly hazardous. But I’d appreciate consideration to vote no on this.
I think it needs more discussion. Being a delegation of one, I only found about this
yesterday at six, and I think a lot more people would be in attendance had they been
notified, received prior notice, and had additional time to be here.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, and maybe this is a question to Jim. I know we’ve got
to have a public hearing. Could we not have a public hearing to determine the
opposition? I know that ASU wants this, but could we not have a public hearing first?
Mr. Mayor: The backup says a public hearing will be scheduled.
Mr. Wall: A public hearing will be scheduled. It’s a three step process, as you’ll
recall. The first step is this initial resolution. That calls for the public hearing, calls for
the legal advertising, etc. So this is the first step that initiates the process. Following the
public hearing, then that information will be brought back to the Commission and the
Commission will either adopt a resolution finally making the abandonment -- authorizing
the abandonment or rejecting it. You will recall some months ago Mr. Mays in particular
said Jim, you better be sure this has been discussed with the Summerville Association. It
was. There was a meeting among representatives of Augusta State University and the
Summerville Association and I did not attend the meeting, but it was reported to me that
the Summerville Association had no opposition for it. Obviously the Summerville
Association is made up of members. It may have been the leadership that was not
objecting to it or those that were in attendance at that meeting. But this is the first step.
There will be a public hearing. Gentlemen like Mr. Moretz and others that are impacted
by it will have an opportunity to come forward and be heard at the public hearing before
any final action is taken.
Mr. Shepard: One follow-up question. I mean the Summerville Neighborhood
Association is not synonymous with all residents of Summerville. We understand that.
But it just, it just seems this was backwards, that we ought to take the public input first,
because there are many people I think that feel like Mr. Moretz does, that these shouldn’t
be closed. So is it possible not just to have the hearing, or are you saying this is just the
call of the hearing, Jim? Is that it?
Mr. Wall: This is in essence the call of the hearing.
Mr. Shepard: Okay.
9
Mr. Wall: In order to, to have the public advertisement, etc., first this
Commission has to adopt the resolution setting, calling for the public hearing in order to
follow the statutory process.
Mr. Shepard: Cause I know when we talked about Foster Lane we certainly went
down there and had the hearing before we did anything else.
Mr. Wall: And you’re going to do the same thing here. This is the first step.
Three step process.
Mr. Shepard: And how will the notice go out? I mean will it be just a notice in
the legal ad or will we attempt to do any kind of mailing in the area surrounding the --
Mr. Wall: The law requires is that we notify all of the property owners that have
properties that abut a portion of the road that is being abandoned. That’s what the law
requires. Normally we notify people that know are interested in it as well. We can
certainly notify Mr. Moretz. If he has others that he wants us to notify, we can do so.
We would also notify the Summerville Association.
Mr. Moretz: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Wait a minute, Mr. Moretz. The Attorney has the floor.
Mr. Wall: As I was saying, that’s what the law requires. I’m not prepared to
address how many property owners there may or may not be, but we do that, and
obviously somebody owns the property. It may be Augusta State, but I mean somebody
would be notified. And then there is a legal ad, as well.
Mr. Shepard: Well, in the former case, Jim, with Castleberry’s, that was the only
property owner that had to be notified in that case; is that right?
Mr. Wall: In essence, although the Development Authority was the titled owner
of some of the property, and so the Development Authority was notified as was
Castleberry’s. But you’re correct. And then there was a legal ad.
Mr. Shepard: Then could we direct other residents of McDowell Street receive
notice [inaudible]?
Mr. Wall: Sure.
Mr. Shepard: I think we just notifying them of a public hearing, I think you can
come there, okay, first step.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to make that motion, Mr. Shepard?
10
Mr. Shepard: I’d make a motion that we approve it and this is not the
abandonment of these streets but the beginning of a process that notifies the public
and that we have a public hearing and that the property owners and the persons on
McDowell and Kings Way and the other streets right there in the immediate vicinity
be sent a notice.
Mr. Williams: I second that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have motion and second. Further discussion? All in favor
then please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll go back now to item number 15, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
15. Motion to approve an Addendum to the agreement with A. G. Edwards &
Sons, Inc. to add Merrill Lynch & Company for Augusta Richmond County
government to maintain the services of an investment banker to provide ongoing
financial advisory and underwriting services for debt-financing and refinancing on
current and future debts. (Approved by Finance Committee November 24, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough, you asked this be pulled?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I need to get some information. I mean why do we
need two financial companies to advise us? A.G. Edwards is not doing the job; that’s
why we need to bring somebody else in? Anybody answer that?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, the person who was working
directly with Augusta for our bond counsel and debt financing arrangements left A. G.
Edwards to go to Merrill Lynch. At his request, A. G. Edwards gave him permission to
amend their contract to have his new employer, Merrill Lynch, incorporated so that there
would be a continuity of services with this particular representatives. Thus we have an
addendum that has been agreed to by both Merrill Lynch and A. G. Edwards.
Mr. Colclough: So if the former employer, employee [inaudible] permission to
amend their contract, that mean we should amend ours to accommodate them? Do we
really need two financial companies to give us advice?
Mr. Kolb: I don’t see how it hurts.
Mr. Colclough: How would it help, though?
11
Mr. Kolb: Well --
Mr. Colclough: If one can’t do it, why do we need two?
Mr. Kolb: We’ve got the advice of two different investment bankers with two
different bonding philosophies.
Mr. Colclough: So you’re getting conflicting information or what?
Mr. Kolb: No, not necessarily. You get options in terms of timing, instruments to
use, etc. And since you are using the same investment banker at the same price, I don’t
see a problem.
Mr. Colclough: I mean if, if the former person choose to leave and we got the
same company, my question is why do we need two companies advising us on the same
issues? I mean you may be a different philosophies or they may be the same.
Mr. Kolb: Well, it’s the same investment banker. It’s a decision as to whether or
not you want to maintain continuity with one investment banker.
Mr. Colclough: Well, continuity would be with the investment company we
already have. Not with the banker. I mean we dealing, we dealing with the company, not
with an individual.
Mr. Kolb: It’s a Commission decision.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] I just wanted to get some information. I know whose
decision it is.
Mr. Wall: Well, if I can address that as well. I mean typically firms such as this
and professional companies, there key men or key people that are involved in the process.
And in this case, that individual left A. G. Edwards and went with another company. I
think that it was his expertise, as well as the backing of the company, his knowledge of
the community, his knowledge of the system, and the knowledge and information that he
gained as a result of the last refinancing and the other transactions that he has been
involved in with the City is what gives him some special value. And no, it’s not
necessary to have two companies. It obviously is somewhat unusual. But I think that it
is not unusual at all when the key person involved in the original awarding of the
business and the business has been transacted since that firm was selected leaves and
goes to another company.
Mr. Colclough: But Mr. Wall, if he’s so important to us, and have all this key
information, why not just go with his company?
12
Mr. Wall: Because the existing contract is with A. G. Edwards and I’m not sure
they would be willing to release the entire contract. They are willing to allow another
firm to go in, but --
Mr. Colclough: But you’re saying to me that this person is so important to us that
it’s important that we keep him on so we just gather up another company that he went to.
Now if he’s that important to us, to the key decision of this financial decision that we
have to make, why don’t we just abandon the contract and go with somebody else, go
with him? I mean there is nobody that important in the [inaudible] that you need to
gather up all these people around you, Mr. Wall, but if he’s that important to us then I
think we should just go with that company, Merrill Lynch, and not have two companies.
Mr. Wall: That’s an option. If we want to terminate the contract with A. G.
Edwards and if, in the event that that does not breach some non-compete provision in the
contract that we have, perhaps that’s an option. But there may very well be a fight
insofar as a non-compete is concerned. I don’t know what the arrangements are.
Mr. Colclough: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] Thank you. Mr. Hankerson, you asked for this number,
too. Did you want to say something? Okay, Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think I’d feel a little bit better about it if I
could hear from Mr. Persaud, the Finance Director.
Mr. Mayor: All right. David?
Mr. Persaud: Thank you, Commissioner Boyles. Do you have a specific
question?
Mr. Boyles: Everyone else has been giving an opinion. I’d like to hear yours,
too.
Mr. Persaud: The original agreement is between the City of Augusta and A. G.
Edwards. The representative that services this account, Mark [inaudible], has left the
firm and moved with Merrill Lynch, and he’s requesting that the business be shared
between A. G. Edwards and Merrill Lynch for professional services. [inaudible] either
way you want to go. This City has had a long-standing relationship with A. G. Edwards
and Mark [inaudible]. I think this, that relationship and the trust [inaudible] in
concurrence with that recommendation.
Mr. Boyles: Is it, is it going to cost us more money?
Mr. Persaud: No. Each -- [inaudible] for professional services in terms of
financial advisory. Each bond issue cost is based on the technical dimension of the
issuance, so there is no specific or additional cost at this point in time [inaudible].
13
Mr. Boyles: In your years as Finance Director in Chatham County and the time
you’ve been here, is this a usual arrangement or unusual?
Mr. Persaud: It’s not unusual when it comes to technical expertise in this
particular field.
Mr. Boyles: So you basically so no problem?
Mr. Persaud: I don’t see any problem in this.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Anyone else? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I don’t have a problem with the, the agenda item in
voting for it. What I guess my question would be, and this might be for future dealings,
whether it’s, whether it’s with financial advisors, whether it’s with accounting firms,
because this is not precedent in this area of servicing from the standpoint that we did this
not with financial advisors but did it in terms of, of, of accounting firms and of moving a
person. So it’s been done before. But what my question is, and not so much a question
but just a point that we may want, want, want to take to, to look at for future reference,
because it says for future financing. And I think it’s important that you, one, two things.
One, that you, you may want to in the future have some, some ending dates per se when
you say the future. Because you could possible, the City could embarking on, on a lot of
service debt per se. That may happen, that may not happen. And what I’m, what I’m
looking at is that in future contracts that we may do with persons, particularly where we
may be pleased with them, it might be prudent that going into some of these contracts,
and this is just something now and I been involved in two of them and we, we, and
hopefully this one will be approved. I don’t have no problem with that. But I guess my
case point is what happens to a point that if a person that is a valuable service leaves a
firm and then there is not say a so-called gentlemen’s agreement where the firm that
holds the contract decides no, you know, we’re not releasing that portfolio. How do we
deal with that? Would it not be good to look when we do something like this again,
particularly on a large scale, that we may put something in on our side of the fence that
allows us to be able to have that option if we are pleased say with that agent per se and
working with a company. Because I think we’ve been lucky from the standpoint we’ve
been able to do this and move it, but then who’s to say a different Commission down the
road and dealing with millions of dollars to a point that you might not be able to do this.
And so I’m going to vote for it, but I just think that that’s something that we need to look
at to a point that with other investments that the Commission may get itself into, that you
may not always have friendly confines when, when these types of things are done, and
particularly when you may be discussing seven or eight figures of money. Cause folk fall
out about less than that. So I’m just saying that just may be something that we may want
to look at for the future.
14
Mr. Persaud: Commissioner Mays, this contract is for five years. There is a
termination clause in there.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Persaud, the contract specifically excludes the airport. Who is
handling the bond issue for the airport on the terminal building? Which firm is that?
Mr. Persaud: Jim can answer that.
