HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-01-2004 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
July 1, 2004
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:04 p.m., Thursday, July 1,
2004, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hon. Hankerson, Smith, Colclough, Grantham, Mays, Cheek, Beard,
Williams, Sims and Boyles, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also Present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; Fred Russell, Interim Administrator;
Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The invocation was given by the Rev. Troy Beechman.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
RECOGNITIONS:
Firefighter Luis Gonzales
Augusta Fire Department
Mr. Gillespie: -- make requests for Spanish-speaking interpreter. And Luis
speaks Spanish. He was at a different station but he said that he did speak Spanish, and
he talked to his battalion chief or the acting battalion chief that day and they dispatched
them. He arrived on scene and not only assisted on scene with the incident and helping
take care of patients, but also his language skills assisted the deputies, the members of the
family, the bystanders, the emergency medical people on scene, the rest of the fire
service. They loaded up the victims, the patients there and took them to the hospital in
ambulance. Luis rode in with the ambulance to help interpret on the way there. In the
hospital, they kept him in the emergency room and had him help interpret in there for the
doctors and they took him up to the operating room and had him interpret there until the
patient was under anesthesia. And for his actions, above and beyond, we have a letter of
commendation from the Fire Department from him, so I’d like to take this opportunity to
commend you for your unselfish actions you showed on February – excuse me, Friday,
June 11, at the incident at this address. Thank you for the service you provided to the
Fire Service, Rural Metro, Medical College of Georgia emergency staff and operating
staff, your actions were an example of concern and dedication we have for the citizens
within our community. I commend you on a job well done. Congratulations, Luis.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: It’s indeed a pleasure to be in here with you today, officer [inaudible]
fire service in Augusta, I was in Boston last week at the U.S. Conference of Mayors and
we were being picketed by firemen who didn’t like Mayor Benito’s contract offer. So it’s
pleasure to be here under much different circumstances with our own fire service in
1
Augusta and to recognize firefighter Luis Gonzales. And from the Mayor’s office we
have for you a recognition: By these presents, be it known that Firefighter Luis Gonzales
is a citizen of character for exhibiting the character trait of benevolence, giving to others
basic needs without having personal reward as my motive. Thank you, and
congratulations.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] Mr. Gonazles and all the firefighters, as chairman of
Public Safety, we thank you for your actions. It takes a strong will and minded person to
be able to firefight, and I can personally testify to that, from being a fireman. It doesn’t
just when the bell goes off for a fire. Anytime people need assistance, I know it’s in your
blood to act, to respond, we just thank God to have citizens like you working for
Richmond County. We thank you again for all you’ve done.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, gentlemen. We’re going to next take up item number 5
on the agenda.
The Clerk: Chief Otis F. Spence, Jr., would you please join the Mayor and Chief
Gillespie at the podium? In recognition of Battalion Chief –
Mr. Mayor: Read the caption for item 5.
The Clerk:
5. Motion to approve retirement of Mr. Otis Spence, Jr. under the 1977 Pension
Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee June 21, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: We’ll entertain a motion.
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Discussion? All in favor, please vote with the
usual sign.
Mr. Mays and Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, do we have a special presentation for Chief Spence?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. In recognition of Battalion Chief Otis F. Spence, Jr.:
2
Whereas, Otis F. Spence, Jr., an Augusta native, has been with the Augusta Fire
Department for more than 45 years, and
Whereas, he began his firefighter career as a volunteer in 1957 and joined the Fire
Department as an employee in 1959 as a private, and
Whereas, his commitment and dedication through the ranks have led him to this
position as Battalion Chief, and
Whereas, on this date the people of Augusta would like to honor Battalion Chief
Spence for his many years of service and wish him well on his retirement.
Now, therefore I, Bob Young, the Mayor of the City of Augusta, do hereby
proclaim July 1, 2004 as Battalion Chief Otis F. Spence, Jr. Day in Augusta, Georgia, and
on this occasion of his retirement and urge all citizens to recognize this date. In witness
hereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of Augusta, Georgia to be affixed
this first day of July, 2004.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] a leader for [inaudible] in the fire service. He’s always
been a soft-spoken man, always been a man of intelligence [inaudible]. He [inaudible]
fellow fire fighters. He taught us a lot. [inaudible] Otis always a quiet, soft-spoken man.
[inaudible] fair and upright and always had a pipe in his mouth [inaudible]. And I just
thank God for him making [inaudible].
Mr. Spence: [inaudible]
(Laughter)
Mr. Gillespie: I’d like to say a few words about him, also. Besides working with
our Fire Department, [inaudible] fire service instructor and did so for many years, not just
in this area, but across the state, and taught fulltime people and volunteers and people
who were just learning and people who were veterans, and he touched many, many lives
in the fire service. And people, we have some of the people whose lives that he touched,
that are now officers and leaders of the fire services, and that ripple effect that he had
with members of the fire service and the communities they serve is just unprecedented. I
want to say thank you also.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk:
Citizen of Character Award
Kent Sprull
Trey C. Livingston
Devan A. Sprull
The Clerk: The Office of the Mayor let it be known that Mr. Devan A. Sprull,
Mr. Kent Sprull, and Mr. Trey C. Livingston as a Citizens of Character Award for
3
exhibiting the character trait of initiative, recognizing and doing what needs to be done.
Mr. Sprull, Mr. Sprull and Mr. Livingston distinguished themselves for an act of
resourcefulness by cleaning up litter around the Mayor’s Fishing Hole. Their selfless
actions reflect great credit on behalf of themselves and an example of what character is.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] over the [inaudible] holiday wanted to take his son
fishing at the Mayor’s Fishing Hole. I didn’t get the email until after the holiday and then
went ahead and went out there anyway but they couldn’t fish when they saw the litter and
that it needed policing out there. The three of them got their garbage bags and went to it,
picked up all the trash out there, and I think that’s a great example of citizenship. If more
of us would take the initiative to pick up trash around the community, it would look
pretty darn good. I want to thank y’all very much for taking the initiative and
undertaking that project. Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk:
PROCLAMATION:
Recreation and Parks Month
Mr. Tom Beck, Director
Augusta Recreation and Parks
The Clerk: Mr. Beck, please join the Mayor at the podium, along with Mr.
