HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-02-2004 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
March 2, 2004
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:10 p.m., Tuesday, March
2, 2004, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Colclough, Grantham, Mays, Beard,
Williams, Sims and Boyles, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hon. Cheek, member.
Also Present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena
Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The invocation was given by Rev. Dr. Woodrow Miller, Jr.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Addendum Item 1. Presentation: Dayton Sherrouse, Augusta Canal Authority
Re: The Brightest Arm of the Savannah: The Augusta Canal 1845-2000
(No objection to adding this item)
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Motion to adopt by reference the International Property Maintenance Code –
2003 Edition with an effective date of April 1, 2004. (Approved by Public Services
Committee February 23, 2004)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
2. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain
unsafe and uninhabitable properties in the Bethlehem Neighborhood: 1804 Mill
Street, 1641-1643 Chestnut Street, 9 Nicholas Street, 1120 Sharpes Lane (District 2,
Super District 9); Turpin Hill Neighborhood: 1703 Meadow Street, (District 2,
Super District 9); South Augusta Neighborhood: 1033 Fifteenth Avenue, (District 2,
Super District 9); and waive 2nd reading. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee February 23, 2004)
3. Motion to approve disability retirement of Mr. Kimet Woolsey under the
1977 Pension Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee February 23,
2004)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
4. Motion to maintain the Historic Fire Station #7 structure for potential city
use. (Approved by Public Safety Committee February 23, 2004)
1
FINANCE:
6. Motion to approve the Service Delivery Strategy for Richmond County.
(Approved by Finance Committee February 23, 2004)
7. Motion to approve the acquisition of Four (4) Compact Pickup Trucks for
the Utilities Department – Customer Service Division from Bobby Jones Ford of
Augusta, Georgia for $15,245.43 each (lowest bid offer on Bid 03-120). (Approved
by Finance Committee February 23, 2004)
8. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Four Inch Pump for the
Utilities Department – Construction Division from Godwin Pumps of America Sales
and Service Company of Charleston, South Carolina for $15,041.00 (lowest bid offer
on Bid 03-064). (Approved by Finance Committee February 23, 2004)
9. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Compact Pickup truck for the
Utilities Department – Water Production Division from Bobby Jones Ford of
Augusta, Georgia for $15,245.43 (lowest bid offer on Bid 03-120). (Approved by
Finance Committee February 23, 2004)
10. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Cargo Van for the Augusta Fire
Department from Allan Vigil Ford of Jonesboro, Georgia for $16,598.00 each
(lowest bid offer on Bid 03-125). (Approved by Finance Committee February 23,
2004)
11. Deleted from the consent agenda.
12. Deleted from the consent agenda.
13. Motion to approve a request for funding in the amount of $125,000 for
ongoing programs, operations and maintenance of the Lucy Craft Laney Museum of
Black History. (Approved by Finance Committee February 23, 2004)
14. Motion to approve a request from the Fellowship of Christian Athletes
regarding City sponsorship through the purchase of tickets for their annual
Fellowship of Christian Athletes Home Team Banquet. (Approved by Finance
Committee February 23, 2004)
15. Motion to approve the acquisition of Two (2) Backhoe/Loaders for the
Utilities Department – Construction Division from Stith Tractor and Equipment
Company of Augusta, Georgia for $49,041.00 each (lowest bid offer on Bid 03-065).
(Approved by Finance Committee February 23, 2004)
16. Motion to approve the acquisition of Two (2) Full Size Pickup Trucks for the
Utilities Department – Construction Division from Bobby Jones Ford of Augusta,
Georgia for $21,215.90 each (lowest bid offer on Bid 03-119). (Approved by Finance
Committee February 23, 2004)
17. Motion to approve the acquisition of Two (2) Compact Pickup Trucks for the
Utilities Department – Water Production Division Filtration Plant – South from
Bobby Jones Ford of Augusta, Georgia for $15,245.43 each (lowest bid offer on Bid
03-120). (Approved by Finance Committee February 23, 2004)
18. Motion to approve the acquisition of Two (2) Dome Top Crew Trucks for
$39,504.12 each (lowest bid offer on Bid 03-123) and One (1) Compact Pickup Truck
for $15,245.43 each (lowest bid offer on Bid 03-120) for the Utilities Department –
Construction Division from Bobby Jones Ford of Augusta, Georgia. (Approved by
Finance Committee February 23, 2004)
2
19. Motion to authorize Public Works & Engineering Department to accept a
Section 319(h) FY03 Nonpoint Source Implementation Grant for the Augusta area
in the amount of $238,280 and provide matching funds in the amount of $158,854.
(Approved by Finance and Engineering Services February 23,2004)
20. Motion to authorize Public Works & Engineering Department to accept a
second Brownfields Assessment Grant from US Environmental Protection Agency
in the amount of $200,000.00. (Approved by Finance and Engineering Services
Committee February 23, 2004)
21. Motion to approve expenditure from Municipal Building Renovation Fund
from Phase III Sales Tax in the Clerk of Commission’s Office. (Approved by
Finance Committee February 23, 2004)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
22. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 213, Parcel 2.05,
which is owned by Michael W. Spicer, Sr. and Ramona Spicer for an easement in
connection with the GWTP #3 20” Water Main, more particularly described as
2,359.48 square feet, more or less, of permanent easement and 2,342.68 square feet,
more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved Engineering Services
Committee February 23, 2004)
23. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 51, Parcels 111
and 112, which is owned by the Estate of Mattie Bell Harper Long, for an easement
on the Butler Creek Collector Project, more particularly described as 101.18 square
feet, more or less, of permanent maintenance and utility easement and 301.12
square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement on Parcel 111 and
1,012.03 square feet, more or less, of permanent maintenance and utility easement
and 999.59 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement on Parcel
112. (Approved Engineering Services Committee February 23, 2004)
24. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 150, Parcel 33,
which is owned by Adrian J. Landry, for an easement on the Jamestown Sanitary
Sewer Project, Phases II & III, more particularly described as 625 square feet, more
or less, of permanent easement. (Approved Engineering Services Committee
February 23, 2004)
25. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 150, Parcel 36,
which is owned by D & D Properties (Ervin Crawford and Rosa Crawford – Bond
for Title), for an easement in connection with the Jamestown Sanitary Sewer
Project, Phases II & III, more particularly described as 728 square feet, more or
less, of permanent utility and maintenance easement. (Approved Engineering
Services Committee February 23, 2004)
26. Motion to approve Utilities Department participation in American Water
Works Association Qual Serve Program at a cost of $60,500. (Approved
Engineering Services Committee February 23, 2004)
27. Motion to authorize the Administrator and the Purchasing Director to seek
emergency bid of at least three quotes for the purchase of new entry control gates,
ticket spitters, fee computers and access control software for the Radisson Parking
Facility. (Approved Engineering Services Committee February 23, 2004)
3
28. Motion to approve execution of Southern Natural Gas Governmental
Encroachment Agreement No. 04-0024 South Main Lines @ MP 476.02, Georgia
R/W 2M5A #249 and 2M5A-L3 #249. (Approved Engineering Services Committee
February 23, 2004)
29. Motion to approve the expenditure up to $250,000 from recaptured SPLOST
funding for emergency repair of collapsed culvert on Ashley Drive in Valley Forge
Subdivision and submission of in-house cost estimate. (Approved Engineering
Services Committee February 23,
2004)
30. Motion to award contract in the amount of $155,560 to Stevenson & Palmer
Engineering, Inc. to design a sanitary sewer force main in the Columbia Nitrogen
Drive area. (Approved Engineering Services Committee February 23, 2004)
31. Motion to approve and accept the Deed of Dedication and Maintenance
Agreement for the water and sanitary sewer mains with applicable easements for
Skinner’s Mill Place Subdivision. (Approved Engineering Services Committee
February 23, 2004)
32. Motion to approve a proposal from the PRAD Group, Inc. in the amount of
$71,710 to provide professional services for the design of a water and wastewater
system improvement project. (Approved Engineering Services Committee February
23, 2004)
PETITIONS &COMMUNICATIONS:
32A. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held February 16, 2004.
32B. Motion to approve the appointment of Dr. Marsha Jones Moorman to the
Augusta Port Authority representing District 7.
Mr. Williams: I move we approve the consent agenda.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Motion carries 9-0. [Items 1-10, 13-32B]
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
33. Consider a request to reclassify an Investigator position to Chief
Investigator. (No Recommendation from Administrative Services Committee
February 9, 2004 – deferred from the February 16 Commission meeting.)
Mr. Craig: …with the Sheriff’s Department for about 15 years before he came to
the D.A.’s office and he’s been at the D.A.’s office I think about 13 years now. And he is
about to be second in pay to the person with the person with the least seniority, at least
among those who were there when I came into the office. And then we do start looking
at the title issue and his responsibilities and we understand that Glenn is responsible for
advising my sheriffs, my three sheriffs in the Augusta Judicial Circuit, and they call him
constantly for advice, and certainly those who are under the command of the Sheriff in
the positions of Major and Captain in each of the departments call frequently in order to
4
get advice, and he helps them to run their investigations. Unfortunately, his
classification, salary classification is four classifications below that of the people that he
is, for the most part, supervising or advising during the course of a given day. And that,
combined with the salary issue, caused me to hit the panic button and to come to you and
to say to you that it would be embarrassing for us to have the lead investigator in the
D.A.’s office who is responsible for advising the Sheriff, to now be lower paid than the
person with the least seniority in the office, and it’s time, I think, that we take a look at
how we pay this person relative to how we pay those people who look to him for advice
on a daily basis. And he has the seniority that I think it would be appropriate for us to
take a look at that. Richmond County only pays about 30 – I’m sorry, about 67% of the
budget of the D.A.’s office, so this item would have a $7,000 impact for the remainder of
this year, but only 2/3 of that would be taken by Richmond County, and Columbia and
Burke Counties pay 26% and 7% respectively toward the cost of the budget. They’re
billed on a monthly basis and they’re billed based upon the case count from the previous
year. So you wouldn’t have to even carry the entirety of the $7,000 impact, but as I say,
that $7,000 could easily be picked within my, my current budget, and if you need for me
to identify that line item then I’ll be happy to do so.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, since Mr. Craig says that the money is within his
budget for this, I make a motion that we approve.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: On the backup information, it says that the funds will come from
general fund.
Mr. Craig: Well, it does come from my budget.
Mr. Colclough: From your general fund?
Mr. Craig: Yeah.
Mr. Colclough: Or our general fund? Which general fund does it come from?
Mr. Craig: It does not come from salaries and wages. The committee was
especially sensitive to that because we’re hoping to recoup a $4 million shortfall from
lapsed salaries and wages for the year, and so I will not be going to that in order to do
that. I’ll be going to a line item which is identified as witness fees, and when we
amortize that and compare it to what we had, there will be sufficient funds there for me to
transfer those monies over.
Mr. Colclough: I’m just questioning the backup information here. In my book.
5
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, if I may respond?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: The District Attorney’s budget is an account within the general fund,
so it’s just an appropriation of the general fund.
Mr. Colclough: All right. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, thank you. Danny, I heard your explanation
and I’m in agreement with it, but I’m more concerned about how it got like that and how
we can prevent that from happening again, because if the State is paying something and
they are paying a supervisor, I mean how can, I mean when we going to get a handle on
this? Cause once we started reclassification, it just went out the roof. Everybody’s
saying reclassification now and some making more than others, so how can, how can we
know this is not going to reoccur?
Mr. Craig: Well, I can tell you how this one got this way, and I hope that we’re
not as – cause I pay taxes here, too, and I hope we’re not having to confront that in every
department. This happened because in 1972, when Larry Hendrix came on board, who
was the Chief Investigator until he retired two years ago, he was the only investigator in
the office. Soon thereafter, Q.L. Conway joined and at that juncture they worked
together and they were the only two investigators until Glenn Rowland joined the office
probably in 1988 or 1989. Larry Hendrix, then having 15 years’ or 16 years’ seniority –
Q.L. Conway was already retired and money meant nothing to him and he never did have
the salary that Larry Hendrix had – but anyway, Larry Hendrix having 15 or 16 years’
seniority over Glenn Rowland, there was such a difference in their salary that the title just
really didn’t mean anything. It wasn’t necessary to reclassify and no one really cared
what their titles were, they just got the job done. And it wasn’t until now we’ve come to
the point with the staff having less disparity, if you will, in the tenure in the office that the
salary has become an issue, especially in light of the fact, like I say, that State salary is
about to overcome the highest paid investigator I have on County salary. I will add one
other thing and say to you that if I were immoral about it, I would just take the State
investigator and terminate her employment with the State, move her into the County, and
I would then terminate Glenn Rowland with the County and move him into the State
salary because they’re actually given credit for their past experience and Glenn would
immediately begin making $71,000 a year for the State. He’s now being paid $48,000 or
$49,000. But we would just not do that because that impacts retirement and everything
else and it would be silly.
Mr. Williams: You’d probably have a suit on your hands, as well. I just, I just
wanted to know, you know, so we can kind of get a handle on those kind of things that
been coming to us like, you know, I don’t know where. That’s all, Mr. Mayor.
6
Mr. Mayor: Anything further from anyone? We have a motion to approve this.
All in favor of that motion, please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Craig: Thank y’all very much.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will recognize Commissioner Boyles on a point of
personal privilege.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If you look at item number 32B in your
book, I have a young lady – Mr. Mayor, you and I were there at the banquet one night,
this young lady came up to me and asked if there were any possible way she could serve
on some committee in City government, and I looked through the information that I had
th
and the only vacancy that was within the appointment powers of the 7 District was at
the Ports Authority, so I talked to Dr. Marsha Moorman about that, and if you look at her
qualifications you’ll find they’re pretty much outstanding. And I know that we have had
a few – not so much problems, but concerns with the Port Authority, so I asked her would
she like to go over there. So if I may, may I just introduce Dr. Marsha Moorman to the
Commission. She’s sitting at the back.. We’re glad to have you on board, Doctor, and
we’re looking forward to working with you. And thank you for your interest in
government.