Mr. Wall: The decision was made several years ago, and I -- either two or three
years ago, that Smith Barney was going to be the one to handle the airport. That issue
has been raised several times by the Aviation Commission and there is no contract in
place, and so I guess it’s subject to change, but that was excluded from the original
contract because of that action by the Aviation Commission [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: You said that this was not going to cost any more money, but in the
contract that we have with A. G. Edwards, it provides for expense reimbursement. And if
you have people from two firms who are participating in a bond issue, then aren’t you
doubling the expenses for reimbursement? You’re not increasing the underwriting fee,
but you have expenses that are going to be incurred by both companies, aren’t you?
Mr. Persaud: I don’t know [inaudible] significant increase. Those reimbursement
expenses [inaudible] bond issue and I’m sure will be the same representative [inaudible] I
don’t anticipate [inaudible] they can increase.
Mr. Mayor: So there will be an increase then?
Mr. Persaud: Some, but not significant.
Mr. Mayor: Anybody else have any questions? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Well, I do, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. It did represent in the contract,
it says that the firm that was then A. G. Edwards represents the person primarily
responsible for the services hereunder is Mark Widener. Is that the usual type inclusion,
Jim, sort of as the lead person?
Mr. Wall: Key man.
Mr. Shepard: Key man? I mean we thought enough of him as the key man then
to put that name in that paragraph when we approved this last year, is that right?
Mr. Wall: [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? All right, need a motion.
Mr. Bridges: A motion to approve.
15
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? All in favor of the motion then please vote in the
affirmative.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next is item number 22.
The Clerk:
22. Motion to amend the Augusta Richmond County City Code by adding a new
Section 3-7-32 for municipal airports to prohibit weapons. (Approved by Finance
Committee November 24, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess most of what I have to ask here,
Jim, you’re going to have to respond to. My understanding is we already have state and
federal laws that address this issue. Is this a piling on of laws ? What’s going to happen
if someone that has a right to carry [inaudible] goes through the metal detector at the
airport? Are they going to get three laws on them now or what’s going to happen?
Mr. Wall: No, I don’t anticipate them getting three laws piled on top of them. I
think this is in order to give local officers -- the state statute is sufficient to cover it,
however, there is some ambiguity there. I think that there is some flexibility that this
ordinance will give to law enforcement officers in the somewhat innocent situation where
people go through, go to the airport, perhaps not aware that they perhaps have some item
that might be deemed a weapon, might be something other than a gun, or it might be a
gun that they had forgotten that they had stuck in their handbag or their briefcase and
rather than making this a state crime or a federal crime, allow it to be done in a manner
that is less offensive from the -- or carries less of a penalty than perhaps a state law
violation or a federal law violation.
Mr. Bridges: Is this a misdemeanor? What is --
Mr. Wall: Misdemeanor.
Mr. Bridges: What are the fines [inaudible]?
Mr. Wall: Up to 60 days in jail, up to $1,000. That’s the maximum that our Code
allows for an ordinance violation.
Mr. Bridges: Okay. How are we going to ensure that somebody that just through
error carries something that is deemed a weapon on this? How are we going to ensure
16
they don’t get charged with state and federal? We’re talking about with all three of them.
Well, I mean is that going to be a judgment call on somebody’s part of what?
Mr. Wall: Well, insofar as federal charges are concerned, there would have to be
an indictment and probably insofar as the state law is concerned there would have to be
an indictment. Whereas, they could be cited for the ordinance without carrying it before
the Grand Jury and then it could be presented to the, in Magistrate Court and handled.
Mr. Bridges: Who is requesting this ordinance?
Mr. Wall: The request came to me from the Sheriff’s office. Now I suspect that
it probably originated initially from the law enforcement people at the airport. But it
came to me from the Sheriff.
Mr. Bridges: So really this would, this could be viewed as a benefit, some
innocent person that carries something, he gets charged on the county rather than the
federal law?
Mr. Wall: Correct.
Mr. Bridges: I make a motion we approve, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Bridges answered, asked a couple of
questions, answers I’m looking for, but I’m, I’m, I’m a little bit skeptical of this. I
thought maybe there was a problem at the airport or problem somewhere that had been
stuck out more than once or more than twice. Commissioner Mays told somebody in
Atlanta and Savannah, I think it was, that before I started toting a Bible I toted a .38. But
there a lot of people that’s got license to carry weapons, Jim, and if you tried to board a
plane and you got to go through detectors then, I mean, we, we, we, we got laws in place
[inaudible] I think it’s just a pile up. I mean this is state, local and federal. We going to
have the same law [inaudible] and you, you, you do it by the law and you caught even
without this bill, without this law in place, with a firearm that you’re not supposed to be
carrying, isn’t that automatic arrest or something like that [inaudible] if you caught?
Mr. Wall: Well, again, look at this. You don’t necessarily have to go through the
metal detector to be charged with this offense. I mean you’re, I mean you’re showing
your spouse off, and you’ve got a license to carry a gun, and you walk into the terminal,
you’re not supposed to carry a gun in the terminal. And so you have committed a
violation because you have entered the terminal building with a weapon, even though
perhaps you’ve got a permit for it. And that’s a federal violation and it’s a violation of
the ordinance and it allows greater flexibility to, to address that situation without
presenting it to a State Grand Jury or a Federal Grand Jury as far as whether or not the
17
person should be indicted for that. And for you to say that affords the officer discretion,
it does. And you know, one of the things they taught in law school sort of an aside -- it
didn’t have anything to do with law school, but probably a police officer exercises more
discretion on a day-to-day basis than most any other occupation around, cause they’re
confronted with all kinds of situations. And so you, you depend upon the law
enforcement agency and the control and the supervision and the training of the personnel.
Mr. Williams: That’s all, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Bridges asked a couple of questions,
got answered for me, so that’s all.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Question to Jim, Mr. Mayor. A few years ago when
we had Recorders Courts and we passed State laws like the DUI law. I think you had to
have a state law that would empower the Court to take jurisdiction of that offense, for
example. There have been many others in the traffic area. Is there something that we
could hang our hat on, Jim? We’re activating a provision of one of those laws so that we
could, we could have that discretion to treat it as an ordinance? Or was this just going to
[inaudible]?
Mr. Wall: You don’t have that in this situation. You do have that in traffic
offenses. This is one where there is no state statue that is identical to this. The language
is less specific in the statute and this gives clearer direction insofar as an officer is
concerned than the state law.
Mr. Shepard: So then the charging decision is in the officer’s discretion to treat it
as an ordinance, treat it as a state law violation, or a federal law violation?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Shepard: I don’t know about that, but Harry, you’ve worked on this, too, are
you fairly comfortable with this? I see you came in. I remember you presented it.
Mr. James: Yes, I’m very comfortable with it as it stands. I think it’s a correct
ordinance based on what we can do in the City of Augusta. We do not have to piggyback
on the state statute since it is not a traffic offense.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: One other question, Jim. What is the -- obviously in the state and
federal level this would not be a misdemeanor. What would it be?
Mr. Wall: I’m not sure.
Mr. James: It is a misdemeanor.
18
Mr. Bridges: At the state level as well?
Mr. James: Yes.
Mr. Bridges: What are the charges there? Do you remember the [inaudible]?
Money, time spent in the [inaudible], what is --
Mr. James: Up to I think 12 months in jail, $1,000 fine.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. James: That’s the statutory definition of a misdemeanor. Of course, in
Magistrate Court, we are limited by the City ordinances. The fine will be a maximum of
$1,000 or 30 days in jail. 60 days in jail, I’m sorry.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. James: That’s for Magistrate Court.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve. Is there any further discussion? All
in favor of the motion then please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 32.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
32. Motion to approve Friday, December 26th as a holiday for Augusta
employees. (No Recommendation from Administrative Services
Committee November 24, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I just distributed, or the
Clerk just distributed a memo to you outlining the cost of an additional holiday, which
was requested at your last meeting. The cost of that day is approximately $32,000.
However, I wish to point out to you that the majority of that cost, approximately $27,000-
28,000 is a utilities charge, which is for various plants being open, etc. There is an
insignificant cost to the general fund.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
19
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. George, is that considered, considering the Fire
Department as well, their manpower, is that?
Mr. Kolb: Yes. The Fire Department is on a mandatory overtime schedule on an
annual basis, so every month they get overtime anyway for the time that they work. And
there is -- I’d have to call either HR or the Fire Chief [inaudible], but as I understand it
there’s an agreement on how holidays are treated in the Fire Department.
Mr. Williams: So this wouldn’t affect them then if they already got a situation
where they’re being treated. Because they work a 24 hour shift.
Mr. Kolb: Correct.
Mr. Williams: This would not affect them, in other words.
Mr. Kolb: That is correct.
Mr. Williams: That’s all, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We need a motion.
Mr. Williams: I move that it be approved.
Mr. Mayor: And make sure that it states Friday, December 26, 2003, that we’re
not creating a new annual holiday.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: No, I was just going to make the motion. That’s all I needed, Mr.
Mayor.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: So what are we doing here, George? We’re giving an extra holiday
off or is this a holiday without pay or what?
Mr. Kolb: No, it is a holiday with pay. It’s an additional holiday. You’re
granting December 26, 2003. Next year it will go away. This -- unless you reenact some
other provision to allow another holiday. But this is a one-time incident.
Mr. Bridges: With this, why couldn’t those that want it have taken a vacation
day, that type of thing?
20
Mr. Kolb: That’s an option. And they could. However, it is felt that a majority
of the people would probably do that, you would have offices that are understaffed, there
probably wouldn’t be much business transacted that day, and it’s a feeling by some that it
would just make more sense to close on Friday.
Mr. Bridges: Well, I mean if you closed it you obviously have those same people
off, too, then. I mean --
Mr. Kolb: People that would take vacation?
Mr. Bridges: Yeah.
Mr. Kolb: Yeah, that’s correct.
Mr. Bridges: $32,000 overtime, it’s strictly the overtime portion of it, then?
Mr. Kolb: That is the cost of additional holiday, correct.
Mr. Bridges: Okay. Now you say additional holiday, is that the entire payroll
cost or is that just the overtime cost that we’re talking about?
Mr. Kolb: That is not the entire payroll cost.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Kolb: Just the overtime cost. That’s the additional -- you still would pay
Friday if people worked. People are not working, so it would be considered they would
be paid eight hours’ holiday.
Mr. Bridges: So we’re probably talking about, if you’re talking about an average
2,600 employees making $25,000 average, you’re probably talking somewhere in the
neighborhood of $150,000-200,000 plus the overtime.
Mr. Kolb: In terms of the actual payroll for one day?
Mr. Bridges: I mean you’re just talking about $32,000, you’re just strictly
speaking of overtime here, is what I’m reading this $32,000 to be.
Mr. Kolb: That is correct.
Mr. Bridges: So then you’ve got what they would normally get for that day?
Mr. Kolb: Correct.
Mr. Bridges: So in essence you get, I mean you’re just paying for an extra
holiday for this year?
21
Mr. Kolb: That’s correct.
Mr. Bridges: In place of, I guess last year it might have been a bonus, that type of
thing.
Mr. Kolb: Last year there was nothing.
Mr. Bridges: Okay. The issue that I have with it here, even if you just look at the
$32,000, you’ve got a budget here, you’re increased the millage, I have a problem with
doing something additional. It looks like we’ve got all this money out here that we can,
you know, we can pay out. The public views this as we can give them an additional
holiday and we can pay the additional money and we’re going to increase taxes to make
the budget meet. I, you know, I have a problem with that one, I’m sorry.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, if I can just respond.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Kolb: The, the cost to the general fund is minimal. The majority of the cost
will come out of the Utilities Department, which is an enterprise fund.