Colclough. And the Chairman of our Public Services Committee. In recognition of
Recreation and Parks Month,
Whereas, the Augusta Recreation and Parks Department brings visibility to parks
and recreation, and quality sports programs, and
Whereas, Parks and Recreation activities lead to experiences, provide
opportunities for young people to live, grow and develop into contributing members of
society, and
Whereas, Parks and Recreation creates lifelines and continues life experiences for
older members of our community, and
Whereas, generating opportunities for people to come together and experience a
[inaudible] of community through fun recreational pursuits, and
Whereas, Parks and Recreations agencies provide outlets for physical activities,
socialization and stress reducing experiences, and
Whereas, parks, playgrounds, ball fields, nature trails, open spaces, community
and cultural centers and historic sites make the community an attractive and desirable
place to live, work, play and visit and contribute to our ongoing economic viability, and
4
Whereas, parks, greenways and open space provide a welcome respect for our
past, for our fast paced, high tech lifestyles, while protecting and preserving our natural
environment, and
Whereas, Parks and Recreation agencies touch the lives of individuals, families,
groups and the entire community and positively impacts upon the social, economic health
and environmental qualify of our community,
Now, therefore, I, Bob Young, the Mayor of the City of Augusta, do hereby
proclaim the month of July, 2004, as Recreation and Parks Month in Augusta, Georgia
and encourage all citizens to celebrate by participating in their choice of pleasurable
activities to refresh their leisure.
In witness thereof, I have unto set my hand and caused the seal of Augusta,
Georgia to be affixed this first day of July, 2004.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, and members of the
community, July is National Recreation and Parks Month. But through the support of the
Mayor and the Commission and our community, Recreation and Parks is alive and well
in Augusta, Georgia. And there are five no better reasons for that and for the programs
that we’re putting on than the individuals that are in front of me here today, and I’d just
like to introduce them and tell you a little bit about them. Starting from my left, from the
Augusta Boxing Club, we have William Ware. William graduated from Glenn Hills
High School this past year and his plans for the future include boxing in the Olympics
and becoming a professional boxer. He’s a member of our Augusta Boxing Club.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Beck: Next to William is Mr. Bill Mitchell. And Bill Mitchell is from the
Eastview Community Center. Bill serves as a volunteer for our department and we
cannot accomplish our mission without our volunteers. Bill has –
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Beck: Bill has been the president of Eastview, East Augusta Neighborhood
Association for three years and also been the director of our Eastview Community Center
during that time, as well, as part of a partnership we have with East Augusta
Neighborhood Association. Thank you, Bill.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Beck: Next we have our Blythe Recreation Center karate students. Hunter
Davis, who is age 9, and Hillary Frazier, who is 12. Hillary has been taking lessons for
1-1/2 years and has a green belt. Hunter has been taking lessons for the same amount of
time and also has a green belt. And they participate in our karate program at Blythe
Community Center and are a viable part of our youth program.
5
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Beck: Next is Kelsey Burns. Kelsey is 13 and she is a part of our West
Augusta softball program. And Kelsey is 13 and she will attend Richmond Academy
next year. She had been participating in our program for eight years.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Beck: So ladies and gentlemen, we invite you all to enjoy activities during
National Recreation and Parks Month, and remember, Recreations and Parks Day is
every day here in Augusta, Georgia. We have packets of information about our activities
in July, and Mr. Mayor, if I could, I would just like to ask Ms. Matilda Johnson, cause
one of the big programs we have in this city is coming up this Sunday, which is our July
th
4 Riverblast, and I’d like to ask Matilda Johnson just to come forward for just a few
th
seconds and give you a quick overview about July 4. Matilda.
th
Ms. Johnson: We’re so excited about this year’s 4 of July Riverblast. We have
six entertainment stages that will cover from the Augusta Common all the way down to
the depot. We also have lots of free entertainment for our children. The Augusta
Common will be the designated children’s area. So please come out. Everything starts at
12 noon on this Sunday, and a fireworks show will be at 9:15.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Beck: Thank you very much.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] one of the best Recreation and Parks [inaudible] in
Augusta, Georgia. Tom, thank you.
Mr. Beck: Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: We have two additions to the agenda. Madame Clerk, if you’ll read
those, we’ll ask for unanimous consent.
The Clerk:
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
RECOGNITIONS:
Commissioner Richard Colclough
6
Re: Certificate of Excellence representing 120 hours of training from the Harold F.
Holtz Municipal Training Institute for Elected Officials
Commissioner Bobby Hankerson
Re: Election as First Vice President of District 7 and Election to the Board of
Directors of the Georgia Municipal Association
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to adding those to the agenda? Madame Clerk, if
you’ll proceed with that.
RECOGNITION:
Commissioner Richard Colclough
Re: Certificate of Excellence representing 120 hours of training from the Harold F.
Holtz Municipal Training Institute for Elected Officials
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, as some of you
may know, this past weekend we attended the Georgia Municipal Association Annual
Conference in Savannah. During those activities, Commissioner Richard Colclough
received his Certificate of Excellence which represents 120 hours of training from the
Harold F. Holtz Municipal Training Institute for Elected Officials. So we’d like to
applaud you, Commissioner, for this outstanding achievement.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: We have a request to delete item –
The Clerk: We have one more.
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry.
RECOGNITION:
Commissioner Bobby Hankerson
Re: Election as First Vice President of District 7 and Election to the Board of
Directors of the Georgia Municipal Association
The Clerk: Also during the conference, we were also pleasured with
Commissioner Bobby Hankerson, who was elected First Vice President of District 7 of
the Georgia Municipal Association, having been elected First Vice President, he also was
elected to the Board of Directors of the Georgia Municipal Association. So Augusta, we
did quite well at our annual conference. Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: We have a request to delete item number 46 from the agenda. Is
there any objection to deleting item number 46 from the agenda?
7
DELETION FROM THE AGENDA:
Item 46
Mr. Mayor: Okay, none is heard. Madame Clerk, we would like to move now to
items number 42 and 43. We have some delegations here for those items. And we’ll just
take these two up together.
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: What do we have?
The Clerk: Presentations.