Mr. Mayor: What I’d like to do now is take up 34 and 35 and 36. The Attorney
has advised me of a need to act on these matters today because of some legal
considerations.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
34. Approve the extension of the solid waste collections contract with Waste
Management, Inc. in the amount of $758,707 for year 3 (June 3, 2004 thru June 3,
2005) for the collection of solid waste, yard waste, recycling and bulky waste in
sections 11 & 12. (No recommendation from Engineering Services Committee
February 23, 2004)
35. Approve the extension of the solid waste collections contract with Inland
Service Corporation in the amount of $1,170,600 for year 3 (June 3, 2004 thru June
3, 2005) for the collection of solid waste, yard waste, recycling and bulky waste in
sections 16, 17 and 18. (No recommendation from Engineering Services Committee
February 23, 2004)
36. Approve the extension of the solid waste collections contract with Augusta
Disposal and Recycling, Inc. in the amount of $636,938 for year 3 (June 3, 2004 thru
June 3, 2005) for the collection of solid waste, yard waste, recycling and bulky waste
in sections 13, 14 and 15. (No recommendation from Engineering Services
Committee February 23, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Steve, you want to explain?
7
Mr. Shepard: Sure, Mr. Mayor. And thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the
Commission, Mayor Pro Tem. These are the contracts, solid waste collection contract
which was negotiated for a two year rate, and then in the third year there is an increase in
the rate. We now must take action to notify in writing the providers of the solid waste
district services, collection services that we, that we wish to continue for another year.
And we’ve talked with the Director of Public Works and it may be possible that in the
third year period there might be some renegotiation, but you are about to have a date
moved by because it’s only 91 days, I think, until the solid waste collection contract
renews. Therefore, we had to act under special – I advise you to act under special
condition 5 of the contract to have the Mayor renew all three of these contracts. The rates
and charges, I guess, not rates – I’m told they’re charges – were all negotiated in the
contracts when they were first negotiated back two years ago, so I advise that you pass
this and that the resolution include the authority for the Mayor to today transmit written
notice of the action of this body to the contract.
Mr. Mayor: And if there’s no objection, what I’d like to do is if we could take all
these three up today. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I don’t have any problem with that, but I think we’re
going into legal and there may be something, some questions that may come up. I think
we still can do this today and pass and give you that authority and with the Attorney, but
I’m, I’m wondering now, since it is a contract deal, Steve, you know how we are with
these contracts. There are some things I need, that I need to talk about. What’s that
going to do with the other [inaudible] contracts beside these contracts? Is that including
everybody in it? Anything change? Nothing change? Everything the same? I got no
problem. I just think we need to at least take into legal and then come out and do it,
Steve. If, if that’s okay, now.
Mr. Shepard: Well, I think we’re going to have to do it, those questions on this
floor, because it’s not [inaudible] potential litigation about this contract, and it’s not real
estate and it’s not personnel, so I think we need to ask those questions on the floor. If
you want to defer it until later on the agenda, that’s fine, but I think you should have that
discussion in public.
Mr. Williams: Okay, I, I just, I didn’t want to get into it. We hadn’t finished –
Mr. Mayor: If it would help you, we can take a brief recess if you wanted to have
a legal conference with the Attorney [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: Well, at $125 an hour –
Mr. Mayor: We don’t want to run anything through here.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible]
8
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] answers.
Mr. Williams: No, I understand, Mr. Mayor. I never anticipated, never thought
that at all. I just wanted to be clear on, here we are now passing these contracts – and I
said these – [inaudible] ones and there were some questions I needed to understand
myself clearly. Is this going to affect a sub, their salary, their contract going to remain
the same, how will it affect them? I mean who, I mean is this the same identical thing we
had before, everybody going to be in their same rightful place? I mean those are the kind
of questions I need answered.
Mr. Shepard: Sure. And I’d like to ask the Director to respond to some of that,
Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, if she could.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Smith, could you respond to the Commissioner’s concerns?
Ms. Smith: The contracts that are currently being considered today do not have
any subcontractors on them, with the exception of, I believe, Augusta Disposal,
[inaudible], who has Coleman as a subcontractor.
Mr. Williams: Okay. But, but that’s not including the other contractors then in
the contracts?
Ms. Smith: All of the, all of the contractors, subcontractors are subcontractors to
Advance Disposal, and the Commission extended that contract when the contract was
turned over from CSRA Waste to Advance Disposal. So that automatically went into
place with the new contract.
Mr. Williams: Okay. So this is not going to affect them, is it?
Ms. Smith: No.
Mr. Williams: And that’s, that’s one of the questions I had, Steve. Mr. Mayor, I
don’t have any problem, I just wanted to ask that, I just wanted to make sure we, we
dotted our I’s and crossed every T so we won’t –
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was looking at item 34, and I think the
other two are the same way. But they said the cost would increase by $25,686 for the
extension, or approximately 3%. How is this going to be passed on to our residents?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, the yearly rate, monthly rate, whatever you want to call it, it will
increase as a contract. This is a self-sustaining contract that is based on fees charged to
suburban dwellers, as well as charged to the urban services district.
9
Mr. Boyles: Well, the thing, the $195 a year now, what’s that – how’s that going
to impact? That’s what concerns me because I wasn’t here. This was a year before I
came onto the Commission when this contract -- extensions were talked about, and I’m
just – the calls that I’ve had because it broke in the news media first, I guess from
Engineering Services Committee, is what kind of increase are we talking about for the
average homeowner?
Mr. Kolb: Well, it would be pretty much across the board. It will increase to
approximately $230 or $235 per year. Go from $16.25 to roughly $19.50 per month.
Again, we need to go into a workshop so we can show you how we develop those fees.
But depending on what the Commission decides to do, it will be either $230 or $235.
Mr. Boyles: But if we approve this today, then we are basically approving those
fees?
Mr. Kolb: That’s correct. Well, not necessarily. No. Those –
Mr. Boyles: We’re not approving a fee increase if we approve the contract
extension?
Mr. Kolb: That’s correct. We will come back to you after your work session that
you’re having where we show you how we developed those fees and then you will have
to decide at that time.
Mr. Boyles: I’ve got three specific instances with senior adults, the elderly
th
population up in the 7 District, and in the past before we went into this contract, there
may be three homes together that had one hauler and they may generate one bag of trash
a week. And I’m just wondering if we can’t look at some other options about maybe not,
you know, I think where you and live the trash truck is on the streets five days a week.
Do we at this point need all of that and can we cut it back rather than charging these little
ladies that might be on a fixed income of just social security – we’re going to raise it
you’re talking about maybe from $195 to $230. That’s a big increase when they’ve got
only social security checks. That’s what concerns me about this. If we vote on this
today, and it needs to be done, but I don’t know, I’m just not happy or just not
comfortable, I guess, with the fee increase.
Mr. Kolb: Well, the fee is – we have scheduled a workshop or we’re planning to
schedule a workshop to talk about the solid waste issues, including landfill fees as well as
the collection fee. At that time, you can discuss it. As you recall, we discussed it during
budget and we talked about various alternatives – whether or not we should put it on a
tax, whether or not we should maintain the fee, or some other options. And we need to
talk about all of the issues associated with that fee. And we’re planning to talk about
them in great detail. With respect to the services, the contracts that you approve today,
the services will remain the same. That is something that you negotiated with the haulers
two years ago. We can begin the process probably next year of whether or not you want
10
to reduce the kinds of services that the haulers will provide. But as it stands today, what
you are looking at is the same level of service that has been in place for the last two
years.
Mr. Boyles: So if I vote for this today, then I’m not voting for a fee increase until
we take it another step?
Mr. Kolb: The only increase you’ve voting for is an increase in the charges to the
municipality for the services of collecting the wastes. You are not dealing with
collections from the community.
Mr. Boyles: Individual homeowners.
Mr. Kolb: That is correct.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, if I could, I’ve got two or three questions. I’ll [inaudible]
th
in the 7 because he wasn’t here when this contract was put on. But I think his concern
is valid now. You’ve got an answer that you wasn’t dealing with a fee increase. Well, let
me just say this. I kind of disagree with that statement because it may not be passed on to
somebody, but I’ll say this, somebody is going to pay it. Now it either means the
government is going to deal with it at a loss and it’s going to still have to come from
somewhere. So I think to a point that if the Attorney is saying we’re getting ready to
approve a contract, I don’t see how we can open the door to the stable and catch a
thoroughbred after, you know, it’s 100 yards down the track. I don’t think a workshop is
going to change the complexion of what we’re dealing with here today. It may be
informative but I don’t think it’s going to change in terms of how the fees are paid. Now
I need to get some clarity on, on a couple of things. When this came on during the
workshop, and we were – I was one of those Commissioners that was here that night
when we were talking about this – and I was one that said that if we needed to shift this
from the standpoint that we were having to deal with already the property tax item that
was there, but we did need to talk about this prior to dealing with it. Well, it’s here.
We’ve got to deal with it. But I need some clarity because I’ve heard two different
schools of thought in reference to urban services district, and I’ve got constituents in
both. I want to first address urban services tax district issue because in the beginning it
was said this would be an increase. Late on I’ve heard dialog to say it would not be an
increase. Now I’m hearing as the last statement where it was said just a few minutes ago
that this would be shared by the suburban tax district and the urban services tax district. I
need to know, Mr. Mayor, before I ask my second question, what is the answer in
reference to urban services tax district, which was already in a service collection of
sanitation before these contracts were put out?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, that’s a fair question. The
formula is the urban services, the former City of Augusta paid taxes for garbage
collection services. Those taxes that are collected are the source of funding for that
11
portion of the collection fee that is attributable to the City. The suburban tax district, the
former Richmond County, when they were added on, it was agreed by the Commission
that there would be a fixed fee attached to their tax bill, and that is the $195 fee.
Mr. Mays: Okay, now further on that, before I still get into my second question, I
need a yes or no, I guess, as to whether or not when the contracts are signed – and I’m
definitely not trying to put pressure on the people who are doing business because
they’ve got to have those funds to be able to adequately operate. But I also need to know
whether or not there is going to be a, I guess, a charge to the urban services tax district.
Just point blank whether money is going to be deducted from it or whether or not it’s not
going to be. I think that question needs to be answered first.
Mr. Kolb: There will be no change in the formula for urban or suburban. Now
the way we assess the urban services district is to charge per household served the $195,
and that will not change. That’s the basis for the charge to the urban services district.
But it comes out of the taxes that are collected for the urban services district. Now that
will go up also, along with the fees when they, when they go into effect.
Mr. Mays: Okay. I, well, I yield for the Attorney, but I’m really just looking for
a yes or no as to whether or not there’s going to be an increase in monies deducted from
the contingency amount that’s in the urban services tax district.
Mr. Kolb: Yes.
Mr. Mays: Okay, well, see, a few months ago when I asked this question it was
up there, yes, it rolled out to be a no a few weeks ago, now it’s back to yes. Okay, and
I’ve got my answer. That’s where it is. We don’t need to dance around formulas.
Formulas are good only when they stay formulas. When they equate to money, folk want
to know whether or not, cause they’re still paying it. It may not, it may not be to where it
goes to their household in urban services tax district, but I’m faced with a point where a
lot of people were saying this was fine before y’all went to messing with it, my side of it
wasn’t being bothered. Now, I, I, I agree that it has been expanded and probably to a
better level of service, but to a point that we are going to take monies out of the tax
district, it should be plainly said it is there in the form of removing money. That’s the yes
or no question and I appreciate getting to that answer. The second one is the fact that the,
the contracts as they are, and we’re getting to an overall amount of money that has to be
paid in, this is just information-wise, just very, very lack of a better word, probably a
stupid question but I’m going to ask it anyway. It won’t be the first time I’ve asked one
of those but [inaudible]. But the point being the amount of money that it’s going to cost
to deal with the new contract – has anything been discussed in this formula of the
government setting an amount fee and being able, since it’s got to be renewed, to deal
with saying X number $100,000, this is what we’re putting out here, and can we deal
with on a service basis [inaudible] for somebody to do it in the frame of where it is?
Because I think when you look at, even though it was justified to where we’ve dealt with
and looked at the public safety situation of where [inaudible], but when we look at it to a
point of, of, of a 16%, because I think if you’re looking at, you’re looking at three-
12
something onto the 16 to make it 19, it’s not a lot. But on some of those fixed ones as
Tommy has mentioned, when it jumps from $190 to the $235 in the same year that we’re
going to ask for a sales tax referendum, we’ve got a lot of talk about tax going on at the
same time. And those tidbits with people who are in the crunch side of an economy, to a
point of doing it at the same time we’re talking about the issuance of dealing with bonds
to go to $6 million to $8 million to build a new facility at the landfill. And I’m not
saying they ought to work under archaic conditions, but to a point, there’s a lot of people
who may feel like hey, we could be spending a better service amount – now that may be
talking out of two different pots of money, but when you throw all this together to a point
of the City getting in debt, to deal with that level on sanitation and to [inaudible] and the
rest of it, I just think you’ve got a lot going on in this mixture in reference to increases,
because we could put them under formulas, we could put them under tax districts, but the
bottom line is somebody has got to pay for them, and that means to a point if you asking
folk for their support in a year to deal with one form of tax, then increase it, even if it’s in
a hidden way in another one, that, that’s, that’s just, I’m just saying it for the record I
think that’s a risky formula to deal with and maybe to a point of seeking can this thing
maybe be discussed of doing it under the numbers of where you are or has that point even
been asked?
Mr. Kolb: If I’m understanding your question, and I’ll repeat it, are you saying
are the collection rates that are charged to residents tied to the contract contractually?
