The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-06-2004 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER April 6, 2004 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, April 6, 2004, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Colclough, Grantham, Mays, Cheek, Beard, Williams, Sims and Boyles, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hon. Cheek, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Also Present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission. The Invocation was given by Rev. Trowell. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Mr. Mayor: The Chair will recognize Commissioner Boyles. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, thanks for just a moment of personal privilege. As many of you know, some of us have some other obligations late this afternoon concerning some business development and industrial relations with the Chamber of Commerce. I’d like to offer in the form of a motion that this meeting be completely finished by 5:00 p.m., on or before. Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion from the Commissioner to conclude our business by 5:00 o’clock today because of conflicts in scheduling. Mr. Smith? Mr. Smith: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a second to that motion. All right. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Discussion, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Go right ahead. Mr. Williams: I’m trying to figure out, cause if all this time I done spent up here and if we can figure out today how to do it because of the Masters and the business, we should have figured it out a long time ago, how can we determine whether or not we going be completed with the business? Is my question. Mr. Mayor: Well, I think each member would have to answer that question. Mr. Williams: Maybe Mr. Boyles can answer that. 1 Mr. Boyles: Mr. Williams, it’s just my hope that we can because this is an unusual week and it means a lot to the people that have been brought in here by the Augusta Showcase and by the Convention & Visitors Bureau and others who have worked so hard and those of us that continue to work for jobs for this community, that we would like to be and continue to be a part of that effort. Mr. Williams: If I can respond, Mr. Mayor, I agree, and I say I agree with that wholeheartedly, but if you had said that you had hoped we’d be through, but you said, the motion that we be completed. I can’t support that cause I’m going to stay here as long as it take to do the business of the citizens of Richmond County, as elected official. You know it’s a [inaudible] position that you give of yourself and you have to sacrifice. We have some good days and some bad days, and the Lord has blessed us to have more good than we have bad, so I’m willing to take those Mr. Boyles. I can’t support your motion. I can’t vote with you on that. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I think he’s absolutely correct, but I also think we have an obligation to the citizens of this community to bring jobs and economic development. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor. Any further discussion on the motion? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Let me, let me jump in the middle of those two Commissioners for just a moment. This goes back to something that the Administrator proposed to us some time ago, and the possibilities about whether we needed a break during our year. Well, I would have felt a lot more comfortable and probably would have no objections to it, quite frankly, Tommy, if we had just not had a meeting today period. Mr. Boyles: I agree. Mr. Mays: [inaudible] and done it. But the criticism that we’ve taken, and I guess I’ll take all of it because I’m going to get all the criticism anyway so I’ll respond to all of it. If we’re talking about when we start, when we deal with the timeliness of meetings or anything else, then we’ve got to take under consideration the fact that if we want to sacrifice and move some time, we’re also going to have to sacrifice [inaudible] some day or some week or some days until we finish the City’s business. We are behind schedule right now desperately, and I am supporting my good friend, still in support of him, but remember this when we start stacking up these meetings and time frames of moving things. You have, for the first time in 30 years, changed the attorneys that represent this City and a new firm. A lot of the legal work that’s being dumped on Steve is now coming to fruition. He needs to meet with us. We’ve got a lot of litigation that’s coming up, potential litigation, lawsuits that have to be settled. We’ve conducted the last three legal meetings without getting through, and it’s still backed up. And that’s not to his fault, it’s not the fault of the previous Attorney. That’s transition. Four of you came in in January. That’s almost 50% of the voting members of this body. What I would suggest to you is not to set a precedent by voting to put a time. I think let’s move expeditiously today. If we are not through by that time, we are all grown, it’s not slavery 2 time, if anybody needs to leave for business and move, then let’s move. But I think you’ve got citizens up and down this agenda that are here. We can’t predict at what time their business is going to pop up. So all of us are in the business of trying to promote this city and to get jobs. Some of us doing it on a non-Masters week, as well, because I think it’s a year-round job, not just a one-week job in terms of what we try to recruit. But we’re glad to have our folk here. But I think we set a strange precedent when we put a time limit, because then we start the next week, people who are looking at an agenda and see something down at the end and say well, let’s see if we can get a group to leave before we do it. There’s been a criticism of folk doing this and trying to do it in the past. I think we just need to move on in a hurry, deal with this, and get through as much of this as we can. If people need to leave for a particular appointment and to do, then that would be good and great. And one, I stayed and didn’t go anywhere [inaudible] I had tickets last night for the Final Four and [inaudible] Tennessee in New Orleans tonight, but we have a meeting. I gave up both the trips because we didn’t postpone it, we were going to be here. So now, you know, I’m just saying each one of each [inaudible] something we have to do. I’d just like to stay and gets as much out of the way as we can, and if we don’t have a quorum at five o’clock, then we stay the required ten minutes, we dismiss the meeting and everybody go home. Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion on the motion? We’ll go ahead and call for the vote on the motion then. All in favor, please vote with the usual sign. Mr. Mays, Mr. Williams, Mr. Hankerson, Mr. Colclough vote No. Ms. Beard not voting. Motion fails 4-4. Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, let’s move ahead with the recognition and introductions and resolutions, if we may. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Max Hicks will do the recognition. RECOGNITION: Ms. Sandy Tyler Augusta Utilities Department Mr. Hicks: I appreciate it very much. We try to recognize our folks when they achieve what I think are outstanding goals. And we have a lady in our department who has achieved the Master of Public Administration degree at the Augusta State University, and her paper was entitled “The Augusta Utilities Department: An Analysis of Organizational Strengths and Weaknesses.” Each one would do well to read it. I’ve learned from it and she said, “You didn’t take any exception to it?” “No, it’s right down the line, that’s the way it ought to be.” So we just wanted to recognize Ms. Sandy Tyler for her achievement of the Master of Public Administration degree. (A round of applause is given.) 3 Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Hicks. Sandy, we’re might proud of you. Congratulations on this achievement. Ms. Tyler: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to speak to that. It’s good when we have employees in our system that further their education and requirements, and I hope not only for her but for all of our employees that pursue this, I think that we ought to as much as possible when job openings come that we make sure that we keep employees with this professional ability, now with her and with future employees. I hope that we look at our own employees before we start hiring folks outside of the city. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Hankerson. Next item, Madame Clerk? The Clerk: Ms. Teresa Smith of our Public Works and Engineering Department. INTRODUCTION: Ms. Teresa Smith, Director ARC Public Works and Engineering Department ? Mr. Garrett Weiss, Environmental Engineer, Public Works and Engineering Department Ms. Smith: Good afternoon. In the Public Works and Engineering Department, we are slowly but surely filling the vacancies we have with respect to some of our professional positions. It is with great pleasure that I introduce to you today Mr. Garrett Weiss, who is our new environmental engineer. Mr. Weiss holds a Bachelor of Science in geology from the University of Georgia and a Masters of Science in geology from Indiana University. He has focused his career on environmental issues, which includes two years with the Department of Energy, Hanford Facility, and 14 years in environmental consulting in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and four additional years in private practice throughout California. Mr. Weiss is a registered geologist and has been on board for about two weeks. Mr. Garrett Weiss. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Weiss, we’re certainly glad to have you on board with the brownfield activity we have going on in our community right now and the projects we’re involved in. It’s great to have, have you in that position. Next item, Madame Clerk, is a resolution that we’ve been asked to approve today. There’s probably nothing more noble we can do than to try to keep people who are in business in Augusta in Augusta doing business. And we’ve been asked to let our sentiments be known to the owners of the Solo Cup Company, which is going through a corporate reorganization right now, and we certainly want to make sure their presence remains in Augusta, and these jobs are not moved to another community. Madame Clerk, if you would read the resolution, please. 4 RESOLUTION: The Solo Cup Company The Clerk: Resolution. Whereas, the Solo Cup Company has been a landmark in Augusta since 1947, when the Lily Tulip Company built the 180,000 square foot manufacturing plant; and Whereas, in 1989 Sweetheart Holding, Inc. purchased the company and expanded to a 345,000 square foot operation; and Whereas, the plant employs 221 workers and the average worker has over 16 years of loyal services, the plant has the lowest turnover rate in the area of 1.5% with most due to retirement; and Whereas, the Augusta plant is the most productive and efficient facility in the 22- plant Sweetheart organization and produces the company’s flagship product, the Trophy brand disposable cup, which is used by the McDonald’s Corporation and several other high profile commercial customers; and Whereas, the Augusta community has a ready, willing and very skillful workforce with an array of organization to offer employees support and training; and Whereas, we are very fortunate and proud to have Solo Cup Company as a part of our corporate community and look forward to a long and productive relationship; and Therefore, be it resolved, that the Augusta Richmond County Commission, on behalf of its citizenry, extends a hearty welcome to the Solo Cup Company; Be it therefore resolved, that this resolution be spread upon the official minutes of Augusta Richmond County, and a copy sent to Solo Company. th Adopted this 6 day of April, 2004. Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion for adoption? Mr. Grantham: I move for adoption. Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor – Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays, go ahead, please. Mr. Mays: Let me say this. I think the resolution is very good, but I think that the Commission needs to applaud the Mayor, not just on this initiative, but I mentioned a minute ago about job recruiting and about businesses. This is not the first time in terms of where a business in the city has had to make a crucial decision. The Mayor has been very much on top of this, both in this term and in his first time. And I hope that as an extension of that that we will look favorably on something that he has tried to do as far as advancement of economic development as we move into our budget year in the fall of some things that need to be done in terms of reasonable incentives of the time when the 5 Mayor is the point person for this City in terms of having to go out and to be the first person to maintain contact with business people, not only those that may be coming into the city, but those that are here, those that are struggling to stay open, and those that have to make corporate decision. And I think, Mr. Mayor, that we appreciate wholeheartedly that particular job and effort that you are doing in relationship with all of these business and industry people. And let us give the Mayor a hand on that. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor: Anything further? All in favor of the resolution then please vote with the usual sign. And we’ll see that’s delivered promptly to the Solo Company. Ms. Beard out. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: Next item is another resolution. The Clerk: RESOLUTION: Adopt Resolution to observe April 12-18, 2004 as National Community Development Week. Mr. Mayor: Did you want to read that, Madame Clerk? While she’s looking for it, let me just say that I was last Friday morning meeting with HUD Secretary, new Secretary, Alfonso Jackson. We spent about 45 minutes together in his office in Washington, and he’s quite impressed with some of the activities that we’re engaged in here in Augusta, and this resolution and celebration of Community Development Block Grant Week is extremely timely. Madame Clerk? The Clerk: Whereas, the week of April 12-18, 2004 has been designated as National Community Development Week; Augusta, Georgia is a participant in the Community Development Block Grant Program which funds a myriad of social services, economic development and housing programs in this community; and Whereas, in this community and communities throughout the nation, 29 years of Community Development Block Grant Program funding has developed a strong working network of relationships between this local government, residents of the neighborhood, and community non-profit agencies which provide service and help make possible our commitment to those neighborhoods; and Whereas, the community recognizes that Community Development Block Grant programs is partnership of federal, state and local governments, business, non-profit and community efforts, that the services funded by the federal CDBG Program, administered by the local government and others, often delivered by local non-profit organizations, relies heavily on the dedication and the good will of our combined efforts; 6 Therefore, be it resolved, that during the National Community Development Week, 2004, devotions to the neighborhood and to their low and moderate income residents help ensure the quality and effectiveness of community development block grant programs; and Be it further resolved, that the Mayor and the Commission of Augusta, Georgia join in designating April 12-18 as our National Community Development Week, and hereby call upon the citizens of Augusta to observe this week celebrating the community development grant program. Mr. Mayor: Is there a motion for adoption? Mr. Mays: So move for adoption. Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All those in favor then please vote with the usual sign. Ms. Beard and Ms. Sims out. Motion carries 7-0. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith, I believe Monday morning at 9:30 we have a presentation set for this over at your office in the ANIC building; is that correct? Okay. Everyone is invited to participate in that. On the addendum agenda, we have a request to delete item number 52. ADDENDUM AGENDA: DELETION FROM THE AGENDA: 52. Z-04-12 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) that the new building, as submitted on the concept plan presented at the meeting, must meet the side setback requirements of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance unless a BZA variance to lessen the setback is granted for the property line that abuts Kingston subdivision and 2) that a vegetative buffer be established and maintained according to the Augusta-Richmond County Tree Ordinance along the same property line; a petition by Robert W. Gropp requesting the modification of the conditions on a 1995 (Z-95-59) Special Exception for an addition to an equestrian center per Section 26-1 (I) affecting property located at 1333 Jackson Road and containing approximately 16 acres. (Tax Map 31-4 Parcels 36.06 & 36.09) DISTRICT 3 (Deferred from the February 17, 2004 meeting) Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to taking that off the agenda today? Item 52. If there is no objection, then with unanimous consent, Madame Clerk, we’ll remove item 52 from the agenda. 7 Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: You have a question about item 52? Go ahead. Mr. Mays: Yeah. I guess – 52, can we poll the audience to see if there are any persons here that are present to address item 52? Mr. Mayor: We certainly can. Anyone here for item 52 today? That’s the – Mr. Mays: Kingston. Mr. Mayor: -- Kingston subdivision. No one, there has been no response. Now this is not withdrawing the application. We’re just taking it off the agenda today. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Gropp is still out ill and he asked that it be extended. Mr. Mayor: Okay. There is no objection heard, so we’ll delete item number 52. And then we have a request on the addendum agenda to add two items, item number 1 and item number 2. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: 1. Z-04-23 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Eric Melchoir requesting a Special Exception to establish an inert fill area as a reclamation objective for an active surface mine per Section 26-1(o) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta Richmond County affecting property located at 3902 New Karleen Road and containing approximately 37 acres. (Tax Map 139 Parcel 277.3 and Tax Map 151 Parcel 10.1) DISTRICT 8 2. Consider resolution to approve the Mayor making application for grant monies from the Georgia Pubic Defender Standards Council Mr. Mayor: With unanimous consent, we will do that. Is there any objection to adding items 1 and 2 from the addendum agenda to our agenda today? Any objection? None heard, so Madame Clerk, we’ll go ahead and add those to the agenda. And we’ll see if we can add those to the consent agenda while we’re at it. The Clerk: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, if you’ll go ahead and read the, proceed with the consent agenda, and then we’ll move forward from there. The Clerk: The consent agenda consists of items 1 though 50, items 1 through 50 with the deletion of item 52. For the benefit of any objectors to our alcohol 8 petitions, once the petitions are read, if there are objectors, would you please signify your objections by raising your hands? PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Motion to approve a request by Mary F. Eastin for an on premise consumption Liquor & Beer License to be used in connection with Hide Away Lounge II located at 3165 Gordon Hwy. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 29, 2004) 2. Motion to approve a request by Chin U. Yu for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with 8 Trax Bar & Grill located at 1082 Bertram Rd. There will be dance. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 29, 2004) The Clerk: Are there any objections to those alcohol petitions? Mr. Mayor: No objections are noted, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion with respect to the consent agenda? Do we have a motion to approve? Mr. Mays: So move. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second? Mr. Williams: Second, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding to the consent agenda item number 2 off the addendum agenda, which is the grant application? Any objection to adding that to the consent agenda? Okay. Is there any other item on here that we’d like to try to add to the consent agenda from the regular agenda? Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Item number 58 that the Utilities Department and Judge Kernaghan have been working on, that has – the contact has been made. They are still in some negotiation process right there, and so if it’s okay with the body I would like to see that moved back to the Engineering Services Committee. Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s do that after we deal with the consent agenda. We’re trying to build the consent agenda, and that is not – that’s on the regular agenda. Mr. Boyles: It’s on the regular agenda. 9 Mr. Mayor: We’ll get back to that. Get back to that. Mr. Boyles: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Are there any other items you want to put on the consent agenda that are on the regular agenda? Are there any items now that you want to pull from the consent agenda? Pull for discussion? Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: Pull item 1 on the addendum agenda. Mr. Mayor: That’s already, that’s separate, that’s not on the consent agenda. Okay. Any consent – yes, Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull item 4. I need some clarification on number 7. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams: On number 8. Also, 29 and 31. Mr. Mayor: Okay, that’s 4, 7, 8, 29 and 31? Is that correct? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Would anyone like to pull any other items from the consent agenda? All right, we’ll go ahead then. We have a motion on the consent agenda minus items 4, 7, 8, 29, and 31 and adding to the consent agenda item number 2 on the addendum agenda, with is the grant application. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Motion to approve a request by Mary F. Eastin for an on premise consumption Liquor & Beer License to be used in connection with Hide Away Lounge II located at 3165 Gordon Hwy. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 29, 2004) 2. Motion to approve a request by Chin U. Yu for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with 8 Trax Bar & Grill located at 1082 Bertram Rd. There will be dance. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 29, 2004) 3. Motion to approve the pre-authorization to execute a contract in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 for Perimeter Fencing Improvements. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 29, 2004) 4. Deleted from the consent agenda. 10 4A. Motion to approve a request by Crystal R. Wiggins for a Therapeutic Massage License to be used in connection with Health Central Wellness & Fitness Center located at 945 Broad Street. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 29, 2004) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 5. Motion to approve salary discrepancy in the Motor Vehicle Dept. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee March 29, 2004) 6. Motion to approve to transfer supervision of custodian from Library to Public Works. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee March 29, 2004) 7. Deleted from the consent agenda. 8. Deleted from the consent agenda. PUBLIC SAFETY: 9. Motion to approve selection of BellSouth as vendor of choice for RFP# 03- 135, Internet Service Provider. (Approved by Public Safety Committee March 29, 2004) 10. Motion to approve selection of Bailey’s Communications & Electronics, Inc. as vendor of choice for RFP# 03-138, Pager Services. (Approved by Public Safety Committee March 29, 2004) 11. Motion to approve the acquisition of a new medium duty rescue truck. (Approved by Public Safety Committee March 29, 2004) 12. Motion to approve the acquisition of a new aerial apparatus to replace dead lined apparatus. (Approved by Public Safety Committee March 29, 2004) 13. Motion to authorize a Lease/Purchase and Special Service Agreement for upgrading existing Positron 9-1-1 Equipment. (Approved by Public Safety Committee March 29, 2004) FINANCE: 14. Motion to approve the lease for One Aljon 600 Compactor for Public Works Department – Solid Waste Division from Aljon, Inc. of Ottumwa, Iowa for $8,798.70 per month for 60 months. (Approved by Finance Committee March 29, 2004) 15. 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 March 29, 2004) 16. Motion to approve an appropriation in the total amount of $1,300.00 from the Commission Promotional Account to purchase frames from Augusta Art and Frame Shop. (Approved by Finance Committee March 29, 2004) 17. Motion to approve an appropriation in the amount of $2,500 from recaptured UDAG for the Augusta Showcase. (Approved by Finance Committee March 29, 2004) 18. Motion to approve refunds on 14 accounts in the Tax Assessors Office (Approved by Finance Committee March 29, 2004) 11 19. Motion to approve a request from SCMullins, LLC for relief from penalties and late charges on 2003 tax account. (Map 42-3, Parcel 5.02) (Approved by Finance Committee March 29, 2004) 20. Motion to approve the Augusta Metro Chamber of Commerce request for abatement of property taxes for 2003. (Approved by Finance Committee March 29, 2004) 21. Motion to approve setting the qualifying fee for special election in Commission Districts 1 and 3. (Approved by Finance Committee March 29, 2004) 22. Motion to authorize the attorney to pursue collection of delinquent debt for the Landfill and Solid Waste collections in accordance with collection policy. (Approved by Finance Committee March 29, 2004) 23. Motion to approve waiver of property taxes in the amount of $58.92 on a parcel of land titled in the name of the Richmond County Land Bank Authority affecting property located on Cook Road. (Approved by Finance Committee March 29, 2004) 24. Motion to approve waiver of property taxes in the amount of $305.64 on a parcel of land titled in the name of the Richmond County Land Bank Authority affecting property located at 120 Walker Street. (Approved by Finance Committee March 29, 2004) 25. Motion to approve waiver of property taxes in the amount of $820.49 on a parcel of land titled in the name of the Richmond County Land Bank Authority affecting property located at 2459 Sumac Drive. (Approved by Finance Committee March 29, 2004) 26. Motion to approve waiver of property taxes in the amount of $425.47 on a parcel of land titled in the name of the Richmond County Land Bank Authority affecting property located at 1617 Chestnut Street. (Approved by Finance Committee March 29, 2004) 27. Motion to approve Resolution for Budget Amendment regarding the flood buyout of six additional homes at 1933 Hopie Road, 1952 Rozella Road, 3101 Chelsea Drive, 2203 Dominion Court, 2205 Dominion Court, and 2207 Dominion Court. (Approved by Finance Committee March 29, 2004) 28. Motion to approve Public Official Liability coverage with Landmark Insurance Company. (Approved by Finance Committee March 29, 2004) 29. Deleted from the consent agenda. 30. Motion to approve 2005 Budget Calendar. (Approved by Finance Committee March 29, 2004) ENGINEERING SERVICES: 31. Deleted from the consent agenda. 32. Motion to approve to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 139, Parcel 11.6 which is owned by George H. Alapai, for a temporary easement for Project 50215 - Jamestown Sanitary Project, Phase 2 & 3. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 29, 2004) 33. Motion to approve to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 211, Parcel 16.4 which is owned by the Estate of J.O. Kaylor, for a temporary easement 12 on Project 10175 - Groundwater Treatment Plant #3 20” Water Main. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 29, 2004) 34. Motion to approve to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 194, Parcel 036.5 and Tax Map 194, Parcel 036.6 which are owned by C. Bryan Rice for temporary easements on Project 10175 -Groundwater Treatment Plant #3 20” Water Main. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 29, 2004) 35. Motion to approve to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 25-2, Parcel 114.01 which is owned by Brookside West, LLC, for an easement in connection with the Rae’s Creek Interceptor 6 Upgrade Project, more particularly described as 10,802 square feet, more or less, of permanent utility easement and 5,303 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 29, 2004) 36. Motion to approve to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 194, Parcel 035 which is owned by Robert L. Burton and Malachi Burton Jr. for temporary and permanent easements on Project 10175 – Groundwater Treatment Plant #3 20” Water Main . (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 29, 2004) 37. Motion to approve “Final Consent Decree” and payment of the sum of $63,000.00, the amount of the stipulated penalties, to fund a supplemental environmental project by the Southeastern Natural Sciences Academy, Inc. (Acct#506043310-5212123) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 29, 2004) 38. Motion to execute Relocation Agreement with the Georgia Power Company for utility relocations in conjunction with the Peach Orchard Road Project (CPB # 322-04-204822882) with estimated costs of $467,383 to be funded from the project utility account. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 29, 2004) 39. Motion to approve the abandonment of a portion of Katharine Street to Augusta State University with restrictions. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 29, 2004) 40. Motion to approve an Option for Easement between Donald E. Flanders, as owner, and Augusta, Georgia for the following property located at 2275 Broad Street for the purchase price of $12,805.00: 9,808 square feet, more or less, of permanent utility and maintenance easement and 4,359 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 29, 2004) 41. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 65; Parcel 036 which is owned by William V. Hunter for a temporary and permanent easement on Project 50130 – Butler Creek Collector/Belair Hills Estates. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 29, 2004) 42. Motion to abandon a portion of Deen Avenue. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 29, 2004) 43. Motion to authorize the execution by the Mayor of a quit claim deed conveying back to the property owner/developer those areas of Lund Street which are not incorporated into Devereux Drive. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 29, 2004) 13 44. Motion to abandon a portion of right-of-way between Sand Bar Ferry and Magnolia Avenue. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 29, 2004) 45. Motion to authorize execution of Lighting Agreement with the Georgia Department of Transportation for the St. Sebastian Way/Greene St./15th St. Project (CPB# 327-04-296812003). The estimated annual cost of $25,000 per year to cover operations and maintenance will be funded from Street Light Account No. 276041610/53.12310 once the millage rate is adjusted after the project is complete. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 29, 2004) 46. Motion to authorize execution of Lighting Agreement with the Georgia Department of Transportation for the Wrightsboro Road Project (CPB# 323-04- 296823309). The estimated annual cost of $45,000 per year to cover operations and maintenance will be funded from Street Light Account No. 276041610/53.12310 once the millage rate is adjusted after the project is complete. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 29, 2004) 47. Motion to authorize execution of Lighting Agreement with the Georgia Department of Transportation for Gordon Highway Median Barrier Project (CPB# 323-04-299823547). The estimated annual cost of $45,000 per year to cover operations and maintenance will be funded from Street Light Account No. 276041610/53.12310 once the millage rate is adjusted after the project is complete. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 29, 2004) 48. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget (CPB# 323-04- 20382272) Change Number One transferring $25,000 from Project Contingency to Engineering. Also authorize Public Works and Engineering to award an engineering services contract in the amount of $64,346.40 to Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, P.C. for the Point West Subdivision Drainage Improvements Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 29, 2004) PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 49. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held March 16, 2004. APPOINTMENT: 50. Motion to approve the appointment of Ms. Helen Blocker-Adams to the ARC/Citizens Minority Business Development Advisory Council and the reappointment of the following representing District 10. ? Annette Harlan – ARC Tree Commission ? Grier Bovard- Augusta Aviation –Bush Field ? Anna Avrett – Historic Preservation Commission ? Michael Courson – Animal Control Board Addendum Item 2. Consider resolution to approve the Mayor making application for grant monies from the Georgia Public Defender Standards Council. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of that motion, please vote with the usual sign. Ms. Beard out. 14 Motion carries 8-0. [Items 1-3, 5-6, 9-28, 30, 32-50, Addendum Item 2] Mr. Mayor:Mr. Boyles, you wanted to make a motion with respect All right. to item 58, that we refer that back to Engineering Services? 58. Consider request from Judge Herbert E. Kernaghan, Jr. regarding the Rae’s Creek Sewer Line. (No recommendation from Engineering Services Committee March 29, 2004) Mr. Boyles: I would, Mr. Mayor, and I’ll make that motion . I have discussed it with the Engineering Service Chairman, who is not present today, but I talked with him about it last night. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Grantham: Second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor then please vote with the usual sign. Ms. Beard out. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: We’ll begin moving now through the items pulled from the consent agenda, and we’ll start with item number 4, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: Item 4 is a companion item, item 8. Would you like me to read both of them? Mr. Mayor: Yes, we’ll do both together. The Clerk: 4. Motion to approve salary of $68,000 for Airport Finance Director. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 29, 2004) 8. Motion to approve salary of $68,000 for Airport Finance Director. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee March 29, 2004) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you asked this be pulled. Did you have a question? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. This came through Finance and I’m not opposed to this, but I think that we kind of got the horse in front of the cart, in one hand, and then we turn around and reverse it, put the cart in front of the horse. And if somebody from the airport or somebody from Finance may be able to, to help me out. I think this, this, this job went out for advertisement at a different pay scale than it is now. Is that right? 15 Mr. Boshears: The initial advertisement was advertised as a 53, but during the advertisement period we brought a whole list of positions to be reclassified, and it was reclassified to a 57 at about the same time as [inaudible] in November. Mr. Williams: How much, how much was the pay for that – at that point, how much was we advertising that grade level and that pay for? Cause it’s different from what it is now, I think, Buster. Mr. Boshears: Yes, sir, it was a 47, which was – I’m sorry, it was a 53, which was $47,260. Mr. Williams: And we changed that grade and brought it up to $68,000; is that right? Mr. Boshears: No, sir, brought it to $58,000. Mr. Williams: $58,000? Mr. Boshears: It’s now a salary grade 57. Mr. Williams: Okay, now it’s showing in the book $68,000 here. Mr. Boshears: That’s what I’m asking you all to approve, $68,000. But the entry level for 57 is $58,000. Mr. Williams: Well, I understand that we didn’t get very many applicants on it at the other rate. I’ve got no problem with the way it is, but I think it should be, it should be out to the general public for everybody to bid on. We don’t know what we may get or who we may get. I think – you said you had a qualified applicant in house, and I’m not opposed to that by no means. But I want to be fair to everyone else who’s out there that may be able to bid on this job. We don’t know what other expertise we may be able to, to draw in. And to send out at one yearly figure, then to change it, and then bring it straight in house, I don’t agree. I think that wrong, Mr. Mayor. I’d like – Mr. Boshears: The process that we went through, I had scheduled interviews in December. Well, the rate had changed because y’all classified it in November, but we had interviews scheduled in December when the interview process or the hiring process was stopped by the Aviation Commission. Mr. Williams: Okay, but did you not tell us in Finance that you didn’t get, you know, you didn’t get a good field of applicants to come in? Mr. Boshears: I had, I had applicants, yes, sir, but they were no longer available when the Aviation Commission again gave me approval to go through the hiring process. Half of the applicants that I had in the initial advertisement were no longer available. 16 Mr. Williams: Okay, but you – Mr. Boshears: And so, I made, I had indications that a qualified applicant within City government would be available, and so I made the decision to advertise within the government rather than outside the government. Mr. Williams: Okay, so what you’re saying is that you did advertise this outside, this same rate of pay, after it was changed? Mr. Boshears: No, sir. The initial advertisement last fall was at a pay grade 53. Mr. Williams: And, and, and, and that’s my point, Buster. I’m saying that, I’m thinking that it ought to be advertised at this pay grade, at this level, and not leaving the in house person out. I’m saying to at least look at what we may be able to get, before we just go out, and because I think we are going to have some slack from that, I think that’s going to be wrong to advertise it at one pay grade, then change that pay grade and not give the general public the opportunity to apply for it. We talk about being fair. I said that all the time. I mean being, give everybody a fair chance. Certainly I want our in house people to have the opportunity. And if they are the best qualified, I think that’s who y’all are going to select. But if y’all have not given the general public an opportunity to at least apply for it, then we may even get someone with more than, than we expect. That’s all, Mr. Mayor. I want to make a substitute motion that we send this back to let the Finance, let the airport go out for bids again on it and then bring it back to us. Mr. Colclough: I second that. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Boshears: The problem that I have with that – I mean I don’t have a problem with it, I’ll do whatever you tell me to do, but the position has been vacant since last September, and it will take, to go through the hiring process, it will take between three and four months to do that process to fill the position. We’re sort of in a – besides having spent a right good bit of money to have an outside Finance Director out there, we’re also coming up on the budget cycle and we’re in the process of starting the financial part of the – building a terminal, making financial arrangements for the terminal. And so it’s really pretty critical that we get somebody in that position as soon as I can. Mr. Williams: Mr. Boshears, I’m, I’m, I’d be surprised if you said anything different because it’s the history of this government. We get up against the wall. Mr. Boshears: Well, I’m not coming to you telling you this that you’ve got to do it now. I’ll do whatever you tell me to do. If you say advertise again, then I’ll advertise again. Mr. Williams: It’s appreciated. 17 Mr. Boshears: It’s going to be an expensive decision, is what I’m saying. Mr. Williams: I appreciate your comments and I take them to heart. What I’m saying is to you, I understand your position. This, this position been vacant for a long time. Now we up against the wall where we’ve got to do something with it and, and, and I think that’s unfair to not put it out for bids for everybody else. This should have been done in the beginning. If we going to change the grade or change the salary range, it should have been advertised at the truly salary range we want to hire people up under. We may have had some people within this government that’s already working there that would apply for it as well, that’s even more qualified than the person we’re looking at. All I’m saying is let’s be fair. Mr. Boshears: Yes, sir, we advertised. Mr. Mayor: I’ve let this go on long enough. Under the rules of the Commission, all comments are to be directed to the Mayor. Now I’ve let this exchange go on long enough and it’s getting a little redundant. Mr. Shepard, let me ask you a question. Now it’s my understanding that the Airport Commission is responsible for hiring the people who work on the staff out there, and is it appropriate for this Commission to reject something and send it back to be re-advertised or does the Commission simply make a judgment with respect to the salary, and it’s either going to approve the salary requested or not approve it? What authority does the Commission have, and I’m asking that to determine whether or not the motion that’s been made is in order to be enacted, whether we have the authority to do that. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, my opinion is that we have the authority to set the financials, but I had tasked – I had tasked my new associate, and I’d like to take a moment of personal privilege to introduce him. Mr. Belk. This is Lamont Belk, who is with my office now. He has specifically come over here for looking at that, to complete that. I would ask as a courtesy to the Commissioners, a courtesy from the Commissioners that he be allowed to do a little more work on that while this meeting proceeds. I won’t need to leave here that way. I’d ask you postpone it to the heels of the docket. Mr. Mayor: You want us to go on and table it then? Mr. Shepard: If you could table it, that would be perfect. Mr. Mayor: That, that’s the recommendation of the Attorney. We had a couple of Commissioners who wanted to be heard. Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] with the motion on the floor? Mr. Mayor: Well, the Chair is trying to get a ruling from the Parliamentarian whether the motion is in order, whether this Commission is empowered to authorize or 18 instruct the Airport Commission to re-advertise the position. That was the question from the Chair to the Parliamentarian. Mr. Shepard: And I – Mr. Mayor: And he says his associate needs to do a little bit more legal research before he can answer that question. Mr. Shepard: And my suggestion was, Mr. Mayor, that it be tabled, let him complete that, come back during this meeting, and I can then make a ruling on that motion. I think the motion, if made to table, would be in order. Mr. Colclough: To table is not debatable? Mr. Shepard: That’s correct. Mr. Mayor: But somebody’s got to make the motion to table. Mr. Mays: So move. Mr. Mayor: We’re continuing to debate until that’s made. It’s been made by Mr. Mays. Is there a second to that motion, a second to the motion to table? There’s no second. Mr. Williams: I’ll second it, Mr. Mayor. So we can get some clarification. I’m not trying to hold, I’m not trying to do anything but just be fair to, to everybody to have an opportunity to come [inaudible]. I’ll second Mr. Mays’ motion. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We have a motion to table. It’s non-debatable. All in favor of the motion to table, please vote in the affirmative. (Vote on motion to table) Mr. Boyles, Mr. Smith, Ms. Sims and Mr. Grantham vote No. Mr. Colclough abstains. Ms. Beard out. Motion fails 3-4-1. Mr. Mayor: All right. Let me just, let me just state that the Chair will reserve any judgment on whether to accept the motion pending the information I’ve requested from the Parliamentarian and as we wait on that information we will continue our discussion up here. Mr. Hankerson had his hand up and – Mr. Colclough: No, I was next. Mr. Mayor: You were next? 19 Mr. Colclough: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: All right, go ahead, Mr. Colclough. Mr. Colclough: My question is, my question is the same, if this position has been vacant for that long and it’s so critical, but yet still we went out at one rate for the public and then changed the salary grade and brought it in-house, I wouldn’t want to read the newspapers tomorrow to see what the newspaper is saying about this whole issue. I think the issue is if you’re going to change the grade position at the salary level, I think it should be re-advertised, and I’m not – if they have a discussion on the table now whether we have the authority to ask you to go out and re-advertise, but I think if this position is so critical, then I think we should approve the salary that it first went out at. And then you guys, whatever you want to do over at the Airport Authority, it y’all want to raise the salary that’s fine. But I don’t think, I’m not going to approve the salary rate changing it and you bring it in-house and hire somebody in-house. I’m all for promoting our folk, but the problem with that is that we did not do it, in my eyes, the correct way. Mr. Boshears: But we did re-advertise at the current salary. We advertised within the government. It’s my understanding that you can advertise to the general public or you can advertise within the government, or you can advertise within your department. Mr. Colclough; Yes, sir, but the fact, Mr. Boshears, the first time it went out it went out to the general public as a salary grade whatever it was. But no one, you said no one applied for it. Mr. Boshears: We had some good applicants, so I was confident [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Address your comments to the Chair. Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, he said they had good applicants, but the salary wasn’t correct. But then when the salary wasn’t correct – Mr. Boshears: I did not say that. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boshears, under the rules of the Commission, you need to address your comment to the Chair. Mr. Boshears: I’m sorry. Mr. Mayor: And the rules are written that way so we don’t get into these exchanges at the meetings. Mr. Colclough: That’s all I have. Mr. Hankerson can go ahead. Mr. Mayor: All right. 20 Mr. Boshears: Mr. Mayor, just to clear that up. The position was advertised as a 53, and we had applicants and we scheduled interviews as a 53. And then the decision was made. After a certain point that we did not have qualified applicants, because some of them were no longer available, it was re-advertised as a 57 and we’ve received applicants at a 57. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Grantham and then Mr. Hankerson. Mr. Grantham: I’m going to let Mr. Hankerson – he was ahead of me. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, my colleague. Mr. Mayor: Ten words or less, Mr. Hankerson. (Laughter) Mr. Hankerson: I’ll try to do that. Mr. Mayor, I have, the problem that I have is the same problem I had in committee. Is Ms. Brenda Pelaez here? Mr. Mayor: Is anyone from HR here? Mr. Hankerson: Okay. My problem is the position, the grade is 57, and it ranges from a minimum of $58,023 to a midpoint of $72,528. Midpoint is $72,000. So why are we changing the grade level from 57? Why are we doing that? Why are we not keeping the same grade level? Mr. Boshears: It’s my understanding that the reason we have – that salary grade runs from $58,000 at an entry level to $83,000 as the high point. And the reason you have a salary range is so that if you have someone who is more qualified than the minimum requirements that you advertise, that gives you the flexibility to hire a greater experienced person, and that’s what this person is. This person is an accounting – has a degree in accounting and is a CPA. Mr. Hankerson: What grade level are you asking for? What grade level is the $68,000? Mr. Boshears: It’s a 57. It’s a – pay range for a 57 goes from $58,000 to $83,000, and the midpoint is $72,000. Mr. Hankerson: I thought it was a 59 that we were asking for. Wasn’t you asking for a pay grade 59? 21 Mr. Boshears: No, sir, a pay grade 57 with a salary range of $58,023 to a high of $83,408. What I’m asking is you to approve a salary of $68,000 for this person because they are more experienced. Mr. Hankerson: I need some, I need some administrative – Mr. Mayor: The Administrator is prepared. Mr. Hankerson: -- opinion on this because my note that this $68,000, that this position was moving to a pay grade 59. Mr. Mayor: All right, the Administrator is ready to respond to that. Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, back in November when the airport brought their reclasses to you, included in that reclass was the Airport Director’s position. At that time, it was classed as a 53. And I can’t give you the salary range at this time, but it was significantly less than the class grade 57 that you approved. Today what you’re considering is that class grade 57, and since it’s greater than a 10% above the minimum, it has to be approved by the Commission. And that, that’s what you’re approving now, is that new salary level. So it is a class grade 57 with the beginning salary at $57,000 to $72,000 and the midpoint, and they’re requesting that you approve the salary at $68,000. Mr. Mayor: Does that answer your question, Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: Okay, I think the confusion with the 59 is in committee we discussed that the person that was being considered for the job was at a pay grade 59. Mr. Kolb: That is correct. Mr. Hankerson: And my question in committee was why would a person in a pay grade 59 request a job in a pay grade 57? Mr. Kolb: The, that is a personal decision by the employee considering the job. They’re looking at a higher – at a lower class grade, which is a lower salary range, but it would still be an increase in their current salary, because they are at the minimum step of the class grade 59. Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Is there anybody else who wanted to speak? Mr. Grantham: I do. Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Grantham. 22 Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I can understand some of the questions being raised in regards to the, to the hiring process, but what I want to do is applaud Mr. Boshears and the people out there for coming in-house and finding a very qualified person for this position, as they have so indicated. It appears with this grade of 57 that, that we are below the median range as far as salary is concerned. The price that, that they have asked for, and of course I’m sure they have researched their budget to make sure it can fit within that budget, that it is under that mid-range. So you know, I can, I can applaud them by looking in-house. I think that’s the first place for us to look pretty much in all cases. And I think if we’ve got the people working for this government, and they are qualified, then we ought to try to upgrade that situation regardless of what department that they’re going to, whether they’re transferring departments or whether they’re staying within that department. To me, that shows a sign of support and encouragement for the people that work for us. If we continue to go look outside and bring others in that have the same or similar qualifications, and I think that really shows that we’re not interested in our personnel. And to me, that, that’s where we should be looking first. And I would, I would hope that, that this Commission today can approve this, this hiring and approve this salary that’s being requested by the Airport Authority. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: I have one other question to ask. And I wish someone from, from Human Services was here. What’s the – on the candidate for the position, what kind of increase would this be for the person? I understand Mr. Grantham was talking about, it’s good to hire in-house and it’s good to hire our own people. What kind of increase from the current salary that they are now, to the position that they are going to? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb? Can you answer that, Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir. Their current salary is approximately $64,000. They would go to $68,000. $64,000 is very close to the minimum entry level of class grade 59. Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: All right. Gentlemen and ladies, I’ve conferred with the Parliamentarian, and he is of the opinion that I am that it is improper for this Commission to instruct the Airport Commission to re-advertise the position, that our role, consistent with our responsibilities and our relationship with the Airport Commission, is that this a reclassification of a position and the Commission is being asked to reclassify the position of Finance Officer, and we can either accept it or reject it. One of those two options. And so I’m going to rule that the motion that’s been made is out of order and the Chair 23 will certain welcome any motion that is consistent with the relationship we have, the legal relationship we have with the Airport Commission. Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham? Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, if the first motion that was on the floor is out of order, then I would like to make a motion that we approve the request of this item that is asked by the Airport Authority. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion for approval. Is there a second? Ms. Sims: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay. There’s a second. Mr. Williams, you have your hand up? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a substitute motion. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, you may. Mr. Williams: I would not debate my good friend and my attorney who tried to teach me the laws of government, Mr. Shepard, but I’d like to let Mr. Grantham know that I’m in support as well of employees within this government. But I’m looking at the way this was done. In my eyes, Don, I just disagree, that it came back in-house at a different pay rate than it was when it was out in the general public. So I’m going to make a substitute motion that we deny this – Mr. Mayor: Deny the reclassification? Mr. Williams: Deny this reclassification at this time, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Kolb: [inaudible] setting the salary? Mr. Mayor: Setting the salary? Mr. Williams: Okay, deny setting the salary. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. 24 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, go ahead. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I voted for the motion that – in fact, I made the motion that failed. I’m glad that, that the presiding officer in yourself and the Attorney jockeyed around the rules long enough to allow the Attorney to bring something here. Something that happened a minute ago that worries me just a little bit, and if, if, if my colleagues would take a little piece of free advice – this one won’t cost you anything by the hour. But I think it’s very important that – we can all vote the way we want to vote on a issue ultimately, but I think when you are in an open session and you’ve got an Attorney, to a certain extent, pleading with you to allow him or her time to get to a positive ruling so that you’re not setting yourself up to possibly be sued later on and end up costing you money. You all will be well wise to take that under consideration. It doesn’t deprive any of you of any vote to do, and that’s why I made the motion out of respect in order to do that. Now I voted for the motion in committee on Administrative Services. The $4,000 is the difference. I’m almost looking at this one like [inaudible] sometimes [inaudible] constitutional officer’s secretary. You can sent them to them all day long, and I learned this about 20 years ago, they going to eventually pick the person they want to pick anyway. I think when we were talking about and debating was the procedure and whether that had been followed. You did not have a presence of HR in here, you were left with the Attorney to make the decision. Now I think it was very raggedy – still allow you to vote for what you want to vote for – but to vote that down, if the Mayor had not given them some time by stretching the rules of this organization to a point to allow the Attorney to confer with his assistant, you could have been moving out into something that you’ll end up spending two hours that some of you complained about time in the back when Steve comes back and tells you two months later you’ve got something here you need to resolve. So I’m just issuing it to you. He’s going charge you by the hour to tell you that, but I’m going to give it to you for free. And I think you need to follow that sometimes. If the Attorney is asking you to the end of a meeting to let something happen, to give him a chance to do it, please take that, lady, gentlemen, regardless of your political persuasion, and your feelings about an issue. Allow that to happen. It could be less costly. And still get done what you want done. You’re going to get an opportunity to vote on the motion that’s on the floor that’s there. But I think you had a question here about procedure. The department head and nobody from that department was here in order to answer that. Your Attorney asked indirectly for time. You turned that down. That is not a good, smart move. And I can debate that one with y’all after hours if you want to. But I’m saying that for the record. I hope that if one Attorney begs you for that, to do it. At least let it be done, and then if you want to cut his legs out from under him on the vote that you take, it won’t be the first time I’ve disagreed with an Attorney before. You’ve got that right to do it. It’s still America. But if one asks you for that privilege to do that, I think it would be wise that you do it. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for handling the rules prudently and allowing us to be able to get to a legitimate vote. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Ms. Sims? Ms. Sims: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to say – can you hear me? 25 Mr. Mayor: Yes. Ms. Sims: I’d like to say thank you for correction. Well taken. And I stand corrected and I appreciate the information. Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion? We’ll move ahead with the vote on the substitute motion from Commissioner Williams, and that’s to deny the request from the Airport Commission. All in favor of that motion, please vote in the affirmative. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Boyles, Mr. Smith, Ms. Sims and Mr. Grantham vote No. Mr. Mays and Mr. Hankerson abstain. Motion fails 3-4-2. Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion, which is the motion to approve. Is there any discussion on the original motion? All in favor of the original motion, then vote with the usual sign. (Vote on original motion) Mr. Colclough votes No. Ms. Beard, Mr. Williams and Mr. Hankerson abstain. Motion fails 5-1-3. Mr. Mayor: And those votes will be recorded in the record, Madame Clerk, for items 4 and 8. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Same item. Mr. Boshears: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Boshears. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: If I might, so that in my old age so that I don’t forget it, could this be placed back on those particular committees so that the committee can be giving some instruction to the airport as to how we are going to move next with this, whether this is going to be – since no action was taken – somebody has to be hired and we either need to do the re-advertising or we need to bring it back and to do it, so I think it needs to be placed back on those committees, at our next committee session. 26 Mr. Mayor: It will be there, Mr. Mays. All right, the next item is item number 7, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: 7. Motion to approve revisions of current promotion policy. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee March 29, 2004) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you asked that one be pulled? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to – I was hoping HR would be here to at least share with us, with this body as to the revision, what we going do, or what’s been done. I don’t know if anybody here from HR or not. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, is there some reason why HR is not represented here today? Mr. Kolb: They’re on vacation this week. Mr. Mayor: The whole department is on vacation? Mr. Kolb: No. Mr. Mayor: There’s not – Mr. Kolb: I think – Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, Moses was here a few minutes ago and left, and I can speak to this item. This is one that I helped them write. Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes? Mr. Hankerson: Could we get somebody from that department in here? There’s enough people we pay – Directors, we got assistants, and we pay people to be here. Let them get somebody from that department to be here. No offense to you speaking, but that’s the second time we’ve asked for people from departments to be in here. We are here today and we want them here. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Russell. Mr. Williams: Amen on that. Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Administrator, could you get somebody down here? 27 (Phone rings) Mr. Mayor: Whose cell phone is that? Please turn off your cell phones in here. All right, go ahead, Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, what we’ve done is attempted to level the playing field in this particular item, in which it was requested by Commissioner Mays several weeks ago, probably a month or so ago at this particular point in time, that we level the playing field by being able to treat those internal candidates in a manner similar to those external candidates [inaudible] employment opportunities for people outside. As you well know, the Administrator had the capability on an outside candidate to offer up to 10% above the starting salary in an administrative manner for an outside candidate. He did not have that ability on an inside candidate. An inside candidate could only go to the minimum level or 15% above their current salary, whichever was the greater, which gave an outside candidate for a position an opportunity to come in at 10% above that, so you were actually favoring outside candidates at that particular point in time. What Commissioner Mays asked us to do was develop a policy and alter our policy that would change that. The policy that you have written in front of you would actually give the Administrator the ability to offer an internal candidate up to 10% above the starting salary similar to what would be outside. Anything above that would require your authorization, as it does now. The Commission itself has the ability to go above that 10% and would be able to offer anything above that to a competent candidate based on skills and abilities. This would also allow you, if the department head and the Administrator concurred, that an internal candidate should receive that additional [inaudible] for that particular position, that they, too, would be able to be nominated to receive above the 10%, but that would require Commission approval. So in effect, what you’ve done, or what’s done in this particular document is exactly what you’ve requested, is that we’ve leveled the playing field to where the external candidates are treated in a similar manner as internal candidates for particular positions. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, you wanted to add to this? Mr. Shepard: I would, Mr. Mayor. In your agenda book, apparently the illusive Section 5B did not, it didn’t get in my book – I hope it got in your book. But you can see exactly, after I pass the handout out, if you look at page 30, which is captioned 5B, salary administration, over on the right hand column, you see the present language, which was tracked in the item in the agenda book, but I just wanted you to know where it would go. And basically you are being requested to amend that section by adding a third subdivision which says up to 10% over the minimum for their new job grade as determined by the Administrator. I just wanted you to know where it would plug in to the document. Because 5B was not shown. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Mays is the one who brought this item to us, and I asked Mr. Mays if he was in agreement with what had been brought to us, and I’ll let Mr. Mays speak for himself. We’ll hear from Mr. Mays first and then we’ll hear from some of the others. Mr. Mays? 28 Mr. Mays: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Russell, for the, for the presentation. HR, as well as administrative staff, has worked on this for some time. I’ve said it in a, in a joking manner, but in a very serious vein that sometimes it was more beneficial for people who have worked for this government to actually quit their job, go and apply for another job, and they could get treated better than they would have it they’d been here for 20 years, doing the same job or the job step right under it. What this was an attempt to do, and if we – I’m hoping we can get it passed today – if there are still questions, I don’t have a problem if the Commissioners are uncomfortable with it, but it does not need to drift on as long as the current situation has drifted. This was an attempt to be able to offer to employees of this City who would see an opportunity to have upward mobility and apply for a job opening that would be there. They could be offered the same salary level that anyone coming from Des Moines, Iowa, Jackson, Mississippi, Seattle, Washington, they would all be on the same playing field of what could be offered to them. Now if the language in there, if some people need anything fine tuned, I think that the Attorney is more than willing to get it back. I wanted to get it out of, off of the back burner, because it’s something we’ve talked about for a long time. And it’s made me feel very bad to a point that we get ready to promote somebody else, we’ve lost good people from within the ranks. And this is not knocking people that we get from the outside. I think one of the beauties of diversities is you’ve got a city where people have grown up here and people who have come from other places. It’s no different for the employment workforce. But everybody ought to be offered at the same level. Current system penalizes you if you work for this City. You cannot go above a certain point. And the only thing that this is an attempt to do is to get us past that. There was a question that came up in committee in reference to raises past that point. Fred, I think what would be people be eligible for, say if they had been recently appointed to one of those jobs? And I think, Steve, there was some language that if it needed to be corrected on that part or if it’s anything from your end to be fine tuned, and I think, Mr. Mayor, that in the discussion period, if there’s something else that Commissioners may want tweak to a point to bring back if that’s a problem, in making the motion, I don’t have a problem with that. But I do think that whatever tweaking that y’all do, I’m going to beg y’all a little bit again. Tweak it out in two weeks, get it resolved. It’s one that existed since this new government was created. And it penalizes part of a 2700 member workforce I think to a bad degree. And let’s get an opportunity to correct it once and for all. And that’s what the language of this is trying to do. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Discussion? Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I agree 100% with Mr. Mays. We’ve been looking at this. He and I have talked about this I guess since before the creation of the new government. And it has always been a problem, it’s been a handicap to our existing employees. And I think what this committee has done now is finally resolved that problem, and I urge the Commission to go ahead today and let’s put this into effect. Mr. Mayor: Anyone else care to be heard? Mr. Williams, is your hand up? 29 Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I wanted some clarification. I pulled this just to get some clarification because of the situation we just got through talking about previously and not knowing what was what. To the Attorney, Mr. Shepard, Section B was not favorable to me and I just wanted to hear it, I wanted to know exactly what it was talking about. We, we, we say a lot of things and we pass a lot of things that don’t get to the floor and don’t -- end up not being what we thought it was being. So I wanted some clarification. I don’t think nobody on this board will fight this, this, this agenda item, but So I’m motion we go I did want it to be made plain so everyone can understand it. ahead and approve, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve. Is there a second? Ms. Sims: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Ms. Beard, you wanted to speak? Ms. Beard: Yes. I’m just curious, I’m wondering how long this pay scale has been in place. Mr. Russell: Ms. Beard, you adopted this pay scale about two years ago, I think. The scale itself was adopted right after I got here, I think, about 2-1/2 years. Ms. Beard: And did something like pay for performance, so that those who are doing the best work in a department, is offered more, say? In other words, all employees are sort of paid something different because of the pay for performance scale that we have? Mr. Mayor: I think Mr. Kolb wants to respond to that. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, in answer to your question, you do have on the books a pay for performance funded, but it’s never been funded. Ms. Beard: Oh, okay. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? All right, we have a motion to approve on the floor. All in favor, please vote with the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: The next item is 29, I believe, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: 29Motion to approve the abatement of penalty and interest for Map 40, Parcel . 47.05 for property of ATC Development Corporation. (Approved by Finance Committee March 29, 2004) 30 The Clerk: Mr. Williams, I don’t know if this is what you’re pulling for, that should read penalty only and not interest. Mr. Williams: Okay. The Clerk: So we need to correct that. Mr. Williams: That was my question, Madame Clerk. We got penalty and interest here and I was wondering whether that’s a new pattern or something we going start. Mr. Mayor: Is there a motion to abate the penalty only on this property? Mr. Williams: So move, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Sims: Second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor then please vote with the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: The next item is item number 31, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: I beg your pardon, sir? Mr. Mayor: 31 should be the next one. The Clerk: 31. Motion to approve execution of CSX Transportation, Inc. Pipeline Crossing Agreement No. CSX-046857. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 29, 2004) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I don’t have any problem with this, with this agenda item 31. I’ve got a question though, probably to Public Works or somebody. Did this pipeline, did this transportation pipeline agreement have anything to do with the other th crossing, it says crossing agreement? 13 Street is in horrible condition. [inaudible] I don’t know if this have anything to do, I see you are here now, but somebody need to th make note of the crossing at 13 Street. And it was an opportune time to bring that in. I wanted to make sure that somebody goes by. Those streets are still belonging to the City of Augusta. We, we addressed some in the south side of this town but that had, that’s deplorable. Here it is the, the – Mr. Boyles mentioned our guests in town and we got th people riding up and down 13 Street more than they going across MLK. But that’s, 31 that’s horrible. And I would hope that Public Works or somebody have something done, Mr. Mayor, and I just wanted to – Mr. Mayor: I see the Administrator writing that down right now. Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Mayor: I trust that will be addressed right after the meeting. Any questions on this agenda item? We need a motion to approve. Mr. Williams: So move. Mr. Mayor: We have that. Is there a second? Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion on the item? Mr. Hankerson, is your hand up? Mr. Hankerson: No. Mr. Mayor: Okay. All in favor of the motion please vote with the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: That’ll take us to our Planning Commission items. Madame Clerk, number 51. Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, could I make a comment? Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry? Mr. Grantham: Could I make a comment? Mr. Mayor: You want a moment of personal privilege? Mr. Grantham: Yes, if you don’t mind. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Grantham. Mr. Grantham: Just a moment of personal privilege. I’d like – I had listed in the consent agenda the appointments that I asked for for District 10, and I appreciate the support that I received from the Commissioners. But I think we have one or two of those people here today, and I’d just like to recognize them. Mr. Mayor: Please go ahead. 32 Mr. Grantham: I think that’s very important, and if Ms. Helen Blocker Adams, would you please stand? She has, she has served so very capably in her position out there with Augusta Tech and what she does for minority business and for the small business in this community, and I just, I wanted to appoint her to this position. I think it’s a very important one and just to let her know how much we appreciate her efforts and the work she’s doing. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Grantham: I don’t recognize any of the others, and if they are, I wish you’d please raise your hand. But thank you very much for y’all’s support. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Grantham. All right, Madame Clerk, if you’ll read the caption for item 51, please. The Clerk: PLANNING: 51. Z-04-28 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) a minimum 50 foot setback that is an undisturbed natural buffer on the south and west sides that meets the requirements of the Augusta-Richmond County Tree Ordinance; 2) a minimum 50 foot building setback on the north side; and 3) emergency access only to Ashford Drive, protected by bollards or a gate; and prohibit construction access from Ashford Dr; a petition by Tice Brashear requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1B (One-family Residential) to Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residential) affecting property located at 3146 ½ Wrightsboro Road and containing 5.38 acres. (Tax Map 42-4 Parcel 14) (Deferred from the March 16, 2004 meeting) Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: Item 51 is the item that we discussed in our last meeting, where I was asked, I said I would go and speak with Augusta State University staff concerning this because I had no knowledge of the information or the project at that particular time, and understanding is the best thing in the world when you can give people a direct answer when they ask you. Since then, I’ve met with Augusta State University and the meeting was very good. After I got an understanding, I’ve had individuals to call me from the Valley Park Neighborhood Association, was very concerned about it, the mailman was concerned and the postmaster. I’ve been stopped, asking questions about what was going on. So I was able to answer them and I’m happy about that so we wasn’t too swift to go ahead and pass something that people did not have an understanding. Today we have a delegation here from Valley Park. I met with them earlier this week and they have – last 33 week, rather, last Thursday I think it was. And they are here today and I know we have – Augusta State is here, also. And they have some concerns, some questions, a couple of questions that they’d like to ask or some requests that they’d like to ask, and I think that if the project will move along pretty well after I was able to explain to them and they did release me from the meeting without crucifying me before Good Friday. So they are here and I’d like for you to ask Augusta College to present it again and then – Mr. Mayor: Well, we had it presented it once before. Why don’t we do this? Mr. Hankerson: I’ll state the concerns. Mr. Mayor: Why don’t we see what the concerns are from the neighborhood and let Augusta College respond to that and see if we can, we where we are with this thing. Let’s – Mr. Hankerson: Okay, I can do that or we have a spokesman who can come forward to do that. Mr. Mayor: Do we have a spokesman from the neighborhood? Mr. Hankerson: Yes. Ms. Maison. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Hankerson: Ms. Maison. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Ms. Maison, if you’ll come forward, please, and give us your name and address for the record. And if you would pull the microphone down and speak into it, so everyone can hear you, please. Ms. Maison: My name is Irene Maison. I reside at 3156 River Oak Road in Valley Park. After meeting with the Neighborhood Association, we came up with some requests regarding about planning for the new apartments that were to make an impact on our community. First of all, when you look at your planning plan here, you’ll see two things that we would want modified or changed. As we look down 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 lines we’ll see that it states in number 2 a minimum 50’ building setback on the north side and 3, emergency access only to Ashford Drive, protected by bollards or gate. Our request is that a gate be placed there with that emergency exit. That’s our request number 1. Our request number 2 is going back to number 1, a minimum 50’ setback by this undisturbed natural buffer on the south side and west side that meets the requirements of the Augusta Richmond County tree ordinances. Our request is that in addition to the tree setback, that with the property that ends with Valley Park, that a fence be placed there between Valley Park and the tree ordinance that makes the division between our community of Valley Park and the apartments. Those are the two requests we would like to have concerned. 34 Mr. Mayor: All right. Ms. Maison, before you sit down, let me ask you this. If the college is willing to agree to these two stipulations, in addition to what the Planning Commission has put in here, then the neighborhood has no objection to the request, is that correct? Ms. Maison: If these two requests are agreed, we have no objection to going forward with the project as planned. Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a representative – Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: -- from Augusta State here today? All right. Dr. Hamrick, if you’ll come to the microphone and give us your name and address for the record, and then you could respond to the neighborhood, if you would. Ms. Hamrick: I’m Kathy Hamrick, Coordinator of Planning at Augusta State University. I reside at 4 Summerville Lane, Augusta, Georgia 30909. And we’re fine with both of those. In fact, we have a gate planned and we have a 6’ vinyl coated chain link fence planned for the whole – if we don’t have a gate, we may just have a fence. But no problem, it won’t be bollards, it will be a gate. It’s already in the plans. And I look forward to meeting with your Association and showing you more as the plans, develop, too. We want to be good neighbors. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, it looks like we have the Easter agreement here. Mr. Hankerson: Yes, that’s right. Cause Friday is coming. I think that they discussed a board fence. Is that what I’m getting, for clarity here, cause I – Ms. Hamrick: Okay, that’s the only thing that we – Mr. Hankerson: Right. Ms. Hamrick: We have the vinyl, you know, the vinyl coated chain link, like a chain link but it’s vinyl coated so you never need to paint it, and that’s all the project can bear right now. We couldn’t do the fence [inaudible]. Cause we’ve got not just that property, we also have the 23 acres that we’re buying for the Bowles property where the housing will be. Total enclosure. It’s going to be fenced and gated. We will not even – we’re not 100% sure we have to have an emergency exit, and if we don’t we won’t. We’ll even actually just fence that off. Ms. Maison: We’re just asking that if there an emergency exit there – Ms. Hamrick: It will have a gate. Ms. Maison: -- that you will have a gate. 35 Ms. Hamrick: A locked gate. Ms. Maison: Yes, a locked gate, please. Ms. Hamrick: We don’t want to turn those students loose on your neighborhood. Mr. Mayor: But you want the fire truck to be able to get in if it needs to. Ms. Hamrick: That’s why – if we have an exit just for a fire truck or emergency vehicle or something, and I’m not sure if we have to have that. If we do, you know, depending on how far down the development comes. Our engineers are checking on that now. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: I think Mr. White was – Mr. White: One question. Mr. Mayor: All right, sir, if you’d come forward and give us your name and address for the record, please, and then go ahead with your question. Mr. White: My name is Kenneth White. I live at – Mr. Mayor: Please ask your question of the Chair. Mr. White: Yes, sir. My question is – at the entrances to that area, what entrances will we have? I’m not sure. Ms. Hamrick: The main entrance will be off Damascus Road. We’ve already discussed – in fact, the City has given us a letter of intent for an easement. It will be on Damascus Road where the students can get out and go up to the red light. There might be a second entrance, I believe it’s called Hiers Street, which is by the shopping center. Mr. Mayor: That’s correct. Ms. Hamrick: Is that correct? Hiers Street. We’re not sure whether that will be exit only or you know with the main entrance or what, but it will not be anywhere close to your subdivision. Mr. White: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Hankerson? 36 Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, I want to make sure that it’s an understanding with the meeting that I had that the community is clear. I think their request was a board fence a certain height; is that right? Ms. Maison: Yes. Mr. Hankerson: That’s not exactly what Ms. Hamrick is saying. Ms. Hamrick: We’re talking about a chain link vinyl coated fence. Six feet. It looks like a chain link fence except it will be a color and you don’t ever have to paint it and it won’t rust. I’m just going on what my developer has told me. Mr. Mayor: Is it the cost of the fence? Mr. Hamrick: The board fence would be about five times as much, yes. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: We need to come together on that now. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, would you like to make a motion to table this and give them a chance to go confer and then bring this back up later in the meeting? Ms. Sims? Ms. Sims: Let me, let me be clear on one thing. The fence, the chain link fence, is behind the buffer that you are planting also; is that correct? There’s a fence and trees? Ms. Hamrick: There will be a fence and then the buffer. Ms. Sims: And then the buffer? So really the fence is just to protect them, you probably won’t even see it by the time the trees – Ms. Hamrick: Well, there will be the fence and then the buffer. And again, safety is such an issue for our students. That’s why we’re – Ms. Sims: That’s why you’re – Ms. Hamrick: It will be fenced and gates, the entire community will. Ms. Sims: And it will be attractive from the way they’re looking at it? Ms. Hamrick: They’ll be attractive from their. It’s not board, but it will be attractive. Mr. Mayor: Which side of the buffer is the fence going to be on? 37 Ms. Hamrick: It’s on the outside. The fence will be almost on the property line. Mr. Mayor: So the fence will be on their side of the buffer? When they look at it, they’ll see the fence – Ms. Hamrick: Yes. They’ll see fence. Mr. Mayor: -- and then the buffer – Ms. Hamrick: But the fence is going to be – I’m not sure whether they’re going to do it black or green, you know, where it will blend in, then they’ll see buffer. They won’t see much that they’re not seeing now. In fact, a good bit of it, I think is already fence. We are going to be replacing that. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, you want to – Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, I’d like for the delegation from Valley Park to stand, and then I also would like for us to lay it on the table and have just a few minutes to explain the fence situation here and I think that we can come back and come to a resolve of this. Mr. Mayor: You’d like the Valley Park people to stand? Mr. Hankerson: Yes. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: So you want to make a motion to table, give them a chance to talk and then we can bring it back up? Mr. Hankerson: I move we table it and for me to discuss this with them. Mr. Grantham: Second Mr. Mayor: Is there any discussion – well, there is no discussion on the motion. All in favor of the motion to table, please vote with the usual sight. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: You want to get Mr. Patty to facilitate that, or are you going to do that, Mr. Hankerson? Okay. Okay, Madame Clerk, we have a zoning item on the addendum agenda, item number 1. So why don’t we take that one up next? The Clerk: Addendum Item 1. Z-04-23 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Eric Melchoir requesting a Special Exception to establish an inert fill area as a reclamation 38 objective for an active surface mine per Section 26-1(o) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta Richmond County affecting property located at 3902 New Karleen Road and containing approximately 37 acres. (Tax Map 139 Parcel 277.3 and Tax Map 151 Parcel 10.1) DISTRICT 8 Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Do you want to hear the background information from Mr. Patty first, and then we’ll get into discussion? Mr. Patty? Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. Mr. Cheek had some reservations about this when it came up before, and so I believe Mr. Colclough and some folks from the neighborhood and the petitioner met and I have in my hand a conditions that they, I believe, mutually agree on, and I just read those to you. Mr. Mayor: Read those into the record, if you would. Mr. Patty: Yeah, read them into the record. First, that the fill would consist only of inert materials, defined as follows: stumps, limbs, leaves, yard trimmings, concrete, cured asphalt, rocks and bricks. Second, that there would be established a noise barrier and reduced site visibility at the rear of the Yellowwood cul-de-sac. Also, that a dirt berm with trees would be provided at that location. Maintain strict operating hours. Non-intrusive to the surrounding neighborhoods. And those would be, I guess – somebody correct me if I’m wrong – but hours would be limited to Wednesdays. I’m sorry, that’s weekdays. Weekdays 8 to 5, and Saturdays 9 to 2. Permit random, anytime non-intrusive site only inspections by community residents. Maintain a working retention pond at a lower grade level at the site. Strictly comply with all local state and federal regulations. Plant trees on the site. And final, lift requirements are met. Declare fill area a greenspace, fence around the retention pond, and no residential development. And I concur with the neighborhood folks. And that would only apply to the area that was used for the fill, not the remainder of the tract that had never been used for fill. Mr. Mayor: All right. Is the petitioner here today? Do you have any problems with those stipulations from the Planning Commission? Mr. Melchoir: No, sir. Mr. Mayor: You don’t? Mr. Melchoir: No, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Are the objectors here today? You want to come forward and give us your name and address for the record, and I’ll ask you the same question. Are those stipulations acceptable to you? 39 Mr. Syster: Mr. Mayor and Commission, Sammy Syster, 839 Crest Drive, Sand Ridge Community Association. In reference to the request, at this point, we are not – we were objectors originally, but we are not objectors now, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners. But what we want to say to the Commission, to you and the Commission, is that the situation that we have, that we address here with the help our Commissioners, it is a win- win situation for the community and the neighborhoods. We did – we don’t object to businesses, but we do ask that businesses work with the neighborhoods. And if this situation of being inert fill, as the initial word was landfill, yes, there was quite a bit of objection to it, but if these requests that we made that Mr. Patty have read off are established within Mr. Melchior’s permit and they are enforced, and one particular importance to us is the fact of being a green space. Now I don’t know if five years from now, by the time it takes that inert fill to be complete, will this Commission be the same. So I would ask that today we also note for the record, however, we can do that, that the Commission adopt that as a green space now and we don’t have to come back and do that at the end of the final fill period. And Mr. Melchoir and the community, we met, and we are working together with this, we are supporting him, but we also expect that the things we ask for that have been agreed to, that they don’t fall by the wayside further down the road, particularly the green space. So I would ask that in some way, shape, form or fashion, as these things are incorporated into that, that the green space also be done as particularly as possible today. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: I was just going to make sure that Mr. Syster, we met with the community and I just wanted to make sure that those requirements were read into the record. Mr. Mayor: All right. Would you like to make the motion? Mr. Colclough: I make a motion that we go ahead and approve the item as read and as the stipulations placed on the agenda. Mr. Grantham: Second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion on the item? Yes, Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, isn’t it amazing what happens when people sit down and talk to each other? Mr. Mayor: All right, anybody else want to talk? All in favor of the motion then to approve with the stipulations, please vote with the usual sign. Mr. Hankerson out. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Syster: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, thank you. 40 Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, the next item, Madame Clerk, is item number 53. The Clerk: PUBLIC SERVICES: 53. Discussion: A request by Bethany R. Johnson for a Therapeutic Massage license to be used in connection with Paradise Island Day Spa located at 210-F Robert C. Daniel Parkway. District 3. Super 10 District 10. (No recommendation from Public Services Committee March 29, 2004) Mr. Mayor: We need to get it open for Masters. (Laughter) Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Ms. Johnson: My name is Bethany R. Johnson. I live at 2232 Peach Orchard Road, Augusta, Georgia. Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion? Mr. Colclough: So move, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Sims: I second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor then please vote with the usual sign. Mr. Mays and Mr. Hankerson out. Motion carries 7-0. Mr. Mayor: Next is item number 54. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 54. Motion to approve the Delineation of Responsibility Subcommittee (DOR) recommendations of ten Goals and Objectives for the Administrator. (No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee March 29, 2004) Mr. Williams: So move. Mr. Mayor: Motion. Is there a second? Mr. Grantham: Second. 41 Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor then please vote in the affirmative. Mr. Mays and Mr. Hankerson out. Motion carries 7-0. Mr. Mayor: Next item is number 55. The Clerk: 55. Motion to authorize the DOR subcommittee to meet in October to develop grading tool to measure performance against the goals. (No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee March 29, 2004) Mr. Williams: So move. Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? All in favor then please vote in the affirmative. Everybody stopped talking. (Laughter) Mr. Grantham: Mr. Williams has got somewhere to go at five o’clock. (Laughter) Mr. Mays and Mr. Hankerson out. Motion carries 7-0. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, I’m sure, has got some comments on 56. So let’s, if we could, jump over to 57. We’ll wait for him to come back onto Chambers. The Clerk: ENGINEERING SERVICES: 57. Ratification of contract with Heery, Inc. for program management services. (No recommendation from Engineering Services Committee March 29, 2004) Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, I hate to be beating what sounds like a dead horse here, but we were asked back in February to submit some questions. I finally this week received replies to some of the questions I asked, but not all of the questions, and some of the answers are begging additional questions, and then it was only this afternoon about 15 minutes before this meeting that I was presented with what’s been identified as an alternative contract, and I still don’t know whether I have a copy of a negotiated contract with Heery or simply have a document they have submitted to us to approve. And I 42 would ask for the Commission to defer action on this until the next meeting so we have more time to pursue these, these issues. That would be my request today. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I see that the, the, the contractor that we trying to contract with is here. While they here, I’d like to hear something from them. I received a copy in the mail the other day. I had not had time to look at it. I had some question with the original contract until I’ve asked some questions and I’ve got some, some answers to those questions. Maybe, maybe the Attorney can tell me. What’s the difference between the new revised edition versus the old one? I did look at the old one but I don’t know very much about the new one. Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Mayor, if I could, members of the Commission – Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Williams, I had the, I had the same take on the contract. I asked the construction contracts specialist in my practice to, to work on this, and I said how basically should I characterize the difference between the two contracts? And I think to use, to use your phraseology, Mr. Williams, the first contract is more of a contract of a manager, whereas the second contract is more of a contract of an administrator or a consultant. And some of the key differences in the contract are found in section 4.3.2 within the new contract, which indicates that program manager and program manager’s personnel have no authority to exercise any control over any construction contractor or other entity or their employees in connection with their work or any health or safety precautions and have no duties for inspecting, noting, observing, correcting or reporting on health or safety deficiencies of construction contractors or any entity other than persons at the site except program manager’s own personnel. So the, the authority of the program manager is more sweeping in the first contract. It gives you points at which you work to and then there are sub points of, where notices to proceed are issued. The contract was basically – the contracting process was begun back a year, almost a year ago. Yeah, a year ago this month, in which a request for proposal was sent out from Purchasing and I’m looking at actually addendum number 1. There was a meeting and the contract was, was worked up in, as best I know, from a RFP, which it issued. And so the first contract conforms – it’s basically where was it negotiated? It was negotiated based on not their form but more our RFP. And so that’s, that’s how it got started. And I understand that the Administrator and others had a hand in putting that RFP together, so it carried over from that time in the fall. Recently there was some dissatisfaction among the members of the Commission which went to whether or not specific subcontractors would be used. The second contract has eliminated that. The – I think the Administrator can speak more to those entities that Heery proposed to use, and like I say they are now absent from the contract. But basically from the RFP to the contract, it’s, it’s a form of what’s called a cost plus contract. And it, it, it is developed not so much by Heery or us, my office, as it was an attempt to follow the RFP that had been done in October. So that, like I say if you want to hire a manager with more authority over the sub-levels of the project, then you authorize us to – either if you like it now or if you want it further tweaked, you authorize us to focus on what I call the agency 43 or manager’s contract. If you want a contract that is more of a consulting nature, then the alternative is the one to follow. And we basically took precedent from our own contract with CH2MHill to get where we are with these two alternatives. I attempted to get it to you, I think yesterday everybody got their contract. My apology, Mr. Mayor, I know you did not. And the, the idea was to get it out ahead of this meeting. If you have any further questions – I don’t know anybody that can anticipate all the questions from the board, but basically we tried to anticipate some, and I have Don Green here, who can speak to that. I note that both contracts can be terminated for convenience. In the first contract, it’s section 11.1. Either party for its convenience may terminate this agreement after 60 days with notice to the other party. That same, that same language appears over in the revised contract. So while I am, what I am doing is I am seeking direction, any further direction from the Commission. I think either will get the job done, though. The question is do you want a manager or do you want a consultant that’s going to be reporting back more often? That’s it in a nutshell. If you want me to, if you want to look at specific paragraphs, I’ll be happy to do that. If you want more time, Mr. Mayor, I don’t, I don’t oppose that. But the idea was to try to get out something ahead of this meeting, ahead of the agenda book, and let you, let you shoot at it. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, what I think what my question would be is was the contract done by the RFP? I mean I think what we sent out is the first contract or the second contract, the revised section, what’s – because if you tell me you want a light bulb I’m going, I’m going, I’m not going to bring you a candle, I’m going to bring you a light bulb. I mean I need to know is, is, is that right? I know the firm is here, and I’d like to hear something from them, too, I guess, to see. We been dancing around this thing for a long time, Steve, like you said. It’s almost how long now? Mr. Shepard: Well, it’s – I have one memorandum here that there was an addendum issued in April, 2003 to send this out for bid. Now, of course, a submission from this group did not come in until October. Mr. Williams: Okay. Well, I don’t want to get into who’s, who’s on first and who’s on second. I just want to know now how can we get a home run, how we can get this thing going? If the RFP was put out in such a way that they responded to it correctly or incorrectly, that’s, I guess that be my question. Mr. Mayor, can we hear from them, the manager? Mr. Mayor: Well, see, my confusion is that this, this alternative proposal is not in the same format as the original, so the questions I had, I cannot track by paragraph number in what was, what’s submitted to us today. There are some very specific questions I have about this, that we have delegated to a department head complete control over the scope of a project. Now, Mr. Williams, if you had heard that a department head had changed the scope of a $50 million or $60 million or $70 million construction project, you’d be the first one to go through the roof here. Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. Yes, sir, you know that. 44 Mr. Mayor: Those are the type questions and concerns that I have. I don’t know whether those are in the alternative or not. I just got it before the meeting and haven’t taken a look at it. Clearly, it’s the decision of six of these Commissioners, whether you want to move forward today. I would caution you, take the time to look at the alternative proposal that’s been submitted and make sure that it does what you want it to do. Likewise, there’s a fee being paid to a subcontractor in the original who is going to promote local and minority business participation in the projects. We’re creating a position in this government, a fulltime position to do that. Why should we pay twice for that same work? That’s – those are some of the questions and concerns that I have and I don’t know whether they’re addressed in the alternative presented today. Maybe y’all know the answer and y’all could enlighten me today. Mr. Williams: I’m like you, Mr. Mayor. I’m, I’m, I want to get this moving but I want to move it in the right direction. Mr. Mayor: And further, I understand that we’ve already engaged the services of this company, that they’re working for us now. They’re working for us without a contract. That’s what I understand. Already on the job. Mr. Williams: I know you been misunderstood plenty of times, so I think this might be one of those, too. I don’t think they already working. The Administrator probably can answer that, though, whether they – Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, is this firm doing work for us, are they being compensated for work? Mr. Kolb: Yes, under a purchase order agreement within – under the $10,000 limit, yes, they are doing some work for us. Mr. Williams: But not on a contract agreement, just purchase – Mr. Kolb: That’s correct. Mr. Mayor: At the rates that are in this contract? Mr. Kolb: Yes. Mr. Mayor: That’s my concern, Mr. Williams. I’m willing – I’m just asking for two weeks so we can get the answers to these questions. If y’all want to move ahead today, make the motion and pass it. Mr. Williams: Now I know somebody else interested, too. I ain’t the only one missed this thing. Somebody else. Mr. Mayor, got to have – Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham? 45 Mr. Grantham: I’m going to help you of this one, Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, help me. Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, I think that we can, we can give our Attorney some applause because he did bring something to us before they asked us to approve it at the last minute. And I appreciate the idea that, I appreciate that he has given us this opportunity as a option from the original and the alternative. Like yourself, and of course this is something I think has been in the works prior to our, prior to my becoming involved, up until February or when it was presented. But I would like to ask that this be deferred back to committee and we take this up and bring back a recommendation for our next meeting, and I’ll put that in the form of a motion. Mr. Colclough: I’ll second it. Mr. Mayor: Second to the motion. Any further discussion? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. If we take this to committee, are we going to bring this back to the floor, then go back to committee with it? If we take it to committee, Don, can we get – I mean I think – Mr. Grantham: We need an answer, yes. Mr. Williams: That’s right. I think we either make a decision one way or the other and not be dancing back and forth with this thing. It’s long past time. Mr. Mayor: You want to make a substitute motion to approve it? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I make a substitute motion that we take this to committee and get an answer out of committee and bring it, have it back. I’d like to see, I’d like to talk to the Attorney some more. I don’t want to put them in a box, and I certainly don’t want to put the City in a box. So, but I don’t want it go back to committee and then we don’t come up with nothing. And we, we got them hanging out again. Mr. Grantham: If you want to amend the motion, then I’ll accept it. Mr. Williams: Okay, I’ll amend mine. Mr. Grantham: I’ll be glad to accept it Mr. Mayor, but let me make a comment on that. Because from what I just heard, they are working under purchase order so we are not really delaying any action or any activities that need to take place. Mr. Kolb: Yes. Mr. Grantham: So all we need to do is make sure that we put the contract in force in due time. And due time will be at our next Commission meeting. 46 Mr. Williams: I think the Administrator is nodding his head that we – Mr. Kolb: The contract limits them up to $10,000. That’s it. Mr. Mayor: How much have they spent out – Mr. Kolb: I’m sorry, the purchase order limits them to $10,000. Mr. Mayor: How much have you spent, how much have you spent out of the $10,000 then? Mr. Kolb: I don’t know. Well, if you can speak to that. We’re only allowed to pay up to $10,000 on that. That purchase order is only for $10,000. Well – Mr. Mayor: Well, how much have you spend? Mr. Kolb: I have not seen them bill, but it will only be up to $10,000 per the two purchase orders. Mr. Mayor: All the motion does is push it to committee and then back here in two weeks. Mr. Kolb: That’s correct. Mr. Mayor: Do you need to spend $10,000 more in two weeks? Mr. Kolb: He’s saying yes. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Kolb: It’s up to the Commission. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, is this the same contract or same proposal that we were presented last year? I don’t remember which committee it was, but it was – Mr. Kolb: Engineering Services. Mr. Boyles: Engineering Services last year. And how many times has this been on Engineering Services agenda and how many times has it been sent back and come in here and sent back? Maybe we ought to have a work session just to discuss this contract, apparently, because it just seems, like Mr. Williams says, just bounces from one to the other. I mean there needs to be – if they’re already doing work, there’s apparently work 47 that needs to be done, so we need some sort of resolution to it. Seems like every time it gets bounced back to Engineering Services and it comes back in here. Mr. Mayor: Well, if you’re comfortable with the contract, and all your questions have been answered, then make a motion to approve it. You don’t need to bounce it anywhere. Mr. Boyles: No, no, that’s not what I said. We just need to come to some degree of understanding as to which, which committee and how do we want to handle it. If it goes back to E. Services, it’s been there how many times? How many times has it been on that agenda? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, maybe – Mr. Mayor: It came forward with no recommendation. Mr. Boyles: True. But it’s been in there before. It came in here and went back. Mr. Williams: Maybe we can get some resolution from the, from the program manager that’s here, the group that we trying to do business with. Maybe we can get some things aired out today and get it cleared out. And then if we have to go back to committee, we know what we need to do. If, if, if, if, if there is some, some ill feelings or some things they don’t agree with, but if we go back there and talk and not talk with them, we may come out with something or they may come up with something we still don’t understand, we going to be back and forth. So since we got somebody from the firm, Mr. Mayor, at the, at the podium, let’s, let’s get, let’s ask our question direct and let’s be clear about it. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard, you had your hand up? Ms. Beard: Oh, I was just saying like you, I notice I had that information as I was leaving today, so I would like the opportunity to review it. The new information that was sent by the lawyer. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, if I may speak. In answer to Mr. Boyles’ question about how many times, the first time we gave you a contract at the Engineering Services Committee and we requested that you review them and give us questions that we could give to the Attorney for negotiating purposes for clarification, whatever. That was done by some of you, and it resulted in us looking at the contract from a different perspective. So the first contract that you have, the program manager one, you have already reviewed. It’s the second contract, the alternative, that you’ve got that you need to look at that may change the relationship between Augusta and Heery. And I would, I would recommend that you do table it until next Engineering Services, talk it through, discuss it with 48 representatives from Heery, and then you – I that you would be prepared to vote on it at your next meeting. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, and pardon me for, for going out. My lunch wasn’t too agreeable. Let me, let me, let me ask us to do, to do one thing. This gets back to something I said in the opening, and in reference to transition and of moving throughout this. Now this has been, as Commissioner Boyles would state, I think probably we may have been on Engineering together at that time when we started this thing. And so committees changed the first of the year, but more importantly, we changed again in the transition of what we were dealing with legal, in terms of a major contract. I think to bring it back to committee is not going to get you where you really need to go. I think it can go there as a formality, yes, but I think in between that time, I think interested parties, and interested parties should be all of us, there needs to be some discussion and if, if you want to have a meeting or meetings, per se, that as long as they are legal about a legal question, and they can be even in open workshop deal and to deal with contract. I think we need to go ahead and ask the questions. If there is an alternative proposal from our Attorney’s side of the fence, we need to go ahead and move to get where if there is a difference or a perceived difference existing, we need to move past that and say this is as far as the City’s going, this is not where we’re going, and put that out and doing it. Cause what I see happening here is that they’ve gotten familiar with our time frame, they come and they [inaudible] Engineering Services on the end of the day, it started before some of y’all got here, they usually were with us in the building when we left at dark and we all moved on home together. And to keep going in that framework is not settling the contract. I think somewhere in there, those issues need to be brought thoroughly to Steve’s table. I had a couple of questions that the Administrator and I talked about, and the questions that I had were answered. Probably was in one question. It resolved what I had a, a, a potential problem with, needed clarification. That was what I thought we were supposed to do a few weeks ago. Those of us who had – whether we had ten items, two items or no items. If we needed clarification, ask it and then let’s get to a point. But if this is only going to flip us back to committee with no dialog with the Attorney and with the company in between, that’s only going to get us back to four people again making a decision. The rest of us that’s there again probably at the end of a committee day, that’s not going to get us to a concrete answer. Second thing that I think is most important, and I don’t want to get off track, Mr. Mayor, with this contract, but I think that in fairness, and I hope, Steve, I’m not, I’m not trying to put any words in your mouth in here, but if we’ve got as much going on in transition as we have, I think that we’re going to have to decide, ladies and gentlemen, how we are going to play catch-up one way or another in this deal. I don’t want to be here until the 11 o’clock news comes on, either. I’m might, I might be, I might be 53, but I’m still single, it’s something else I’d rather do other than to sit here. You know, I love the City, but I don’t want to sit here with y’all all night, either. I think it’s, I think in there we need to make up our minds whether we need to have and split a couple of days of just all the legal stuff that’s on the table, work for one to two days, and allow – if we decide to get tired, do it maybe like we do it at budget, Steve, so okay, fine, we’ve gotten 15 of these 20 items out of the way. Some of it may even be to a 49 point that it doesn’t even have to be in legal session. They are just items that need to be right now discussed with the Attorney in a major transition. And I think we’re getting into a part where it’s getting to be a little bit of disservice to all of us, to him, to the Commission, and most importantly to the citizens, that if by the time we get in there and we are trying to decide whether or not what time is it to go home, we need to do it, maybe we need to take everything off here from legal, allow him a day or two period to say okay, fine, let’s catch up. It may mean that everybody will not be here, all ten folks or 11 folks. But I think if it takes three days to take care of the City’s business and to deal with it so that everybody’s got an understanding, we owe that. Because when you don’t make a transition for 30 years and we’re facing this now, that’s no, that’s no disrespect on my good, old friend Bob Daniel’s firm and Jim Wall, none on the colleague I work with now. But when everything now is coming to a head on contracts, lawsuits, making decisions, it’s not in his lap to decide whether he gives the proper advice. I don’t care who has been handling it for the last 4 or years. So I think we’ve got a larger problem than just this contract. We’ve got one where we are going to have to make our minds or we going to come casual and decide to do this in one week and get it all out of our way, as much as we can? Or are we going to keep shifting a lot of these things to committees and to the end of the day and we reach no decision on them? This one started last year. We need to get this resolved in two weeks, either confirm some contract, the one they’ve got, the one the Attorney’s got, or a mixture of the two, vote on it in two weeks, be up or down with it and done with so the folk can go on about their business. But it’s not going to get down to a point if we are going to rush them and are not going to allow a lot of this to be done in the proper time and to deal with it. And I’m through with it, Mr. Mayor, but I just wanted to say that. I think the Attorney – I ain’t trying to tell him what to say – but I think, I asked him today, he’s got a bigger bag, it’s almost a traveling suitcase bag that he’s coming to the meeting with now. That’s a lot of work that’s there that we are going to have to at some point get out of our way. And whether we allow the time on one day – everybody was saying I won’t be here but one day. Well, if you don’t want to be here but one day, it may be one day all day. Or if you want to allow the time to get through with it. But if we’re having longer legal sessions [inaudible] longest thing been around here other than me, you and Lena. We’ve all been here together. The time frame that’s in there, it’s gotten long. I admit that. But somewhere in here I’d much rather correct a legal situation than for you to not allow your legal counsel the proper time to advise you, go out the door, and then we get on the elevator and say, how are we going to handle that? And that’s what we are doing. We’re not fully aware of all of it. We’re cutting off. We go through five items when it’s seven. We drop them as say we’ll take the two up another time. And we still drifting. So now we just need to do something about that. Is my only advice. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We have a motion on the floor. Anybody need to motion read back, the amended motion read back? We have two requests for that. Madame Clerk, if you’ll read the amended motion back for the body. The Clerk: The amended motion was to refer back to the next Engineering Services Committee the ratification of the contract with Heery and come forth with a recommendation. 50 Mr. Mayor: Okay. All in favor – Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Yes – Mr. Mayor: Do you need clarification of the motion? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Mays just brought a good point, and when you go back to the committee and I was in agreement. But that’s only four votes. And if, if it’s not going to come out of there and we are not satisfied – Administrative Services, what, last committee meeting we have, everybody’s gone, everybody’s tired, y’all hold my item to the last one so I stay cause [inaudible] door. So I just, I just, I don’t think that’s, that’s a good company that done been here back and forth and back and forth. And they don’t want to say anything because they, they, they, they, they bidding on this job. I mean they trying to get a contract with us. I mean they really in a box. They can’t say something. Cause if they say something, they say okay, we get somebody else. And I don’t think that’s fair. I think we need to be men and women, make decision, look at the contract and make a decision at the end of this day, say we going either take it or we not going take it. And that way, we got, we got them under purchase order now, the Administrator said, so when that runs out, then maybe we end it if that’s what we want to do. But we need to do something. It’s unfair for these people to be coming back and forth, back and forth, jockeying, trying to see what we going do. If I can make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: You certainly may, Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: If I can make a substitute that we take this into legal, get with our Attorney, and put it on the head of his list, make a decision of whether we accept this contract. My attorney trying to advise me. Let me see what he trying to say. Mr. Shepard: The method that I have hit on in my tenure has been to bring the additional legal meeting ahead of committees. And you know, that would, that would move this along. If we could focus on Heery next time, have a one item agenda. My, my method has been to have more legal so that we could work on the projects that have been pending for a good while. And what happens is not only do you have what’s been pending for a while, you have the day-to-day, and so you work them both, from my perspective. So – Mr. Williams: That’s why you get the big bucks, Attorney. Mr. Shepard: That’s right. Mr. Williams: That’s why you get the big bucks. Mr. Shepard: That’s right. That’s exactly right, Mr. Williams. 51 Mr. Williams: So – Mr. Shepard: So my suggestion would be to put Heery, if you want, on a special meeting, 11:30 Monday, that would work. If you want to do any other contracts that day. But you can only do so much in legal session, Mr. Williams, and we have to have ten folks given an adequate opportunity to ask their questions. And some of this is, some of this is with open debate and some of this, when it’s litigation, is in the legal session. So we can call another meeting. Here again, that’s been my idea, was to call – and the Mayor has been very supportive of trying to move these matters through – that’s why we met last Monday, was to get some backlog legal business [inaudible]. Mr. Williams: My substitute motion would be, Mr. Shepard, that we put it on legal session for first thing Monday, 10 o’clock, so we can meet on Heery and get this resolved and get it over with in legal so we can, you know, give an answer one way or the other and quit dancing around this thing. Mr. Mayor: All right, your motion is to meet at 10:00 o’clock then on Monday? Mr. Williams: In legal. Mr. Mayor: Well, I don’t know if we can meet in a legal session. We can meet with our Attorney, but I don’t know if we can go into a closed door session to talk about a contract with a vendor. Mr. Shepard: If you just, if you just set it down, Mr. Mayor – Mr. Mayor, if I can speak. If you just have the called meeting, we can discuss Heery. And here again, that’s what I was speculating. This is an open meeting discussion. If there are any other legal matters that we can dispose of that day such as pending litigation, real estate acquisition or personnel, we’ll take care of them. But I think the number 1 item is to get this program manager contract either rejected, modified or accepted. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to Mr. Williams’ motion? Ms. Sims: I second it. Mr. Mayor: All right, it’s seconded. Ms. Beard, you had your hand up? Ms. Beard: I have a question. I believe all of this was in play when I came on board. Like you, I read the contract and I’m not a professional when it comes to all of that, but I did have concerns about it. And I’d like to ask Mr. Mays, did you mention something in reference to maybe a workshop? I’m going to say that because this is the company that we’re looking at to manage the $300-or-so million of SPLOST funds and that’s a very important thing. I think we need to get together and go through it in detail and question everything item by item and be sure we have the very best contract we can get. And I think all of us have had different questions. If we would do that, and in my opinion, it is that important, and I think we would be on track. 52 Mr. Mayor: All right, any further? Mr. Williams: Amendment, Mr. Mayor. 11:00 o’clock instead of 10:00. We’ve got 9:00 o’clock at HND. Mr. Mayor: 11:00 o’clock. Mr. Williams: Yeah. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Bonner, we’re still going to need lunch. Okay, the substitute motion is to convene at 11:00 o’clock for the purpose of discussing the contract with Heery for program management. All in favor of that motion – Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Can I make one suggestion? It’s not to change the motion at all. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Mays: If we are going to – and I see where you’re going, Steve, you’ve got some things on here this evening we may not get through that list of doing, we’re trying to move and get out of here, I don’t have a problem with that. But if we’re going to come in on Monday and I guess getting back a little bit to where Ms. Beard was saying. I think that if we come in and we ask the questions, we are moving, we may be clear on in, we may not be clear on it at that point in time. I do think, though, and this is where I get into this multiple day suggestion if we need to do this. I hope that if we are not through at 12:20 on Monday that we will cease legal at whatever point we’re at at that time, start the committee meetings at 12:30 on their proper assigned times, ladies and gentlemen. You have guests, you’ve got people here. That will still keep us on track and still allow the Attorney to use some time to get some of the stuff out of the way. That way, we will not end up starting legal and try to solve all the legal problems of the City that morning and get to a 12:30 meeting which then starts at 2:00 to 3:00. That’s not – falls under the category of nobody’s fault, but when it drifts to a point of three to four hours where you start back late, like I said earlier, if I’m going get all the blame for it, I’m going to try and get y’all some answers to get everybody out of it. [inaudible] start 12:30 meetings at 3:00 and expect to leave here at 5:30 and 6:00 o’clock in the evening. So if we going to start that morning dealing with legal, let’s work through for an hour-and-a-half to two hours. We may be through with it. But like Ms. Beard say, we may reach some impasses on some we dealing with. But let’s kind of agree unofficially to stop and then move with the committee meetings as they’re scheduled, and then we can look and see what we got left at the end of Engineering Services. If there’s a time place element, that legal meeting, and Mr. Mayor, you and Steve correct me, I think we can craft as such if there’s a called legal meeting that there can be a tabling of that legal meeting to be resumed at a 53 called time, whether it be at the end of day or if we shift it to another day. Then we’re still, I believe, legal, Steve, with where we are going with it. That doesn’t get us into any improprieties about when the meetings are called, and then keeps us on track. So if we are tired at the end of the committee day, we leave it alone and then we can come back and deal with it at another point and then everybody’s not wore out. That’s just a suggestion. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We have a substitute motion. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote with the usual sign. Mr. Colclough out. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: Let me just say this, as a post script to what we’ve been through. When I first came into this office and we got our agendas, when we had contracts in here, what we had were negotiated agreements. They had the initials of the Attorney on them. That all the issues between the potential vendor and the Administration and the Legal Department had been worked out. And what was presented to us was a final document for consideration. And somewhere along the line we’ve drifted away from that. And what we’re doing is getting raw data and proposals from vendors and things like that in front of us that have not been negotiated, and it would certainly expedite the process if we go back to getting these negotiated agreements before us. Mr. Mays, you remember how we used to get these, and so the discussion of the details was very limited, and in some cases non-existent because all the questions had been answered before we even got to the meeting. So I would just suggest that we return to that type of scenario to deal with these legal issues. Ms. Beard: And Mr. Mayor, I think you’re absolutely correct and it is essential that we get back to that. Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. All right, let’s see, the next item we have, we deferred item 56, Mr. Mays, because you were out of the room. Madame Clerk, if you’ll read item 56, please. The Clerk: FINANCE: 56. Approve allocation of $40,000 of Phase IV SPLOST funds designated to the Judicial Center for environmental testing requested by the Commission at its March 16, 2004 meeting on property under consideration for acquisition for the proposed Judicial Center; authorize the attorney to proceed with securing Rights of Entry and determination of the 100 year chain of ownership; and authorize Graves Engineering Services, Inc. to proceed with the recommended testing. (No recommendation from Finance Committee March 29, 2004) 54 Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, if I could defer mine, cause I’m going to end up being here. If we’ve got the resolution, Commissioner Hankerson, on the District that we share in reference to Valley Park and Augusta State. If we could move to that, and allow those folk and the delegation, as well as Augusta State, to move with it, then we could come to mine when we – [inaudible]. I don’t have any problem with that at all. Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry, I was conferring with our County Attorney. Mr. Mays: That gets you in a lot of trouble. (Laughter) Mr. Mayor: I didn’t hear a word you said, Mr. Mays. I’m sorry. Mr. Mays: What I was saying, Mr. Mayor – and I appreciate y’all holding, but I wanted to – actually I missed two. I wanted to, if we could, skip back go the Augusta State/Valley Park – Mr. Mayor: Oh, I’m sorry. Mr. Mays: -- proposal and – Mr. Mayor: Do we have motion to take that off the table? PLANNING: 51. Z-04-28 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) a minimum 50 foot setback that is an undisturbed natural buffer on the south and west sides that meets the requirements of the Augusta-Richmond County Tree Ordinance; 2) a minimum 50 foot building setback on the north side; and 3) emergency access only to Ashford Drive, protected by bollards or a gate; and prohibit construction access from Ashford Dr; a petition by Tice Brashear requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1B (One-family Residential) to Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residential) affecting property located at 3146 ½ Wrightsboro Road and containing 5.38 acres. (Tax Map 42-4 Parcel 14) (Deferred from the March 16, 2004 meeting) Mr. Hankerson: I so move. Mr. Grantham: Second. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection? All right, we’ll take that item off the table then and it’s back on the floor for a motion and discussion. Mr. Hankerson, do you want to make a motion? Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Thank you so much. We met and we I move that we grant this petition planning that we have for came to agreement, so 55 Augusta, Augusta State University with agreement, with the fence there, they are satisfied with the fence being there and so forth, so I move that we approve. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Ms. Sims: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote with the usual sign. Mr. Boyles and Mr. Colclough out. Motion carries 7-0. Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. All right, now we’ll go to item number 56. FINANCE: 56. Approve allocation of $40,000 of Phase IV SPLOST funds designated to the Judicial Center for environmental testing requested by the Commission at its March 16, 2004 meeting on property under consideration for acquisition for the proposed Judicial Center; authorize the attorney to proceed with securing Rights of Entry and determination of the 100 year chain of ownership; and authorize Graves Engineering Services, Inc. to proceed with the recommended testing. (No recommendation from Finance Committee March 29, 2004) Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, let me, let me say this to my colleagues. I made the motion that night shortly before midnight to deal with the testing on these items of those sites. It was done as a substitute motion. Last time I remember, I didn’t have a gun in my hand, nor a straight razor, and I think it might have passed with about eight votes. Eight or nine. The other alternative that night was a motion that was made after we got out here on the floor, and that was to move the Judicial Center to Regency Mall. We had been here for nine to ten hours. I was trying to put something in a motion that everybody could live with and agree with, wouldn’t go to war over, and stay here to another day. That was in terms of dealing with the potential sites of where we might be going. We’ve looked at all of them in terms of probably doing some work, not necessarily for the Judicial Center with Regency Mall, but [inaudible] we may spend a large amount of public money [inaudible] that depends on the voters in this community and what goes out on the ballot. But I was just trying to get us to a point that we could deal, if we were going to have to employ a site, that we wouldn’t keep coming back just to deal with the testing. That was the only reason the motion was made in that manner. I also included in the motion that it be sent to the committee and that the committee let us know what it was going to take to do it and that a price be set on it and that it be brought back. I think what should be clear in the motion is the fact that my motion did not call for getting $40,000 to do testing with. $40,000 was requested by the committee to put into its budget so that it would have it. I think if you would test the numbers that have been appropriated, it is 56 less than $6,000 to $7,000 to do the testing. So that’s kind of a misleading line, is that it’s not exactly kin to the whole motion. So it gets into a budget amount. But this is one of them, I guess, like young folk say, I ain’t mad at you. Y’all can really vote this, quite frankly, whatever way that y’all feel you want to vote for it. You can vote for one item of testing, four items, two items, or no item. But it was done that night to get us some information. At least we know what it’s going to cost to do the first level of testing with each of these, and I’m fine, Mr. Mayor, with whatever motion somebody wants to make. They can do it, but I wanted it clear that night that I wasn’t playing Robin Hood and I didn’t have a mask on and force anybody up here to vote for this, to get it out here and get it passed. But you know, I’ve read since this, it looks like, and I guess, ladies and gentlemen, I’m kin to that motion to, like Garfield. I got everybody in trouble for making that one. So I’m going, I’m going to let some greater minds than mine go out and make a motion in terms of whatever y’all may want to do with it. So I just wanted to make that statement with it. Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you, Mr. Mays. Before I recognize the Commissioners, let me say that last week, Commissioner Williams and I – Commissioner Williams is the Commission representative on the Judicial Center Study Committee. He and I visited the property over on James Brown Boulevard that has been identified as a potential site for the Judicial Center. And I think it’s clear to some people on this body, and this is not being said in a negative way at all, that the location of this as far as the street it fronts on is important, James Brown Boulevard. Mr. Williams, at my request, came with me as we looked at some additional property on James Brown Boulevard which is to the south of the site that has been studied by the committee previously. The site committee, the site the committee studied previously has the railroad track and the canal going through it, the railroad track being an issued raised by the judiciary. The canal, I view as an amenity to the property. And there were comments and questions about potential contamination on the site. I took Mr. Williams to the area that is just south of Fenwick Street, just across Fenwick Street from this property. It’s bounded by th James Brown Boulevard, Walton Way, Fenwick Street, and 10 Street. It gives you the opportunity to actually combine two city blocks into one tract. You can front the building on James Brown Boulevard. Across the street from the building, you look out on an area of the canal that’s being redeveloped. If you look back to the north, you’re going to look on property that’s the canal that’s being redeveloped. You have a five lane road, Walton Way, that runs next to the property. You have access from all four sides of the property. There is only one active business on the property, on all of the property, and it looks like, Mr. Williams, his building is about to fall down on top of him. But I don’t think it would be an issue moving him. It’s also adjacent to the property between thth 10 and 11 Street that is under redevelopment now by Phoenix Printing. They’re doing a substantial amount of work over there. But it gives us an opportunity, I think, if we want to, and I certainly don’t want to reopen site selection, but if we’d like to consider shifting the site that is the preferred site now, shifting it one block to the south, we may be able to accomplish what, what we’d like to do, and do it in the vicinity of where we are now. So we may want to add that. If there’s some support for looking at that site, we may want to add that to the list of sites where we do the testing. Mr. Williams, you may want to add to that. 57 Mr. Williams: Well, I yield, I yield to the rookie Commissioner down at that end, and rookie in this last election, but I yield to Don. And I’d like to make a motion if he doesn’t make one, Mr. Mayor. But I yield to you, Don, go ahead. Mr. Grantham: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. I’m going, I’m going to make some comments and certainly I’d entertain a motion at that time. But my comment was, and I appreciate Commissioner Mays’ eluding to the fact that, that this, this motion was made in order to, to remove the original motion from the floor, and that was to go strictly to Regency Mall. And I think we all know that in doing something like that, it, it creates some kind of ill will amongst the community, particularly in south Augusta, when we have been, we have been talking about a larger project, and project that will include and hopefully incorporate what south Augusta needs right now. To remove myself from that question, is in making those motions and in making those decisions in the waning hours of the night, I think is not healthy for us. It’s not healthy for the community. And I’m, I’m like Mr. Mays, and I hope we can, we can certainly use better judgment in what we do late at night. I know these ladies don’t like to stay down here any more than I do, and I’m going to be for one, you know – unless we’ve got situations that are going to be extremely crucial to us, you will have a vacant chair over here. But my point is that I would like to see this Commission right now to rescind that motion that was made for those four sites and that we then open the floor up for good, general discussion, and even review, and look back to the motion that was made in December that indicated that we would explore two area, and two areas only, and one was just an alternate area in the event the first was not acceptable. That was returned to us and who accepts is one thing. But what we’ve done is we’ve included the second area within those four, and that being the present location of where we’re sitting. The Greene Street area was supposed to be reviewed after the James Walker Brown, excuse me the James Brown/Walker Street area. And so I don’t have a problem going to where you’re referring to right now, Mr. Mayor. th The 9 Street and Walton Way corner. I think it’s an ideal location. But let’s get our minds together and let’s put it at one location, review it. If it’s not acceptable then we go to another. To put out four or five, I think we’re confusing the issue when we start dealing with that many. And so that’s my comment and I’d like to hear from fellow Commissioner Williams. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Don, I agree with you on some of that, and some of that I disagree. We came up with one site, and then we had alternative site, and for whatever reason, the powers that be thought that was not the site, and then we, we, we at this point now with four other sites because whatever reason. I don’t, I can say, but y’all right that down, that’s one time I’m holding my peace. I’m going to let that, let th that slide this time. But the Mayor and I did go up to Walton Way and 9 Street and look at that area. I’ve got no problem. I just think we need to get off center and go ahead and build something. There is no contamination that should be affecting in that site. There has not been any, any industry to, to cause that come that kind of problem at that location. I’d like to move that we look But Mr. Mayor, if I can make that in the form of a motion, 58 th at Walton Way and 9 Street, that square block area there – is that Talcot Street behind there? Mr. Mayor: Yeah, that cuts through. From Walton Way to Fenwick. Mr. Williams – from Walton Way to Fenwick, as the new proposed site for the Judicial Building and I make that in the form of a motion. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I’ll second that for him. Mr. Mayor: A second. Mr. Boyles: And I’d like to make a comment or ask a question, if I could. Mr. Mayor: We’re into discussion. Go ahead, please. Mr. Boyles: I, I like the site that you’re talking about, but what I would like to see us do, if we so choose that site, can we use the power of the City to force the other issue to clean up what they have over there? Because that area just does not look – I mean we need to make, to have them do that. I’m sure that this City has the power through our inspection department or somebody to clear that up. Mr. Shepard: And my answer, Mr. Mayor, is that’s ordinarily the job of EPD, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division and should be reported to them [inaudible]. Mr. Boyles: I’m not so much talking about the environmental concern, but I’m talking about the physical, just appearance of it, with buildings falling down, unkempt, unkempt properties. Mr. Mayor: Let me, let me interrupt if I may. I sent a copy of the Phase I report to the Inspections Department because there were a number of issues, just like you’re talking about, that were identified in the Phase I report. I sent it over to Mr. Sherman’s office and asked them to take a look at the properties and to do what we needed to to get them to comply with with building code. And I haven’t heard back from his department, Mr. Kolb, but I assume that they’re going through that and working on those issues. Is that – I didn’t send a letter, I sent a copy of the report, so he’s got all the detail that we had. And this was right after that report was presented to us, and we discussed us. Mr. Boyles: Well, you know when Mr. Williams first came up with the property, the original one, was that it was considered to be such an eyesore in that neighborhood. It was – and it’s a blighted area that needs to be taken out and cleaned up. And that ought to be not just there, all across the city. The city is in terrible shape. Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, may I make – Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Grantham. 59 Mr. Grantham: Could I ask Mr. Williams to accept an amendment to his motion that we rescind the motion that we passed at the last late night meeting along with your motion, please? Mr. Williams: Accepted. Mr. Mayor: Any objection to that? Any further discussion? Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: I just have a question. So what are we going to do here to item 56? Seem like – I’m wondering, I’m not disagreeing with what is being proposed but aren’t we getting off the agenda for making a motion for another location? And how do we deal with 56? We going to discontinue the testings and all that? I’m not disagreeing with what it is. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, thank you, members of the Commission. The secondary site that is in the list is this Municipal Building. And therefore out of an abundance of caution, I have begun the title exams on all of this block. And I mean that, that can do, that can move the matter forward. To answer your questions, Ms. Boyles, I think that you have your building code violations, you have lot cleaning violations, you may have environmental violations. And that, that could be used to, to attack those problems on those properties. All of them. And I thought I was tasked to get the 100 year titles together, and I was going to, you know, negotiate those. There was some question whether Graves should do the testing, Mr. Williams, as you raised once before, but I think key is the 100 year exams. And we can stop exams of any properties other than this property, but we are also looking at two sites that were identified within the Telfair site where we could get on them. I went ahead and started the title there, too. So I’m trying to anticipate what the Commission would do. And it’s mainly, if you want to bring code enforcement, then that’s, here again you can authorize not only the building code violations through Rob Sherman’s office, but we can look at the code section that I’m authorized since the last called meeting to use at another location here in the City, that’s the club at Rae’s Creek, so if, if the Commission would authorize that, you know, we can look at, we can look at a complaint there, as well, cause that would be the, that would be the authority that we would have. I would have to see what Mr. Sherman – we would have to see what violations exist over there and then we’d know how to, how to proceed. Be happy to work with Mr. Sherman in that regard. Mr. Hankerson: I didn’t, I didn’t – I apologize, Steve, you must, I think you must be using that mike that our Administrator used to use, cause we couldn’t hear you. (Laughter) Mr. Hankerson: I think he must have switched mikes with you. I couldn’t hear. The first part, my question, what I asked, I didn’t hear that, your volume was real low. 60 Mr. Shepard: Well, I was trying to speak into the mike [inaudible] use my podium voice. Mr. Mayor: Why don’t you try the stand mike, just use it as a hand mike? Mr. Hankerson: That’s fine. He can just speak in the mike, I think. Mr. Shepard: My suggestion, actually my action is [inaudible] this building here, this block here, the secondary site for the Judicial Center. Now if you’re going to amend that, that runs counter to what you did before. But here again, I think it’s the will of the Commission where you want to locate this. And there are policy decisions to be made and here again, I felt like I was safe going down the 100 year exam of this property, because it was already lined up as number 2. Mr. Hankerson: Now my question was, could we do the – I guess you answered my question, though. Could we do that motion now? I mean the motion was made about another location. Is that, is that legal to do that now or how we get to that? Mr. Shepard: Well, if – it’s not as, it’s not in the caption of the agenda item, so it could be ruled out of order. Or you can put it on another agenda. Mr. Hankerson: See, the reason I’m asking is cause, I mean, I like what I heard but I don’t want nothing to come back and say, you know, we didn’t do it right, so let’s do it over again. So if we do it, I’d like to make sure that we do it and it’s proper. That’s why I’m asking. Mr. Shepard: Well, the four sites that were moved last time, moved at the last th meeting, were moved, seconded and passed, did not include the corner site of 9 and Walton Way. So if you’re going to direct us down that road, we need a, we need a clear statement and then – there again, that is your policy decision. Mr. Hankerson: But can we, can we, can we not approve 56, motion to deal with 56, not approve those testing, and list the testing? We have to test a new site, what you just named, right? Mr. Mayor: Well, what you need to do is, number 1, your motion needs to include rescinding the action that was authorized in item number – Mr. Boyles: I thought it did. Mr. Grantham: It was the amended motion that I made, was Mr. Williams. Mr. Boyles: He accepted the amendment. 61 Mr. Mayor: Right. So we have that in a motion. You have to rescind that previous action. And then you have to state a new action that you want in the motion and what, where do you want the testing done. Mr. Shepard: Where do you want the 100 year title ownership? I think that’s probably the key because – Mr. Mayor: Where do you want to go? Mr. Shepard: Where do you want to go? And I think that the 100 year exam ought to precede the testing. Because then you’ll have some idea what was on the site. Mr. Mayor: So you want to move ahead with the 100 year exam on this site and on the – we’ve already done the other site on James Brown; is that correct? James Brown and Telfair and whatever. Have we already done the 100 year title search over there? Mr. Shepard: At James Brown – Mr. Mayor: Did they do that [inaudible]? Mr. Shepard: They did some of it, but I think there was one parcel that was not done. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Shepard: And we’re looking at that. We’re looking at that. th Mr. Mayor: And then to do the 100 year title on 9 and Walton Way? Mr. Shepard: That has not been authorized. Mr. Mayor: Right. And just those sites, or did you want to look at another site, too? That’s what we need to determine. Ms. Beard? Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, in reference to saying that we are now looking at another site, in that the Walton Way/James Brown area connects to the original site, is there a chance that we could go, we could look at all of that land and make that decision? Mr. Mayor: We could do that. Ms. Beard: And I really don’t feel a need, you know, for anything here. Maybe if we could concentrate on that entire area, surely we could come up with the right spot and maybe actually make it absolutely beautiful. And there’s that chance there is no contamination because it’s something we don’t know at this point. That’s my recommendation. 62 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I was thinking that since our Attorney is already doing the 100 year survey on the existing buildings on this site, for the future I would hope we would go ahead and continue that because I think one of the mistakes that we all realize that was made in 1950 is that the City and the County only bought this portion of this block. Now we’ve got other facilities that are going to be built in the years to come and if we had some idea of what all of it cost on this block, I think we would be ahead of ourselves and going ahead and doing that, seeing just what it would cost us to get, to acquire this whole block. And I would hope we would continue that. Mr. Mayor: So you’re saying continue this block, plus the additional research over on the James Brown Boulevard? Mr. Boyles: Correct. Mr. Mayor: I don’t know whether we have a crafted motion or not. Somebody is going to have to help me with that. Mr. Attorney? Mr. Shepard: Let me help you with the motion, Mr. Mayor. If that be the will of the Commission, then I think that my office should be directed to complete the examination on this block, title examination. That shouldn’t be all that difficult. And th then if you want me to next proceed to 9 and Walton Way with a title examination, I can bring that back. But the four sites that I expected you to deal with today – let me stop there. That would end the motion. And then I’ll comment. If somebody wants me to do th this building and Walton Way and 9, and then any others – do you want one in what we call the Telfair site? Ms. Beard: That’s correct. Mr. Mayor: Does that get us what we need to get to get us moving? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Mayor, even though I – I go back again to 11 o’clock that night. It might have been a slightly crazy motion but it wasn’t real crazy from the standpoint I [inaudible] today and the [inaudible] backing up [inaudible] rescinding out here. Still don’t. Anything of that nature. But what I’m still a little unclear about is the fact that we gradually drifting back into what I said needed to be examined and tested to a point. Now we scratched Regency off, out of this picture, but eventually if we spend $84 million in public money, not counting other amenities, we going test Regency or some site before it gets done. I agree. That has to be done, so we, we, we, we put an asterisk by that. May Park, Tommy, [inaudible] still hang around. It isn’t off the radar screen. I don’t have a problem [inaudible] test it when you get ready to do it, plus inflation of what may happen with costs to do it. But if we trying to seek a site, if that’s what I’m seeing [inaudible] and we trying to move on one, I’m wondering why as an extension of Telfair Street and James Brown Boulevard and all of that, we, we move from the front of Telfair in terms of talking about it, over to Walker, to James Brown, then the controversy about 63 the contamination, now we talking about moving south of there to Walton Way. Have no problem with any of that. But I’m kind of like Ms. Beard. If, if, if, if we, if we hop through that whole area down there, why not, if that’s the consensus of where you want to try and deal with the downtown, why not flip the deal and let Steve craft a motion to a point that gets what’s most important that’s got him somewhat in a legal box, that is the original motion. Now y’all can rescind mine, y’all can take that sucker and throw it out the window if you want to, and I’ll help you do it. Don’t have a problem with that. But I think what’s a key motion that you’re missing is that there was a motion done to come back to this site that gave some direction. Now do you want the Attorney to run the clock on further title searching and examining in this block which does cost you some money and while the folk who criticize what might come out the site [inaudible] multiple sites, the real money question is [inaudible] stop watch in over here in this block completely, jump on over to where you want that site over in there, and give him that direction on how that original motion, which was back in the last year, was crafted, and just put this site on hold. Period. And let him go on over there and do all this work over there. Cause he doesn’t need to keep examining all this here if we’re saying there’s nowhere to park, this is not a good site, we don’t need to be over here, and then why let him go through th that much expense work to go through that and then we jump back over to 9 and Laney Walker and start the time clock up again? I’m just, I’m trying to search through the clearness of that. I think if we need to be rescinding anything, I agree with, Don, throw mine on that pile where the rescinding is. But if we going to rescind something, give us some direction on what to do in the block that he’s spending money in right now and he’s not spending it cause he wants to, he’s spending it because that’s the direction of the original motion because this was the automatic number 2 site. So if you still over there dealing with number 1, go back and finish number 1. Let him spend the money over there. There’s no need to be over here doing all these title searches to a point that if you saying you ain’t coming over here or you going to come over here as a last resort, I’d just as soon rescind both of them at the same time, put him over there, test all the area that you can legally test. You know [inaudible] federal court building, you going to have to have multiple parking down in that area, so you might end up buying, taking or condemning the site that’s been contested and using it for joint parking that’s over there anyway, between two courts that you’ve got. But I don’t see no need of keep running the clock over here to a point. My little testing ain’t got y’all in but about $2,000 or $3,000 worth of debt. He keep doing all these titles searches over here on somewhere where y’all ain’t going, then that’s where you going to spend some of your big money at, and I’m not knocking him, but these are age old buildings through this whole block down through here. He got to trace back to a point almost to when the General was here and landing on the river to get who owned this property down through here. So if you going to do that, ain’t no need of you sending him out to waste that kind of money. Let’s just rescind all of it and go on over there and get one site. Everybody keep [inaudible] about one site, so I’m trying to help y’all get to that today. You want one site? Jump on over there and give them one site. Let’s just rescind everything else you’re doing, put him to work over there on one site, and if you run up on a [inaudible] up under the ground, then you come back and do something else. But I think if you going to talk about a waste of money, fellows and ladies, keeping him, clock running over here, while you want to go over there, might sites, 4 of them or 40 of them, ain’t going to cost you that much money in 64 terms of where you trying to get through all this paperwork to do, and you may still end th up on 9 and Laney Walker, if that’s where y’all want to go. That’s all I’m trying to get you to. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams : Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I agree, I’m holding to my motion. The Attorney works for this board, we can – six votes can make a decision up or down every day, tomorrow and whatever. Mr. Mays is right. We ought to have one site, still leave as secondary. If that don’t work, then we can come back and he can start up where he left off. Hope you don’t throw your material away. If what he’s done already we got to pay my motion is to trash Mr. Mays’ $40,000 deal, throw it out, like we him for it, so said, and to direct the Attorney to go over on Walton Way and James Brown and look at that area as his title search starts to see what’s there and get back to us ASAP and then if there is a need for a study or a contamination study or whatever, then we’ll go from there. But let’s stop on this – put the brakes on, throw it out the That’s my motion. window, do whatever we need to do, Steve. Just hold up right here. I think I had a second to it, so I’m ready for the question, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard? Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to include there – let’s see now, you were going to – oh, that it includes though the second phase of clean-up in the part that we’re already working on. Mr. Mayor: The Phase II environmental? Ms. Beard: Yes. Mr. Mayor: If you do that, you have to appropriate some funds, because that, that’s what this motion is here for, to put some money back in the pot. Ms. Beard: Well – Mr. Mayor: So they have money to pay for those things. Ms. Beard: In other words, in other words – what we’re saying is we’re simply making the Walton Way area a part of the original, so that this is what we’re going to work on now. And we’re at a point with the original where we can move into Phase II and begin the work. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: My suggestion for Ms. Beard – Ms. Beard: [inaudible] 65 Mr. Shepard: I’m sorry, go ahead, I didn’t mean to cut you off. Ms. Beard: He said we may not need that now because it may be used for parking. I don’t know. Mr. Shepard: My recommendation, if you want me to look at any other site, is just do title searches only. They should be ready, and that would stop right where I am th here. I can, I can do, I believe, the new property at 9 and Walton Way by that time. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard. Just a moment, Mr. Williams. Mr. Shepard, you’re suggesting that you could bring this Commission back a report on the report or your title searches at the 11 o’clock meeting that we have Monday morning? Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: You can do that? Mr. Williams, did you hear that? He said he could have a report for us at your 11 o’clock meeting Monday morning. Mr. Williams: That sounds good. Call for the question, Mr. Mayor, let’s vote. Mr. Shepard: Now these are title searches. Mr. Williams: Title searches, I understand. Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right, anything further? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, one correction. While my lunch partner was trashing my motion, you know, I’ll trash what I make but I’m going to correct it if you trash it wrong. Let me make one correction. You put my $40,000, trashed it. Never asked for $40,000. Your Judicial Committee that I recommended that you go on, that’s who asked for the $40,000. My testing is short of about $7,000 to go in four places. So I’m not going trash it, but let’s make the correction trash-proof. Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Mays: I didn’t ask for $40,000. Mr. Mayor: Okay, the question, the question has been called. The Chair will rule there has been adequate discussion. All in favor of the motion, please vote with the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. 66 Mr. Mayor: We’re going to – in the interest of time, we’re going to continue to move along without pausing for a break. So if you need to do something, please feel free to do it. Number 59, Madame Clerk. All right, Ms. Bonner. The Clerk: ENGINEERING SERVICES: 59. Motion to ratify Commission’s approval letter for bid award for Construction Project Budget Change Number Three (CPB#327-04-296812009) for Augusta Common – Phase 1B, Building in the amount of $138,000 to be funded from the One Percent Sales Tax Phase III Urban account to fund construction as a result of award to the second low bidder. Award contract to construct 12,000 SF Building to R.W. Allen for Base Bid #2 in the amount of $791,000 subject to receipt of bonds. Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion to ratify that? Mr. Grantham: So move. Ms. Beard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Is there discussion? Mr. Mays, you have discussion? Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Mayor, this might have gone on prior to my asking the Clerk. I’m glad it’s on for the ratification, that it’s on here anyway. It doesn’t make any difference who put it on. I just wanted to get one bit of clarification on this, if I could. I have no problem with the awarding. I think that’s in proper order. I think that that, that the, the second low bidder is the one that fully qualifies in this case, and that’s where it should go. But I need to know whether or not we are at a point, and this may be something that – and I can respect where the Attorney goes with this – but I wanted to know and I wanted to be careful that if we were doing this and approving it, whether we were or not dealing with a situation on the first bidder that asked to be withdrawn, who stated the personal references, was honest enough to say that they could not do it, and did so in what I feel is a reasonable length of time. It does not set precedent on our practice of any kind to do it, and I thought in a way it was admirable from the standpoint, at least it was not a person who was coming back to maybe later on ask for 6 to 7 different change orders and to run it up and to get out in the middle of a contract. So I wanted to get for clarification whether or not, because it was, it was, it was so said amongst the courthouse secrets that not only were we awarding this, which I think that’s good, but I needed to know whether or not this constitutes action by this body to move on the original bidder to try and deal with that person’s bid bond and where they, in terms of running their business, and I wanted to get a clarification on that. Mr. Shepard: Do you want – Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. Mr. Mays, do you want me to address that as potential litigation in the legal session, or do you want me to address it now, or would you like – I can – 67 Mr. Mays: Well, I think if we are going to carry the motion, I’d like to personally either hear from you or for us to just state whether or not we’re moving, because I, I think if it’s been a legitimate withdrawal, if it was done timely, if it is has not been handed to anybody, and if it’s not going to cost this City any money, in the world of economic hard times, if there’s a business person that’s honest enough to say I made a mistake, I cannot do this, let me out of this – I’d rather see more of those do business with us in some cases than for those who give us some numbers and we change them 8, 9 and 10 times and the projects end up being what everybody has requested in a bid process to do. And that’s my, my reason for putting this out here, of saying where are we going with our process on it? And if that needs to be handled in legal, I can, I can personally respect that. But I think the Commission at least needs to know where are we going with this, past this. If it’s just on the award to R.W. Allen, I have no problem with that. I think that’s a good solution, moves us forward, reputable firm, they qualify. But if we’re doing something else, then I think that ought to be handled separately and be – get the approval from this Commission up or down, if we’re moving based on the fact where a company has withdrawn. Mr. Shepard: And I have that research done, Mr. Mays, and I think probably just so that we have a chance to go over it and not be rushed into it, I’ll address it in legal and postpone this action until right after legal. I’ll tie the two together. Mr. Mays: Okay, I don’t, I don’t want to hold – well, let me ask you this. Since we may lose people and we don’t know the timing, can this be limited only to the awarding of the contract, which I think that part is legitimate, and that any other references be made and have to be voted on by this Commission? Better words, we got to go and get the project. I want the project to go on. I think it needs to move. But I think it ought to be limited to a point of us doing that and just going on with the low bidder who qualifies. But I think if we going do something else, that needs to be handled separately after we’ve talked about it and then brought back for some action by this committee. I just didn’t want us moving on two fronts when the motion only contained one. That’s where I was trying to go. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, let me do this, since we’re being asked today to ratify action, let me read the caption from the letter that was circulated to the Commissioners and that would be the action that we would be taking today. [reading] We, the undersigned members of the Augusta Richmond County Commission, hereby approve construction project budget changed #3 – with the reference number – for Augusta Common, Phase 1B, building in the amount of $138,000 to be funded from the One Percent Sales Tax Phase III Urban account to fund construction as a result of award to the second low bidder; award contract to construct 12,000 square foot building to R.W. Allen for Base Bid #2 in the amount of $791,000 subject to receipt of bonds. [ends reading] That’s the action you’re being asked to take today. No reference to any other bids. Mr. Mays: I have no problem with that. But I thought I needed to at least bring this point before everybody and then if we got to go to legal to deal with that and either 68 go up or down with whatever action we decide to do, and again in an open meeting, we needed to do it. But when I speak with two department heads and there seems to be a conflict as to what will happen with the withdrawing person, and as to whether we’ll move on one front or whether we’ll move on another one, I think it’s important enough for the rest of us to know in open season what’s going on to a point that this only limits us to moving with awarding the bid to the low qualified person. I don’t think that if there’s any action going on on an administrative or staff level, that is not contained in a motion by intent, and I just wanted to make sure that the intent only goes as far as what’s printed out here and that we award the bid, but that if we going to do something else, there needs to be some discussion that we need to have amongst ourselves. And then vote on that up or down. I don’t have a dog in the hunt, but you know how I’m going to vote, but I think it ought to be a vote that’s separately held as to whether or not you’re taking action against a business or not. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, I read this and I have some understanding of this. I’d like to make a motion to, that we accept the approval of this bid to R.W. Allen and not take any action against the Ammar Construction Company. Mr. Boyles: I’ll second that. Mr. Mayor: What you have to do is – award the contract, plus you have to approve budget change order #3, so you have adequate funding in there to do the project. Mr. Hankerson: And I’ll add that in to my motion. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard, you wanted to speak? Ms. Beard: No, that’s basically what I had. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham? Mr. Grantham: We have a motion on the floor to originally accept it, that would have to be – Mr. Mayor: That would be a substitute motion. Mr. Grantham: -- amendment, substitute motion. Mr. Mayor: It would be a substitute motion. Mr. Grantham: Okay. 69 Mr. Mayor: Any discussion on the substitute motion? All in favor of the substitute motion, then please vote in the affirmative. (Vote on substitute motion) Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Next up is item number 60. The Clerk: 60. Discuss Barton Chapel Road Project. (Requested by Commissioner Bobby Hankerson) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir. I’ll be as brief as possible. On the Barton Chapel Road project, I understand that we are having some problems because of the delay in the beginning of this project as far as being – construction is concerned. When they were given the award, when they were awarded the bid, because of the utility moving, of the utilities and so forth, that there, since then, that time, there has been a cost increase for the materials and so forth, and I do have a listing. I think it was forwarded to Public Works and I’d like for them to speak, and I know Beams Contracting Company is here, also. That we can get going with this project, cause we thought the project, everything was clear with it, but my understanding that since it took so long, I think it’s been almost a year that, that changes in the prices and stuff have changed since that time. Mr. Mayor: Eric, do you want to address the Commissioner’s inquiry on this? Mr. Thompson: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I received a letter actually today that I had requested for quite some time that has more detail than the initial letter that basically requested $117,000 be added to the contract. The initial letter basically only asked for an amount. It didn’t give any breakdown, so I asked for more detail before that could be presented to the Engineering Services Committee and then this body for consideration. So today I have the letter, which asked for $125,825 in addition to the contract amount be added. As I said earlier, I received a copy of this today and from my perspective I think there would need to be some conversation with the contractor before this figure is presented to the Engineering Services Committee. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: Well, my understanding, this was – the date I have here was March 11, that this amount was sent to Public Works. So. There was no response – today was the first time you received this? Mr. Speaker: Today is the first time I’ve seen this – I think we’re looking at the same thing. 70 Mr. Hankerson: The one for $125,825? Mr. Thompson: Right. There is a previous version dated February 13, 2004, which requested an increase of $117,125. So between February 13 and March 11, there is another $8,700 added to the amount they requested. Mr. Hankerson: Did you respond to the $117,000? Mr. Thompson: I responded by saying I need more detail. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, would it be helpful if the engineer got the detail and brought the detail to the Engineering Committee on Monday? Would that be helpful to you? Mr. Hankerson: Well, someone from Beams is here today, and my understanding, I’m a little confused on this. What I’m hearing is that, the response, that this problem existing and it was noted but we still – this is a problem, and if I hadn’t brought this here today, we’re still thinking that this project was, was – everything was okay. The last time this project came here, you know, I think we said that we want to make sure we’re finished with this, that everything is going forward with this project, and if anything come up, that any kind of problem, we should of known immediately that we have another problem that we have to address. Mr. Mayor: I’ll recognize Mr. Colclough in a second. My question to you was how would you like to proceed in view of what the engineer has told you? How would you like to proceed to move this forward today? Mr. Hankerson: I’d like to proceed, I’d like to hear from the contractor, and I think this a matter of whether we going to do it or not. I don’t think we need to just keep going back.. Because this should of already been done before I came here today. [inaudible] let’s resolve it and move on. If these costs or increases are justifiable, it’s for us to decide that, or not, and go on. This is what’s holding us up here. Mr. Mayor: We’ve got the contractor here with us. Just give us your name and address for the record, please. Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I need to say something before the contractor. Mr. Mayor: All right. Okay, Mr. Colclough. Mr. Colclough: I was under the impression for the longest that Barton Chapel Road was all clear. We went through the whole process of trying to get the utilities moved. I mean a lot of people, Jim Wall involved in it, and now we saying that we need additional funding for Barton Chapel Road. Now I was under the impression we had all the money we needed for Barton Chapel Road, and now I just got this from 71 Commissioner Hankerson. No one told me that we needed more money, and I’m the one who been trying to move Barton Chapel Road along. But now all of a sudden we need $125,825 to finish Barton Chapel Road. Now this, this has been going on longer than a year. It’s been going on almost as long as I’ve been down here. I need, I need to find out what went wrong in Barton Chapel. This is almost five years. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, do you know what went wrong at Barton Chapel? Mr. Kolb: No, I can’t tell you what’s going wrong with it. I’m trying to put into context what’s going on here. We have not requested of the Commission any kind of change order to this contract. The contractor is in the process of asking us for an increase in his prices with respect to the work that he’s doing there. We have not had an opportunity to either talk to him or evaluate his request. We asked him for more information. At such time as internally we can verify his prices or the reason for his increase. We are prepared to discuss what we wrong or whether or not we are going to recommend that there be a change order to this contract. We’re just not prepared to do that at this time. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: We, we blamed Georgia Power, we blamed BellSouth, we blamed everybody in the world for not moving the utilities off of Barton Chapel Road. We had electrical poles. I mean this been going on for almost five years, Mr. Kolb. This has not happened yesterday. I started Barton Chapel Road when I first came down here, and I was under the impression that this project – now I been telling the people out there this project [inaudible] and now I’m finding out that all of a sudden there’s an increase in this contract. No one, no one consulted with me about Barton Chapel Road. It’s in District 4. I started it four years ago and now I’m finding out that the project’s been delayed and no one had the courtesy enough to say to me Commissioner Colclough, we’ve got a problem over there. You were saying to me BellSouth wouldn’t move the phone lines, Georgia Power or whoever over there wouldn’t move the power lines. But now I’m finding out the project is stuck. Can you find some money to finish this project in your budget? I need some answers. Mr. Kolb: Again, again – Mr. Colclough: I don’t want the political part of it. I just need some concrete answers. Mr. Kolb: Well, I’m going to give you some concrete answers. The utility companies are working over there at this present time. This is something – again, I want to put it into context – this is something that we have received a request originally from the contractor. We have asked him for more information. We just got the information today. We need an opportunity to discuss it with the contractor and sit down and determine whether or not there is justification for an increase. At that point in time, we 72 can come back to the Engineering Services Committee, you know, with the change order, and a recommendation on financing. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: There’s a letter dated June 11 of 2003. Mr. Mayor: Is this in the backup, Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: I just got this information. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Colclough: Today. And then you’ve got your most recent letter, is March 11, 2004. Now this letter from 2003 is between somebody, a vice president of Beams and Robert Clements, on Barton Chapel Road, Phase II. This letter also, March 11, 2004, is between Robert Clements, I guess, and Beams. Now from 2003, that’s a whole year that these people have been corresponding. No one, not even in the backup today, have information on why this project is stuck in the mud after five years. You should have been talking to these folks five years ago. Mr. Mayor: Anybody want to respond? Mr. Thompson: The project is actually starting to move along. Georgia Power began their relocation in late January, early February of this year. I believe the Commission approved $250,000, I believe, to help Georgia Power begin that relocation. The Atlanta Gas Light Company, they’re starting their design for the relocation that they need to do. The contractor has cleared the right-of-way to help move the power line relocation along. They’ve coordinated with the gas company to help identify their specific conflicts to help them design around. So the project is finally moving forward. And I’m not -- there’s 120 days that the gas company has said it’s going to take them to completely design and relocate, but that’s not saying that the construction can’t start for another four months. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Colclough, you’re on a roll. Go ahead. Mr. Colclough: I would like, Mr. Mayor, to have a quarterly report on Barton Chapel Road. Mr. Thompson: How about monthly? Mr. Colclough: I want a monthly. Not a quarterly report. [inaudible] This project should have been done three years ago. Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, I think what we’re seeing here, what we’re experiencing, the problem from the first time, my understanding, that this bid was given 73 to Beam and after that we had a problem with the relocation of the utilities. Remember, that just laid and laid and laid and it took so long we had to bring that back, and finally between I don’t know, changing of the person that was over the project or somebody was fired or whatever, that we finally got Georgia Power and the utilities back on board. Well, during the same time they received the, they gave the bid, and that’s prolonging the project. So it’s just like what we were saying on one of the other issues. If you wait longer, and the longer you wait, the increase of material is increasing, which I think -- and you’re going to hear from Beam -- I think what they’re saying, well, it wasn’t our fault that this was delayed, because we could have done this work before now, before the prices of the material went up, but we couldn’t do it until utilities move out of our way. I think that’s the issue here, that Beam is saying now we have an increase in cost that we incurred and it wasn’t our fault. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I know the process for change orders and what I’m hearing is there is a change order in, in, in in process but evidently it didn’t go through the proper channels or didn’t get to the proper people. And maybe it did, but somebody dropped the ball. If Georgia Power just moved the lines or the poles that they need to move, naturally any construction could not take effect until they was moved. I’m hearing that they was moved, Eric, in -- Mr. Thompson: They began in late January. Mr. Williams: -- began in late January, February, now here it is in April. So they ought to had an opportunity to move some to get some work started. I think the question comes in as the change order price. Now the contractor and Ms. Smith or the Administrator, somebody should have been notified of the change order or the amount of the work that’s going to be changed or the increase or even the time period. Somebody -- I’m like Richard and Commissioner Hankerson is right. Somebody ain’t talking to somebody. If you say you just received the information and needed more discussion, why hadn’t, why not this presented before now? How come if there’s a change order, if there’s additional money, we know Georgia Power is holding it up, we can’t move, somebody should have said the scope of the project going change because we been waiting all this time or we still waiting. Now you can’t wait until you get the price up. That’s anybody, that’s not just directed at Beam or nobody else. You can’t wait and say well, you know, we going start now. All this should have been talked about. Why is it the lack of communication [inaudible]? Where did the ball stop at? That’s what I’d like to know, Eric. Mr. Thompson: The middle of February, I received a faxed copy of a memo to Mr. Clements from Greg Beam, the president of the company, saying basically we need $117, 125. No details, no specifics on what that’s for. So my response to Mr. Clements is, I’m not moving this forward without some detail, I need to know if that $117,000 is a fair number or not. 74 Mr. Williams: Okay. And then, and -- Mr. Kolb: [inaudible] Mr. Williams: I’m sorry? Mr. Kolb: That is not for the utilities. You had already approved the change order for the utilities. Mr. Williams: I understand that. For the poles to be moved. I’m talking about the increase from the, from Beams, is that the increase you’re talking about, that from Beams? Mr. Kolb: That’s correct. Mr. Williams: Okay, when Mr. Clements brought that forth and you asked them for some more information or more detail, what happened then? Mr. Thompson: The information didn’t come forward. We met, we met -- Mr. Williams: What happened to Mr. Clements? Somebody? Mr. Thompson: Nothing’s happened to him. Mr. Williams: Well, something had to happen if you asked, as his supervisor, and I’m assuming now, I don’t know what the rank is in that department, but if you ask for the information and here it is time done passed, project being held up, Commission is upset, and nobody did something, help me out. I’m trying to help you. I mean help me out. thth Mr. Thompson: We met with the contractor March 10. And on March 10 I got another copy of the same memo that didn’t have any background. So at that time I said, you know, this won’t go any further until we get the background, the details behind it. So apparently the next morning at about 8:15 the contractor faxed another letter to Mr. Clements with some more detail but still not enough detail for me. I mean if the contractor asked for -- there are eight items on the list and I wouldn’t feel comfortable with, with seven of them as they are. Not saying that I don’t think they’re entitled to any amount of money for any of these seven that I don’t feel comfortable with, but there need to be more dialog. Mr. Williams: Well, Ms. Smith, can you come up, cause I need to talk to somebody who, who, who understand the contract, understand the process, cause something ain’t, don’t add up to me, and I, I’m not, I’m not the Super District Commissioner out there, but we got a lot of this kind of stuff going on. What happened to Mr. Clements when that information did not get to his supervisor? 75 Ms. Smith: Gentlemen, the information that you are referring to has not yet made it to my desk for review. Mr. Thompson got a copy of that, as I understand [inaudible], got a copy of it today. Mr. Beam did indeed -- I’m sorry, Mr. [inaudible] did indeed send me an email message about 2-1/2 weeks ago inquiring about a letter that had been sent to a member of my staff. I indicated to him that I was not familiar with the letter and asked him if he would specifically fax me a copy of that letter. Today I have not received a copy of that letter from the contractor. There apparently was also a meeting held on the stst 31 of March. Is that correct? A meeting held on the 31 of March where members of my staff attended. I was not informed. There were members of the Commission in attendance, as well as the contractor. It is very difficult for me to oversee activities on a contract and to be responsible for a program when there are meetings scheduled and held st that I am not aware of. This item was discussed apparently at that meeting on the 31. I became aware of that meeting when Mr. Hankerson called to inquire about the meeting. I don’t know when it was set up. So with respect to this specific item, the documents that you are reviewing I do not yet have. As Mr. Hankerson indicated, the memo that was sent in June of -- I think Mr. Colclough -- in June of 2003, as well as follow-up memo in March are items of concern. We have a workshop scheduled for April 14 to go over with our staff and to review the change order policy, as well as the process for change orders, and a memo has been issued to staff indicating that the timeliness of getting information through the chain on change orders is essential in order for the process to work. So there has been no reprimand. We are having a workshop and they have been notified that any approvals that do not follow the process will subject them to disciplinary action. Mr. Williams: Okay. That sounds good, Ms. Smith. I’m glad to know I’m not the only one. I commend you. That’s the first thing I want to come out cause I been, I been nailed to the cross and it ain’t Good Friday yet, several times. But my point is, Mr. Clements or whoever else, there is a procedure for change orders. The vendor ought to know what those procedures are. And if those procedures is not followed, then I think you well in your rights. But they have not presented those change orders to you to come through the proper committee to either get approval or disapproval. But it sound like you got a problem in, in, in, in your department with personnel, and I think that’s the first think you need to address. And if my memory serves me correct, I’m thinking about Laney Walker, too, Mr. Mayor, where pipe was supposed to be put on the street and didn’t go through somebody and they sent us a bill for it and it was, it was somebody in your department, Ms. Smith. But I think that’s the first thing we need to handle. And if we don’t have a process in place, then you need to get with the Administrator and see can we get some in place, Ms. Smith. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, I appreciate your concern with that area, but I think the question before us tonight is, is there anything that we need to do today at this meeting to keep this Barton Chapel Road project moving forward? Is there anything we need to do, any action we need to take today, is there anything that you need to prepare and bring to Engineering Services Committee meeting on Monday to keep this project on track so that now that we’ve got it moving we can get it completed in a timely manner? 76 Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, there is nothing that we need at this time relative to keeping that project moving forward. I think everybody is doing what they have to do. I think that we should consider the request of the change order from the contractor. I’m not sure that we can do it by Monday of Engineering Services. We will do our best to make that happen. But we do need to verify the items that he has included in his request and then process or prepare a change order for your consideration. Mr. Mayor: Will the request for this change order in any way impact the work that’s going on out there on that project right now? Is it going to slow it down, is it going to bring any of it to a halt? That’s what we need to know, cause you may have to, you may have to skip some golf and work on this and get it ready Monday. That’s -- you know. We don’t want anything that’s going to slow the project down. It’s moving, and what is it going to take to keep it moving? Is this change order in any way going to affect the work that’s ongoing out there right now, until you get a chance to go through this, discuss this with Beams, and then bring back a formal change order request before the Commission? Is there anything that can happen during that period that’s going to stop this thing or slow it down? Mr. Thompson: I’m hearing from the contractor that unless the City wants to ante up, then they don’t have any interest in continuing with the project, with the contract. Mr. Mayor: Well, when they say that to you, do they say that you have to ante up within the next month or six months or what? Mr. Thompson: Well, they’d like an answer relatively soon, and which is why it’s even more important to me to -- Mr. Mayor: Well, we can give them an answer Monday, Eric, if you’ll have the information before Engineering Services, they can get a partial answer Monday and then get the change order considered by this group two weeks from today. Mr. Thompson: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Does that, I mean does that keep it moving? That’s -- Mr. Thompson: The project is moving now. Mr. Mayor: We want to make sure. [inaudible] two weeks from today? Mr. Thompson: [inaudible] two weeks from now the project will still continue to move because the utility relocations are still underway. Mr. Mayor: What about -- Mr. Kolb: I don’t think that there is any danger, and the contractor’s here, of him stopping work on this project as long as we’re sitting down talking about this. 77 Mr. Mayor: Can we get that assurance from the contractor? Mr. Thompson: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Give us your name for the record, if you would. Mr. Beam: I’m [inaudible] Beam, I’m general superintendent with them. We’ve been working with Eric and Teresa as best we can on the project. There have been a lot of things went on with the project from day one. I don’t know who is involved in it. We don’t want, we’re not here to discuss that as far as Beams is concerned. But we are concerned about what Beams’ best interest is, and we feel like we’ve got to the point that it’s drug out so long that we’ve got to ask for this request because of the increase -- everybody knows fuel and steel, you name it, it’s gone up from day one. We have purchased some of the pipe at the beginning I could purchase and we agreed on that and they paid us for it, and so we feel like we’ve done everything possible to make this project go the best that we can. Now we feel like it’s time for us to come and ask for help from Richmond County to make this project go on as far as we’re concerned. Mr. Mayor: All right, are you in a position to sit down with our people and work this out this week so it can come before the Engineering Services Committee meeting on Monday and then it can be referred to this body to consider in our meeting two weeks from today? Mr. Beam: All they got to do is call us and we’ll be there. Mr. Mayor: All right. And you’re not going to pack up and leave or anything in the interim? The work that you’re doing out there is going to continue? Mr. Beam: Well, we’re not actually working on the project right now, because we’ve done all we can until we get some answers from y’all, so we’re waiting on some answers. And utilities are moving. Like they said, they couldn’t work out there cause of Masters week, stopped, but they are supposed to be back in there the first week from what I understand from Georgia Power. Mr. Mayor: Okay, well, now, Richard and Bobby, y’all raised these questions. Do you have enough assurance today or do we need to do something else? We need some direction here. Mr. Hankerson: Well, what I’m hearing him say is that they could have been doing something if this was taken care of. So the project was still held up. Another issue that I have was about the personnel, about the problems in the department. Now if, if the contractor notified whoever was sent to them to supervise the project or whatever, whoever that person is, and he’s not getting a response, and then I’ve heard three people now -- I’ve got documents from one that’s not here -- heard Eric say he had knowledge of it and now Teresa said she had knowledge. How far, how many people do we have to go 78 before we realize that it is a problem? Now whether it came [inaudible] in the right way, but it is a problem with that project, that I think that somewhere down the line somebody need to address that before it had come to this point today. Mr. Mayor: And I don’t think anybody argues with you on that point, Mr. Hankerson, but I think as we, as we look back at what happened and how we got to where we are, I think we need to look at today and look ahead, what if anything does this body need to do today, and I think that’s the urgent issue. Mr. Hankerson: And I appreciate that. Mr. Mayor: If there is anything else that’s going to slow it down, delay it, stop it or whatever. Mr. Hankerson: I appreciate that. I appreciate that. And that’s what we said the last time when the project was here. But then I hear that individuals knew about it, somebody else knew about it, but nobody took action to say that there is a problem to go ahead and keep it going, so I hope that they get together and verify that these increases and so forth was justified or not justified, and that project can continue to go on, because what I’m hearing, that there is something that they can be doing now, even though the utilities are being moved, but they could already start on something but they’re not starting because of the increase here, that they want to make sure that they get their money. Mr. Mayor: Well, we could, depending on the staff work, Mr. Hankerson, we could put that on the agenda for the called meeting at 11 o’clock Monday and take action, if staff would get everything together. Ms. Smith: And I think that in working with the contractor, that is something that we would certainly be able to do. However, the work that is identified in this change order, has no direct impact on whether or not he would be working on one day or not. The items that are in this contract are for increased fees or for, or for -- for increased fees or for -- basically there is a cost in here for superintendent who wasn’t working on this project and they would like to be reimbursed for his not working on this project for some time frame during last year. So these are the kinds of things that we need to get some additional information and some understanding of as to why it is that we would need to pay part of this gentleman’s salary if he was assigned to other projects and not working on the Barton Chapel project. So there are some specific questions that we need to get some additional information on, and quite, quite honestly, I think that -- and I apologize for taking up the Commission’s time, because I think that within the next few days this would have appeared, probably not on Monday’s agenda, but maybe on the next Engineering Services agenda, because as I stated this information had not yet made it to my desk. I was aware it was out there, and we do have a workshop scheduled to make sure that all of our staff understand the exact process and the expectations that have been given by the Commission and that are in place in our purchasing ordinances with respect to change orders. 79 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I’m satisfied letting it go through the process that we just said today. Let them sit down with Beams, let them work out these costs, and bring it back to us. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham, did you want to say something? Mr. Grantham: Yes, I was to clear up one thing, Mr. Mayor, and that is if micromanaging is being accused, then look directly at me, because I was the one that made a call and I asked [inaudible] and I was concerned about the Vassar Drive project, he had asked me to check with the people around there to see if Beams could continue working this week and I did so, and in doing so I was out there and I talked to Beams and he just questioned me and said can you tell me anything about the Barton Chapel project? Well, I’ve been sitting here for three months and it hadn’t been once, twice, three times, probably half a dozen times, that Barton Chapel project has been brought up. Well, I’m going to call that Commissioner, and certainly it’s not in my Super District, but I have people that live out that way that’s close by in that District that I represent. So I called Commissioner Hankerson and asked him about it, and we did meet with Mr. Beam. I want you to know that. And I was one that talked to him about it and I asked Mr. Hankerson to get involved cause I didn’t know enough about Barton Chapel to give any answers. And if that’s micromanaging then I’m going to apologize for that, but I’m not going to apologize for getting some action done. Ms. Smith: Mr. Mayor, if I may. I would like to respectfully request that if by chance members of the Commission are setting up meetings with my staff that I be notified so that I can follow through and try to make sure that the concerns of the Commission are handled from the Director level down. It’s very difficult for me to show up in a meeting such as today where a meeting has taken place, I’ve gotten little information from staff because they’re concerned about being caught between myself and the Commissioners, with respect to providing information, and therefore it will be extremely beneficial if I am notified or a courtesy call is made if by chance meetings are made with my staff, particularly at the level staff was in attendance at this meeting, where it was the assistant pre-construction engineer and the inspector, which is about four levels down in the management chain. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, if I can just add to that. Whenever Commissioners have contacts with contractors, if they would call me, and we can discuss this and try and work through it. Chances are I have a lot more knowledge about what’s going on and we can arrange to have meetings and bring the appropriate staff to that meeting. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I got -- Mr. Mayor: Wait a minute. Mr. Mays had his hand up. 80 Mr. Williams: Okay. I’m patient. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: I’ll yield to him, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mays. I just want to say to Mr. Grantham, my mother used to tell me [inaudible] dog will holler. I didn’t know who and really didn’t care. I have never called a meeting with staff or with any contractors, but I’ve been on jobs and around this government as much as I possibly can, trying to help and trying to get this government on one track. But whatever a Commissioner decide to do, trust me, that, I mean I welcome the addition of micromanaging that I been accused of, and I wear that badge with, with, with honor. I think that we need to get involved. I don’t get involved to a level of setting up meetings or meeting with contractors, but I think we need to be abreast of what’s going on. My, my, my concern would be with Ms. Smith and the people that works up under her. I just heard that the contractor sent a list of some things in asking for additional monies. That should have been a change order. That’s got a process. That should have went through that process. That process should have been brought to us. If, if somebody in your department, Ms. Smith, or any department not doing what they supposed to do, then somebody in this government need to know that so if you’re not, if they’re not taking action, we need to take some action. That’s where the breakdown came in there. I see where the problem is. So, but I wanted Mr. Grantham to know I didn’t care who it was, just glad somebody was doing it. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to make sure that two things are done. One that in this information sorting through or wherever it’s brought to, whether it comes to legal or legal and Engineering Services, that we’re talking about a money difference, and even if, if Public Works and Beams are talking about a different number that’s being presented, from the time frame that his has been going on and held up, obviously this is going to involve a difference of money. What I would hope is that because of this time frame and all the discussion we’ve had here today, that when it’s brought to this level in a meeting, be in called meeting, legal, whatever it might come to, that there be an identified source of funding to go to in order to make up the difference as to where we’re going to deal with whatever it is. Cause I think getting these details at this point, all that’s good, but the point is you’ve got something now that’s stretched out over a long period of time, and you’re talking about different numbers that you’ve got involved. So I think when we, when we put all the statistics to bed, we need to put the numbers to bed, too. So I’d like to see us bring a source that comes to the table and dealing with it. The second thing I hope that does not happen is that when you work on the level that these business people work under in terms of contracts, whether they by bid or whether they by professional services, when governmental people, regardless of what level we on, whether it’s Administrator, department head, staff, Commissioners, the Mayor, when they’re requested to come somewhere, those people are going to come, because they come, I’m sure, for the right reasons of wanting to get something resolved. I hope that that’s 81 nothing that’s taken out in terms of on the company by anybody for showing up. Because I think if whatever mending of deals that we need to do, there needs to be -- if there’s going to be some changes made and some folk need to be talked to, it needs to be talked to on our side of the fence, we deal with our lines of communication, and that be dealt with from that standpoint. I think the business is there because they were requested to do so. If I may pick up the phone and have somebody do that, which I -- maybe not. I guess say may not, because I guess I’ve never done it in that form or fashion. I try not to deal directly with contractors period. I take a call if they it but I say we’ve got to deal with it in a different system of doing it. But I think that if something is presented to a person regardless of where they are on the chain of command, then, in this case, then Administrator, Director and staff folk need to have some talking going on. Cause obviously there was no phantom meeting. Somebody talked. Some folk were held there. And I’m just saying the, the business folk ought not be held in any way responsible for attending somewhere that they were called and asked to be there. But obviously there is another problem that’s existing. I’m not going to get into that today, but there is some talking that needs to be done in house to a point I think the Director is expressing communication she’s requesting from us, but I think that’s a pendulum that swings both ways. [inaudible] coming in through a department, then it needs to be move up and we need to get some results of us. If the Commissioner sitting in that District brings it to the agenda and has to do it, then if the folk in charge of that department are hearing it for the first time, then I tell you what, me and whoever I had and I was supervising, we’d be talking about it the first thing in the morning. Eyeball to eyeball. And it wouldn’t be on no phone. Because that’s an internal problem that y’all need to get cleared up and worked out. And how y’all deal with that, I just needs to be professionally done. But I just wanted to make sure that the business is not caught in that when they respond on a level from a Commissioner or from a staff person, because the only thing they’re going to do is say somebody from the City want to talk about it, they going to come in. And I think they’ve historically done, done business with the government, the City, the County, now the consolidate government for a long time, and I said whether it was them or whether it’s one of their competitors who do business, that they trying to respond and do that, and I hope somewhere in this communication scheme that they not the ones that get beat in the top of the head for doing it. This an in-house problem and it needs to be worked out in-house, absent of the business people doing it. But they do need to have [inaudible] come in [inaudible] of having a money source to deal with this, cause this has stretched out far too long. Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mays. You know, I agree with you. I speak to contractors when I see them, cause I got to ride on that rough road every day. When I go back and forth from home, I want to know what the utility people are doing, and I stop and talk to them and ask them what progress, what are they doing, and I’m going to continue to stop and ask them, talk to them, and because the project has been out there so long, as Mr. Colclough said. That’s District 4, he’s got half side of it and I got the other half, District 5. So it’s both of our Districts and we concerned and also you have Super District. But I, I hope we move forward with it now, but I think I’ve spoke to enough people that we could have had more information than we have here today, or what we asking for to take place, so it ain’t been no secret, this ain’t the first time that Public 82 Works knew about it today, either. Now, so I’m through with that. Cause I have some concerns [inaudible] questions, any problems at all on Barton Chapel Road. Any problems at all. So I’m finished with it and I just hope we go ahead now and do what we asked to do and next week this will be resolved. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is there a pending motion, Madame Clerk? Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I make a motion to receive this as information. Mr. Grantham: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That was a motion and a second to receive as information. Mr. Hankerson: I thought we have to do something. Mr. Grantham: We’re putting on the agenda for Monday, that’s what -- it was already -- The Clerk: [inaudible] Mr. Hankerson: It wasn’t a motion? The Clerk: No, the Mayor was suggesting -- Mr. Hankerson: Okay, I make a substitute motion that we put in on the agenda for Monday’s committee meeting and that Public Works will come forward with some information of what we need to resolve the problem. Mr. Colclough: I’ll second your motion. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You’ve got the substitute? The Clerk: [inaudible] Mr. Hankerson: Monday, that’s what we decided, right, to bring it Monday. Engineering Service Monday? Mr. Shepard: During the called meeting Mr. Hankerson: During the called meeting. Mr. Shepard: On Monday. Mr. Hankerson: Right. 83 Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] Mr. Hankerson: Called meeting. The called meeting will be fine. [inaudible] called meeting. Could you all be prepared for that, the called meeting? Ms. Smith: We can certainly be prepared. It depends, though, on the information that we get from Beams with respect to the justification for the additional funds that they are requesting. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: In terms of the proposed -- go ahead, Commissioner Williams, while they [inaudible] recognize you. I just wanted to get clarification on [inaudible]. Mr. Williams: And that’s my thing with the time. We talking about a contract with the last agenda item and only having a short amount of time to start the committees on time. Now if we going to lump all this in, then we might, we might need to move the time up for the meeting, because we going to have to miss HND and just come on in here early Monday morning, if we going to start committee on time. But we not going to have the time and it ain’t no sense to sit here with these contractors saying that we going get to that, and not get to it. So I mean I’m, I’m in support of what you want to do, but we need to look at the time. Mr. Hankerson: I’ll restructure that motion to Engineering Service, bring it forward to Engineering Service meeting, committee meeting. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That gets you, well, it gets you deeper up into the day, but as far as the people who got to work with it – I’m looking at Steve. He’s going to have somebody else, I guess, assigned to working the legal part of it, then. That will get them deeper into the day of when he’ll actually can get to us, because if you do it at a called meeting and that’s going to end up being first out there, so the only thing you’re doing, you’re getting some other hours in there. So that’s okay with everybody? You got the substitute information there, Madame Clerk? The Clerk: Yes, sir. Refer to Engineering Services Committee Monday. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a substitute that it can be referred to Engineering Services on Monday with the, with all the pertinent information to be brought back, including a funding source. Is there any discussion on the substitute? On either side? If not, all in favor of the motion, will do so by the usual sign. (Vote on substitute motion) Motion carries 9-0. The Clerk: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, the Attorney. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m sorry. 84 Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, we have tentatively set a time budget this afternoon, and I was going to ask that we go ahead and do a one issue legal meeting if people have to go, and that would be in the nature of the report from Cosnahan. And I’ve asked Ms. Sims if she could hold her item, and I can hold me, number 63. So we can handle what we need to handle. Mr. Williams had asked that this be here. We had Mr. Cosnahan on call. He didn’t come down the whole afternoon, but we can, we can dispose of that today, I believe. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Before entertaining the motion to deal with legal, how many hands I have got up? I got a couple of people that want to make a comment? Don, I know you asked me first. Bobby. Have we got anybody? Rev. Williams on that side. If we could do that, then we’re going to go ahead and entertain that motion to deal with the legal session. Mr. Grantham: Can I? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, go ahead. Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’d like to refer to agenda item number 46 that was in the consent agenda, if you would, please. 46. Motion to authorize execution of Lighting Agreement with the Georgia Department of Transportation for the Wrightsboro Road Project (CPB# 323-04- 296823309). The estimated annual cost of $45,000 per year to cover operations and maintenance will be funded from Street Light Account No. 276041610/53.12310 once the millage rate is adjusted after the project is complete. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 29, 2004) Mr. Grantham: And I’ll ask Engineering Services if they’ll help me with this just a little bit. Ms. Smith, you or Eric, please. My question is, and I was talking to Mr. Shepard and several others, but in regards to this, which we’ve already authorized the execution of the light agreement, with this, this motion indicate that once the millage rate is adjusted after the project is complete, and I was just wondering, since we’ve had requests and consideration of trying to put the mass lights at the intersection of Bobby Jones/I520 and Whitesboro Road, which is in the backup area, which is an alternative that we could do that, and I was wondering if that could be expedited a little quicker before the project of Wrightsboro Road is complete. Ms. Smith: Actually the Georgia Department of Transportation will be doing all of the construction work in conjunction with the Wrightsboro Road project, so it would not happen until the actual project construction activities take place. Mr. Grantham: So the, so the intersection couldn’t be done until everything is complete? 85 Ms. Smith: We can ask them, but typically they don’t go in just and do that type installation. Mr. Grantham: I just wondered if that request would be out of order or if there’s work to be done right there that they couldn’t put it up. Ms. Smith: No, I’m not aware of any work being done that would preclude them from putting it up, but the way their funding is set up and the way their programs are set up, it’s generally done in conjunction with the project. Mr. Grantham: Well, maybe without any motions, if you wouldn’t mind, if we could request them to possibly do that – Ms. Smith: Most definitely. Mr. Grantham: -- I’d appreciate it. Ms. Smith: Okay. Mr. Grantham: I think that’d be important. Ms. Smith: All right. Mr. Grantham: Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s what I was going to suggest with that much darkness that you’ve got up there. Commissioner Hankers is not here right at the moment. He was next. Commissioner Williams, go ahead. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Let me say, too, I don’t think – and I asked for this to be on the agenda to talk about Fleet Management. I wanted somebody from Fleet to be here as well. If, if, if, if y’all figure we got, if y’all figure we got to go into legal, then, you know, I’ve got no problem with that, either. I don’t want any of the legal side of this thing. I don’t want any names. I need to know from the auditor, first of all, is how many times we been in here to check this and what we [inaudible] put in place to prevent this and how did this happen. I didn’t need to know any of the legal side, Steve, I didn’t need to know what the Sheriff was or the names or that kind of thing. I did, I did need to know an amount. I thought this body and this, this Commission need to know the amount that was in question. I thought we need to know how much money we done spent with the internal auditors. The last time we sent somebody in here and I thought some safety precautions was put in, what are those safety precautions, who’s, who’s watching the auditors to say how many hours they put in or how many hours they don’t put in? Those are questions that even as a member of Finance, I have no idea. The only thing I know is when the bill comes in, the City pays it. So we probably done paid out more money to check it than we done lost in the, in the, in the process we got here. So if y’all want to go in legal to answer those questions, then 86 I mean that’s, that’s, that’s fine, too, but I don’t, I don’t see the need to go into legal to talk about this. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, let me just say this. I’m going, I’m going to let the Attorney answer that part, because I’m not sure of, of what you may want to ask, and if you got kind of a little bit of some co-mingling there, I think if you’re talking about a question to the auditor in reference to his timing and hours, those are procedural things. I think that can and would have to be asked in open meeting. If you’re talking about something internal that flips over into a way that deals with something else, then I think that deals with something else, then I think that’s going to have to be done in reference to being a closed session. What I do think you have is you have the availability of persons from both sides. You’ve got three people present, you’ve got the auditor present, and I’m going to yield to the Attorney because I think what you may need to do is that if you’re going to do that in legal, then he needs to direct us as to who needs to come into there and what it needs to be about. Anything on the outside of that needs to be done in the vein of this open session. So I think that, that while it’s there we can do it and then go in and if you’re going to request some question that needs to be asked there, do it, and it probably may not take very long in order to do that, if most of it is procedural. But I see us with, with, with, with kind of – with two issues on the table at the same time. One going into legal and one that needs to be out here. If you going deal with that. But I’m going to yield to the Attorney to direct us on that. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, as a matter of potential litigation, I would like to have the Commission to go into legal session to discuss the findings to date of the audit. And I also have, your request, Mr. Wiliams, and we were trying very hard to have all the parties here. That’s one, I think, we can dispose of this afternoon consistent with everybody’s schedule. So I’d ask it as a matter of potential litigation we go into executive session to hear a report from Mr. Cosnahan, our auditor, our internal auditor. Mr. Williams: I got no problem, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, those questions that I brought up about the fees and how much and those kind of things, should those be brought back out here? Could we get those questions answered now? Do we need to – Mr. Shepard: Those questions about how much we are spending with the internal auditor? Mr. Williams: Well, yeah. Mr. Shepard: That should be out here. Mr. Williams: Okay. Well, if we can, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’d like to go ahead and get those questions and then we can go into legal and get – I don’t know what else except the fact that we need to know how long this potential situation has been affected. But I see Baird & Co. is here, so. 87 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can I ask this, and I think is further where the Attorney is trying to go. If there are some specifics that we got to come back out here to deal with, can we deal with the part that needs to go into legal, get through with it, if there is something we need to send somebody to get or to research because what I’m saying is I’m not sure in terms of the exact request of what and who was to be brought. I think people are basically here to answer whatever questions that we might have. If it’s a financial reporting, to a certain extent it’s not really the job of the people from Fleet or the internal auditor to a certain extent to tell us how much time has been spent and what the billing process and how that’s being checked. That has to be done, I would think, through administrative staff and Finance as to whether or not and how much that bill should be going and if there are measures that they need to do in checking that or fine tuning it, I think that would come out of them to do it. But I was just trying to find a way that if we need to get that further information for you, we could go ahead and deal with something in legal, send for that that needs to be answered in public, and if that can be done this evening while we are there finishing up the legal part, we can get it done. But I think to search out and to go now [inaudible] how the time logs running and all of that, I think we can be doing something else probably while we are doing that. That’s just my personal opinion about it. Mr. Williams: I got no problems, Mr. Mays, I mean we can, we can, we can request that information. In fact, if you want me to, I can request the information and have it brought to Finance in, in our Finance meeting. But those are some of the questions I’d like to have an answer to as far as this investigation going on just in that department. How much time, how much money we done spent out there, who’s supervising, who’s okaying, who’s not okaying. Those, those hours or those reports that been turned in. And what safeguards was supposed to be put in a year or so ago to, to prevent this. Cause this is not the first time we been in that department. So I’d like to get clear, like to know how much money we spent the first time, checking Fleet for the same things we, we, we, we, we brought to them before. Micromanaging, Don, I was doing some of that then, I was accused of it. But still, we, we, we brought some stuff to, to the internal auditors. It came back and we put some things in place supposed to prevent that. And I’d like to know what things were put in place. And then how did this get by if those things were put in place. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well – go ahead, Steve. how much had been Mr. Shepard: I think the three things that I heard you say, spent in the first audit, all right? Mr. Williams: On Fleet. Mr. Shepard: On Fleet. Mr. Williams: A year ago. Mr. Shepard: The hours spent? 88 Mr. Williams: Right. Mr. Shepard: All right. And what changes have been implemented, if any? Is that correct? What changes – there were some put in place, that’s Mr. Williams: No, no. what we was told. So there was some changes put in place. I want to know what changes was that. And if there, if the changes was there, how did this get by? Mr. Shepard: And here again, I would rule all that as open meeting. , Mr. Williams: Okay, wellI’m asking this for Finance, for a report for committee. Mr. Shepard: On those four topics? Mr. Williams: That’s right. Mr. Shepard: For Finance. Mr. Williams: That’s right. For, for committee meeting. I don’t have to have them today. Mr. Shepard: Well – Mr. Williams: Then we can go into legal – Mr. Shepard: We can go into legal and deal with potential litigation and be done. I think [inaudible] form of a motion. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: For those things that the Commissioner wants to put on the Finance agenda to be brought back. Okay. If that’s, if – are those items that he’s read back, Commissioner, are they clear in terms of where you want in a motion if you want to make it, and we direct that to be put on Finance’s agenda in reference to getting that information back to us. Mr. Williams: So move, those items is correct. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion. Is there a second? Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, there’s a motion and a second for the so named items to be brought back and to be placed on Finance, on the committee agenda. Is there any discussion? All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. 89 Motion carries 9-0. 64. LEGAL MEETING. • Update/report on the status of the Internal Auditor’s findings on the Fleet Management Contract. (Deferred from the March 29 Finance Committee Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’d request a legal meeting to discuss the potential litigation arising from Mr. Cosnahan’s work. Mr. Grantham: So move. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Have a motion and a second in reference to the named item expressed by the Attorney in reference to this matter. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign, the same way this time. Motion carries 9-0. [LEGAL MEETING] Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ladies and gentlemen, we’re back in session. Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir, Mr. Attorney. 65. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with Georgia’s Open Meeting Act. Mr. Shepard: I’d ask for a motion to approve the execution of the closed meeting affidavit to state we were in executive session for consultation with the Attorney with respect to potential litigation. Mr. Williams: So move. Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Mr. Boyles out. Motion carries 8-0. 90 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Before we -- we do have one item that was left, Madame Clerk, on regular, on item number 61, and I think the Attorney had asked [inaudible] that’s on there be deferred until [inaudible]. Mr. Shepard: Yes, I’d ask to defer. Ms. Sims, that’s your number. Did you want to have it deferred? Ms. Sims: I would just like to comment if that’s possible. Or not? I’ll wait. Mr. Shepard: It’s possible, whatever you want to do. Ms. Sims: I can wait. Mr. Shepard: Okay. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The Chair recognizes the gentle lady on the end. Got two there. Got one ugly fellow trapped between the two of y’all, but if wish, you can -- Ms. Sims: I can wait until the following -- The Clerk: You want it on April 20? Ms. Sims: That’s fine. I can have it, can have it on committee. The Clerk: Okay. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: She and I been talking. I think we’ve agreed that 61, part of 61 has been working with what we’ve been dealing with today, and we’ve got some, some things I think that the Attorney is going to discuss with us as we move along over the course of the next couple of weeks in terms of timing and how to set some things there, so that we can dispose of some backlog and some things in transition, and I think that will get us toward a pretty good smooth sailing with reference to our time. If there be nothing else that be brought before this body, the Chair will entertain a motion we adjourn. [MEETING ADJOURNED] Motion carries 8-0. Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission 91 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 April 6, 2004. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission 92