Mr. Mayor: Did I miss something?
The Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Oh, okay, I’m sorry. I was so excited about the recognitions. Let’s
back up and we’ll do the delegation and then 42 and 43. Thank you. That’s why you’re
the Clerk. Keep us straight.
The Clerk:
PRESENTATION:
Presentation from the Augusta Museum of History. (Requested by
Commissioner Barbara Sims)
Five (5) minute time limit per delegation
The Clerk: Mr. Scott Loehr and Ms. Faye Hargrove, would you please come
forward?
Mr. Mayor: If you will, just give us your name and address for the record.
Mr. Loehr: Mayor Young, members of the Commission, I am Scott Loehr,
executive director of the Augusta Museum of History, and in keeping with today’s theme
of quality of life and how important that is to any community, particularly the art
community, we are here today – we being the Augusta Museum of History and the Lucy
Craft Laney Museum of Black History – to make a presentation on a very exciting project
that we are bringing to the community later this year. And that presentation will be made
by the Museum’s vice president, Dr. Faye Hargrove.
Dr. Hargrove: Good afternoon. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, and
citizens, it is our privilege to talk to you briefly about an exciting exhibit that we are
partnering with the Lucy Laney Museum to bring to our community. I thank you,
Commissioner Sims, for making it possible for us to inform you and ask for your support
8
on this endeavor. In 1699, a slave ship left England and headed for the Caribbean, loaded
with 190 African slaves. It disembarked and unloaded the slaves in Jamaica and headed
toward Florida, and it sank in 1700. The ship was recovered in the 1970s and has been
on exhibit and touring the country since then, the artifacts on the ship. And it’s called the
Henrietta Marie. It’s one of the most comprehensive signs of the slave ship in history.
We’re fortunate to bring that exhibit to Augusta December 19 through March 13. And in
our effort to do that, we saw it as an opportunity to be a catalyst to build bridges in our
community and to foster a sense of community. What we’d like to do is create a focus
around the theme or Take the Journey. The journey began with the passengers of the
slave ship, with slave ships in the 1600s and 1700s and has resulted in impacts that, and
implications that we still feel today in our community. What we’d like to do is use this as
an initiative to build bridges and take a journey to the future as a cohesive community
working together to build a future together for our area. As a result, we have put together
a task force, and that task force consists of members of our community, members of the
Community Trust Initiative group. We are focusing in several areas to not make this just
an exhibit from the Museum, but a community effort and an effort to bring people who
can sit at the table together who have never done that before. We have the Augusta
Ballet working with Cutno Dance Studio to bring a performing arts group here. We have
Cutno Dance Studio creating a ballet, a jazz ballet, for the children. We have churches in
our community prepared to discuss this issue from the pulpit. We are working with the
Richmond County Board of Education to make sure that school children are aware of and
exposed to the exhibit and teachers are aware of the educational materials that come with
the exhibit and are exposed and prepared to have a discussion. We would like to see this
evolve into a community-wide effort, and thus we’re here to ask for your support.
Charlotte, the City of Charlotte, did have the exhibit six or seven years ago in Spirit
Square, there in Spirit Square. And they did create it as a community-wide activity. In
the three month period when it was there, they received 60 thousand visitors and were
able to raise over 150 thousand dollars from businesses in the community to support that.
There was a documentary that was done about it. And it went a long way to serve a sense
of community in that area. We feel that it can do the same thing in the Augusta area.
And therefore, we’re making presentations across the community and asking for support,
asking for your ideas and ways that can create a community-wide effort to use the exhibit
as a foundation for an emphasis to take the journey together into a brighter future for the
CSRA.
Mr. Mayor: Any questions? Ms. Sims?
Ms. Sims: No, but thank you so much for being willing to come and make an
abbreviated presentation. I know you have a longer one with visuals, and hopefully all of
us will have the opportunity to see that. But I thank you for adhering for the five minute
presentation. I know that was difficult --
Dr. Hargrove: It was.
9
Ms. Sims: And I appreciate the effort that you made. And I think we all have a
sense of what you are trying to do, and I’m sure we’ll be in support of you. Thank you
very much.
Dr. Hargrove: Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk: Under our Delegation portion of the Agenda, Ms. Janice Jenkins,
president of the Valley Park Neighborhood Association.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Jenkins here?
The Clerk: Yes.
DELEGATION:
Valley Park Neighborhood Association
Ms. Janice Jenkins, President
RE: SPLOST Funding
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Jenkins, welcome. Just give us your name and address for the
record, and then you’ll have five minutes. Thank you.
Ms. Jenkins: Good afternoon. My name is Janice Jenkins. I live at 1919 Rock
Springs Drive in Augusta, Georgia, in the subdivision of Valley Park. I am the president
of the Association, and I’m here today to ask for your support. Valley Park is a
subdivision that consists of approximately 250 homes. The subdivision has been in
existence for many years. Approximately two and a half years ago, we were faced with a
decision to have our recreational pool area removed due to the decisions by the City
Administrator at that time to not have the City take over the pool area because the City
did not at that time want to take the responsibility to maintain any more pools. Based on
that, the pool was filled in, and the land is now just a large filled area in which the
Association attempts to keep manicured and upkept. We are here today to ask for your
support and approval in allocating SPLOST funds or other funds that may be available to
help us develop a park area for the neighborhood. At the current time, our children have
no access to play or recreational areas, except for the streets. The homes are in a boxed
area, except for the Augusta State sports complex across the street. As well, our senior
citizens have nowhere to gather or to exercise, or there’s nowhere for the families to
gather for neighborhood unity. We would like to have a walking track, a playground
area, a shelter with picnic tables, privacy fencing, and if possible, some lighting to go in
that area, due to the fact that we are not near a park at this time. We are here today to ask
for your support in this recommendation. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Hankerson?
10
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir. I think that we have quite a few of citizens and
residents of Valley Park present at this time, I think, and I’d like for them to be
recognized. I think that I saw a lot of them out in the hall. Would you raise your hands?