And if that is the question, the answer is no. The financing of that contract is
independent of any contract with any of the haulers. So whatever financing scheme the
Commission wants to come up with, they are free to do so.
Mr. Mays: Okay. But I, but I guess though in order to pay the difference, and
I’m not beating up on you with this cause you got, you got, you got to end up trying to
make it work and service it, but I think the Commission needs to fully understand to a
point that when you say the contract is going to cost something different from where it
was, it either means that you’re going to take it out of a contingency, you’re going to find
some formula of surplus in some area that you don’t have to finance it, or what is going
to be the likely scenario in it is that you’re going to pass it on, particularly in the
suburban tax district onto those households to the tune of $40 to $50 in an increase. And
that’s where you’re going to have to deal with [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. To, to, to address the Mayor Pro Tem’s
concern, what, what we have in the previously-approved contract says that the initial term
of this contract is for two years and the City may at its sole option renew the contract for
two successive one year terms, extensions, under the conditions set forth in this contract.
And this sentence is what gives me the, the necessity of having you act today, Mr. Mayor
Pro Tem. It says the City shall give the contractor written notice of its intention to extend
the contract a minimum of 90 days before the expiration date of the contract. And so
therefore – the sections involved, it’s my understanding from the Director of Public
Works, are all in the old suburban services district. So it, it’s out there. But you have
agreed-upon increases in charges to the City and in my opinion you’re going to have to,
you have to meet those charges either by an increased fee to the, to the customers, or a
13
combination of that and, as you correctly observed, finding some money which is in
essence a fund balance somewhere that could be used to temporarily subsidize these rates
so the charge wouldn’t have to go up as much to the ultimate consumer. You’re exactly
right.
Mr. Mays: And I guess – and I’ll be through with this, Mr. Mayor. I guess what
I’m searching for and obviously – it’s not, it’s not, it’s not a criticism of staff or where we
are, and I think it’s very prudent for us to be talking about it obviously today and of your
bringing it to us, Mr. Shepard. But what, what I guess I’m driving at, has, has there been
and, and maybe this is where Marion was talking about part of it on the legal side of it,
but I, I, I, I, I agree it’s to be dealt with out here. So I’m going to ask this question. Has
there been any conversation because of the economic situations and because of what’s
there of having some conversation with haulers on this particular contract of at least
trying to remain at bay or to where we are, rather than the increases that are there?
Because increases have to be paid by somebody. They, they just will not be increases
that – if the government is going to pay it out, it’s going to come either directly from a
household consumer or it’s going to come out of a very down contingency that would
have to do it, and I don’t think anybody wants to deplete all this government’s
contingency finances in order to do it. So I mean we might as well say this is going to be
an increase to the household consumer. I mean we can have a workshop, we can have a
recess, we can have a retreat, we can have any kind of talk we want to have, but if it goes
up into money, then the bill has to be paid by somebody, and I just think it ought to be
clear as to where it’s going to paid out of, and if there’s room to say notify or to talk to
them in reference to the fact that hey, you know, this is what we would not like to do.
Now I’m not saying rewrite and do this all over, cause I think you’ve got some good
people that are out there doing the work. I don’t think you’re probably going to find any
promised land if you turn around and you flipped it and you went in another direction.
But I’m just saying has the conversation at least taken place to a point when you talk
about negotiations, as to whether or not something could be done, are these the best
numbers we’ve got, is this absolutely where we have to go with it, or can something in
the interim be dealt with in order to do it? And I’m just searching.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Again, those discussions have not been
had, at least involving my office. My recollection of the committee work session, not
work session, but my recollection of the committee’s discussion was that negotiation for
the year that’s going to extend from 2005 to 2006, Teresa, might be a subject of
negotiation during the contract year commencing this June, ’04 to ’05. But I think you’d
be in a stronger position to, to go ahead and approve this extension, whereas if you have
no extension approved, you’re totally at their mercy. I mean you might could negotiate it
down, but in my opinion if you don’t at least get what you have here, you’re going to risk
having, you know, the garbage charges, the solid waste, excuse me, charges go up. You
look at gasoline, it costs more now per gallon than it did when we negotiated these
contracts two years ago. To me, the prudent activity would be to go ahead and secure
another year at the rates we negotiated two years ago. And then if you could negotiate
something for the year after that, that would be the relief that the people need. I
understand where you’re coming from, but I just – that was my recollection of the
14
discussion, Ms. Smith, isn’t that right? I mean you’re going to, if you’re going to do
anything to give the folks relief either by reducing the service or whatever or subsidizing
it, it would have to be in the contract year of ’05 to ’06, and that’s, that’s the best I think
that staff can do under the circumstances.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Anything further?
Mr. Mays: I guess that, that answers my, my, my question, Mr. Mayor. I was just
really trying to search to see if there was a way to avoid that at this time, and that’s why I
was saying has there been negotiation? I, I, I guess I’m from the old school of where if
you’ve got something up and there’s a deadline, it doesn’t mean that either party is going
to change. But I asked to a point to see in this interim, since we knew from the end of the
last year that this one was going to come up this year, had there been anybody talking?
And I know that, I know, Steve, you just landed in the position where you are. And I
think it’s prudent that you brought it to us today. That, that, that’s very good [inaudible]
to do. But what I’m trying to find out is whether anybody was squawking and talking to
a point over the last 12 months with us having dealt with a property millage situation,
with a referendum to come up this year at some point in time, whether it’s July,
September, November, whether or not anybody thought about that, because it was raised
during the budget season, and I voiced my opposition to it then. My position on it still
hadn’t changed. I think it probably has to be done and that’s why I brought back up
because my questions are not different from the ones I raised during the budget session. I
addressed the urban services tax district first and I addressed to a point what was this
going to cost on a household basis in order to deal with it. So this is a question that I
raised one, two, three, four months ago. So I mean I think that left adequate time for
somebody to be talking about it.
Mr. Mayor: Y’all have confused me a bit with these numbers. Did I hear you say
that the new monthly [sic] charge would be about $235?
Mr. Kolb: It could be as high as $235.
Mr. Mayor: Well, in the information that’s in the backup here, one contract has
an increase of 3%, another one has an increase of 4%, and another one has an increase of
9%. If you took --
Mr. Kolb: That has, that has nothing to do with the charge that you pass on.
Mr. Mayor: Well, we’re going to get to that in just a moment. If you took the
highest of the three, which is 9%, and applied that to $195, you end up with $212.55. So
even at, even at the highest end which you’ve got here, the garbage fee should only go up
$17.55. So I, I don’t understand where the rest of this is coming from, because you’re
dealing with specific contracts for people to pick up your trash, and they don’t pay the
tipping fees on the City garbage that they take out there, so why, what are these other
costs? What is this -- the increase says one factor contributing to a fee adjustment. What
15
are the other factors that would require the fee to go up based on these contracts that are
here before us today?
Mr. Kolb: There are other costs associated with the collection of the solid waste.
For example, disposal fees, bad debt charges, contingency, etc. That’s why we need to
have the --
Mr. Mayor: Isn’t that their cost of doing business? They contract with us to
provide a service at a certain figure, and then that’s what we pay them?
Mr. Kolb: But we also have to pay the landfill. This is the cost just for collecting
the solid waste and the items from the households.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, you had your hand up?
Mr. Hankerson: I’m just, you know, I’m not comfortable of passing this on the
floor. This was not brought to Administrative Services Committee for discussion, or was
it?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, it was.
Mr. Hankerson: It was?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, it was on the agenda and it was discussed.
Mr. Hankerson: I’m just, I’m not pleased with the increase to the, to the
customers, to the citizens, and I’m just not comfortable with this. I think we need to look
at it to see -- we need to send it back to decide what we are going to do, to pass the costs
on or just some more information. I’m not, I’m not clear. I’m confused on it. And
another thing is, too, Mr. Mayor, I’m just concerned about these contracts, getting us,
hitting us in the face. We need a better system in place. I know the new Attorney -- I
appreciate you just coming on and bringing it to our attention. I’m not blaming him for
it. But for the, in the future, that we shouldn’t have to discuss a contract a month off. We
need, we should know the time that these contracts expire, that give us ample time to
really discuss them and think them through, are we going to change them or whatever, to
give us proper time. So [inaudible] look at putting that in place, too. That’s all I have to
say about it.
Mr. Mayor: I think Mr. Shepard brought these today because if we don’t act
today we face the possibility that we’re going to lose the contractors who pick up the
trash. We don’t, we don’t want to back ourselves into the situation where we have no
coverage.
th
Mr. Hankerson: I thought it lasted until June 4.
Mr. Shepard: Well --
16
Mr. Mayor: We have the 90 days notice, though.
Mr. Shepard: We’re not going -- Mr. Mayor, Commissioner Hankerson, we’re
not going to meet again within 90 days of the first part of June. I mean unless we had a
special called meeting. Here again, all three of these agenda items show that they were
rd
discussed in Engineering Services Committee February 23, and I would be remiss if I
let the date slide by here that is in special condition number 5. And so here again, I think
you [inaudible] better, here again, in a better position to have the continuity of service
rather than risk an interruption of the service. I think you’d be, if you’re having calls
now about cost, you’re going to have calls in the future about non service on a magnitude
that would exceed the calls that are coming in about the debris from the ice storm.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay, I agree with you on that, Mr. Attorney. Are you
responsible, is your responsibility in the future to look at all contracts and [inaudible] or
should that responsibility be placed on someone else? Cause I would like for whoever
the responsibility is to bring it to us in due time that we can discuss it without rushing
through it.
Mr. Shepard: Well, here again, I think it’s the job that the Administration is
tasked to substantively, I’m trying to keep what we call a tickler of things that are
upcoming, but I think primarily it should be the task of the department head to have these
-- they’re more frequently, they’re more intimately involved in the, in their substantive
department work than I am. I mean I reviewed it and saw it and knew that we had to,
knew we had to act.
Mr. Hankerson: I’m comfortable with that, but I would just like to know today
who is responsible for the contracts?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, the Administration is
responsible for the contracts, but I need to point out to eh Commission that during budget
discussions back in November, we brought a whole session to you that included the
discussion of the contracts and all of the fees and issues that would be coming up during
this fiscal year. We are bringing this to you now as we said we would and as we
discussed it in November.
Mr. Hankerson: But you didn’t let us know you were going to bring them up a
week or two or 90 days before, not giving us enough time. We discuss, we discuss so
many things in budget session until, until just balancing the budget was top priority, that
those other things that [inaudible], yeah, we did discuss that. I remember one evening
that Commissioner Mays and myself I think was the only ones left down at the boathouse
or wherever the session was [inaudible] so much was going on and we, Commissioner
Mays and myself mentioned it a couple of weeks ago about those things that we
discussed in sessions, [inaudible] discussed them in the budget session then it still to, we
still need to have a proper time to bring them back up [inaudible] mention it in budget
session, now it’s time for these things. I don’t [inaudible] if we didn’t address it in
17
budget session for it to lay on the table until it’s time for us to take action, and the action
we going to take is going to affect the citizens and increase costs and rates and all of this.
I don’t like to have a lot of telephone calls tomorrow about addressing something we
passed increasing their rates. I’d kind of like to keep my [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham and then Mr. Smith.
Mr. Grantham: Well, I’m going yield to Mr. Williams. He’s had his hand up.
Mr. Mayor: He’s already spoken once. I’m trying to get to people who haven’t
spoken yet and then I’ll go back to people who have already spoken.
Mr. Williams: I’m [inaudible], Don, go ahead.
Mr. Grantham: Well, I didn’t know if you could see him down there.
Mr. Mayor: No, I’ve already got that. He’s the first one I’m going to the second
time around.
Mr. Grantham: The question I have to the Attorney is would we be out of order
asking these companies to give us an extension of this 90 days in order to address the
issue, not necessarily based on negotiation but just so the Commission would feel
comfortable in what we’re going to have to do for the, for the citizens based on our
charges? And I think what we’re hearing today is realizing your brought the contract to
us in ample time and that’s certainly been noted. But I don’t think we’ve had enough
time to, to at least understand what the final decision is going to be for our taxpayers.
And it would be certainly I think one that they might accept very willingly to allow us to
have that time to discuss this issue.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Grantham, you know, potentially they would do that. But this
is a body that meets as a whole and won’t be meeting again -- I can’t promise you that
that won’t result in a much higher rate of charge than is in the contract now. That’s the
risk of it. It may be possible for those companies to make a decision, you know, by one
person involved. But you know, whether -- we can’t do that as a city unless I poll you
have it confirmed at a future meeting. I’m, I’m a little uncomfortable with taking no
action today, quite frankly. I mean if you want to recess and we can make some calls, I
can have somebody do that, but we negotiated these rates in when we approved these
contracts back in 2002. And so ---
Mr. Grantham: I’m not arguing about the, the negotiations and the contracts that
you’re presenting us. What I’m concerned about is what’s been alluded to and what
formula we’re going to use to tell our taxpayers that they are either going to go up, it’s
going to stay down. As Mr. Mays said, we’ve got to get it from somewhere, but I think
we’d feel a little more comfortable in knowing what we are going to have to put on the
taxpayers.
18
Mr. Shepard: Well, to, to meet these charges is, is the, is a Commission decision.
And here again, we can renew at these rates. If you want to take the risk that you know,
we are not able to renew at these rates and take the risk that the charge go up, then that’s
this body’s policy decision.
Mr. Grantham: That wasn’t my question to you, Mr. Attorney.
Mr. Shepard: Well, I’m --
Mr. Grantham: My question to you was ask them to give us an extension to
discuss this issue, with your rates and what you negotiated for I think is okay with the
Commission, but I think what we’re, what we’re trying to do is determine what’s going to
happen to our taxpayers out there.
Mr. Mayor: Well, you’ve got, you’ve got built-in increases in here, like the 3%
and 4% and 9%. What Mr. Kolb is saying, there are other things that are going to be
added on to the fee that are going to spike it even more.