Mr. Bridges: I understand that. I understand that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a quick question. I know in the past
we’ve done Christmas bonuses for our employees. Would this holiday be offered in lieu
of a bonus, for instance? Do we plan to come -- okay, so that won’t come before us
before the end of the year? I kind of agree with Commissioner Bridges in a lot of ways,
but in light of the fact that we’ve had no cost-of-living or pay raise for our employees,
certainly this is -- and no bonus plan -- this is certainly a plus that may help them end the
year on a good note.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Gentlemen, we’re talking about giving employees who are
dedicated to this county one day off. $32,000 minimum. We just increased by a
minimum amount financial advisory to our financial department and you’re talking about
having a problem with giving some staff members the day off. One day. We just
increased it, our financial advisory, by a minimum amount. So I mean this is talking
about employees who work every day, dedicated to the county.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
22
Mr. Hankerson: I think I probably started that in the Finance Committee meeting,
but I’m not against giving the holiday to the employees. I think they deserve a bonus and
I would be willing for that. My own point of asking that, I was asking for the financial
impact. Because it’s amazing to me that some things that I ask for, that I get these
inflated figures and then the financial impact of every employee being off as Mr. Bridges
was asking, well, what is this $32,000? I looked at $32,000 and said my goodness, this
seem to be very moderate, $32,000 for all of our employees being off that day. We asked
for the financial impact of what this would cost, every employee, what they are getting
paid, the day’s salary. And just, just for that cost, to know that. But it seem like I was
misunderstood, to come back with just giving me overtime. That’s not what I asked for,
and I wasn’t against the employees receiving the holiday. But financial impact of it, for
instance when I asked for financial impact when we, when we did the inmate labor crew,
I couldn’t understand why everything that we already own, there was a price to it. That it
end up costing more to hire -- more to use inmates than it would to contract the job out to
a private contractor. We come with all these inflated figures of how much it going to cost
to dump the trash in our own landfill. All of these figures come. So this is what I was
expecting to have here. If it would have been $100,000 or whatever it was, it’s not that
much for all the employees, but just the financial impact. That’s all I was asking for and
I see that we get figures sometimes, whatever we [inaudible] we get the figures for it. So
I don’t have a problem with the employees having the holiday. That wasn’t my
argument. I just wanted to see the financial impact per employee, how much it was for
all these employees to be off one day. And also would hope that next year that we’ll look
at the calendar when one of those holidays come at the same time between, on a Friday
and we’ll look at and we could switch some things around from annual time or switch
some holidays or a holiday that maybe someone want to take it Christmas Eve or
whatever rather than on a another holiday, like the State does it. That’s my only concern
about it, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, my position on this is very similar to Commissioner
Bridges’. Last week, we voted a budget which had an increase in it. That burden goes to
the taxpayers. I can understand the reason for wanting to give a holiday, but I think that
the financial impact is significantly more than $32,000. And that cost is going to be
borne by the taxpayers. So from that standpoint, I can’t vote to raise taxes and then give
our employees another holiday, paid holiday. They get ten paid holidays a year. That’s
pretty significant. And so I’ll be voting against this.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Well, aren’t our salaried employees going to be paid the same, no
matter whether they come to work that day or not, there’s just going to be arguably less
work done that day that will have to be caught up on other days; isn’t that right?
Mr. Kolb: Yes. Yes, sir. They would be paid regardless, whether they came to
work or not. The issue is that there would not be an productivity that day for the holiday.
23
Mr. Shepard: Are there any hourly workers that would not come to work that day
and then we would not pay them, if you were paid by the hour you wouldn’t, you
wouldn’t get that day or --
Mr. Kolb: If it is was a holiday or just not come to work at all and [inaudible]?
Mr. Shepard: Well, what we’re really talking about, I think is paying the hourly
workers, if we had any hourly workers for another day, isn’t that the effect of this? Or
am I -- it seems like to me the salaried people, we’re going to pay those salaries no matter
what.
Mr. Kolb: The hourly would be paid, too. If they came to work, they’d be paid
for the hours. If they get the day off, they are going to get the equivalent of eight hours’
pay.
Mr. Shepard: And so that, I think that’s what we were driving at, trying to find
out how many hourly employees are going to be compensated that day by giving a
holiday. Isn’t that the question, Mr. Vice Chairman of Finance?
Mr. Hankerson: You’re correct, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shepard: I don’t think we have that number, do we, gentlemen? Maybe I’m
wrong. I’m in favor of it, too, but if we want to know the cost, I think that’s what we, I
think that’s what we’re driving at. That’s the real out-of-pocket direct cost, isn’t it?
Mr. Kolb: It was our understanding that you wanted to know the cost of an
additional holiday, and the only additional cost to a holiday is the overtime that you have
to pay. If people come to work, they’re going to get paid. They take a vacation day,
they’re going to be paid the same amount. However, there is a cost when you add a
holiday of people who are scheduled to work having to be paid the holiday plus overtime.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Kolb, what I’m trying to -- how many hourly workers here do
we have that we’re going to pay for not working that day? I mean that would X number
of employees times eight or whatever it is, 7.5 hours they work, wouldn’t that, wouldn’t
that be the true cost of this action?
Mr. Kolb: Yes. But that would not be an additional cost.
Mr. Shepard: Well, then what I think we would like to know is what is the true
cost, and that would include them not coming to work, plus the overtime, if my math is
right. And which I can’t plug in the figure. Could we get that?
Mr. Kolb: Yes. We may be able to get it before the meeting is over. We will try.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
24
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I had a question. Steve and George, if a person
doesn’t work, they’ll get eight hours’ pay?
Mr. Kolb: That is correct.
Mr. Williams: But if they work, they get eight hours’ plus time-and-a-half for the
holiday?
Mr. Kolb: If they, if they work they would get the holiday pay plus overtime.
Mr. Williams: Okay. But if they don’t work, if we shut it down, let the people
off, they get eight hours’ pay?
Mr. Kolb: That is correct.
Mr. Williams: Okay. That’s [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Any -- but if we’re here working anyway, I mean all these people are
being paid anyway because it’s a regular work day.
Mr. Kolb: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: So what you’ve tried to do is to identify the difference between a
regular work day and what we incur if it’s a holiday?
Mr. Kolb: That is correct.
Mr. Mayor: And that’s what the $32,000 represents?
Mr. Kolb: That is correct.
Mr. Mayor: And the money that you have no identified in your memo is money
we’re going to pay anyway. If we’re here and the all the offices are open and everybody
is doing business --
Mr. Kolb: That is correct.
Mr. Mayor: -- we’re still paying that, that doesn’t change.
Mr. Kolb: That does not change.
Mr. Mayor: And this, this money is being spent in 2003. This is not coming out
of the 2004 budget for which the tax increase was levied?
Mr. Kolb: That is correct.
25
Mr. Mayor: So this does not impact the tax increase at all.
Mr. Kolb: That is correct.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, do we want to vote or do we need a motion to table this
pending further information?
Mr. Mayor: We’ve still got some Commissioners that want to be heard, so let’s --
I see Mr. Boyles had his hand up.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Based on experience in 32 years I guess this
happened seven times, four times because every seven years it occurs. And it’s probably
happened to some members that are sitting on this Commission. It’s happened before in
heir seven year term here. I think that, I talked last meeting about two different classes of
employees. There are office employees that we have here. We’ve also got people out on
the parks, the recreation sites, the gymnasiums, those people are use to working anyway,
am I not right, Mr. Howard? I imagine our animal control people will be working that
day. So when you think about it, very few people are going to come to city facilities to
purchase or pay a water bill or purchase a building permit. It will probably cost you more
in utility cost, if it’s a cold day, to come in, turn the heat up, get all of that going for a
very few people who even think about coming in. Most people are going to be out
returning Christmas presents anyway and they’re not even concerned about coming. I
saw it happen too many times, because there are people with experience that have been
here before. And so for the reason, for the two years I’ve been here, we have not been
able to give our employees any sort of increase, salary increase. If I’m not mistaken, last
year and this year we withheld a bonus that they had been getting prior to that, I think.
So I think because of those items and because of experience and what does happen and
the public just does not come -- I’m sure the Fire Department still answers calls, the
Sheriff’s Department answers theirs, Animal Control is going to do theirs and the
Recreation people are going to be working, maybe some Riverwalk people. I think
because of that I’m going to vote for the holiday.
Mr. Mayor: Anyone else want to be heard? Do we want to table this and wait for
further information or are we ready to vote? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Yeah, I just had a comment, Mr. Mayor. This idea that only, the
only financial impact is going to be $32,000 is just not true. When somebody comes,
when you pay an employee and you pay his salary, he gives you a product. That is, his
work. And you will not be getting that product that day, but you’ll be paying out the
same dollars, plus you’ll be, in addition to the $32,000. So I mean the argument that
we’re not going to be losing anything in this makes it sound like we need to just pay
everybody every day and not come to work any of them. I mean that’s, you know, so
26
there is a cost to not, to adding this additional holiday. There is a payroll cost and that
needs to be considered in with this.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I move that item 32 be approved.
Mr. Speaker: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Do we already have a motion? Okay.
Mr. Beard: Then I call for the question.
Mr. Mayor: All right, the question has been called. Is there anybody at this time
who wanted to be heard? I appreciate everybody abiding by the two minute rule today,
too. It’s making quite a difference. The question has been called. The Chair will rule
there has been adequate debate and we’ll move ahead with the vote on the motion to
approve December 26, 2003 as a holiday. All in favor please vote aye.
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Kuhlke vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 33.
The Clerk:
33. Motion to approve the development of a process for obtaining legal
representation for the city for 2004 by the Administrator and H.R. Director. (No
Recommendation from Administrative Services Committee November 24, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, I think this was referred to the staff for a recommendation.
Mr. Kolb: Yes, it was. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, you have a
memorandum from me that outlines what we believe is the process for election of your
Attorney, and I refer you to your charter which talks about the Attorney’s position and
how it is filled. And quite frankly, reading in party, you elect an Attorney at a regular
meeting in January. Therefore, since there is no formal employment process per se, it’s
more or less that you’re employing, having an attorney-client type relationship, the
process that I would recommend that you use is that you place an announcement in the
local newspaper asking for letters of interest, potential compensation proposals, and in a
regular meeting in January that you elect an attorney to fill that position.
Mr. Mayor: And that’s your recommendation?
Mr. Kolb: That is my recommendation.
27
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen? Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, this may be good but I just got this a few minutes ago.
And it appears to me that, and I know we’re always running, you know, as someone said,
our backs against the wall so we got to do something real quick, but I, the way I see this,
I, I probably would have a problem with what the Administrator is offering here. But to
me, it appears that it needs to go back to Administrative Services Committee, whatever
he’s offering, and then come back to the body. I know we have but one more meeting in
this month, but to me it would be hard to pass something or to, to get this down and vote
on it and really don’t know what’s in it.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to make a motion to refer this back to the Committee?
Mr. Beard: Yes. I can do that. I think it needs to go back so that we have,
everybody would have the opportunity to look at this and see what it is. Because at this
time -- and if a motion need to be made at this time, I kind of hesitate, but I will. I don’t
mind. I make the motion that this be returned to the Administrative Services Committee
and brought back to the full Commission, when all of us have had an opportunity to do
this.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Williams: I second it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a substitute motion that we accept the
recommendation of the Administrator. And I only do that because I think that this
directive came to the Administrator from the meeting last week and we’re looking at a
two week delay if we go back to Committee. It’s not going to be my problem but the
ones that are left here, y’all need to have some flexibility to be able to act in January if
you’re going to hire an Attorney.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the substitute motion?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Second to that. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m, I kind of disagree, but me and Bill
disagree a lot so I guess that’s normal. But we, we, we, we got two attorneys on staff
here now. I mean we got Mr. James and Ms. Flournoy that’s here. It, it’s not like we
wouldn’t have any counsel at all or any legal direction from anybody. I’m like, Mr.