Okay. And there’s some out in the hallway. Commission, Mr. Mayor, Commission, I
have been meeting with the Valley Park Association, which worked hard in the
community and keeping that community safe and working in cooperation with Augusta
State University for the property adjacent to Valley Park to not oppose them placing
housing that surrounds Valley Park, or the area or subdivision. For those of you who
don’t know where it’s located, they are boxed in in that area. They do have the land
available right in the heart of the community. They did not come and request any money
during the SPLOST negotiations when we had the meetings because of the fact that with
no drainage or anything identified in that area, but there is a need in the area for self-
sustaining recreation facility, and what Ms. Jenkins is speaking of, it would be self-
sustaining. They’re not asking for a recreation center or building or anything. They’re
just asking to utilize some land that are located in the community that they could have to
get the kids out of the street or get the senior citizens and other citizens a place to
exercise, walk and be safe in their own community. I asked Mr. Beck to look at that also
and I would like for Mr. Beck to come forward to present the stats that he have for the
project.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beck, you have some information for us?
Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we were asked by
Commissioner Hankerson to look at the Valley Park area, and we have done so, and
before you is an estimate of the same facilities that Ms. Jenkins just mentioned, that they
would desire in that area. Would be a walking track, picnic equipment, playground
equipment, some landscaping, park furnishings, and those types of things. So we have
looked at the area. It is an area that we did assist with Valley Park Neighborhood
Association about three years ago in their efforts, but I think we’re back here today with
this proposal.
Mr. Hankerson: I thought we could look at some funds since they were not
currently on the list for SPLOST V, this wouldn’t be additional because I can and I
will include the proposal that they have here in SPLOST V and also if there are any
other funds that we may could allocated to just get this area and apply the area that
they have there. Now my understanding that – and I want the Commission to
understand that the property there that we are talking about right now is private
property, but the best part about it, the city would not have to pay anything for the
property because these citizens are here today and I talked with them and met with
them numerous times and they agreed to just deed the property over to the city, so
we’re not buying any property, we’re just only allocating a place for them. So we
hope that, we’re asking for assistance of this in including them in the SPLOST and
also looking for some funds to see can we get the project started.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
11
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] want to go ahead and make a motion to that effect?
Mr. Hankerson: I so move.
Mr. Mays: I’ll second. Mr. Mayor, I had a chance to look at the numbers on
yesterday. I also had a chance to talk with Ms. Jenkins. And I fully support it. I want to
make sure of one thing, Mr. Beck, if you could come back for just a second. And I notice
in the numbers listed we’ve got some contingency in here. But is that enough to do the
lighting or do we need to include an amount specifically to deal with the lighting so that
we’re not depending upon contingency to deal with lights? Because with the number of
people that they’ve got in that area, we definitely don’t want it to be a target type
situation to where you put it together you’ve got no lights and then we’re scrambling to
put that in.
Mr. Beck: The best that I could do is go back to staff. Our staff put this
recommendation together after going over and meeting with the neighborhood. I’d have
to check to see whether or not that contingency could handle it. I would probably doubt
it so we may need to relook at this and possibly add some dollars for the lighting in there.
But we’ll make sure of that.
Mr. Mays: And I think we could amend it probably just to a point of where
we, whatever numbers we do present to SPLOST, Commissioner, that it would
include the amount of the lighting that’s in there.
Cause I think definitely that’s a
plus. And I said, too, said it on yesterday evening, I know, this is one of the groups, and
I’m glad to see them being persistent because [inaudible] little bit disturbing [inaudible]
the sitting Commissioner coming on is that in the help that the city assisted with, it was
more in closing down than in providing real assistance. And it’s after the fact now, but I
was kind of disappointed that it came out of the Administrator’s office to a point to make
that decision and not come before this Commission and at least ask us to make that
decision. Whether it passed or not, it would have been good to have it before us as
Commissioners to make that decision. That’s not a knock on Rec and Parks, but it was
[inaudible] the Administrator, I understand, said on that particular meeting. That’s water
over the dam, but those are the kind of things I think, Mr. Mayor, that we need to have
before us in committee and that we [inaudible] make it a point that it got before us so we
could make those decision. They wouldn’t just be made administratively and we find out
about it months after the fact that it was done. So I wanted to say that. I fully support it
and this will obviously be one of those that’s added to your program list, which I know
from what you all have [inaudible] total of about $59 million, that the amount as chopped
down to about $11 million, so I think we’ve got some serious work to do in terms of
adding those things to areas in this city which need recreation. But I wanted to make sure
that that is one of those that we add on. Now there might be some funds, and particularly
with an opportunity to acquire land, which we don’t get the opportunity to do many
times, particularly when folk are wiling to give us something, I would hope that if we’ve
got some reprogramming, and since this is not a large project to be done, if there are
some funds there, it may be from other projects, it may be there but we may have two to
12
three different contingencies to be able to get something from [inaudible] some of that
started, Mr. Beck.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Last sales tax meeting we heard about polls
and so forth. This is a tremendous poll today with the amount of interest shown by this
neighborhood, this city investing in its recreation. I would I guess based on the motion
and the level of concern expressed by this one neighborhood that this is a sign that this
whole city supports Recreation and Parks and I guess by this, I hope I can count on the
whole Commission to support fully funding the recreational portion of the SPLOST V
initiative without cuts. I think this is a [inaudible] of what you’ll see in interest in the
city, is that we fully fund Recreation and Parks for the next ten years in the next sales tax.
I have a question, Mr. Mayor. As we are doing with many of our other parks throughout
the city, of which we don’t have staff to maintain, we have a commitment from this
neighborhood to take ownership in this park and operate it for us while we do the
maintenance, will the neighborhood commit themselves to operating and overseeing the
park for us?
Ms. Jenkins: Mayor and Commission, we have talked about that we would take
responsibility for overseeing as much as possible, if you could support us in this
endeavor. Thank you.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, ma’am. That’s the way the city needs to go. We don’t
have the budget and staff to cover them, and neighbors, if you go to east Augusta or
Jamestown Community Center or some of the others, the neighborhood has taken over.
They’re more like [inaudible], they’re truly centers within the neighborhood for the
neighbors. I would encourage that and I applaud your efforts in doing something for the
community and I plan on supporting it.