Mr. Grantham: What’s the other --
Mr. Mayor: And I don’t know if you’re going to get that answer if we took a
recess today to make some phone calls. I don’t think you’re going to get the information
you’re looking for.
Mr. Grantham: All right, I’m glad I’m in business where I can negotiate things
and I can do what I need to do and I know what I can tell my people, what it’s going to
cost them, when it’s going to cost them.
Mr. Shepard: And I agree with that statement, but this is, this is a public body
that has to act through is Commission.
Mr. Grantham: I understand.
Mr. Shepard: And I feel like that you act today or you risk even a higher rate of
charge or change in service. This is, there is a certain amount of inertia that carries this
body, carries all governments, really, forward, and I just -- here again, if we miss that
date, everybody would want to know, particularly me, why, why we missed the date.
And quite frankly, my budget won’t cover trash services in seven Districts. So I just --
that’s, I think it’s a matter of being abundantly cautious here. I mean I can see going
back and negotiating with them, particularly in future years as Ms. Smith indicated in
Engineering Services Committee. You know, I can go back and negotiate with them in
the coming year, the ’04-’05 year, but I, I doubt seriously that would be fruitful.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Smith, you think you can answer the Commissioner’s question?
19
Ms. Smith: I have one piece of information that I think is very pertinent to the
decision that’s being made today. The contracts that you have before you represent
approximately 17,000 of 52,000 units. The Commission has already approved the
extension for approximately 35,000 to 37,000 of the units that this new fee would
potentially apply to. So over 35,000 of that 52,000 you have already approved the new
contract rates for the contractors. That’s why the percentages that you’re looking at look
extremely small, is because these three contracts only apply to approximately 17,000 of
the households that have garbage service. The majority of those households were
included with the Advanced contract. So when that contract was approved for Advanced,
it included the extension as well as the revised fees, to the contractor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor, if we approve these three today, it would not directly
change the fees that our constituents are paying right now, would it?
Mr. Kolb: No. The fee increase would be effective the month of June, well, June
3. The fees that the haulers charge us go into effect.
Mr. Smith: Well ---
Mr. Kolb: So yes, the 2004 fee to the residents would go up, go up, but it doesn’t
impact this today, no.
Mr. Smith: I feel like our Attorney has done his homework in trying to keep up
with these contracts as they have been [inaudible] out. And we’ve still got time to
negotiate the price of our constituents. So in a case like that, I’d like to move that we
approve these three – 34, 35 and 36.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion to approve. Is there a second to that
motion?
Mr. Colclough: I second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second to the motion. Thank you. Okay, anybody else
want to speak the first time, and then we’ll go around the second time. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir, Mr. Mayor. I heard Jimmy and what he just said
and, and thinking we have time, and I’m not opposed to this, but when you sign a
document, when you sign a contract, and maybe we need to change the word to
agreement or some other word, but when you sign a contract, the City has always been
held to what it’s supposed to do, but the other party has not been. Now I can name a
number of cases where that’s been done in this government. But whenever we sign
something, we’ve got to be held to the word. My point is, have any negotiation, have any
conversation have took place from the time we signed this first agreement -- Ms. Smith,
you can answer this if you’d like -- up until now? We, the way we do the old City, at one
20
time everybody was taxed. We got properties now that’s abandoned, that people done
walked away from, that’s not being charged. We got people that, that says if your, your,
if your services, if your service is turned on through this City then you, you’ll be charged
for garbage. If you move out, your service is turned off, then you’re not being charged
for garbage. We’ve got haulers picking up garbage in places they shouldn’t be picking
up at right now because we got no way of tracking. If somebody got a way of telling me
how we track it, how we keep up with it, how we know for sure that what we pick up,
what we don’t pick up is right, I’d like to hear it. But I have heard no conversation on
any other way of dealing with this. We talking about next year 2005, Steve, we knew
then this was coming up. But here it is, we up against the wall again. 90 days. 91 days
[inaudible] today. And we got to do something. So if we going to do those things in
2005, we said those things in ’99 and 2002 when we was going to do it, we still hadn’t
done it. My, my question just is have anybody looked at the money that we’re losing or
the service we are providing and not being paid for? Is there any other way to save
money for the taxpayers of Richmond County?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, do you want to respond to that?
Mr. Kolb: Yes. That’s why we want to set up the workshop, because we want
you to look at the analysis that we did and the options that we came up with. You’re
correct, we have to set aside some money for bad debts, just like we have to write off
some where we don’t collect property taxes every year. And they’re call delinquent
taxes. Those fees are lumped in with that and there’s a portion of bad debts, so we have
to allow for that. But we do -- this is a very detailed, complicated issue and we need to
discuss it with you in a special work session to show you how we came to the, the annual
fee for collection.
Mr. Williams: Well, Mr. Mayor, my last point is that if we sign this document
and it says effective June 2003 to June 2005, it’s written down as to what we going to be
agreeing to, it’s going to affect this government whether we pass it on directly to the
taxpayers or coming out of this body. And I don’t know the answer, Steve, we up against
the wall again. We need to do something, I understand that, but we should, this should
have been brought to us early enough to make a decision, whether we agree or disagree,
not at the last minute. And I know this came up the other week. It came up in
Engineering Services, I believe, and we had the same feelings then, we talked about it
then, didn’t know nothing about it till a week ago when we came up on committee
meeting and we was not pleased, and that shouldn’t happen. We shouldn’t be, the
situation like this should have the utmost attention of the department heads and be able to
be brought to us in a timely fashion where we be able to get those, those things, those
questions asked and those problems ironed out.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: When they do the study, I’m wondering if we could receive some
information or have some type household income study. I think it’s important for us to
know what our citizens are bringing in and whether or not they can afford these services.
21
Now I have a brother who is delighted with this service. He did a lot of remodeling and
everything was picked up. But I have citizens calling, they simply will not be able to do
this. A lot of it is because of prescription drugs and other things that affect them. I think
we have many fairly low income situations and it’s just something we need to look at,
because every time we have these meetings there’s something that we are asking our
citizens to pick up. So we really need to get a handle on how much they can bear. Thank
you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Ms. Beard. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, a question and I guess a comment. Let me, let me,
let me back up one second because Ms. Smith, I need to ask you a question. On the, the
previous comment, and let me say this before I ask you any questions, let me make it real
clear that whether the, whether the contractors are in the, the ones that are up here today
on 34, 35, 36, or whether they’re ones that aren’t here, I have no interest in wanting to try
to see them, particularly a small business person myself, see them having to operate in a
situation to a point of where they can’t operate. Let me make that clear. But let me, let
me ask you a question on -- when we talked about the contract a minute ago in reference
to what we had already done, now in, in, in passing that extension to that contract, and
am I hearing, cause I just want to get this clear now -- maybe I heard it wrong -- to a
point of the numbers that we are being tied to, with the ones we dealt, we’re dealing with
today, was there any discussion that talked about when those contracts were done, one of
two things -- an increase in what they were going to be passed on when we did those or
any increase that will be coupled with the contracts that were forthcoming? Now I don’t
remember that in any course of conversation that was said and spread upon these
minutes. Because if it was, you’d be getting this same argument out of me that you got
four months ago and that you’re getting four months later. Now you brought the
contracts up from the previous ones we did. I need to know what part of that
conversation was tied to an increase that will be passed along or absorbed that was
spelled out. Not hidden, but spelled out.
Mr. Williams: Amen.
Ms. Smith: Commissioner Mays --
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Smith, can you answer that question?
Ms. Smith: The majority of the households are again in the Advanced contract
and those negotiations as far as extending that contract was concerned were held in
closed session and the department head did not participate in those, so I can’t answer that
question.
Mr. Williams: Well, it’s getting real clear now, even though it’s garbage. If it
was in closed session, and I’m being asked to be responsible for something, Madame
Public Works Director, that says today I need to know that because this has already been
done, I think that’s a little bit unfair to me and even unfairer to four people who just got
22
here, to a point that if they’re trapped as such they have to vote for something and this
was not spelled out in open meeting, in open session, to a point I mean I’d of rather heard
it then, let me make that shot or call, let them make that shot or call, but don’t -- I don’t
want to go blindly into the dark to a point on something that may not have been
discussed. Because even though we may have voted on it, I think there would have been
a different point of discussion if we were talking about increases or if we were talking
about increases that were going to be tied to future contracts, that were either going to
have to be dealt with one of two ways: absorbed by this government or passed on to a
consumer. And Mr. Mayor, I yield to Mr. Shepard, if that’s okay with you, but I do have
a final question.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, you want to respond to that?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, the only response that I can make, and it’s not out of
my memory, but it should be in our minutes. You know, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, we are
believers in the verbatim minutes, so it would have had to come before this body in either
the first meeting in March of 2002 or the last meeting in February, is my guess. We can,
we can pull those and see to what extent we discussed as a body this contract with its
built-in increases. That’s, that’s the only thing I can offer you at this time.
Mr. Mays: Well --
Mr. Shepard: I mean I have not participated in a negotiation. This is, this is part
of the contract that we reserved the right to extend it for two periods of one year, and
these numbers were all computed back when the contract was signed. So I’ve asked the
Deputy Clerk -- I think through the Clerk -- to get us those verbatim minutes and see
what was said at that time.
Ms. Smith: Point of, point of clarification. The contract that I was referring to is
not the one -- where the majority of the household units area, are not the ones that we are
dealing with today. That was when the contract was converted from CSRA Waste to
Advanced Disposal, and those exemption -- I mean, excuse me, those extensions were
automatically put into place, but I believe that represents about 60% of the households
that are included in the garbage contract.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’ve still got another question.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Mays: But in response to that, I remember us having the transfer because we
had to transfer out of necessity. We were dealing with having to go to somebody, and we
made that decision to a point that that was the company where it was going to go to. But
I think she’s answered the question to a point, and I agree with the Attorney, whatever
was said can be traced by the verbatim minutes, but to a point I still ask were we talking
about increases? It’s a difference between increases and extensions. If you’re talking
about increases then they are built in to a point that either they are new or they’re built in,
23
but when you talk about going from one to another, if the language of the conversation
does not get to a point that ladies, gentlemen, this is what you’re getting ready to do, and
these are going to be the new numbers, either passed on again to the consumer or
absorbed by the tax district in which they remain, then it gets almost back like to the truth
in lending law. Are you supposed to read the fine print that’s on the last page at the very
bottom? That should not be the course of discussion that we have with this government.
It ought to be when you’re talking about those things that deal with consumers, that they
are first and at the very top of that list. Then we make a policy decision to either
approve, disapprove, or negotiate out again to see if that is something that a consumer
can do. That’s my answer to that. The last one, I think, to a point that, that we talk about
this being brought up, and I have to say this, it is true -- and this is in response to the
Administrator’s comment in reference to bringing this to us in finance portion of the
budget -- this was delicate then, it’s delicate now. I was here both times. I was here then,
I’m here now. I raised the same issues then, raising them now. Point being while you
needed the separation was because as the now Attorney, then Finance Chairman has so
eloquently stated, we need to get the budget passed. We needed to deal with what was on
the floor with the budget, and I made it clear to come in here and to deal with the
possibilities of increasing sanitation fees, either by taxes in this government or to pass on
to a consumer, that at 7 p.m. when we were depleted of people and we were both
yawning to a point of being here for long sessions was not the time to deal with that
issue. It needed to be dealt with of getting the budget passed first. But I had hope that it
would not wait until the twilight eve of the contract being ready to be signed to be
brought back up again. And I dispute very much so the point that if you are going to
have a work session on something after the fact that you’re going to vote on an extension
of a contract. Now that to a point, for lack of a better term, is ass backwards, because
you cannot sit down and deal with something in that manner and then turn around and say
you’re going to discuss how you’re going to work a formula. If you’re going to have a
workshop, once the pass the budget, what should have been done is to bring that serious
negotiation, Mr. Mayor, back up to a point of where we’ve had four months since that has
gone by. That should have taken place during that period, that should have been an issue
that should have been discussed before you even swore in four new Commissioners to
this body. That’s when you have a workshop, that’s when you bring it on, not to a point
of passing a contract extension and then say guess what, fellows, ladies, we’re going to
talk about it. So I had to [inaudible] that issue to the point of putting that in the record
that I’m not [inaudible] against anybody as to where this is. I think it does have to be
done in some manner. But I think to site here and say that because it was brought to me
as a policy maker at a point in time that when it was dark and late into the hour and I
raised the issue then that it was too delicate, it was the wrong time, we needed to pass
budget, we did not need to mix that that night because you needed a whole day or day-
and-a-half to deal with it. Now we’re here in the bewitching hour to deal with is when
the contract is due. So I take exception to the point -- yes, it was brought, but look at
when it was brought, and it hadn’t returned yet to the scene of the crime until today, and I
thank the Attorney for bringing it forth today, because I don’t know when we’d be talking
about it. But this needed to have been done some yesterdays ago.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, if I may respond to that.
24
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Kolb: What you have before you today is the contract extensions and the
charges that are being levied against the municipality for those services. We are not
discussing -- and I have recommended that we set a workshop to discuss the fees and how
you pay for this in the future. This is something that you negotiated two years ago.
These fees have been set for some time, and the impact on the customer or the ones that
will pay this bill we will be discussing hopefully in much greater detail at a future date.
And at that time you will have options and you’ll be able to decide and make a decision
on a long term basis how you want to implement this.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor to approve these. Let’s go ahead and
see if we can dispose of this motion. All in favor of approving Mr. Smith’s motion to
approve items 34, 35 and 36, would you please vote in the affirmative with the usual
sign?
Ms. Beard, Mr. Mays and Mr. Grantham vote No.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Hankerson abstain.
Motion fails 4-3-2.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Madame Clerk, let’s take up item number 11 then.