Beard, I mean we asked the Administrator to do this, but this was laid on the desk and it’s
too much to comprehend and make a decision on today. I think we need to take it back to
Administrative Services. I think we need to talk about it. I think we need to, to bring it
28
back to the full body as well. So if we, if we are not able to make a decision on the first
meeting in January, and there been times when we didn’t make the decision, Jim, on the
very first meeting. We waited till the next meeting to, to vote on counsel. I just think it’s
a serious step and we need to, to have the proper time to, in order to look at this
document and, and make some modification if necessary or either accept it as is. But,
Mr. Beard, you right. We get our backs against the wall. We, we met in the back room,
we talked about this months ago. Mr. Wall expressed his interest in what he planned to
do. We had all that time. Here we are now at the last hour, then we don’t know what to
do. We want to panic. We want to run. Can’t run with this.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My concerns are the same as they’ve been
since this thing was brought up, that we are at the end of the year. The work of going out
of soliciting a pool, perhaps, from the city, general geographic area, down-selecting those
candidates, looking at compensation packages, working out an arrangement with our
existing Attorney for a transition, these things all take time, and with us in the first week
of December, my concerns are if this is deferred that we will not have adequate time to be
ready to go with the transition on the first of the year. So I just urge support for the
motion.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays:
Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I, I guess I resemble this remark a little bit, too.
Trying to get a, a -- cause I wasn’t a member of that committee. I did have discussion in
it and, and I think what, what the committee as well as non-committee members were
looking for on that day was probably to, since there is no formal hiring agreement other
than the fact that you select by the Commission on that meeting day, that of getting
someone, that you keep the process fair as such. We were somewhat, since we got a
hybrid situation with this job, we were kind of looking for a hybrid situation of how we
would go about doing this. And it was to get something that would not be cumbersome,
it would get something that would, would drastically shorten the process, but at the same
time keep it fair so that if [inaudible] persons were to express an interest per se in
submitting a resume, that could be done and we could quickly get on with it. I, too, am
concerned that we stay on the timetable track of how this is done. I think with a little
explaining this matter could probably be cleared up today and probably the vast majority
Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make a
of this Commission would, could get that done.
motion that we table this item until the end of the meeting and that it come on as the
last item of the day.
Mr. Mayor: All right, is there a second to the motion to table?
Mr. Beard: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’ll go ahead and take a vote. Motion to table is non-
debatable. All in favor of the motion to table this item, please vote in the affirmative.
29
(Vote on motion to table)
Mr. Cheek votes No.
Mr. Shepard out.
Motion caries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. That takes us to item 34, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
34. Motion to approve revised pre-qualification criteria for CDBG, ESG, HOME
and HOPWA applicants. (No Recommendation from Administrative Services
Committee November 24, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith, is there anything you want to bring forth before the
Commission today?
Mr. Smith, Yes, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, I was asked to
revise the prequalification requirements for CDBG and the other programs. We had a
good conversation at the Administrative Services Committee and I’ve had subsequent
conversations with at least one Commissioner. What I’d like to propose, and I think this
will, will allay the concerns of at least that Commissioner, I’d like to, if you’d look at
your chart, I’d like to amend Item 1 and just take off the “for at least one month” [sic].
The issue here is that I think you agree that the 501(c)(3) status is something that we do
want to require for applicants, that they be IRS tax exempt, but that we, we just require
that and not the twelve months. I would also --
Mr. Mayor: You’re referring to the memo that’s in the backup?
Mr. Smith: I’m referring to the memo that’s in the backup.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Smith: There is a chart that has the comparison between the requirements
and the revised requirements. Does everybody see that? And just fine tune that, as I said.
Item 1, just take “for at least one year” in that item number 1, at the end. And then the
second “or” clause, just eliminate that. The second “or” clause where it says “have
twelve months of experience, etc.” Just take off that second “or” clause. I think that if
we do that, I believe that we’ll be in agreement on this. I’m going to ask Commissioner
Hankerson if he has a concern other than that.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, yes, sir. I’m in agreement with this. And I’m going to
motion to approve it. I just have one question that I need to ask on two, on the applicants,
30
on the business to do, the applicants must be registered and licensed to do business in the
state of Georgia at the time of application. I just think that need to be specified. As I
read it, and I think what I’m interpreting probably is correct, but it can be interpreted as,
for instance, all applicants that apply, all applicants or just applicants that are doing a
specific type business? For instance, a neighborhood association or you know, they don’t
have to be licensed and registered -- would be your incorporation of 501(c)(3), what is
that actually saying? Who are you addressing that?
Mr. Smith: We were trying to get anybody that was applying for funds. We just
thought that they needed to be in a position in the state of Georgia to basically do
business, to actually operate a program or to, for example, a day care center, a child care
center. They want funds to operate a child care center, they need to have their license in
the state of Georgia to operate that particular project activity. So that’s what we’re trying
to get at.
Mr. Hankerson: Right. I agree with that. But it’s a broad statement if you say
any applicant. For instance, a neighborhood association, 501(c) incorporated that often
apply for grants, that’s just one example. I mean I don’t see where neighborhood
association has to be licensed. It says registered and licensed. That’s the problem.
. Some organizations do not have to be licensed.
That’s the clarity I need on that
Mr. Wall: You could add the wording “if required.”
Mr. Hankerson: Yeah, something else need to be specified there.
Mr. Smith: That’s fine.
Mr. Hankerson:I motion to approve this.
Yeah, that
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: So your motion would be as it was presented and amended today by
the department head? Not what’s in the backup, but as it was amended?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: By the department head?
Mr. Hankerson: Right.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a second to that. Is there any discussion? All in
favor of the motion then please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Kuhlke votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
31
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 35.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES COMMITTEE:
35. Discussion of the Barton Chapel Road Project and approve any additional
funding needed. (No Recommendation from Engineering Services Committee
November 24, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, I spoke with the folks from Georgia Power last night. I
ran into them at a party and they said they were ready to start working on the utilities out
there. They’re waiting on the approval here today.
Mr. Colclough: Waiting on what?
Mr. Mayor: On the approval. As soon as they get the approval, they’re ready to
go. Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, I placed this on the agenda in our committee
meetings and I hope that we can get something started on this Barton Chapel Road
project. It’s an embarrassment to ride down that highway, that road, Barton Chapel
Road, knocking cars out of alignment and you having to duck holes and potholes and the
road is unlevel and when it rains it’s flooding conditions. And the money has been
approved to do it for a long time, but it just seem like we just sitting things on the back
burner, some things that need to be addressed, that’s not followed up on, and it’s time for
us to get going with this project. The citizens in the area are asking when are we going to
resurface and add the new lanes and do Barton Chapel Road. We keep telling them the
same story over and over, and I know that Commissioner Colclough and myself are tired
of addressing these citizens in that area saying the same thing. Even you road out there
one weekend and you asked me what in the world wrong with Barton Chapel Road. I
mean it’s just the embarrassment there. I spoke also with a representative from Georgia
Power and they said that they were waiting on us. We, we addressed this before. It was a
utility problem, and I think it’s time now for us to decide if it’s a utility problem -- which
that was the last time, it should be corrected or we go ahead and correct the [inaudible]
and Public Works will go ahead and proceed with this project. It’s just been too long and
things have been lagging too long on Barton Chapel Road.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: If I can address this, when this item came up before , I was requested
to meet with representatives of Georgia Power Company to work out an agreement
concerning that. And I did meet first with Pat Rice. Subsequently met with Pat Rice and
representatives of Georgia Power Company who brought to me their drawings, which
showed their understanding of where the rights-of-way were, as well as copies of the
various easements that were in their names insofar as the lines that would run across, that
were within the -- I’m sorry, were outside of the existing right-of-way that the City had. I
32
requested certain information from Mr. Rice, and one of them was the estimated cost of
relocating the lines. That was emailed to George Kolb with yesterday or today. Anyhow,
I have that information $241,363. And let me explain that Mr. Rice was out of the office
for several weeks and so a lot of the delay is a result of his not being available to follow
up and communicate with me concerning some of those items. I, I have forwarded, had
forwarded the drawings, as well as the easements to Public Works. It’s my understanding
that they have been reviewed by Public Works. It appears that the rights-of-way were
outside of the right-of-way that was owned by the City, and with that then it would be the
City’s obligation to pay for the relocation of the power lines. And as I say, that’s been
estimated to be $241,363. Teresa has prepared an agenda item which asks for a change
in the amount of $250,000 to be funded from the Special One Percent Sales Tax Phase II
recapture account and that would cover the cost of the relocation, and I think that will
address it, and so that would be the recommendation that you approve the relocation
agreement with Georgia Power Company and approve the funding that’s been
recommended by Public Works.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further, Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I just need to ask a question. We’re talking about Georgia Power
lines. Is there any other utilities out there that we’re going to have to move or have to
pay for?
Mr. Wall: I’m told Southern Bell lines will have to be moved but there will be no
cost for that.
Mr. Colclough: Okay, what about cable?
Mr. Wall: I’m not aware of any cable.
Mr. Kolb: As we understand it, the $241,000 includes all of the utilities.
Mr. Colclough: All of the utilities?
Mr. Kolb: [inaudible] attached to the cost.
Mr. Colclough: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further?
Mr. Colclough: I make a motion we approve the agenda item.
33
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion, we have a motion to approve. Is there a second
to that motion?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion?
Mr. Hankerson: We’re approving the agenda, one we just received?
Mr. Mayor: Right.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. It just got down to me, so I didn’t have a chance. Mr.
Colclough read it and I’ll go along with it.
The Clerk: Do you want me to read the caption?
Mr. Mayor: If you would, Madame Clerk, go ahead.
The Clerk: To approve the relocation agreement with Georgia Power Company
on the Barton Chapel Road Phase I think Project at an estimated cost of $241,363 subject
to receipt of original documents reviewed by the County Attorney. Also approve capital
budget change #2 in the amount of $250,000 to be funded from the Special One Percent
Sales Tax Phase II recaptured account.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, Mr. Mayor, thank you. I certainly support this project and my
question simply is that after we allocate this money from the recapture, what sort of
balance will we have? Obviously we’re taking away from other projects. We have some
balance in that to work with? And I address that to whoever could answer it, George or
Teresa.
Mr. Kolb: Why don’t you give us a moment to dig it out?
Mr. Shepard: I didn’t know it would be that painful.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: While they’re looking that up, the agenda item is not signed by the
Administrator or the Finance Director. Do both of you concur in this recommendation?
Mr. Kolb: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Persaud, you concur?
Mr. Kolb: I signed the original.
34
Ms. Smith: The original was signed by the Administrator.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Ms. Smith: And the, the amount of funds that will be left in the Phase II recapture
account that were identified in the October 17 meeting will be approximately $1 million.
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] oh SPLOST IV, so this is SPLOST III, and this is going
back to SPLOST II to get this money?
Ms. Smith: That is correct. That is from projects that completed under budget.
Mr. Shepard: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just heard that the Administrator had
signed, had signed this agenda item, but Finance Chairman, I mean we got a very capable
finance person. I’d like to see hopefully next year that all our items come through here,
go through the proper channels and be signed by the proper people, Mr. Mayor. We
don’t [inaudible]. That wasn’t my question. That was just something that came up when,
when you brought that to our attention that it wasn’t signed by either. My think is now,
and I’m in support of this project, will this get the train moving? I mean for so long we
been talking about what’s holding what’s up and who don’t have one and the right-of-
ways and Public Works was over here. Will this get something going, Mr. Mayor, and
when?