Ms. Jenkins: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Mays: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I agree with what my colleagues just said, but
I just thought about one aspect. Commissioner Mays talked about recaptured money that
may be money that recaptured somewhere, but we’ve got another avenue, and Tom
always bragging on the work that our inmate crews done, which may alleviate some costs
and some work. But we do have some fine facilities that was structed or constructed by
inmates, which they have done professional work, been very cost saving for this city, so I
would like to add that to what has been said, that if we can use some of those talents to
get started, to do some thing, I think would be great. So I’m in support. I just want to put
that in. If we can do that, I think it be even better.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beck, just for my information, the other Commissioners may be
interested, too. I know you don’t have it with you today, but if you could supply the
13
impact on your annual operating budget, the cost. We need to start looking at that side of
the equation as we look at capital improvements.
Mr. Beck: As we have done with all of our SPLOST programs, we have a column
there on our program that shows what impact the [inaudible] will have and this will be
added to our list.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Yes, sir?
Mr. Hankerson: I need to add something to this. I know that with what can be
done there, it would not be increasing in this budget. I also want to make known, too, I
don’t want to read the paper tomorrow and see that we increasing Recreation, because
I’m willing to adjust my list that I’ve already passed in to include Valley Park, because
Valley Park was not on my list. So it’s not necessarily mean that that would increase.
I’m not increasing to the Recreation budget. I’m willing to adjust what I’ve already
allocated. If I’ve got to deduct some from other areas, then I want Valley Park included
in this, so it’s not an increase.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We have a motion on the floor?
Mr. Boyles: Would you restate the motion? I’m not quite sure.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, would you read the motion for the benefit of the
Commissioner?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. The motion was to include the Valley Park request in
SPLOST V deliberations and to consider from any other funding source that might be
available.
Mr. Boyles: The second part, Mr. Mayor, about reconsidering from any other
funding sources that may be available, would that involved with SPLOST IV?
Mr. Mayor: That would include any available.
Mr. Boyles: Anything available in ’05 is two years away as far as – you can’t
spend it till ’06. So anything we could do, and I agree with the Commissioner from
District 5, we need to – and the folks over there – we need to do something. And I know
all of our SPLOST money comes out of different pots, whether it’s Recreation or it’s Fire
or whether it’s Public Works. So if there was anything in the recaptured line or
anywhere, Tom, that we could look at and see if we could just get something going for
that neighborhood. You know, you and I had talked about that a long, long time ago, and
I just appreciate the clarification, but I think if we could do something on a recaptured
type basis before going to V I think we’d be better off. But I just support what you’re
trying to do.
14
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and seconded. Any further
discussion? All in favor of the motion then please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: All right, now let’s take up 42 and 43. We’ll do those two together.
The Clerk:
42. Motion to approve a contract with GA Food Service, Inc. for food services at
four senior nutrition sites operated by Augusta, Ga. (No recommendation from
Public Services Committee June 7, 2004 and deferred from the June 15, 2004
Commission meeting)
43. Motion to approve Augusta, Ga. being named a subgrantee to receive
funding through the CSRA Regional Development Center for the operation of
Senior Nutrition Program. (No recommendation from Public Services Committee
June 7, 2004 and deferred from the June 15, 2004 Commission meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Do you have an update on the legal status and all that?
[inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: This is correct, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, members of the
Commission, the attorneys for both parties are here in the chamber with us today. I see
them. The Superior Court declined to enjoin the awarding of the contract. I believe the
plaintiff was the Senior Citizens Center. So in a fairly short order, the Court did not tie
the hands of the contracting parties. We would be free to go ahead today and to consider
the contract which is offered by GA Foods and the potential funding sources as a
subgrantee of the Area Aging on Aging, which would fund that contract in large part. I
think the Recreation Department has prepared some financial information which would
be relevant to all those contracts, and I would ask the Commissioners just to hear that
presentation. I see Mr. Shawn Hammond here. I’m sure he wants to be heard on behalf
of the Senior Citizens Center. I see Mr. Harley here for the RDC. So I would just ask the
Commission entertain this on a substantive basis at this time. I think the primary
sentiment that I understood from the Commissioners last week was a commitment from
them that the seniors of Richmond County continue to be served high quality meals. So I
think you should look at this presentation and consider both items together. I might add
that other counties in this area have chosen to provide their own funding sources for other
contracts, so that would basically be the alternative.
Mr. Mayor: So the alternative would be to go with the GA Food Service, which is
the selected vendor for RDC and take advantage of the subsidy?
Mr. Shepard: That would be the only –
15
Mr. Mayor: Or you can contract with anybody else you want to and not take
advantage of the subsidy?
Mr. Shepard: In that case you would have to find your own funding source.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s hear from Mr. Beck. We’ll get to you in just a minute, Andy.
Let’s hear from Mr. Beck. I think he’s got some information to share. Tom, I believe the
seniors did get fed today; is that right?
Mr. Beck: Yes, sir, that’s correct. They did get fed.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard said you had some information to share with us?
Mr. Beck: I’m not sure which information that’s not already in your packets.
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] spread sheet [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Andy, I’ll come to you while they talk.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. There is another alternative that I think we
should consider. Right now, RDC is a pass-through agency approved by the State. It’s
also the Area Agency on Aging certified by DNR, DHR, excuse me, in the State. One
thing that we should consider in light of the state of this contract and what I consider
serious flaws with this and the impact on the five, not four, senior centers in this city, the
largest of which would be threatened to be closed if we approve this today, is that we
request a decertification of RDC by the State DHR and ask for the approval of our Senior
Center as the AAA for this area. That would save approximately $600,000 in
administrative costs and put the management of our senior centers and our food service
providers and so forth in the hands of a nationally renowned senior center who has had an
excellent track record for over 17 years of service. That is a third option that we should
seriously consider in light of this contract, and it’s there to comply with several state
requirements for competitive bidding, and in light of the fact that we were told there was
a state reduction of funding of $170,000 or so which in fact was a requested
reprogramming by RDC that took money out of the food program and put it to the home
care program, away from the number 1 and 2 priority issues, of food service providing,
into the number 3 category. There are just so many discrepancies, and Mr. Mayor, I’ll go
into greater detail on some things I’d like to recommend we consider. This is a bad
contract and a bad deal. It’s gone so far as that from my understanding there is some
effort underway to remove the Medicaid portion of food services from the Senior Center,
which enable the Senior Center from the profits from that food service to stay open and
serve many, many senior citizens in that area. We serve about 400 meals a day in the city
of Augusta. Right at 200 of those come from the Center that is at risk right now. I would
consider that a serious impact on the seniors in this area in light of the fact that the Senior
Center is in an area, an impoverished area that serves a lot of neighborhood folks who
just can’t travel to a lot of other places. But I’m going to reserve and extend my remarks
16
at the end of the presentation, Mr. Mayor, if we have one. This is a bad deal for the city
of Augusta. It’s a bad deal for the seniors.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to close – Mr. Mayor, I want to close with this.