The Clerk:
11. Motion to approve the acquisition of Three (3) Ford Crown Victorias for the
Augusta Fire Department from Bobby Jones Ford of Augusta, Georgia for
$25,041.00 each (lowest bid offer on Bid 03-130).
Mr. Mayor: Our transportation Commissioner, Mr. Williams, asked this one be
pulled.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I addressed these issues in, in
committee, but I guess my question is we’re buying Crown Vics for the Fire Department,
which is the largest size car. Even the Sheriff’s Department and other cities going to a
smaller size car. These cars cost more, these cars burn more fuel, these cars a lot more to
maintain. In the backup it says that five years or 50,000 miles from 1998 policy that we
put in place. Most of these cars -- only one of these cars I’m looking at got over 100,000
miles. Some got 78,000. Some got 92,000. And I don’t see the backup on the other one.
But only two of them got over 100,000 miles. I mean if, just because there’s another
year, we need to buy cars? I mean we, we, we raise taxes to make sure the Fire
Department had all of the necessary money they need to do the job that they need because
the scenario of the job. And, and, and, and, and, and I just think that we need to look at
purchasing or getting equipment that will do the job but not the biggest equipment that’s
on the market. I see the Fire Chief standing there. Chief, you may have some
explanation of why we need the Crown Vics and the four wheel drive vehicles that we
25
use. I heard the, the scenario off road. If you ain’t carrying no water, if you ain’t got no
fire hose, I mean off road ain’t doing us no good to get a Fire Chief to a scene when,
when we can’t get the equipment to the scene. So I’d just like to hear from you as to --
Mr. Mayor: Chief, can you respond to the Commissioner’s questions?
Mr. Gillespie: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, I don’t know that I have a different
answer for you than we had in committee. Commissioner, we feel like these are all, these
are all emergency vehicles, respond to emergencies. We feel it’s time to replace these
vehicles based upon the recommendations from our Fleet Manager and from the formulas
that we’ve established. We don’t feel we’ve been extravagant. I don’t feel like we have
come here with frivolous needs for the Fire Department. We come here based on what
we think is best for our community and what we think is best for our service. I really
don’t have a better answer than, than, than that for you. If you feel like we need to have
something less than that, that is your prerogative as representative for the public. I
represent the public through you, also, and I’ve given you my best recommendations on
these.
Mr. Williams: Chief, and I understand that and I think the public [inaudible] fire
protection. And you’re not the only one. We’ve got a, we’ve got a bad history with, with
buying vehicles in this county, I think, and that’s just my personal opinion. But I’m
looking at five vehicles here, five years old, only one of them got 138,000 miles, one got
88,000, one got 76,000, one got 78,000 miles. Those vehicles are just getting ready to
run. I mean if we got a shop that’s been maintaining them, we got Fleet Management, we
paid $3 million to do preventive maintenance on our cars. Then why are we getting rid of
cars that’s got 88,000 miles on them? Do you know you can take and get another 88,000
miles at least out of, out of that? And I say you know, I’m talking about Ron who is
sitting there, who’s our Fleet Management person. We have got to get a handle on
buying and spending. You could replace the engine. If the car was wrecked, if the door
was falling off or the paint was faded, looking bad, I wouldn’t want us riding around with
sloppy looking equipment. But you could replace one of these engines for $5,000. You
put a motor and transmission in from the dealer, with a warranty. But we buying new
vehicles. And I just -- and, and, and you just happened to be the one that come up today,
that’s 11 and 12, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Are these vehicles in the capital budget that was approved for this
year?
Mr. Gillespie: They are in my capital budget as approved.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Is there anything further on item number 11?
Mr. Williams: 11 and 12, same discussion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Same?
26
Mr. Williams: Yes, same discussion. I wanted to bring it to the attention of this
body that we are spending money. We spend $26,000 or $27,000 for a car, keep it five
years with 65,000-70,000 miles on it and sell it for $2,000 and that’s, that’s a waste to the
taxpayers. Jimmy Smith, I know you know down on that end down there. You ain’t
saying much, but I know you know.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: At our Finance meeting last week, this was discussed, and Mr.
Williams and I both got into this. I got on the other side of his issue, and that was that I
asked our Finance Department to look into our leasing arrangements for these vehicles,
and we also requested from Fleet Management a copy of the number of vehicles we
presently have and the age of them, and we did receive that, and I appreciate that very
much. I think that was a good job, well done. Under the, under the circumstances I feel
like in talking to our Chief that these vehicles are not just used to go to the fire, Marion,
that you and I talked about last week. They are used for other issues. They are even used
when they get a call from a young child that’s got a cat in a tree, and I guess they have to
go make that call, as well. But for whatever it might be, I feel like they are asking and
requesting the proper type of equipment that’s needed, so I’m going to ask Mr. Williams
my motion that we approve 11 and 12.
to second
12. Motion to approve the acquisition of Four (4) Sports Utility Vehicles for the
Augusta Fire Department from Legacy Ford of McDonough, Georgia for $31,802.00
each (lowest bid offer on Bid 03-141). (Approved by Finance Committee February
23, 2004)
Mr. Williams: Mr. Grantham, I’m going to second your motion. All I’m trying to
get this body to understand is that we have got to do some things differently when it
comes to taxpayers and money. It’s been proven to us that we use our equipment for a
length of time and other, small departments, smaller in city size, buy the same equipment
and use it the same amount of time we have used it. And if we going to save some
money, if we going to do some things, I mean let’s do like you do with your own money.
You wouldn’t take your car with 70,000 miles on it, I don’t think, Don, and take it out of
servicing your business. You are going to use it till you can’t use it no more. If it
damaged, if it’s wrecked, I understand you might not want to [inaudible] but 70,000
miles, anybody with an automobile know that, that’s not even broken in good, it’s just
getting ready to go.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Williams, I would have to agree with you.
Mr. Mayor: For your information, I ran into Mayor Gresham from Keysville the
other day and she said she’s enjoying that car that she got from us.
27
Mr. Williams: I understand. Mr. Smith had his hand up, Mr. Mayor. [inaudible]
the Mayor to hear Mr. Smith say that.
Mr. Smith: I was agreeing with Mr. Williams on his comments concerning the
servicing and so forth of the cars. There are more vehicles running now with 150,000
miles than ever in the history of the world.
Mr. Williams: That’s right.
Mr. Smith: Making such good ones now. That’s all.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor to approve items 11 and 12. all in
favor of the motion, please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Smith votes No.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Gillespie: Thank you, Commissioners, thank you, Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Let’s go to item number 37, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
ATTORNEY:
37. Motion to accept /approve 2004 Tourism Grant Agreement between Augusta
Metro Convention and Visitors Bureau, Inc and the City of Augusta-
Administrator’s Office – Regional Image Campaign.
Mr. Boyles: I move for approval.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve it. Is there a second?
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We do have a second. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I guess I was so excited
to get money back from the CVB -- the contract should be with Augusta, Georgia, a
political subdivision of the State of Georgia and not a non-profit. 501 Greene Street.
[inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve it as worded by the Attorney then.
Any discussion? All in favor of the motion then please vote in the affirmative.
Motion carries 9-0.
28
Mr. Mayor: Item number 39.
The Clerk:
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
39. Approve authorizing the Mayor to sign a consent letter request from The
Boys and Girls Clubs of Augusta, Inc to be a direct recipient of grant funds from the
State of Georgia Children and Youth Coordinating Council.
Mr. Mays: So move.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor then please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: I’m coming back to you, Mr. Williams. We have a list of additions
to the agenda. Is there unanimous to add items 2 through 6?
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
2. Appointment to the Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D)
Council (to replace former Commissioner Bridges). (Requested by the Mayor)
3. Authorize the Mayor to execute an engagement letter with Cherry, Bekaert
& Holland regarding the financing of revenue bonds for the Coliseum Authority.
(Requested by the Attorney)
4. Approve contract with The Augusta Players, Inc. for promotion of recreation
in Augusta, Georgia. (Requested by the Attorney)
5. Approve authorizing the Mayor to sign a consent letter request from
Augusta Urban Ministries to be a direct recipient of abstinence education grant
funding from the Children and Youth Coordinating Council.
6. Consider recommendation from EEO Study Sub-Committee to establish a
closing date of March 8, 2004 at 5:00 p.m. for the receipt of applications for the
EEO and DBE positions and receive comments/suggestions from the Mayor and
Commissioners regarding the review of applications in the selection process for
these positions.
The Clerk: The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, if we could -- it was an oversight on
our behalf in the Clerk’s office. The Administrator had requested -- information
from the Administrator regarding site visits be added to the additions so that he
could give you some prospective dates the trips --
Mr. Mayor: That was the SPLOST site visits?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Item 7.
29
Mr. Mayor: Do we have any objections to adding items 2 through 7 to the agenda
today? Okay, if there is no objection, then we’ll go ahead and dispose of these as we can.
Item number 2 on the addendum agenda, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
Addendum Item 2. Appointment to the Resource Conservation and Development
(RC&D) Council (to replace former Commissioner Bridges). (Requested by the
Mayor)
Mr. Mayor: We’ve been asked by the Council to replace Commissioner Bridges.
Mr. Mays, we have discussed this to some extent. You want to yield to Mr. Smith?
Mr. Mays: I’m going to yield to Mr. Smith on this particular item.
Mr. Mayor: Jimmy?
Mr. Smith: It’s my District that Mr. Bridges was the former member, and I
move that we accept Mr. Charlie Byrd for this position.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Charlie Byrd? Okay. Are there any other nominations?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, this appointment doesn’t -- is this for a member of the
Commission or for -- it’s not clear.
Mr. Mayor: It’s not a specified member of the Commission. It is a, it’s a county
Commission appointment. It can be a Commissioner or can be a private citizen as it was
explained to me.
Mr. Boyles: Since it can be, may I make a substitute motion that Commissioner
th
Jimmy Smith -- because most of this is in the 8 Commission District, and I haven’t
talked to him about that, but I think that Commissioner Bridges was there and was a vital
part and I know Mr. Byrd, too, very well personally, but I wondering.
Mr. Smith: I was told that I could, I could --
Mr. Mayor: But that doesn’t mean you’ll prevail.
Mr. Smith: Huh?
Mr. Mayor: That doesn’t mean you’ll prevail.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Did we get a second to Mr. Smith being nominated?
30
Mr. Hankerson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: So we could vote on the substitute motion of Mr. Smith first, and if it
carries, then Mr. Smith would be the appointee.
Mr. Grantham: Does he want it?
Mr. Boyles: But again, I didn’t talk with Mr. Smith. I was just trying to get a
point of clarification across.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: If, if, if I might, I discussed this with Mr. Smith and both with the
Mayor, cause my question was like yours, Mr. Boyles, whether it had to be or not. And
when I discussed it with Mr. Smith, he was saying that he had an excellent person if it did
not have to be a Commissioner. He had a very good person that he wanted to serve out of
his District to do it. And that was how the nomination of Mr. Byrd came up. I don’t
think he was trying to get out of going. I think he would have gone if it would have
absolutely requiring a Commissioner to go. But it was an either/or situation and he asked
that Mr. Byrd go, and that’s how the nomination came up.
Mr. Boyles: May I withdraw my nomination of Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Well, if he --
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] you will.
Mr. Mayor: If he declines it, it’s moot.
Mr. Smith: He would.
Mr. Mayor: So we have a motion then to appoint Charlie, Mr. Charlie Byrd to
that position. We’ll go ahead and vote on that. All in favor of Mr. Byrd, and Mr. Smith
can be his backup.
(Vote on nomination of Mr. Byrd)
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Boyles: Again, that was just a point of clarification, nothing against Mr.
Byrd.
Mr. Mayor: That’s fine. That’s fine. Item number 3.
The Clerk:
31
Addendum Item 3Authorize the Mayor to execute an engagement letter with
.
Cherry, Bekaert & Holland regarding the financing of revenue bonds for the
Coliseum Authority. (Requested by the Attorney)
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure? And ladies? I’m sorry.
Ms. Beard: I so move.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. A second?
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor of the motion then please vote in the
affirmative.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: Item number 4.
The Clerk:
Addendum Item 4. Approve contract with The Augusta Players, Inc. for promotion
of recreation in Augusta, Georgia. (Requested by the Attorney)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Attorney, you brought this contract back to us.
Mr. Shepard: I did. It was from the Finance Committee and a motion was made I
believe by Commissioner Grantham, and the Augusta Players are the winners of the
Georgia Theater Competition and they’re going to represent our community at the
Southeastern Competition in Chattanooga, Tennessee. We were requested -- I think they
had requested a grant, which is not an appropriate way to expend money. There have
been previous contracts approved in furtherance of recreation activities in Augusta and
the only way you can support them, in my opinion, is to have this kind of contract where
they would further recreation and promote recreation in Augusta, Georgia, and when they
go to Tennessee, they’ll be representing Augusta, Georgia. So it’s, I think the original
motion from the Finance Committee said for the Attorney to fill in an amount that he felt
appropriate. I didn’t feel that that was appropriate. So I think it will have to be up to the
members of this body to come up with a number if the body so desires to approve this
contract.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Shepard: The request was for $3,000, Mr. Mayor.
32
Mr. Mayor: So whoever make the motion to approve this needs to put a number
in the motion, if you would, please. Ms. Sims?
Ms. Sims: I make a motion we approve this contract in the amount of $3,000.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion has been seconded. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. Mr. Mayor, here is this word again, contract,
again, and when you ask us, when you ask this body to approve a contract, we’re not
going to be able to know everything in it, but our new Attorney said he would at least
bring us those, those highlighted points and things. Why is this not saying sponsorship,
and that’s what it really is? I’ve got no problem with it, but why doesn’t it say sponsor
instead of contract?
Mr. Shepard: Well, it says contract so that we have a legal obligation, Mr.
Williams. I think that when we expend public money, we have to have services in return,
and the services in return are the furtherance of recreation.