Ms. Smith: Commissioner Williams, unless there is something that comes to the
attention of Public Works that we were not aware of as was the issue with [inaudible]
rights on Georgia Power, this project should start moving.
Mr. Williams: When?
Ms. Smith: We should --
Mr. Williams: Just an estimated time. I know you can’t give me a definite date,
but I need to know. We been waiting, we been talking, and everybody -- there’s a story
about shooting cows. We won’t get into it. The story goes everybody ain’t telling
everybody what we doing. Some folk doing over here and some folk doing something
over there. I need to know estimated date as to when this gets started by. Your
estimation.
Ms. Smith: I have not spoken with the contractors because we did not have the
item approved. However, from a logical perspective, I would anticipate that we would
start immediately after the holiday instead of before.
35
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just, just a quick comment on our recapture money. We
are planning to go into a work session at some point in the near future to look for
additional funds to move around to cover the costs of some of these projects. Just want to
remind everybody that so far out of the recaptured money we’ve funded projects in three
Districts, excluding the Super Districts, and I have been approached by everyone here
with special things they would like to have done in their District. So when it comes time
to try to fund additional projects, I would hope we would get support from those whose
Districts have received the benefit of this recapture money, in favor of other
Commissioners being able to bring much needed items to their particular Districts out of
this funding.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just as a point of information, but what
we’re being asked -- and I need it clarified, get this clarified. What we’re doing today is
doing a change order for $250,000; is that the administrative essence of what we’re
doing?
Ms. Smith: You mean to the construction contract?
Mr. Bridges: Yeah.
Ms. Smith: No. This is, this will be, these funds, the agreement is directly with
Georgia Power and these funds will go directly to Georgia Power for the work that
Georgia Power will do.
Mr. Bridges: Okay, so this is not a change order, this is a project itself then?
Ms. Smith: Well, the additional funds that we’re asking for is a change to the
project funding level.
Mr. Bridges: Uh-huh [yes].
Ms. Smith: So there is a change to the project funding so that it’s identified as
being funds that were spent to complete this project.
Mr. Bridges: So it’s not part of a project then?
Ms. Smith: There were no utility relocation costs identified for the project, so
there was no money set up. This adds those utility costs to the project as a whole.
36
Mr. Bridges: So that’s a change, I mean that’s a change order, it wasn’t in the
scope originally?
Ms. Smith: Correct.
Mr. Bridges: [inaudible] I was just trying to make sure I understand what, what
that was. Thank you.
Ms. Smith: It just doesn’t go to Beam’s.
Mr. Bridges: It [inaudible].
Ms. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, anything further? Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I just want to be clear. The contract for the job has
already been let, am I correct? It’s already been bidded?
Ms. Smith: Correct.
Mr. Boyles: It’s out. So this is an addition to move the Georgia Power light
poles?
Ms. Smith: Yes. But this is for Georgia Power to move them, not the
construction contractor. So the construction contract is not being addressed, is not being
change ordered, nothing -- Beam’s Pavement -- I believe it’s Beam’s, isn’t it -- is not
being requested to do anything with this, this item that is before you. Georgia Power as
the actual utility owner will go out and move those poles, or someone that they have to do
that work.
Mr. Boyles: So as soon as those poles are moved, then we’re ready to start on the
construction?
Ms. Smith: Yes. There is some work that we will be able to do in conjunction
with it, but yes.
Mr. Boyles: So everything is on go now?
Ms. Smith: Everything’s on go. We should start to see some work.
Mr. Boyles: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
37
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, obviously I’m in support of this but let me just ask you
this. On your last page, Ms. Smith, I’m assuming that the contingency on this project still
remains intact at the same level?
Ms. Smith: That is correct. We have not moved any contingency because we
haven’t started construction, and therefore any [inaudible] problems that we would run
into during construction, those funds are still available.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Anything further? We have a motion to approve on the floor.
All in favor of that motion, please vote in the affirmative.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is 36.
The Clerk:
36. Consider appointment to the CSRA Unified Development Authority.
Mr. Mayor: In the backup you have a letter from the RDC that Mr. Cheek’s term
on the Unified Development Authority is expiring at the end of this month and we need
to, need to let him succeed himself or put somebody else on there.
Mr. Colclough: I make a motion that he succeed himself.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any other nominations?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I wish to decline in that I do have a primary means of support which
requires me to be there during the day and which these meetings are held. I would like to
defer this in favor of some other able-bodied Commissioner taking that position.
Mr. Mays: I nominate Mr. Thomas F. Boyles.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Boyles: After all that turkey I ate, Mr. Mayor, I don’t know if I’m able-
bodied or not.
38
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Boyles: But I’ll try.
Mr. Mayor: Well, that didn’t [inaudible] decline the nomination to me.
Mr. Kuhlke: I move they be closed.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of Mr. Boyles then, we’ll go through the formality of
voting for Mr. Boyles.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Boyles: First thing I’ve ever had unanimous.
Mr. Mayor: Savor the moment. Madame Clerk, if you’ll notify [inaudible].
The Clerk: I will, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, next item. 37.
The Clerk:
FINANCE:
37. Approve purchase of City of Augusta flags from promotion account.
(Requested by Mayor Bob Young)
The Clerk: I think we’ve passed the backup. It’s at a cost of $500, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: That’s correct. Sorry we’re so late in getting the backup to you.
There was a mix-up. We prepared this earlier, but we found out this week we’re out of
City flags and because of the cutoff for purchase orders for this year, we needed to bring
it before you today.
Mr. Beard: I move approval.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion?
Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Obviously I’m for this one, too. But let me just ask something. With
all the discussion that we went through the other week on the, on the logo change, and I
39
mentioned this last week about the flag, is the flag to stay the same, or is the flag to go
with script Augusta across it? Since all this is to be uniform. I’m just asking from an
informational standpoint. If we are going to order 500, will we come back, you know, as
soon as they get the one ready with the script and then we order another 500? So I’m
wondering are we ordering one with the new logo or we ordering one, the flag that’s
behind us? I’m, I’m for doing it, but I just think if you changing everything then, if the
flag is supposed to be changed and putting that on there, you know, need to do it all as
one cause you know.
Mr. Mayor: I understand what you’re saying. First of all, we’re not going to
order 500 flags. We’re ordering 50. And the point is, the flag is not being changed. The
logo is being created as an identity for promoting and marketing and identifying the
government. The flag is an entirely separate issue altogether and there has been no
request to change the flag that represents the consolidated government. And the flag is
the official seal of the government, which is not going to change.
Mr. Mays: So then there is still hope for my pins, then, right?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mays: I can put that on the second week and come back and then take that
script out the middle of the pin then where I can see my Government House down
through there plain and clear, that right?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: Okay, then, well, Ms. Bonner, remind me to put that on there. As I
told y’all last week, do what you want to do with the letterheads and the rest of the
billboards, but I think you got a 200-and-something year-old building that’s historical. I
don’t need a signature running through the middle of it. That was my objection with the
flag. I’m glad it’s not in there. And I think the building ought to stay the same way, too.
[inaudible] paperwork goods of it and that’s fine. I can live with that. But I think that we
been, this is a good seal to put on, folk ask for it, and then I don’t need to explain what’s
that written through the middle of the house. You know, it’s enough when you’re
explaining to, to, to people not from here the historical significance of what that house
stood for and when Augusta was the capital and you go through that many changes and
then you say put our name across the middle of it. So I’m glad that it’s not. But I’m for
it.
Mr. Mayor: If we kept changing the flag, we’d really have an identity crisis. I
mean you need some continuity somewhere. We don’t anticipate that being changed.
Mr. Mays: Well, I’m going to throw the pins in with the flag on the next
[inaudible] before y’all get to changing all of it.
40
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion to approve. Any further discussion?
All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
1. Report to the Commission on request to amend First Friday guidelines
regarding vendors with recommendation from the Downtown Advisory Panel
2. Consider contract extension of the Administrator.
3. Discuss cost cap for the Judicial Center Project.
4. Discuss allocations for Sand Hills Park.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, on our addendum agenda list, there are four items.
Three of the items, items 2, 3 and 4 were carries over from our last meeting, so
they’re already on the agenda and do not need unanimous consent. The first item
does need unanimous consent to be considered today because it was not carried over
from the previous meeting. So let me first ask do we have unanimous consent to
discuss item number 1 today? Is there any objection? None is heard. All right, so
we’ll take up this agenda, the addendum agenda, we’ll just start with item 1 and go
down the list.
The Clerk:
Addendum Item 1. Report to the Commission on request to amend First Friday
guidelines regarding vendors with recommendation from the Downtown Advisory
Panel
Mr. Mayor: Does somebody have that report? Okay, Chris?
Mr. Naylor: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, the Downtown Advisory Panel met a
week ago, and took a look at the request from the Commission to extend the hours of the
vendors of First Friday until midnight. We discussed those, we looked at other cities,
other events. The Downtown Advisory Panel’s recommendation is to maintain the 10
o’clock shut-off time for vendors on First Friday.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams, I’ll let you go first. You have a keen
interest in this.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ve received some, some
documents [inaudible] from Chris when I got ready to come up on the podium here. But
first of all, the, the guidelines does not state a ten o’clock time. Mr. Mayor, your bought
that to our attention last time. And I don’t want to get that confused and get that thrown
41
in where it, it, it, it, it may seem like that was something that we voted on to do. It had
never been a ten o’clock curfew or ten o’clock cutoff time for the vendors. That was
something that was being told to the vendors and the vendors [inaudible] to what they
was told to and they start to break down at ten, reluctantly I might add, because they were
making a few dollars, they were enjoying it, people start to come out, and the vendors
was instructed, like I said, to, to do that. But that was not a part of the guidelines that we
voted on here in, in this Chamber. We did have a subcommittee to put together, which
was chaired by my law partner, Mr. Shepard over there, who we have not met as yet. I’m
a part of that, that meeting and I have no problem meeting with the Downtown
Development, along with Mr. Shepard if he so desire, with, you know, with his
subcommittee. So we can talk about some things. On last First Friday we had a incident
that happened when somebody fell through a plate glass and those kind of things happen.
But the, the thing that troubled me was the fact that we, the previous First Friday before
that, in October we told people to leave at ten and we addressed that issue. We found out
that was not the case, [inaudible] be told. So the past First Friday, November, we
blocked off the streets I saw we, that’s the City. We had cars on each end and all the
side streets. That’s another way of saying I want you to go home. I mean you don’t have
to say those words, but if we going to have a event like First Friday, which was truly
growing. I had somebody this weekend ask me about the bands and why they don’t
continue to have the bands and, and the people would come out and join them. I
explained to them about how they got in competition with the loudness of the music. But
there ought to be some way of controlling the, the, the, the music aspect of it and have
people to continue to come to Broad Street. And not rush them off or not have them
thinking that they are, you know, that, that, that, that they grade school age and they got
to go back in the house at 11 o’clock. So I just received this document, have not had a
chance to look at it, Mr. Mayor, but I would be certainly glad to sit down with Mr. Naylor
and Mr. Shepard and anybody else that want to talk about these guidelines. But I do want
to say again that it was never vote on in this Chamber that ten o’clock was the designated
hour to shut down the vendors or anybody at First Friday. The businessmen, the business
owners are still open after ten. And if, if, if -- Mr. Wall, you might need to chime in here,
because I think my question was to you. If someone buys a peddler’s license and went
through the necessary process with the City, they could stay there as long as they was not
breaking the law; is that right?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct, although they would be outside of the guidelines, I
mean outside of the umbrella of the First Friday event.