This [inaudible] wants to award a contract that is supposed to go to a unit cost analysis
which should be all inclusive of transportation, food preparation, delivery and so forth,
salaries and all. This contract, from my understanding, is strictly for bringing the food to
Augusta. They have already asked for volunteers from our local senior center to deliver
the food, and I guess they want our folks to work for free for an agency that’s making a
profit. [inaudible]
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Cheek: The Senior Center, Mr. Mayor, the Senior Center provides a meal for
$4.41, which is four cents cheaper per unit meal than the subcontract price, and that for
the Senior Center includes everything – transportation, delivery, overhead, reporting, etc.,
where this contract has us providing service, a contract to a company for $4.45, four cents
above the amount the Senior Center, which is going to cause a pass-on of costs to us for
providing the transportation and many of the other items that should have been required
by state law be included in this. And by the way, my understanding as well, and maybe
we’ll get an answer to this, that we awarded this contract, it did not go through the state
required competitive bidding process, that a waiver was requested. If we’re about open
and honest government and competitive bidding and equal access to this government,
why was this system bypassed in favor of giving to somebody for a higher price? Mr.
Mayor, there is more to this than meets the eye and I’m very disturbed about it.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] did you want to speak to this?
Mr. Speaker: I’m going to start off and say the misinformation on this still runs
rampant and it makes me sick. Jeanette Cummings is here. She’s my AAA director. I’m
going to let her speak to the programatic aspects. The simple fact is the RDC serves as
the Area Agency on Aging, designated by the State to serve in that capacity for 14
counties in this area. Part of our function in that capacity is to ensure the coordinated
delivery of services to our elderly. And in our opinion, the competitive process we went
through, which did follow the guidelines set forth by the State, which the State has
concurred at one point on, is set up so that we have the best coordinated delivery system
that there is. Columbia County and McDuffie County opt to provide their meals
separately. They pay for those out of their own budgets. They have different
mechanisms that they use. It’s certainly an option that Augusta Richmond County could
do. We’re looking at allocating $320,000 to the county for meals and you would match
that with about $24,000-25,000. We think that’s a good idea from that perspective for
you all, but certainly if wished to go ahead and do this yourself you would be open to do
17
that. That would leave funding availability for the other counties if you stepped away.
The way we see it, Richmond County is the, is the urban center of our region. We’d like
to see you all continue to act as the leaders for the rest of our community. As for the
legal issues that the Commissioners brought forth, I’m not going to talk about those. We
still have a legal case pending. At this point, I’m going to let Jeanette address the
[inaudible] issues.
Ms. Cummings: Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor. I’m Jeanette Cummings, Regional
Development Center, 2033 Riverwatch Parkway. Mr. Cheek, I would like to address
several of those comments you made. As your Area Agency on Aging of the CSRA
Region, we are indeed designated for the 14 county region to provide services to seniors.
This Area Agency on Aging is recognized not only at the state level, but nationally as
well. We are a premier agency of provider services and we have a long track record. We
were designated in 1974, we have distinguished ourselves as a regional provider. We do
that with distinction, and we have 21 services providers that we fund throughout this
region to provide services.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Cummings, I’m going to instruct you to direct your comments to
the Chair.
Ms. Cummings: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. One of the things that I would
like to say today as far as the programmatic part and one of the things I know each of you
are concerned with, are we going to feed to senior citizens in our region? We are going
to feed our senior citizens. As you know, today we were able to feed the senior citizens
throughout our region. We were very competitive, as you know, in this process. As the
Area Agency on Aging, we took a lot, it was a very difficult decision. We have
supportive of the Council. When we made this decision, we made a responsible decision
that we could keep food services going, uninterrupted in the 14 counties region to make
sure that seniors were fed in our 14 county region. We did that. Today seniors were fed.
In terms of the impact on this region, we were able to maintain services in our region. It
is nothing new in terms of local governments supporting these programs. If you were to
look at the [inaudible] when the Senior Citizens Council served in two capacities, that is
they cooked the food – I’m talking about a vendor now, but this is in layman’s terms –
they cooked the food and they also served as a multi-purpose senior center. That’s
th
[inaudible] 15 Street they kept the meals [inaudible] and served the meals from that site.
Well, today, we still have the Senior Citizens Council, has that option under
understanding from this local government to continue to [inaudible] meals. [inaudible]
when they cooked the meals. Those meals, those employees who provided those services
in our 14 county area, the local government employed those employees. So they will be
doing the same function that they’ve done in the past under the Senior Citizens Council.
We ask for volunteers, and volunteers have been involved with the Senior Citizens
Council delivering meals. We believe that we really need to focus on in terms of what is
the capacity? GA Food definitely has the capacity to serve the CSRA to provide those
meals and to provide them on a timely basis, and one of the issues that is before us is the
viability of the Senior Citizens Council. And we are [inaudible] to be looking, we need
to be looking at how we can help that Council sustain itself, but to be able to do that, we
18
need to be able to, I think, in a very concise way [inaudible] GA Foods. GA Foods has
come to the table in terms of planning, they’ve provided those services, and with GA
Food in our rural areas, we have a lot of seniors in the rural areas. Those seniors, and
some seniors live 20 miles out, they live alone, they don’t have any options, they don’t
have resources available to them, so it’s important that we have the capacity to expand in
our rural areas, and with this vendor we have that capacity to do that. The other thing,
when you look at the cost impact, the additional cost, and I have packets here for each of
you, if you were to look at cost alone for this program, maintaining what you have, it’s
about a $1,000 differential. But if you were to look at maintaining the Senior Citizens
Council, which in my mind is a different issue, and the issue that is before us and the
issue that was before us as a regional body, looking at the capacity, the stability, the
ability of the agency to serve 14 counties, then we made a responsible decision. Would
those meals still be available now, yes, they will. If you approve this contract today,
which I think to go with GA Food is a good option for us, it’s a good option for
Richmond County, it’s definitely a good option for our region. And look at the cost for
buying meals. One of the things that we said, we’ve heard said time and time again, is
that we want to be able to serve our senior citizens. We made a commitment that we
would serve seniors today and we’ve done that. And [inaudible] continue to do that.