Mr. Williams: I understand that. I mean I [inaudible] but also when it says
contract now, and I was in your law firm before I got moved over, but when you say the
word contract, Steve, to me is a binding document, and if we don’t know what that is, all
of the, the, the legal language in there, and we approve it, it could be $3,000, like Ms.
Sims just stated, but then it could be another $3,000 in there, too, that wasn’t stated.
Mr. Mayor: No, the contract is right here in the backup.
Mr. Williams: Well, I understand, but when you say contract, Mr. Mayor, you’ve
got to read -- Commissioner Mays just brought it to light a little while ago, you got to
read the last page, the fine print, at the back, in the corner, in the dark. And if there’s
something in there and you done approved and you done signed, under contract it says
that’s binding, that’s a legal document. And I’ve got no problem. I’m going to support.
I mean I think that’s a worthy cause and I think that’s a good group. But I just think we
need to look at how we word certain things and contract one of those things. We need to
know what everything entails when it comes to contracts.
Mr. Shepard: Well, if I could respond to my now, future, former law partner or
whatever, I tried to keep this -- there is no fine print in this cause I couldn’t read it if it
was, Mr. Williams. But I was trying to recite the facts that the Players had been
contributing to the cultural and recreational life of this community since 1945. And that
they had not just produced productions that we had enjoyed here in this town, but they
had also won the State competition, trying to distinguish why we were trying to help
them at this time, and that they, by virtue of their first place finish at the Georgia Theater
33
Conference, they had the privilege of representing Augusta, Georgia in Chattanooga, I
guess this coming weekend basically at the Southeastern Theater Conference. So here
again, the operative language of the contract is that we are supporting them for the sum of
blank on the condition that they promote [inaudible] opportunities [inaudible] Augusta,
Georgia through their plays and their representation of Augusta, Georgia in competition
at the Theater Conference. That’s, that’s, that’s what they have to do in order to have this
$3,000. Now if they decide to not go to the competition, then the contract is not met.
But that is the quid pro quo and it’s done in a contract form to satisfy the gratuities clause
of the State Constitution.
Mr. Williams: Last question is where is that money coming from?
Mr. Shepard: And I did not designate a funding source, and so whoever made -- I
think Ms. Sims made the motion -- it would be appropriate to designate a funding source.
You know, being the former Finance Chairman, the only thing I could suggest right
offhand is the Promotion Account and/or the Contingency Account. We do have a
Promotion Account. You could take it partly out of one, partly out of the other, all out of
one, all out of the other.
Ms. Sims: I think I’ll take it out of the Promotion Account.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there any further discussion on this? All in favor of the
motion then please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Mays and Mr. Smith out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, it’s my understanding they may be leaving tomorrow, so
if we could kind of expedite that check a little bit it would help them.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is item number 5.
The Clerk:
Addendum Item 5. Approve authorizing the Mayor to sign a consent letter request
from Augusta Urban Ministries to be a direct recipient of abstinence education
grant funding from the Children and Youth Coordinating Council.
Mr. Boyles
: Mr. Mayor, this is my item that I was sent from my minister at
Woodlawn United Methodist Church because it does impact Augusta Urban Ministries,
which is a part of the Methodist Church. And it costs us nothing. All they’re doing is
asking us to concur with their application for a grant, and it simply helps them or will
I
help them get their grant. It doesn’t impact the City except the results of that grant, and
so move.
34
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: A second. Discussion? All in favor then please vote with the usual
sign.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, now we’ll go over to item number 38. Back on the regular
agenda, item number 38.
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS:
38. Update on the contamination report on the proposed Judicial Center Site.
(Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I asked for that to be put on the agenda. Had
several calls in reference to. I saw a news flash on the news one afternoon about the
judges were saying how much overcrowding there was in the hallways and how
dangerous it was for people passing by. It prompt my attention then to find out where we
are with our study, what have been done, what else is needed, how much contamination,
if there is any, who is doing the, the, the contamination study for us, just where we are.
Mr. Mays: I’m going to defer to legal and to the Administrator on that.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, I’ll try and start the
conversation out. We have been successful to get a Phase I environmental assessment on
the properties in question. However, the report isn’t due until tomorrow, so we don’t
know to the extent if there are problems with the sites at this point. But we should know
something tomorrow and at least give us some indication where we go from there. But
once we get that evaluation, we will present it back to the Judicial Advisory Committee
and then they will come back through the Public Safety Committee to the Commission
with their recommendation.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Kolb, I asked the Clerk to, to do whatever is necessary, email,
call to get this on the agenda today to get somebody here to give me a, a, a, a, a written
report, oral report, some kind of report as to where we are. How long has this been out
for somebody to do? I mean how long is this process [inaudible] work?
35
Mr. Kolb: We’ll, it’s been the last two to three weeks, we’ve had some problems
with the property owners in terms of getting right of entry into the site, and we just got
that about ten days ago. So after that, we got the consultant in to do his study and it’s due
tomorrow.
Mr. Williams: I may be lost. I [inaudible] myself [inaudible] Commissioner I
missed one meeting, going on five years now. I had a death in the family. And I’ve been
to every meeting y’all tried to hold. And especially [inaudible] Chamber. And I can’t
see you saying three weeks ago this was, this was sent out. How long has this been out
for somebody to do, for the study? This hadn’t been three weeks now. This is maybe
three months, but not three weeks.
Mr. Kolb: Okay. In terms of the Commission directive, you’re right. It’s been
about three months.
Mr. Williams: And nobody hadn’t did anything up until now?
Mr. Kolb: No, that’s not true. We have been trying, we have been negotiating
with the property owners trying to get right of access. We have been denied up until a
few weeks ago and we’re still having some difficulties. If there is an indication that we
have to move to Phase II, we will not be able to do that, they will not let us do that. But
they did give us right for entry so we could get the Phase I assessment going. And the
attorneys have been negotiating that ever since the Commission gave that directive.
Mr. Williams: Who, who, who is the firm doing the work? What, what group is
doing the work, Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Acree: Graves Environmental is the local firm that is doing the assessment
for us.
Mr. Williams: Graves Environmental? And nobody from Graves is here today;
right?
Mr. Acree: No, sir.
Mr. Williams: Did anybody notify them, Rick, to tell them that we needed, that I
requested a report to be --
Mr. Acree: No, sir, I didn’t notify them. The report is, was due either today or
tomorrow. He’s not going to have the report ready until tomorrow.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Well, I don’t want to get off on another page here, but I
asked for this to come to this meeting, not to another meeting, but this meeting.
Somebody from that department should have been here to at least say what, what took
place and what didn’t, what did not take place. It’s been quite some time, I think it
probably in the neighborhood of three months, if anything, that we have been trying to
36
get some kind of report back. If they was having problem getting on the property, have
you got a letter, have you got anything where they sent to you saying that they could not
get on the property and how many times they tried?
Mr. Acree: It is not Graves’ responsibility to get the right of entry to the property.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Who?
Mr. Acree: That is Richmond County, Augusta Richmond County’s
responsibility to provide that right of access. We started work on the rights of entry
immediately after the Commission action to do the assessment. We got several of them
to begin with, but there were several property owners that did not want us on the property
and we have been dealing with their legal representatives trying to get permission to get
on there and do the assessment. We were not going to give you a partial report. We
wanted to have the entire site assessed and we were not granted a right of entry to get on
there and do the work that the Commission requested until about three weeks ago, and as
soon as we got that final one, the firm went ahead to complete the report. There is just a
period of time where they have to get out there, do the work, and then prepare the report.
Mr. Williams: Rick, somebody don’t understand something. I don’t know if it’s
with me or you. But my point is if this Commission requested something from whoever
the architect, engineer or department head is, they need to do that or respond to this body
why they can’t do that. Now what you telling me is because they didn’t have all the
necessary property, they didn’t do anything. Well, they may be the wrong company to do
this work for us. My question to you is have you got a letter from them the date they said
that they could not get on the property so you, the Administrator, the police, the sheriff,
the mayor, somebody could see about getting those properties available for them to get
on to.
Mr. Kolb: Well, that --
Mr. Williams: Rick, Rick, I’m talking to Rick, Mr. Kolb. Let him finish now.
Mr. Acree: No, sir, I do not have a letter from them stating that they could not get
on the property. I knew that they didn’t have the right of entry to get on the property, for
me to give them so that they could do the work.
Mr. Williams: So how long, how long have you known that?
Mr. Acree: We’ve been attempting to get the rights of entry. Mr. Wall has been
in negotiation with the owner of the two largest parcels of property since the beginning of
your request.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
37
Mr. Acree: Up until, up until three weeks we have been unable to obtain that
right to get on the property.
Mr. Williams: Well, [inaudible] Rick, but don’t go nowhere. I want to go back to
Mr. Wall. We done met in legal several, several times. Numerous. In fact, more times --
and Mr. Wall never mentioned the fact about not being able to get on the property
because of the property owner. What I’m saying, we dragging our feet here for nothing,
we paying people to do the work. If you had a problem not getting on there, that least
should have been brought back to this body, say we can’t get on the property. Well,
evidently, the property is not for sale, we might not be able to build on the facility. I, I, I,
I, I’m really disappointed to hear that three months ago, now three weeks ago we, we just
got on the property and we have not done anything. I think that, that, that’s something
terribly wrong with that scenario. The Administrator, somebody should have had work,
should have brought back to this body to say that we can’t get on, we may have had to get
the judges to do an order to get on there. But we could have got on that property. But
somebody done dropped the ball. And I just need to know who dropped the ball in the
first when the ball was first delivered. Was that three months ago, when you knew? If
you knew about it two months ago? I need to know when the ball got dropped. When
did you know they couldn’t get on the property, I guess is the best way to ask this
question, Rick.
Mr. Acree: It’s not necessarily a case of not being able to get on the property.
It’s getting the permission from the property owner to go on their private property.
Mr. Williams: Rick, we’re on the same plane now, I understand that. To get
permission and you did not know when was it that you did not know you couldn’t get on
there. I need to know from you, cause somebody stopped with this thing. They been
sitting around, standing up, doing nothing, when we was looking for a report to get back.
I requested a report today. Somebody should have been here to say, look, this is where
we are, this is what we have for you tomorrow, nobody even here, nobody even here to
address it. I think we may have the wrong firm, Rick, we might have to find somebody
else to do the work for us.
Mr. Acree: No, sir, I disagree with you. I think Graves Engineering has been
prudent in making sure that they had all the documentation and have moved diligently
forward with the pieces of property that they had access to and have done the paperwork
that they could do without getting on the property. The issue of a right to entry to a piece
of property is a legal document that they were not tasked to obtain. That’s something that
our representatives were tasked to obtain.
Mr. Williams: Our representatives, who was our representatives, you and who
else?
Mr. Acree: Your legal counsel would have been the one responsible for getting
the right of entry from the two largest property owners.
38
Mr. Williams: Well, Ms. Bonner, can you call Mr. Wall’s office, can you find out
from somebody over there where, where, well, I see our Attorney got his hand up so
maybe he can tell us.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Williams. My suggestion, Mr. Williams, is we’re
going to have a report from that firm on some other pending litigation. I’ve just sent out
the call for them to be here for legal session. We can have that report in legal session.
Mr. Williams: Today you mean?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Well, cause my request on the Commission was to have it
here today and nobody showed up, nobody’s got anything. And I think that’s very
disrespectful for a department head to, to take that attitude of not having somebody here
to respond to the request that we made.
Mr. Shepard: Well, we can inquire of the counsel. He kept that project, and I will
have him here.
Ms. Beard: And I am going to add that he did request it, and he requested it for
today, and it would have been appropriate if, since he was not able to have it here, that he
call and let him know. And with that, we would not have had to go through this. I mean
that’s simple courtesy.
Mr. Shepard: I understand, ma’am.
Mr. Williams: So Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I guess you in charge. What do we do
now? I mean I think my next step, if I can make a motion, I would like to make a motion
that we find another firm to do the work or another department head to replace the
department head who didn’t do the work. Somebody didn’t do their job. And if you
going to wait three months and not have any respond, with no respect to even have a, a, a,
a, a fictitious report or some kind, just to say nothing been done, no, sir, that, that, that’s
too much money we paying out for folks to stand up and tell us that, now.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I got, I got, I got an opinion about it. I’m going to yield to,
to, to Steve and to Ms. Beard, and then I’m going, I’m going to tell you a little bit about
it. The floor is yours, Mr. Shepard and then Commissioner Beard.
Mr. Shepard:I
Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission,
suggest that the matter be the subject of a motion to table at this time and we take it
up after legal
. It will remain on this agenda.
Ms. Beard: I so move.
39
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second to table and remains on the agenda.
Motion to table is a non-debatable motion. All in favor of the motion will do so by the
usual sign. Any opposed the same.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That finishes out the regular, with the exception of legal,
Madame Clerk, but I think we’ve got to go -- we go back to the addendum agenda, don’t
we?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Still two items, I believe, then.
The Clerk:
Addendum Item 6. Consider recommendation from EEO Study Sub-Committee to
establish a closing date of March 8, 2004 at 5:00 p.m. for the receipt of applications
for the EEO and DBE positions and receive comments/suggestions from the Mayor
and Commissioners regarding the review of applications in the selection process for
these positions.