Mr. Williams: Well, now, excluding First Friday. We’re talking about Broad
Street. We’re talking about being able to sit down, to open up a event, whether you be
selling food or whatever you selling, whether it was in First Friday or first Thursday.
They could sit down any time they wanted to if they met the guidelines of the City. And,
and I guess that, that’s my point. I wanted people to understand that if you break the law,
then we got enough law enforcement officers, we got enough laws on the book that you
know, we going to handle that situation. But to, to, to turn people around because the
crowd or because there is a lot of crowd, something, something’s wrong with that picture
42
and I think you know, once we sit down and talk we be able to come up with something
to, you know, resolve that situation. Mr. Shepard call a subcommittee meeting together.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, a question and a comment. On the hours that we operate
First Friday, isn’t it true that the vendors, the business owners pay for the police
protection? The additional police protection during that period of time?
Mr. Naylor: Commissioner, the $25 fee charged to the vendors on the sidewalk
goes to pay for operational expenses, which do pay for the off-duty deputies that we do
have there, yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: So any extension of hours would be, to cover the cost of the officers
would be a dilution of those funds basically to cover more hours, so there would not be
any -- I guess we would start taking a lot more money to cover [inaudible]?
Mr. Naylor: Yes, sir, we have been spending approximately $1,000 a month for
deputies, and our revenues from the vendors run about $400 a month. So the excess
expense is coming out of the Main Street Downtown Development Authority budget to
pay for those.
Mr. Cheek: Well, I just, just a comment -- thank you. We chartered this
committee, this panel, composed of people downtown and certainly it and the entire
package of legislation is not perfect, but we’ve seen since the problems occurred over a
year ago a steady march toward opening the doors and improving First Friday based on
the recommendations of this panel. I’m very concerned that we not mandate on to First
Friday and Main Street an additional two hours without the City becoming a partner in
the festival. It is, in fact, the City’s festival, and I completely agree with Commissioner
Williams and others who have a desire to see this thing grow. I, do, too, but my concerns
are that we do not bypass this committee, that we trust the people that are down there in
the trenches, doing the work, risking their livelihoods for the success of this event, and
the other events that spin off from it, but that we trust them in their decisions and their
recommendations and allow them to make a steady, slow march towards improvements
which they want to see, rather than us intervening in that process. We do have the final
authority to approve, but I really think that we need to trust in the people that are down
there on a daily basis. I know there are some things to work out with vendors and music
and all this other stuff. We’ve talked about that a year ago. We are making progress. I’d
just like to see us continue to make progress and I’d urge the Commission to support that
panel down here in its efforts.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think Mr. Williams is correct, we have
not had a chance to call that subcommittee into meeting, and I was trying to think of why
that was, and then I remembered we had a few details like budget and other matters that
43
so I’d
we had to handle. And I think we’ve gotten that, thankfully, that bridge crossed,
make the motion that we postpone action on this item until the next regular meeting
of this Commission and that in the meantime we’ll convene a meeting of the
subcommittee that I’m supposed to chair.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? All in favor of the motion then please vote aye.
Mr. Boyles out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: All right, let’s see if we could skip down to item number 44. 4, I’m
sorry.
The Clerk:
Addendum Item 4. Discuss allocations for Sand Hills Park.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, whose item is that? Mr. Mays, is that yours?
Mr. Mays: What I was concerned about, Mr. Mayor, was we were, try to get the
big items to the budget and to stay within the guideline times that the Commission had,
had voted on, that was suggested by our Finance Chairman, and I think we adhered to
that to a point that for the first time in a long time we won’t be here during the month of
December and during Christmas trying to deal with the budget. However, there are still
activities that have to go on with this City, and I didn’t want it to drift until the very last
minute. This may be able to, to get some headway today, I’m not sure. But I wanted to
keep it on the front burner, because we got a new center that’s opening there, and
Recreation & Parks, in Sand Hills, that basically there is no designation for funding for
staff, for anything to go in and to operate it. Now obviously it’s going to have to come
from somewhere, it’s going to have to get done, and I think there is probably, the
Administrator and, and Mr. Mr. Beck: and Mr. Howard may have a suggestion in
reference to, to how this can be done, but I just didn’t want it to get to a point of where it
was upon us to open. I believe -- what are we looking at over in -- Mr. Howard, is that
February?
Mr. Howard: February.
Mr. Mays: In February. February will be here very soon. And in terms of
whether they do it in-house or whether they are advertising new to deal with the position,
the process still has to be done, and I just wanted to get this back out here today so that it
didn’t die. And if there is some feedback that, that if staff is ready to give.
44
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb has a report for us, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Okay. I’m like Ross Perot, I’m all ears.
(Laughter)
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we are just as concerned as
Commissioner Mays expressed. However, we’d like to possibly refer this back to the
Finance Committee and we’ll take a look at some numbers. I’m not sure we’re going to
have to, to do anything other than amend the Recreation Department’s budget to find the
additional money that we’re looking for. But I’d like to double check that and then report
back to the Commission at your next meeting.
Mr. Mayor: All right, you’re going to bring it to the next Finance Committee
meeting, this coming Monday?
Mr. Kolb: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Ms. Bonner, if you’ll see that’s on the agenda.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, my only comment is in terms of not just Recreation and
Parks, but I guess as Chairman of Public Services, I know a lot of the stuff in there is,
within all these departments, George, is kind of bare bones. And if y’all are, are looking
at amending within the budget, I hope that the amendment to the budget, and I’m making
this as a suggestion, cause I’d rather see this, this done. I mean this is something we were
planning for the year before in anticipation, so it wasn’t like it was something that hit us
like a ton of bricks by surprise. We knew the building was coming up. But I want to
make sure that if you send something to Finance, that -- and obviously I’m going to be, I
don’t have a vote in Finance but I’m going to be there, now, so you know I’m going to
have something to say about it. But I want to make sure that, that we’re not drastically
altering any department functions to bring something on line that we know was coming.
And so, that, that’s just, that’s just my thought process. I want to get that, that on the
record, Mr. Mayor, cause you know, where we, where [inaudible] get it from, but
obviously when you move something at one place, if you talking about an existing budget
then you got, you got to move something [inaudible] move it within that same
department. If you talking about looking from within only. And so I, I’d like to know
and I don’t have to know today, but I’m just, I’m just saying when you bring it back I
want to make sure that we are not looking at something else, then, that goes lacking to a
point of being able to get this done.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, Mr. Mays.
45
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, we could bring it to the Public Services Committee if Mr.
Mays chooses.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. You all can have that discussion during recess. We’re going
to take a five minute recess and then we’ll resume our business.
Mr. Mays: Well, Mr. Mayor, the only problem with that is the fact that we meet
at 12:30. Finance meets some times later when these big committee fellows get around to
taking care of business and we meet first and we usually get through 95% of the time on
time or ahead of time. So if you want to send it to us, we can meet jointly over with you,
but since the money folk have to decide where it goes, we’ll play that game any way y’all
want to, but I’ll be there.
Mr. Mayor: Y’all can work that out. We’re in recess. We’ll reconvene in five
minutes.
[RECESS]
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] the addendum agenda.
The Clerk:
Addendum Item 3. Discuss cost cap for the Judicial Center Project.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I will be brief.
Mr. Mayor: I don’t know about your colleague, but go ahead.
(Laughter0
Mr. Cheek: Well, I won’t Willie-brief, but I’ll be brief. In any event, what I
wanted to do is bring this up. I have deep concerns about us [inaudible] this project with
the current price tag on it with no cost cap. The, the impact on our sales tax, the impact
on our operating funds for building something three times the size of this building, to heat
and cool when we could, in fact, utilize some of the larger courtroom facilities that are in
this building, I just, I’m going to make a motion that we put a $60 million dollar cost cap
on the project that will allow us to take an additional $14 million or so back to put to
work in drainage, roads, sidewalks, rec centers and other things that are frankly being
completely ignored in favor of this very large and overpriced project.
Mr. Mayor: All right, is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Colclough: I’ll second it.
46
Mr. Mayor: All right. It’s been seconded by Mr. Colclough. Discussion? Mr.
Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, my comments to Commissioner Cheek’s cap is that for
a pretty good while now we’ve been working on the Judicial Center. We determined
what the needs to consolidate the judiciary is. The, I’m going to call then experts cause
that’s what they are, came back to us with a, a cost of $74 million for the judicial project.
In that $74 million, Jim, correct me if I’m wrong, the cost of the facilities was roughly
about $50-55 million, Jim? Something like that?
Mr. Wall: Yeah, I think it was actually a little less than $50 million.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. The other costs associated with the Judicial Center made up a
number of things. They were fees in regards to the professionals, there was land
acquisition. There was remediation. There were contingencies. And you know, it’s, I
don’t guess I’m smart enough to go back -- you can build something for $60 million
obviously, but what the, what the professionals are telling us, if we’re going to
consolidate the judiciary, it’s going to take square footage, the gross square footage that
they have projected and the estimate to do that is going to be $74 million. So while I
respect Mr. Cheek’s concerns, I don’t see that I can go against people that we have hired,
that have come back and given us the information they have.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussion? Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Let me correct something. I mean less than $55 million. I think I said
less than $50 million. It’s between $50 million and $55 million, the actual cost of the
building itself. The other thing that I would point out is that if you put the cost cap at $60
million, it is going to require an amendment to the architects’ contract because the project
definition that is included in there has a $74 million cap in there and it will require a
negotiation, a renegotiation of the fee with the architects. So I just point that out that if
you do put that cost cap it will affect the, the contract with the architect.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek? I’m sorry, Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I think all of us saw in the paper
and some of us had heard before about the new concept of a civic arena being built at the
Regency Mall site. And I’m not advocating at this point a change in the site or anything,
but something, something is going to be done with the property, I suppose, where the
current Civic Center is. And I think if that were to come to pass, I think that would mean
thth
there would be no property acquisition as far as where we are on 7 and 8 Street. And I
think even though I agree with what Mr. Cheek is saying, I think that -- I don’t want to do
anything again as premature as that, when that is a possibility or something or an
assumption of mine that maybe something could happen over there pending the outcome
of what may happen out on the Regency Mall site, and I’m just curious to know what
kind of time line are we under that we have to make some sort of final decision as to how
47
much [inaudible] going to cost, because of the new developments that have happened
since we made the decision to go where we were going with it?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] question, Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: I think so. The question, I don’t know who to answer or who to
direct it to, unless it’s Mr. Wall or Mr. Kuhlke, because of the -- what kind of, I guess
some of you have used the word before -- drop dead date? I mean we’ve got to -- what’s
the deadline on it?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: Commissioner Boyles, actually I don’t think that the cost of the
facility itself is, is-- based on the architects -- is going to change. I think this is, is, you
know, other things in there could change. Maybe the cost of the land or whatever it may
be. Which may have an impact on it. The, the numbers in for land acquisition were
plugged in based on the, on the Telfair-Walker Street location. We know that there’s
going to be some remediation that has to take place there. From the Civic Center’s
standpoint, there are a number of hurdles that have to be jumped before anything can be
considered there. You’ve got your Delegation you’ve got to deal with, and George, I
think I’m about right on this, you still, if you went to that site and you took control of it,
you’ve got to pay off about $5.3 million in bonds or $6.3 million in bonds, so you’ve still
got some costs associated there. But from a physical standpoint, the building, with the
size that they’ve identified and the cost that they’ve come up with, if we stay with that, is
not going to change, it’s going to be consistent with wherever you put it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Answer your question?