Every day I see this program improving. I’ve called before I came here today to our rural
centers to see what kind of situation they had. Today, one the new trucks, we had five
new trucks they purchased, broke down, and the feedback, even in that situation, some of
our rural sites they still felt encouraged because they know what they have to look
forward to. In addition to that, GA Foods today will not charge any of our centers,
Richmond County included and our rural counties, a cent for food delivered today
because they were late in some centers. Now that’s the kind of capacity we had. If we
had that kind of situation to break down with our existing situation, in a non-profit, we
don’t have resources to be able to say we can write off that many meals. The other thing
that’s a positive with the company that we see right away, and I’m talking fast because I
only have a few minutes, is the fact we have already worked out with our senior centers
to be able to give them a supplement for delivering those meals [inaudible] which they
are putting some of that profit back into the program so that that profit will be able to add
more home delivered meals and support more services in our community and maintain
those services. I could go on and on. The other thing, Mr. Mayor, I would ask today is
that we keep this focus on the issue and in terms of what we’re here today and in terms of
what our options are. There has been a lot of misinformation. When [inaudible] regional
development center with distinguished leaders as our board, members who represent the
community, and the Area Agency on Aging, we’re very [inaudible] been in the business
of aging concerns about seniors for many years, we’re the experts in our field. We would
not make a decision that would impact senior citizens in a negative way without having a
lot of information that we used. The State would have intervened by now if we had not
made a good, sound decision, and I don’t think we would have won in the first legal issue
if we had made a bad decision. So I ask you, on behalf of the CSRA Region, we have to
look at regionalism. All our counties need the support of Augusta. Augusta can do that
today by supporting this contract. We think it’s a sound contract and we know it will
help senior citizens. Mr. Mayor, I’ll answer questions, and I have a submission for the
19
Commission Council giving you the details so you know specifically how much money
each site will get and I’ll entertain your questions now.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Ms. Cummings. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to introduce for the record Article 16-10-20,
Obstruction of Public Administration and Related Offenses, False Statements and
Writings and Concealment of Facts into the record, that it pertains to today’s discussion.
And also a subsection of that, 16-10-22. Mr. Mayor, the facts and the issues [inaudible]
this is the State government requires of Section 50-8-64. The specifics of the things that I
would like to get to is, one, I have seen the assessments myself. I spent a couple of hours
going through these, the quality of food provided by the two entities in question here.
[inaudible] most of the documents were, I would say 60% blank, not being filled. Also,
the two registered dietitians, since we’re interested in qualify of food for our seniors,
rated the Senior Center in the area of 98% and GA Foods in the area of 52%. So I would
say that the registered dietitians questioned in that survey looked at the quality of food
and said the Senior Center is doing a better job of providing nutritious meals. Also, that
question, and I would, Mr. Mayor, if you would allow me to get yes or no answers for
this, did this go out for competitive bid according to the State required competitive
bidding process?
Ms. Cumming: Yes, it did, and what I’m distributing now is a copy, a very
detailed copy of our brief that was submitted to Judge Fleming and it goes into those
issues and it answers very specifically, and so you will have, Mr. Cheek and the rest of
the members, and Mr. Mayor, you will have a detailed copy of that. And Jackie Harris,
our contract manager, will distribute those to you now.
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible]
Ms. Cumming: So the answer is yes.
Mr. Mayor: Just hold on. Items are distributed to the Commission by the Clerk
of the Commission.
Ms. Cumming: I’m sorry, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Give those to the Clerk and the Clerk will see those are distributed.
Ms. Cumming: I apologize, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All you have to do is just be responsive to the question that’s asked.
Ms. Cumming: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, go ahead.
20
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I would certainly like it at this point in time – I’ve seen
documents that are contrary to the testimony being offered here today. These documents
are probably stacked through the Freedom of Information and other sources a foot-and-a-
half thick. They require a lot of review. Again, I’ll say this is not a good deal for the
city. I don’t know that we have time to go through in its entirety. I would like the
representatives from the Senior Center to be able to give, show the documents that
demonstrate that we are not getting the straight scoop on this here. Again, this was bid
out by competitive bid. Why, then, was the Senior Center – my understanding was the
Senior Center here in Augusta can provide it for a lower cost, which includes
transportation, than GA Foods. Is that not true?
Ms. Cummings: In terms of –
Mr. Cheek: Yes or no, please?
Ms. Cumming: Mr. Cheek, when you say component of that, they gave, yes,
$4.41 as their price.
Mr. Cheek: So it’s cheaper than the bid from GA Foods?
Ms. Cumming: That was only one part of the criteria.
Mr. Cheek: Okay. So we’ve already established the registered dietitians in the
survey rated them higher. I’ve seen the whole pack of documents and I want you to
remember that that Georgia law requires accurate information –
Ms. Cumming: It does.
Mr. Cheek: - and not misleading this body.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, if you’ll direct your comments to the Chair.
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s follow the rules and procedure. I know there are a lot of
emotions involved in this. Let’s follow the rules and procedure, okay?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor –
Mr. Mayor: I’ll give you a chance to be heard.
Mr. Cheek: I’m going to cut to the chase on this. And I don’t know how the
body feels about this, but there has been adequate information presented to us by the
folks from our Senior Center who have provided excellent service, who are at risk, and
currently my understanding, and this a question, Mr. Mayor, I’d like to have a yes or no
answer, is the RDC going after the Medicaid money, the food program that the Senior
21
Center provides, which gives them enough profit from that program to stay open, or is
RDC recommending that GA Foods get that contract?