Mr. Williams: I so move.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Ms. Beard: Question. Is that what --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I was going, I was going to explain once we got it on the
floor, Commissioner. Okay. We have a motion and a second on this item. If I might
explain, as Chairperson of the Subcommittee of this Committee, we met today to do
simply two or three things. There are pending a little better than 200 applications for
both of those positions. We set forth to ask you all to do a couple of things for us today
from the Commission. One is to set a closing deadline of 5:00 p.m., March 8, to do a
cutoff for the number of applications that we’ve got in. The next step in terms of
comments from the Mayor and Commissioners, there will be a -- and some of the
Commissioners who were at this, the subcommittee meeting this morning, already have
it, but there will be an information packet from HR that’s concerning the number of
people that have applied. This does not take us forward into any formal process. What I
was going to get with the Clerk and do, with the approval of the Commission, was to
submit a list as such of suggestions from the Mayor and the Commissioners, since these
two positions will be those that report directly to us. They are somewhat different. They
are historical in nature. It’s been a long time, but we simply wanted to handle it and to do
40
it right. It will give us a step then of suggestions, whether we wish to expand the
committee [inaudible] narrowing down the applications will be there for full review, but
it gives us an indicator so that when Administrative Services has its meeting in March,
and I believe that’s March 12, it will give us something to act on in committee, but with
the input of all of us as to the very next step that we will take, and then following that,
when it goes to Administrative Services, the next round will be for the Commission to
approve it or to change it, add to it, take away from it, but to develop a process that we
will be able to go through those applications and to get them down, narrow it down to a
process of selecting persons for those two jobs. Also, what was discussed and I would
like for you to consider as well -- we couldn’t put everything into the motion, but this
would not take away anything from the applications that are there. This was something
that HR suggested and I thought was a very good suggestion, that applications will
remain in place. Nothing would change on that. But they would simply, once the cutoff
date started, it would allow them to do something else for us that I think would get
something a little clearer, to develop a spreadsheet form without eliminating anybody, but
would go through all those that are there and to be able to categorize so that we will be
able to look through, just as we would a budget type situation. If we wanted to refer back
to actual resumes, we could still do that, but it would give a standard spreadsheet to look
through. That’s why we need the cutoff date. We’ve got 200 to deal with. It probably
will be a week to ten days, two week before they would even have that ready, but allows
them enough time to even start with the ones they’ve got. And hopefully it won’t be that
many more that they’ve got to get to to do. So that’s kind of what we needed to do today,
and I wanted to make sure that everybody, Mayor and Commissioners, had full input in
terms of where we were going with this. It will not be committee, and I think we agreed
in subcommittee, Chairman Hankerson was Chairman of Administrative Services, that
we wanted this to flow in such a way that the Committee serves as a vehicle, but it’s not
driven by one or two persons. That it will be handled by all 11 of us. And that
everybody’s input will be appreciated in it and that once we get those other suggestions,
it will give us some time to narrow down a scope, not taking the rest of eternity to do it,
but narrowing it down so that we can develop a process that everybody is pleased with.
And that’s what we need to in step one today, is approving this to get it at least going.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’d like to make a motion that we approve
your schedule.
Mr. Hankerson: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Did that get everybody --
Ms. Beard: Yes, it did.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I thought I could bring you up on where we were on that.
Okay. A motion and a second. If there being no further discussion, all in favor of the
motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed the same.
Motion carries 9-0.
41
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Number 7.
The Clerk:
Addendum Item 7. Consider information from the Administration regarding
potential SPLOST site visits.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, last Engineering
Services Committee meeting you requested that I look into arranging various site visits
around the area. The question mark is how the area is defined. But at any rate, that are
looking at communities that have taken on large capital improvement projects similar to
what Augusta is looking for and move forward. Specifically you asked us to look at
Jacksonville, Gwinnett County, Charlotte, North Carolina and Greenville, South
Carolina. We have since contacted Jacksonville, Florida, which I believe will be the
longest trip that you would take. It’s about six hours from here. Their government, I
believe, is consolidated, and they took on a very large capital improvement project a few
years ago that proved to be very successful for them. We have arranged, or we
tentatively would like to get some dates from you, but tentatively since the former Mayor
is the president of the University of Florida, I believe, and his schedule is quite tight,
thth
we’re trying to get the 18 and the 19 of March scheduled for you to go down. Now
here’s how it would work. We would take a bus down or arrange to leave on Thursday,
sometime, to arrive late afternoon, have meetings, and the next day get up, have
additional meetings and tours, and then be back in Augusta on Friday later
afternoon/evening. Now that’s the first date. If that’s not acceptable, I do need some
dates as quickly as possible. Two days, preferably a Thursday and a Friday. We looked
thth
at the 25 and 26; that is out for them. We can’t do it. Now the other three visits we
believe would be day trips. We’d leave early in the morning, come back late that
rd
afternoon. And we were looking at possibly Gwinnett County on the 23, Charlotte on
thth
the 25, and Greenville on the 30. But I do need, if possible today, some confirmation
as to whether those dates work. The other three dates are slipping, are, are, are flexible.
thth
The 18 and 19 I’d like to get either those date or a Thursday-Friday where we can have
it done.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, let, let me say this. I’m going to yield to other
Commissioners to discuss this item and where we go. My only comment is I think that,
that in terms of looking at what others are doing in capital needs and improvements, and
more specifically if you’re talking about any one particular item that any cities have
done, I think that, that we need to concentrate if we’re going anywhere, to concentrate on
cities or counties where their governmental structure, be it tax base, population, etc., is
comparable in some way to ours so that we can get a realistic look at where we are going.
I mean I don’t mind going somewhere to look. Sometimes it may even be further, if
you’re looking at somewhere that’s comparable to Augusta Richmond County. But I’m
just of the opinion that to go and see something somewhere that has some other things
that may be available to that community that are not available to us or that do not related,
whether or not say you’ve got pro sports versus amateur sports, whether you’ve got some
other things there, and, and, and I’d just like to hear some other opinions regarding that. I
42
do think we need to do some looking, but I think first on our pecking order should be
those that, where we’re in a comparable size and a base of revenue to be able to deal with
those first. Now that would be my personal opinion in terms of doing it because, you
know, I’d love to have what Baltimore’s got [inaudible] to be able to do some other
things. I just left the Super Bowl in Houston, you know, but Astrodome and Reliant
Stadium right next to each other, but I know we can’t deal with that here. So I’d just like
to know where some of you all are on that. I do think we need to go somewhere, but we
need to go somewhere with a thought in mind that when we leave that we’re going to see
something that we realistically can do when we get back home.
Ms. Beard: Commissioner Mays.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And I yield. Yes, ma’am?
Ms. Beard: I can sort of remember when Jacksonville was about like Augusta.
And I’d like to know how they got to where they are today. I really would.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ll get a chance to find out some of it, if we make, if we
make that trip.
Ms. Beard: We all remember when it was nothing.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: They were one of the early cities to consolidate and to be
able to do that, you know, a few decades ago. But -- Commissioner Williams and any
other hands on that end? We’ll go down that whole side and let everybody express.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I asked for this to be put, placed
on the agenda. The Mayor brought to us a while back, in ’99 I think, the Mayor of
Charlotte, North Carolina, and he told us if we got aggressive and looked around to our
neighboring counties, neighboring cities, if something was working there it can work in
Augusta as well. So we had this put on the agenda. And we been to Charlotte. We took
a business trip to Charlotte. We had a great time. We, we, we learned a lot when we
went over to Charlotte. I don’t remember in that meeting, in the committee meeting
saying about Jacksonville or anyplace else. Not just for infrastructure but my idea was to
look around to see what cities are doing and how we can adapt, how we can adjust what
we do here in Augusta. We are different in being one of the consolidated governments as
well, but, but, and I’m all for going to see what other areas of the world are doing so we
can learn something and come back and, and, and successfully take on some of those
projects that they may be doing. Our sales tax is upon us now. I’ve got several ventures
that I want to bring to the, to this body about sales tax money. And thing that would
bring monies in to this government. That’s something we need to be looking at, I think.
We need to be looking at how we can do some things that’s going to draw people and
bring revenue into Augusta. We think everybody like the same thing we look. There are
different people who like different things. So we need to have that kind of a mindset
when we go and look. As far as the date, I don’t have a date. I would, I would, I would
love to have seen a list of cities that we would be able to look at to see, you know, read
43
something about them, see what they’re doing and say hey, let’s go down to this one or
let’s go up to that one and see what they’re doing, rather than to have one just chosen for
us, and then we get there and maybe not be able to, to adept, might not be able to use
what they are using comparing to what they’ve got. If they got professional team, like
you said, Mr. Mays, or they got, if they got two million and we, you know, and we don’t
have that capacity, we need to look at all those areas. So I think it’s good that we got
something, but I think we, we should have a list to choose from as to what’s out there so
we can say hey, you know, let’s look at this one and look at that one.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Anybody else on that end? Don?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. In our meeting the other day,
this was discussed, and there were about four or five names, Mayor, and I think you
remember we discussed and talked about that, talked about Columbus, talked about
Columbia, we talked about Greenville, and we talked about Charlotte, and we did
mention Jacksonville. So my point in saying that we should go see these places is
personally I don’t think that I can go to all six of them. I don’t know that any one person
on this Commission can visit them all. And I’d like to see some, you know, two or three
people to go and get some information from the respective areas that we’re referring to,
and bring that back and let’s discuss it. And I think that’s the, that’s the approach to take,
not to take an entourage down to Jacksonville or up to Charlotte or whatever. You’ve
been to Charlotte. But send two or three people and let them go to these areas and find
out what, what they have done, from their government standpoint, from the part of
performing arts, from the infrastructure, from everything else, and bring that information
back to us, and then we can make a better decision, I think in what we’re looking at in
our SPLOST program. So those five or six names were mentioned, and Mr. Kolb was
sitting next to me and I think we wrote those down at that time. So those would be the
cities that I think would be real important to collect what information we can, be it
personally, and let’s let two or three people go. I don’t know if it should be in
appointment form, or either you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, or the Mayor would appoint, or
just ask the Commission which places they could go and visit and let them do that. And I
think that’s important.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mays. I think it’s a good idea. I did
get a chance -- I hear so much about the one in Greenville, I was looking at it the other
night on the internet. I couldn’t get all the information that I really needed, but I think it
would be good if we look at some of them and go just as we, when we went to Columbus,
those who are available to go when we set the dates, feel free to go. And all of us won’t
be able to go to all of them. But also, when we go to Jacksonville, maybe we could also
give Advanced Disposal a call and we might could have a little meeting with them while
we’re down there. We have a contract with Advanced Disposal, give them a call,
because they did welcome us to come to that city. So I think it would serve a great
purpose since we talking about trash.
44
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mays? I think Jacksonville has been a very progressive city
over the years and they continue to do a lot of things and I think we can learn a great deal
from that [inaudible] and it’s continued to great. I would concur that we do need to look
at some stuff in other cities.
th
Ms. Beard: And I’d like to mention that the 18 would be a very good day for
thth
me. The 18 and 19.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is the Jacksonville trip one that you need the, to really nail
down, George, in terms of --
Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: -- who’s going and how many and that type thing?
Mr. Kolb: I would like to nail that down. If -- Commissioner Grantham is right,
we did talk about four, but I’ve looked at maybe everybody wanted to volunteer to go, so
I planned big and we can scale back absolutely. But if you’ll let me know where you’d
like to go -- I’m hearing Commissioner Hankerson wanting to go to Greenville perhaps, a
couple people wanting to go to Jacksonville. If you’ll let me know by tomorrow morning
at least, or after this meeting is over, I can begin to plan, and if some of you go on the
same date or somewhere else, that’s great. The point is you don’t have a lot of time, and
I think you want to gather some information to help you make your decision, so we need
to move forward.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think we can do that. But I would, I would suggest one
thing on the tail end, of all those cities, and I think each one of them affords an
opportunity for us to see something different that’s there. But I would encourage us to,
on that list -- and I agree with Don, everybody may not be able to go, but Greenville
being in another state, Jacksonville being in another state, I would encourage if we’re
going to do multi-city trips that we definitely deal with the Gwinnett situation. Gwinnett
County. [inaudible] more than one situation, because of what we’re possibly looking at,
it’s in our state, we’ve got the same laws, we’re having to operate out of the same pockets
of money possibly, and what may be able to be done on some of these projects, if it can
be done in Gwinnett or in another Georgia city, it obviously can be done in Augusta,
whereas there may be some restrictions on some other things. But I do think the creative
ideas are good in terms of doing it, but I hate to see us go to other places and not go there.
Because I think if you’re looking at some stuff that may happen or not happen [inaudible]
in reference to what may be on sales tax, I think if you going, if you going look at some
[inaudible] then you need to seriously look at Greenville, somebody going anyway. Not
Greenville, I meant to say Gwinnett County.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, that’s one thing I forgot to tell you. I should tell
you some of the highlights that we were looking at. Jacksonville of course was their total
overall infrastructure, as well as quality of life projects. Gwinnett County, Mayor Pro
Tem Mays is correct, the Gwinnett Center is something that we ought to look at. In
45
Charlotte, they just completed a courthouse, they are building another one, as well as a
new jail. They also have an arena, and we’ve been invited to sit down with the president
of one of the sports teams to have lunch and talk to him. More importantly, I think some
of you mentioned [inaudible] and they do have a very successful [inaudible] project there.
In Greenville would be the Bi-Lo Center, as well as their performing arts center. So if
you would want, if you’re interested in any of those, I would encourage you to sign up
and we can begin to make arrangements.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Sims?
Ms. Sims: I was just going to ask, would it be appropriate to give you some lists
of cities that maybe we know about and let you set up dates for us, just after -- before
tomorrow, is that what you want?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, ma’am. I would prefer that if two or three of you could get
together on that city, it would be great. It’s kind of hard to [inaudible] all over the
countryside.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, you know, everywhere you mentioned is on the
ground, so I’m with you anywhere you go. Y’all know how I feel about that. Y’all
hadn’t lost me yet. We, we, we’re still on the ground. I’m like John Madden, so it’s fine.
It’s no problem. Steve?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission.
I think the point, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, about the legality of what has been done in
Gwinnett may be somewhat different than those incentives that are offered out of state, so
to borrow a phrase from the quoted telephone era, I’d let my fingers do the walking
before you do any traveling out of state to determine -- this is a great idea but if it’s
specifically authorized by certain legislation in South Carolina or Florida that we don’t
have the benefit of.
the Chair will entertain a
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, I think we pretty much --
motion to receive as information,
and I think we will allow the Administrator to get
those together.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Will there be any further discussion?