Mr. Boyles: I’m still saying that if we didn’t have to -- if we own the present
Civic Center site, not thinking about the bonds that are due to be paid off, would that be
included in the proposal from the other group, if we did not have to have money in there
for land acquisition, does that lower the cost, the overall cost?
Mr. Kuhlke: [inaudible] I think we had $2 million in there, Jim, if I’m -- or $1.6
million for land acquisition, so you know, if you didn’t have that, that would reduce the
overall cost. To tell you where we are as far as the Judicial Center, they are very close to
finishing the project definition. That’s work authorization number one. Then the
Commission has got to approve work authorization number two, which is
design/development, cost estimates and things like that, which is going to take about
eight months to do. We’re almost at that point.
Mr. Boyles: [inaudible] we’re at step one, step two?
Mr. Kuhlke: Going into work authorization number two. We are very close to
finishing working authorization one.
48
Mr. Wall: The City of Augusta does not own the property where the Civic Center
is. The Coliseum Authority owns that property.
Mr. Boyles: And if it were to cease being in operation, where would it go?
Would it revert back?
Mr. Wall: That goes back to the question --
Mr. Boyles: The Legislative Delegation?
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] pay off the bonds with the disposition of that property.
Mr. Boyles: Well, I appreciate the information. I did not know that. So. I
appreciate the information. I thought it would just automatically go back to the City of
Augusta. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek, Mr. Shepard, and Mr. Williams.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, the only thing that’s been premature about this
project is the fact that we allowed it to progress to this point with no constraints on the
cost. And here again, it deeply concerns me, and we’re basically binding ourselves to
right now a longer than five year SPLOST. If you take, just for instance, $94 million for
a new civic arena, $74 for the Judicial Center, and $18 million for a jail pod, you’re
looking at $176 million and that’s five years of SPLOST. No drainage, no fire stations,
nothing else. And I will say this, as far as consolidating our court facilities, by acting to
keep all of these things downtown we will be consolidating them to about a six block
area. We have existing courtrooms in this building that will go idle or have to be grossly
redeveloped for other uses that could be utilized for Superior Court and other court
activities. All of us know that these courts in this building are not full all the time. That
there can be scheduling improvements made. Bottom line, though, is for me, is that we
can -- and sure, we were premature in saying let’s do it for -- just tell us how much you’ll
need and we’ll give it to you is basically what we’ve done. The project is, is too costly.
We have adequate facilities within this building to compensate for the amount of floors or
space that would be lost by descoping the project, and that our contract basis should be,
when we deal with the public and when we deal with vendors, is this is how much you
have to work with, not how much do you want. And that’s exactly what we’ve done on
this project. And again, I will go back to I think we can build a very nice facility for that
money that will consolidate our judicial functions, our Solicitor, our D.A.’s office and
other functions in the building. We can utilize existing courtrooms that are not much
good for anything else that are in this building right now and save some money to be used
on quality of life amenities in this community, which we tend to too often neglect. It’s
just too much money for this project. We went into it basically with a blank check, and
quite frankly, I, I may be at the checkout counter with a basketful at this point, but I for
one am going to suggest that we put some of the items back on the shelf in favor of
having money for other things that this City needs.
49
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Williams and then Shepard. You had your hand up?
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: I thought you said Mr. Williams. I didn’t want to jump in -- I
thought I was last.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: You’re first, Steve.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission,
what concerns me is the obvious proximity of option 4 that has been tentatively selected
to areas that are under present remediation efforts. And I just think that we may be
incurring unnecessary costs of environmental remediation and my question for both the
Chairman of that committee, Mr. Kuhlke, and you, Mr. Engineering Services Chairman,
is when we went through the process before, didn’t we early on determine the
remediation cost, if any? And I’m just sitting here. I’m not an environmental engineer,
but it seems to me that the, the combination of option 4 and potential remediation cost is
just a way of killing this project. If we move it to another option, we don’t have the
proximity to the activity that’s going on on Walton Way that’s obvious remediation. We
know the flow in the third level of the canal is, is seemingly upstream, but the way it was
engineered, it’s a return to the river of, of water at Hawks’ Gully. So I’d like to hear a
little conversation on how we’re going to determine the, the extent of any remediation
required on that project, or maybe Mr. Acree is here.
Mr. Cheek: And I can comment on that. I’ve gotten -- they’re not in my hands,
but I’ve had discussion with folks that have been involved with the cleanup and the level
of cleaning up the site, and it’s my understanding that it’s primarily clean for constructing
the type of facility that we’re talking about, with the exception of the area south of the
canal, and that will be taken care of during the, the canal remediation process. But quite
frankly, the entire scope and level of the contamination was grossly over-reported when it
was stated publicly in the media, and that according to state officials, that we are
primarily done with that area, with the exception of the Atlanta Gas Light property.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Wall, can you respond?
Mr. Wall: Well, in follow-up, we’re in the process of having the environmental
studies done on the properties that would be involved in that. That’s something that the
Commission has authorized. And that’s ongoing. And so that process will identify what
contamination there is, you know, the First Union property has got to be, is under an EPD
order to meet certain requirements. The property north of the railroad track is concerned,
to correct one thing the Atlanta Gas Light clean-up is not going to clean up all of the First
Union property south of the railroad track, but First Union has still got to clean up some
50
portion of that property. And now that deals with First Union and Atlanta Gas. There are
other pieces of property that are involved as well that are also being tested. And so we’ll
have a, a more complete picture once all that environmental testing is done.
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] follow-up, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Well, if we’re testing
for it now, Jim, what would be the anticipated time frames for having the results of this
testing of this option 4 and the other options? Are we talking about 60 days or --
Mr. Wall: Hopefully less than that. I would say 30 to 45 days, but possibly 60
days.
Mr. Shepard:
Well, I just think that with the environmental option unknown, or
the environmental consequences, the remediation consequences, I mean it’s quite, quite
scary to me because I think under the Superfund law if you buy the property you end up
having to clean it up. So whether you polluted it or not. And I just think to cap it when,
when we don’t know a lot of the variables just doesn’t make a lot of sense, and I share
your admiration, Andy, for quality of life projects, but I also share a, a -- with many
members of this board, yourself included, a deep commitment to, to public safety, and
So I’m
you don’t have public safety without the judicial process at the, at the end of that.
going to make a substitute motion that we defer this until the, defer any question of
the cap until we have the remediation reports in hand.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is there a second?
Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion and second on the substitute motion. Mr.
Williams, and then I’ll come back to you, Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I agree with Commissioner
Cheek. When you go buy a house or a car or even a suit of clothes, you, you know how
much money you got in your pocket before you start pulling stuff off the shelf. I think
there ought to be some kind of cap, there ought to be some kind of idea of what we are
going spend rather than just having an open window. Whether it’s $60,000 or $70,000 or
whatever it may be, but we ought to, there ought to be some kind of guidelines as to how
much money we going spend. You, you, you, I mean we don’t have money we going to
be able to pull out of the air. This going to be a tax based revenue that coming in, and I
wouldn’t want to put the City of Augusta in, in any longer length than a five year term.
It’s been told us in Atlanta from the University of Georgia it be unwise to go pas five
years, with, with a SPLOST. Bill, you mentioned about the architect. I can’t see how it
can cost us money to come down on a project. I can see if we were going up on the
project, but because we agree, we voted for this firm, that it’s going to cost us money if
we change the scope of the project that we want, want to build. We going to build
something smaller, and rather than their price coming down, their price going go up if we
change. That leads me to my next point, which I got a serious problem with the architect
group now. These fellows stood in front of us, flat foot, and told us to our face that that
51
railroad track runs in the center of that property. That’s a flat foot lie. They stood right
there and I asked the man a question and asked him more than once and he said that that,
that that, if they can’t determine that, I don’t know we got the right people to do the job.
So I’ve got a serious problem with to come down on the amount and it going to cost us,
then a man or a firm who can’t determine whether the, the railroad track runs in the
center of the property, on the edge of the property, something wrong with that. So I agree
with Commissioner Cheek, we ought to have a cap of some kind, whether it’s going to be
60 or whatever it is. We need to know, the citizens, the taxpayers of Richmond County
need to know exactly how much money we going spend before we opt to go out there and
spend it. So we can talk about it now, we can table it, we can talk about it later, but I
think that’s something we need to talk about. We talked about contamination. If you
listen to the news media, there’s a multitude of properties around Augusta that’s
contaminated. That people living on property that’s contaminated that they didn’t even
know it until we started to talk about this center. When we checked on that property,
there was some concern of contamination, but it wasn’t to the level that you can’t build a
building. You can’t build a residential home. But from the [inaudible] and stuff we
heard now, it just ain’t no good and it can’t be built there. We done found 400 reasons
not to put it in that location. 400 reasons. And ain’t none of them valid. If there was
contamination and we couldn’t do it, if we build a building of some magnitude -- if we
add to it, now they don’t want to go 27 stories, I’m out in left field, I’m a wild card,
you’re talking about a tall building -- but if you don’t build a building so you can, can,
can construct on top of the building, you got to build another building. So if we going to
go down deep enough, we going remove the contamination ourselves. If you build a
building of some magnitude. Now if you going to do like we been doing and plant stuff
on top of the ground so the wind can blow it over, no, you might not be able to get by
with it. But if you build a building right, we will remove the contamination ourselves
cause we go deep enough in the ground to get past any of that stuff we been kicking
around. We just don’t want to go there. Commissioner Boyles talked about the Civic
Center, and I understand where he come from with that. But you going to tear down a
good building to build another building where the good building is. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem,
that, that, that’s all. I just think that we need to put a cap, we need to be real, we might
even need to look at the architect that we got, and if it ain’t too late, we need to change
horses while, before the water get too deep.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: The water getting too deep is exactly why I’m commenting now, is
that the delays and the -- how it slipped by that we locked ourselves into it, and I don’t
think that was stated very well on this floor, to $74 million, that we were locked into that
already, is amazing to me. And gentlemen, I don’t know if you’ve looked at the
recommended SPLOST list coming back from the committee, but to cover $40 million
for infrastructure, in addition to some of these other costs, that still leaves half, over half
of our recreation centers gutted for money. Other projects and other much-needed -- and
we all know that the infrastructure, the $40 million, is less than half of what we need to
[inaudible], that’s drainage, that does not include roads and other things. The bottom line
of all of this is that, that we don’t need to put off this decision, that we can adequately
52
build a facility to handle our needs for $60 million utilizing some of the facilities in this
building. The courts have been rolling along okay when we enhance their ability to roll
along with this new building and the facilities in this building, it’s going to be fine. I
don’t see the skies falling on this thing if we, we reduce the cost of it. It’s something that
we should have talked about in the beginning, is how much we intend to spend on it,
rather than how much is it going to cost us. I’m afraid that cart is already before the
horse. The remediation in, in, in my understanding, and it’s still pending backup with
data, EPD has cleared that property to a certain level of contamination already, with the
exception of the AGL property back there.
Mr. Wall: Not the First Union property yet.
Mr. Cheek: Well, they cleared most of it. Some of it was not reported, was not
even listed in their inventory is my understanding.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, we’re getting a little bit redundant on this.
We’re saying the same thing over and over again. And I’m going to call for the question
if we have a motion on the floor, or do we have a motion on the floor?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m going to call on Steve, before you called for the
question, Steve did have his hand up [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: Well, I’d just like this part of this record, if I could --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: -- to ask the Attorney, has the site that has been selected been
cleared by the EPD?