If not, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think that gets us over now to the statement of purpose for
our legal session, and I’ll defer to the Attorney.
46
Mr. Shepard: I request a legal meeting to discuss pending and potential
litigation, real estate, personnel, and specifically the claim of Willie Newman,
Newton, excuse me, and any other matters that the Commission wants to add to that
within those permitted categories.
40. LEGAL MEETING.
??
Pending and potential litigation.
??
Real Estate.
??
Personnel.
??
Claim of Mr. Willie Newton (Deferred from the Engineering Services
Committee – February 23, 2004)
Mr. Shepard: I’d asked someone to put that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor of the
motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Motion carries 9-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’re back in session. The Chair recognizes Attorney
Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I ask that the Commission entertain
a motion to allow the presiding officer, the Mayor Pro Tem, to sign the closed
meeting affidavit that the matters discussed therein were within the exception noted
in the Open Meeting Act, which include potential and pending litigation, real estate
and personnel.
41. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia’s Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Colclough: So move.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion? All in favor
of the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Smith out.
47
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, I’d ask for
a motion which adds and approves a settlement of the Boyce case as outlined by
counsel.
Mr. Colclough: So move.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion [inaudible].
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: It should be that the judgment be paid, I think would be
recommended.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Everyone hear that?
Ms. Beard: Restate it [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: For purpose of the motion,what we asked that you add and
approve is a motion to pay the judgment in the Boyce litigation.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. All in favor of that motion will do so
by the usual sign.
Mr. Smith out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Still got the floor, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. In reference to item
number 42, I’d ask that that item be postponed for action until the next meeting of
the Commission.
42. Discuss/approve settlement of the Gayle Scott litigation.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ladies and gentlemen, there’s a recommendation from the
Attorney that everyone hear the recommendation. Repeat the recommendation, Mr.
Attorney.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. My recommendation is that item
number 42 be postponed for consideration until the next meeting.
48
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] 42, Steve?
Mr. Shepard: Sir? That is the last matter on the agenda, captioned
discuss/approve settlement of the Gayle Scott litigation.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion and a second to postpone that. I guess I
need one clarification. When we say next meeting, I know there will be a legal session,
are we talking about the regular meeting of the Commission or are we talking about
possibly putting that on the legal session since it is a legal matter and then the possibility
of voting on it on that day?
Mr. Shepard: Either one would suit me fine, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. The next
regularly scheduled meeting or a special session called after a legal session, which we
anticipate to be on committee day at this time.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Is that okay with the maker of the motion and the
one who seconded it, that we do either/or in that case, which means it may be on that
particular Friday or at a regular meeting of the Commission?
Mr. Williams: We ought to be able to make a decision on one of them. I mean
let’s make a decision on which one it’s going to be. I mean you go either/or. Which one
you want, Steve, your choice?
Mr. Shepard: I would like to go ahead and do it at the special meeting.
Mr. Williams: I got no problem with that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No problem by the seconder?
Mr. Boyles: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Motion and a second. Everyone is understood with
the motion that’s on the floor? All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Smith out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, I think we still have one item that’s there.
The Clerk: On the table?
49
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yeah, in reference to item 38.
The Clerk: Shall I read the caption?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, ma’am, go ahead and do that, please.
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS:
38. Update on the contamination report on the proposed Judicial Center Site.
(Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams)
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, this has been talked about and we tabled it
and we talked about it a little bit in legal, but I’m still not satisfied with the, the type
report or non report I should say that we’ve gotten. I think this is a serious matter. We
have, we have not holding people accountable in this government. We pay folks to do a
job and they have not done it. We’ve got so many people that we give directions to that
we don’t know who is supposed to be doing what. Now I heard today that a report is
coming tomorrow, and I think that’s great, but before we had it put on this agenda, I
didn’t hear anything about it. No one had the fortitude to even call and say well, there is
a report coming, what do you need to know? I think this is another trick to, to, to derail
this project. They for whatever reason, they don’t want this project to go at that location.
It was on the news here a few weeks ago about how crowded the hallways were in the
courthouse and how the prisoners had to stand on the wall if you had to come by them.
I’m trying to get off center. They talking about contamination. I said it a hundred times,
I’m going to say it once more. That if we build the building of even this magnitude, the
size of this building, we would remove whatever contamination that would be there. But
for whatever reason, we still dancing around an old song that they don’t want to hear.
That’s James Brown [inaudible], James Brown Boulevard. That’s, that’s, that’s the
bottom line. I been told that we couldn’t get on the site. But nobody came to this body,
nobody came to this governing body to say we have problems getting on the site and we
needed to do something else. But here we are now, like everything we do in this
government, we get up against the wall, and now we, we coming out swinging. But
hopefully the Clerk will have on our next regular Commission meeting a, a place
[inaudible] for that. I hope the committee or the group bring the report back. They said it
nd
was going to be the first of March. Here it is now the 2. I need a date as to when that
report will be here so I can at least have that faxed to me, sent to me by courier if nothing
else, Ms. Bonner. So Mr. Shepard, if you can give me a date, I said Commission
meeting, but I’d like to have a date if possible. They say it coming tomorrow. Tomorrow
rd
is the 3 I believe, is that right?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir. On my calendar.
Mr. Williams: Is that a date we can use? I mean it been since December, since
Christmas now we been working on it, and now here we are in March, almost Easter is
here, another holiday.
50
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead. Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: I think Mr. Williams, you need a motion to take this matter and put
it back on the table, number one. And I’m sure you’re going to include that in your
motion.
Mr. Williams: Well, and, and --
Mr. Shepard: My understanding is that a report will be available -- my
rd
understanding is it will be available tomorrow, that is March 3, and then if it comes into
the receipt of the Clerk or the Administrator or the Attorney, they will forward that to
you, will forward it to all members of the Commission on the same day, how about that?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Shepard, now let -- could I get some clarification, though?
Please, sir. From the Attorney side. And you said that you were supposed to, from your
understanding, that’s what you was told. But if it is not here, what measurement are we
going to take if it’s not here? Now somebody got to be answering.
Mr. Shepard: Well, I think we need to find -- if it’s not here tomorrow, let’s find
out why it’s not here tomorrow. [inaudible] tomorrow.
Mr. Williams: Who will we find out that from?
Mr. Shepard: I think we’ll find out, certainly we can inquire about that from the
counsel assigned to that project. I’m sure Mr. Wall will let us know. I will make inquiry
tomorrow if it’s not there.
Mr. Williams:
Mr. Wall do not further work for this governing body as an
official capacity. He may be a, a, a side bar person, but we can’t hold him accountable. I
need to task it with the Administrator and the Administrator needs to talk whoever he
but we need to have a report of some kind back tomorrow. And that’s
needs to task,
in the form of a motion.
Mr. Hankerson: I second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion and a second that we need to be in receipt
of this particular report by tomorrow. Is there amendment to that motion also to place
this on, or you just going to do that separately, Commissioner William, in terms of a
future meeting, or will that depend on whether or not the report is given tomorrow?
Mr. Williams: Well, that depend on whether the report is in, Commissioner
Mays.
51
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Just asking. Didn’t want [inaudible].
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Tommy.
Mr. Boyles: If we require this report to be here tomorrow and it’s not complete,
we’re going to get the kind of report that we may not, that may not give us all the
information we want. I mean even though it was said it was due for tomorrow or due for
March 1 and we’re asking for it tomorrow, and if it’s not ready, that’s the only concern I
have. And I agree with Mr. Williams, what he’s trying to do. But I’m just saying if this
report comes tomorrow and it’s not complete, I mean what have we got?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mays, if I could, if I could respond to Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I was just checking this other [inaudible] if not, I’m back to
you. Go ahead.
Mr. Williams: I just wanted to respond to Mr. Boyles. Mr. Boyles, we was told
by Mr. Wall that the report was, it was [inaudible] and I asked the Clerk to get those
minutes. It was stated that the report would be in the first of March. So there is no way
from what we was told today that it should not be ready tomorrow. It should have been
ready yesterday, but there is no way since December now, and we’re [inaudible] report
by tomorrow, somebody done lied. If that’s the case.
Mr. Boyles: I’m just saying that whoever Mr. Acree said was doing the job,
whoever the company was that was doing the job, if they haven’t for some reason, don’t
have it ready tomorrow and they try to give it to us, it may be an incomplete report.
That’s the only thing I’m questioning.
Mr. Williams: And that would mean somebody stood right in front of this
Chamber and lied to us today, Mr. Boyles, if they come out with a report that’s not
complete tomorrow, cause Mr. Wall just stated that the report was due the first of March,
and if it due the first of March, today’s the second, it was supposed to [inaudible], then
there ought to be a full scale report, whatever it is, good, bad, indifferent. What I’m
hearing is there is contamination, but if it’s that bad, why hadn’t the City made the
property owners do something with the property without just letting it sit there? They
been sitting there for 200 years until we decide to build a building on it. Now, now it’s
bad.
Mr. Boyles: I’m just talking about the initial report. Good, bad, indifferent, or
incomplete, you know. And that’s what I’m trying to avoid, incomplete report. And I
don’t know the company, I don’t know who is doing it. It’s just a concern that I have.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner? I almost said Commissioner Shepard. The
Attorney and then Commissioner Grantham.
52
Mr. Shepard: Well, if the motion is the day it comes into my possession or to the
Administrator’s possession, we will forward it, that is what we are telling you, Mr.
Williams.
rd
Mr. Williams: Tomorrow, the 3, I mean the day, they it come in could be the
thrd
19, which would be somebody’s birthday, but I’m saying tomorrow, the 3, that a report
should be here cause that was what we was told.
Mr. Shepard: And I agree with you, it should be here.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: But I can’t foresee all contingencies that might lead to its delay.
I’m just saying --
Mr. Williams: If it’s not here --
Mr. Shepard: If I’ve got it, you’ll get it.
Mr. Williams: If it’s not here, though, somebody needs to answer to this body.
And I don’t mean stand up and answer to this body. There ought to be a letter of
reprimand, ought to be some kind of disciplinary action for, for somebody not finding out
why it’s not here. We done waited three months for nothing.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, and I, I agree with Mr.
Williams, we do need the report, we do need the information, but I, I, I really hate to put
my vote in a way that I’m depending on somebody maybe from out of town or from in
town or from wherever it is, that I’m depending on somebody else to, to make sure that
that report’s here in our hands. The thing I would like to see done is that once it is
delivered to us, and I pray it will be tomorrow, but I want it put in your hands tomorrow,
I don’t want to wait till Thursday. Just as soon as it arrives here, I do want put in your
hands as well as ours, cause I’m as interested in this subject as everybody else. And I
feel like you’ve got a legitimate reason to ask for that. But I hope you won’t just pinpoint
a commentary of delivering something to us on time that we don’t have any control over.
Mr. Williams: I understand, Mr. Grantham, but if, if, if it’s not, if it’s out of our
people hands and there’s a firm that doing it, we need to look at that firm and find
another firm. If somebody comes in here, now there’s a lot of ways to skin the cat
without saying you skinned the cat. Now if the Administrator or the Department Head
has no, no dealings and, and, and doesn’t come under them, we can’t hold them
accountable. But if somebody comes in with a, with a sloppy report or a piece of report,
we need to look firmly at that firm who we’re paying good money to drag their feet, and
53
we need to sit them down in the, the, the, the same road over there where the
contamination is and let the train pick them up over there.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem
: There’s a motion and a second to receive the report
tomorrow. Let me, let me just say this, and let me ask a question first. Cause I agree
with the Commissioner putting this on to stimulate to discussion as to where this whole
thing stood, because I mean if some folk knew this was going to be back the first of the
month or this week or whenever, then I don’t, I don’t think a cardinal sin was committed
by a Commissioner asking for something to be updated at a point in this day and time
almost three months later. But I want you to also be able to get to a point of how this is
to be handled, because I don’t think you can have [inaudible] when it’s received. I agree
with Commissioner Williams on that. It may get received tomorrow and it may get
received on tomorrow and it may be like the song tomorrow never comes. Now I think
what we may need to do in there, whether this is by amendment, Commissioner, whether
I think that something needs to be ready to be
someone deals with a substitute motion,
talked about either by the proper committee that will deal with this or if the first
regular meeting when everybody’s scheduled to be back here is going to be – not
regular meeting of the Commission but to deal with, I think, you and I have
committee meeting along with the members of Administrative Services, workshop
day and legal, to deal with putting that on to either talk about the report, which the
report will be in by then, or to ask the question, “Where is the report?” because
we’re still looking for it. Cause of two things, by that time, it either should be here
and we ought to be able to talk about it or it’s going to still be missing in action. So
I mean I think you need to have something in there.
Cause I don’t want to see you
lose a vote on a technicality, but I think it needs to get, something needs to get
[inaudible].
Mr. Williams: If I need to make that in the form of an amendment to my
motion, if the seconder will accept it, Mr. Mays, I will accept that as a friendly
amendment to my motion without making another motion..
Mr. Hankerson: I’ll accept.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And that will get, that will, that will cover that ground
because either then it’s in so that it can be disseminated, the information not only to you,
but to everybody else, but then if it does not come and if there is a delay, then it’s got
proper placement in the Clerk’s office on the first meeting that we’ve got to get it back
here so that it can be fully discussed, and I think at that point then we all need to ask the
question then at that point what is the delay, where are our problems, and then somebody
needs to be in a position to answer. If that covers it with everybody, the amendment, the
seconder, I believe, put that on. If there is no other discussion on that particular motion
with the amendment, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any
opposed, the same.
Mr. Smith out.
Motion carries 8-0.
54
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Does that wrap us up?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The Chair will entertain a motion to adjourn.
[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 March 2, 2004.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
55