Mr. Wall: I have been told by First Union, and I do not have the documents in
hand, that they have done the remediation on the north parcel. They are in the process of
doing the confirmation testing to submit to EPD in order to get it cleared. But at this
point, it has not been cleared by EPD. And I’m talking about the north parcel, the parcel
that is north of the railroad track. The parcel that is south of the railroad track, the
Atlanta Gas Light cleanup, the cleanup -- I’m estimating -- approximately a third of the
property, the remaining portion of it has not been cleaned up by Atlanta -- by First Union
and remains to be done.
Mr. Shepard: To clarify then, the north parcel is the parcel bounded by Walker
and James Brown Boulevard, that end, isn’t that right?
Mr. Wall: And north of the railroad track.
Mr. Shepard: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wall.
53
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The question has been called.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Let me just ask a couple of questions if I could, because
it’s not comical when you are spending over $70 million, nothing is funny about this.
This is a very serious issue. And, and I’m little -- I probably really will not vote. The
motions have merit. Probably not going to vote for them because some of the questions
that I asked two, three, four months ago in reference to this project, that it makes me a
little bit angry that some of these things are popping up now. Not so much as what, what,
what’s in the motion. Those things are justified. But I, I asked from the standpoint and,
and I, I was greeted, I still say, and I am not going to apologize for it, with somewhat of a
little bit of an arrogant answer when I asked whether or not everything that was in this
project was on request or quite frankly on need. Now what I’m getting to is this
mammoth amount of the, of the square footage. And I also asked the question way long
before we got down to, to the four options that we finally voted on, as to how, from the
standpoint when were in this building and we were going to have to move out of this
building and build somewhere else to locate existing government, and then put another
tower on the back of this building to deal with that and at that time, all the parties, all the
players from the judiciary were in concert with that was what was needed. Now that flew
away, and also what flew away was another $25 million. Cause when it left from here, it
was $45 million to $50 million and it jumped up to $70 million. And I have asked, I
asked the architects over at the Museum, I asked in the confines of this Chamber, I still
have not got in my own personal opinion and limited knowledge a sensible answer to a
point of whether or not it was reached on basic request of giving everybody what they
wanted, or to a point of what could reasonably be done. I’m still not satisfied with that,
gentlemen. Now, I’m concerned to a point on the first motion that’s out there with the
cap, that -- and I understand Andy’s sincere concern that’s in there, but I’m just troubled
to a point that if we’re not going to get caught in a, in a Catch-22 hoop shot [inaudible]
situation to a point that every time we ask a question, that the people who ask the
questions are made to look like villains to a certain extent, and that you know, if you, if
you say you want to change something, to deal with [inaudible] some type of budget or to
try to conform to some other standard [inaudible] reduce that, it’s going to cost you more
money if you do it. The more I look at this, the more I see shades of Phinizy Road and
the jail project coming all back again. You know, it’s almost like to a point that this one,
this one, this one’s been pimped on the block before. It’s just to a point of where you got
a whole different project, but now it’s back over in this deal. I, I, I feel a little, a little
hoodwinked, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, to a point that when folk who, who are professionals,
and it’s like Bill says, I’ll even given them, I’ll grant them that, let’s make them experts.
We paying them enough for them to be experts, if they’re not. Experts, to a point, when
you say any of these sites would do, they will work, and now all of sudden we’re back
over there, we, we almost to a point of we putting more tests in than we were dealing
with, with Hyde Park and Virginia subdivision, to a point now of whether it will work,
whether it won’t work. I would have rather them said to me professionally to this point
this absolutely has not been studied, we will not put it up as an option, somebody may
want it to go there on this land. There was enough time that when Marion first suggested
that site to say we will not bring back any drawings until, one, we do environmental
54
studies on it period, that are done in the name of Augusta Richmond County
independently to do it. And that was where we had left it until they were [inaudible]
down here to make a decision, and to put it up on the agenda because we had to rush to
get a site done. So now to a point folk want to get in that amnesia stage again, don’t
remember how it got done, don’t remember who asked for is to come here. So I’m, I’m,
I’m really to a point I’m, I’m, I’m really getting sick of it. All of us have had to
compromise in this [inaudible] as I said when this was done. There was folk that didn’t
want to get a railroad. Everywhere the site has been, it’s been a railroad. A railroad on
the river, a railroad by here, a railroad over there. What’s the difference? You are going
to still have a railroad. You know, I, I, I, I gave y’all one, and I’m going to shut up with
this, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, on the biggest piece of property. You’re talking about what
you’re going to have in land acquisition. You’ve got one right down there still next to the
Law Enforcement Center that’s the biggest piece of property you own. You own all the
streets, you own the area that’s around to it, and wouldn’t nobody complain about it
because of the fact that you wasn’t tearing down no buildings, wasn’t dealing with any
historic buildings. It was still in the law enforcement -- I mean in the legal community’s
district of walking. Those as big as me and Harry, they could have walked to work every
day and it would have probably got them a little bit smaller. But the only people you’d
have had complaining would have been the prisoners in the jail and the folk in the
cemetery. Everything else between that the City of Augusta owns. So you had an
opportunity to create a brand new May Park and build it, had an opportunity to put it on
property that you own, and what got us in this mess that we’ve been flip-flopping back
and forth now on three to four different sites, $25 million difference to a point and still
haven’t made up our mind on anything else. Now what I’m hearing is that we still got to
wait on other tests to be done. I, I can agree with that in Steve’s motion because to a
point if, if, if, if that’s what’s going to be done, then yes, we ought to have that finality to
do that. But to a point of a, of a group of experts bringing that in to me, and saying it’s
ready -- when you’re an expert, you bring something to me, you put it up, and you say
anywhere on these four that it will go, then professionally you’re telling me that if I put it
on the best site or the worst site, it ought to be ready. Now, somebody spoke, in my
opinion, with forked tongue. Now I have a real problem that that and so I’m not going to
even vote for either one of the motion’s that’s out there today cause I think we are still
play around to a point now of voting on a site, and I’m just content to hear what those
tests are when they come back.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a substitute motion on the floor, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Read that for me, please.
The Clerk: The substitute motion by Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Shepard and seconded by
Mr. Kuhlke, was to defer any action on a cost cap until the remediation reports are in
hand.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen, we have a substitute motion on the floor.
55
Mr. Cheek: Clarification. Just clarification. Does this mean that the longer we
wait, the further we’re locked into the $74 million that’s been stated?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can you answer that, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: What I’m saying is that in the contract that was approved by the
architect, we defined the project as including approximately 300,000 square feet and an
estimated cost of the overall project of approximately $74 million. I don’t remember the
exact number that was in the amendment to the contract. And that’s been approved, or
that is the project definition phase that is underway and work within the confines of that
project definition, the contract is written such that future work authorizations have to
come back before this Commission to be approved. So the next work authorization, as
Commissioner Kuhlke has stated, will be brought back when the project definition is
completed and that necessarily involves completion of the environment testing.
Mr. Cheek: Was that -- in the contract, did it state a fixed $74 million and some
change figure, or was it up to that figure? What was the language in that?
Mr. Wall: And I, I don’t remember the exact language. I think it was an
estimated cost and the exact language I would have to refer to the contract.
Mr. Shepard: May I, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, with the indulgence of the body? One
other -- but isn’t remediation a, a contingency for us proceeding forward on this? I mean
the site [inaudible] acceptable limits to remediation a contingency in this, in this, Jim?
Mr. Wall: Well, remember, that y’all selected two sites. You selected as the
primary site the, the so-called Telfair Street site and that if environmentally that site did
not work, you would come back to the Municipal Building. So -- and as Commissioner
Kuhlke has indicated, there was an estimated amount included in the $74 million for a
certain amount of environmental testing, remediation, etc., but if those numbers are
unreasonable then you have already identified a second site, which is back here at the
Municipal Building.
Mr. Beard Okay, gentlemen. I need a point of clarification on the substitute
motion..
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: Maybe I didn’t hear her, what she said.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. To defer any cost cap until remediation reports are in hand.
Any action on a cost cap until remediation reports are in hand.
Mr. Beard: When will that be? You said 60 or 45 days?
56
Mr. Wall: Yeah, why don’t we just say less than 60 days?
Mr. Beard: Less than 60 days.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, we have a substitute motion on the floor. All in
favor of the substitute motion, please signify by voting.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Williams and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Mays abstain.
Motion carries 6-2-2.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mayor, you may have the next item.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. The next item will be number 2 on
the addendum agenda.
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry?
The Clerk: [inaudible] I’m getting there.
Mr. Mayor: Item 2 of the addendum agenda.
The Clerk:
Addendum Item 2. Consider contract extension of the Administrator.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, we’ve discussed this twice in legal already. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make that we take this into legal, and I
understand that we need an amendment for “Personnel” when we go into legal.
38. LEGAL MEETING.
??
Discuss pending litigation.
Mr. Cheek: Also add “Real Estate” as well.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I tell you what. If we can, if Mr. Beard will allow us to modify
the motion, why don’t we just use his motion to create the agenda for the legal meeting?
Let’s do that and we can move this along.
Mr. Shepard: I’ll second the motion as amended.
57
Mr. Wall: Add “Legal Advice” to that, as well. So it would be pending
litigation, personnel, real estate and legal advice.
Mr. Mayor: Is that acceptable, Mr. Beard? Is there a second.
Mr. Shepard: I did that.
Mr. Mayor: All right, all in favor of going into our legal meeting for the purposes
stated by the Attorney, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
39. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] the execution of the closed meeting affidavit and for
purposes of record, there was no discussion of personnel matters in the closed session, so
I have deleted that from the affidavit, even though that was part of the motion to go into
closed session.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion?
Mr. Mays: What was the motion?
The Clerk: Execute the affidavit.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of
voting.
Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Wall: Next I would ask that you add to the agenda the, a resolution to
fill the vacancy in the Coroner created by the death of Leroy Sims and that you call
a special election to fill the unexpired term of the Coroner on March 2 of 2004 and
whoever y’all choose to appoint.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen?
58
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I would like to nominate a person who has
worked 26 years in the Coroner’s office under Coroner Sims, who is also a resident
th
of the 7 Commission District, Mr. Grover Tuten.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second on the floor. Any discussion?
Mr. Wall: For clarification the motion is to appoint him as Coroner and that
a special election by held on March 2 of 2004.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You agree with that amendment?
Mr. Boyles: I agree with the amendment.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The seconder agreed with the amendment?
Mr. Williams: I agree.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any discussion?
Mr. Wall: That is to add and approve.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Add and to approve. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think that the motion is a good one, Jim, you
rule if I’m out of order, but I probably have known the nominee now for over, over 30-35
years, but because of the possibility of a conflict I would have to abstain.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Any further discussion?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: As I understand it, this would give the people the earliest
opportunity, Mr. Wall, to vote on the position?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct. [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If no further discussion --
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Chairman, you mentioned about the election, right? You
mentioned about the election. It would be an election when?
59
Mr. Wall: March 2 of 2004, in connection with the Presidential primary.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Anyone else? No further discussion? All in favor of the
motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mays: Abstaining on the second part. It’s unanimous to add, that’s what Jim
was saying, so I’m not blocking the adding of putting it on and [inaudible].
The Clerk: for the nominee? Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further business to come before this Commission?
Hearing none --
Mr. Boyles: Move to adjourn.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion to adjourn?
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of
voting. The Commission stands adjourned.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on December 2, 2003.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
60