Mr. Mayor: Can you respond to that question?
Ms. Cummings: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I can’t answer yes or no, because I think the
explanation is relevant to the question. May I respond?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, but you either are or you aren’t.
Ms. Cummings: Yes, and the reason, the rule of the State is that food vendor for
Title III program is automatically the [inaudible]. The Area Agency on Aging is not the
contractor for that. The Department of Community Health, the regulation states that that
vendor is by default that same vendor. So we have no control over that.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I guess that proves, proves my point in that this being the
case, since we can request waivers for reprogramming of funds and RDC has done that in
the past – here again, we have a situation where we’re about to defund our largest senior
center in this city as a result of approval and moving forward with this action. I’m going
to, I want to make a motion, since this is, it’s such a touchy subject and there seems to be
two stories, but the documents that I’ve seen bear out the things we’re hearing from the
Senior Center that I’d like to direct the City Attorney to interplead this case and present
evidence in conjunction with our Senior Center and that we become bound into this
process of litigation until we get some accurate answers to this and have the city stand up
for our seniors here.
Mr. Hankerson: I second that motion. I’d like to speak to it.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. In the interest of presenting
accurate information, I’ve got some I want to share here, Andy, that goes along with what
you talked about. You criticized the RDC for being involved with recruiting volunteers
who work for a profit-making business. The Senior Citizens Council is a profit-making
business. They have admitted they use their profits to subsidize the operation and put on
programs at the Senior Center. Additionally, you talked about the Medicaid contract.
There is a nearly 100% markup in the cost of the meals that are provided to the Medicaid
program. But I’d like to read, for the benefit of the Commissioners here, there has been
some criticism of whether GA Food is going to provide a quality service. This is, you’re
talking about registered dietitians, nutritionists, their comments. So let me read from this,
if I can indulge the Commission. This is the summary from the review committee, the
committee that looked over the bids that were submitted. The committee members, Dr.
Virginia Allen and Mr. William McKinney, they met for two hours on March 9 and then
came back and met on March 16 for another hour-and-a-half. So they looked at these
two bids for a total of three-and-a-half hours. And here’s what they said about GA
Foods. The vendor plans to lease a new facility in Georgia. They provided detailed
transition, startup and backup plans to fund, equip and operate the new facility. There is
a history of strong performance for other agencies and the private sector. Review
22
committee members liked the menu selections. The vendor submitted detailed training
guides, emergency plans, and strong quality control procedures. They offered monthly
birthday parties and special holiday meals. It is requested that the dietitian seek licensure
in Georgia in addition to her current Florida license. And then here’s what they said
about the current provider, the Senior Citizens Council. There is a strong potential for
financial difficulties to compromise the ability to obtain, prepare and deliver food in a
timely manner in the contract period. Past financial problems were noted. The infection
control is not as rigorous as the competitor’s who submitted a prior inspection report
noting eight items to correct. The menu choices were not as pleasing to the reviewers as
the competitor. There were some missed deliveries in the past year and senior centers are
closed if schools closed. The reviewers did not find the plan of how to get food to clients
in bad weather or emergency situations. In a summary of reference checks, it’s noted that
they find with the current vendor expired milk and moldy bread at two centers. All of the
directors commented that fresh food was only served once a week, where the contract
says it should be provided twice a week. One center director noted there continued to be
incorrect billing. The number of meals delivered is incorrect, the delivery arrivals vary
from day to day. Also, the meals served, especially the fresh fruit, are not appropriate for
the frail clients, with their inability to chew apples being one example. There are a
number of issues involved here. But the point is, the decision that is before this body
today is to determine whether or not meals will be provided to senior citizens in
Richmond County. A majority of the members of the RDC have voted twice to award
the contract to GA Food Service. In the most recent vote, there were 17 votes to award
the contract to GA Food and six votes to retain the current vendor, the Senior Citizens
Council. Clearly, the majority of the RDC has spoken on who the vendor for the food
service will be. And so I would encourage you today to go ahead and approve the
contract with GA Food Service so our seniors continue to have their meals uninterrupted
and that a quality service is provided, a service that over the three year life of the contract
will save money in this program and provide additional meals for additional seniors. Mr.
Hankerson, you asked to be heard?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m just concerned. There’s a lot of
issues. I agree with Commissioner Cheek. There is a lot of things here. Court pending
and so forth. There’s a lot of questions that I need to know before I can vote on a
contract, the commitment that this city has to make here in the analysis or need to be
some more discussions on that. And I’m also concerned that what we accept these
contracts and we put things out for bid and we saying this is the best company to go with.
I’m concerned about – I think RDC should be about jobs and so forth for this community.
But I’m concerned about 30 employees losing their jobs in this city. I’m very concerned
about that. I’m very concerned about our senior citizens, our voting senior citizens, been
supportive in this county for decades, the type of service that they are going to be
receiving, right now is in a dilemma. Not knowing. But I think it’s a lot of things that
been said that we need to look at little bit closer at. And I resent also, I resent the
language of feeding the senior citizens. You feed cattle. And I just don’t like that
language.
(A round of applause is given.)
23
Mr. Hankerson: Not on Ms. Cummings, but I hear that all the time, I’m not
saying to you, but I think when we address humans we don’t address that we feeding the
senior citizens like we taking care of some animals or something. We are providing
meals for them. But other than that, I think our Attorney need to look at this and I just, I
don’t think that we need to go forward right now. I rather go and discuss it in legal
[inaudible] some more answers on this.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to hear from our Attorney. I thought that
when Mr. Cheek had the floor that our Attorney was getting with the other [inaudible] to
come back with something. I need to know what was up with that.
Mr. Mayor: He did come back with a report.
Mr. Williams: Well –
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Williams, I did come back with a report that the court had not
enjoined it, so therefore the Commission was able to contract, and if it contracts with the
approved vendor, it qualifies for the Area Agency on Aging subgrantee payments. If you
chose to – you have a choice. If you choose to contract with some other than the
approved nutrition vendor, you have to come up with a funding source. As I indicated,
the other counties in this area, such as Columbia and McDuffie do that, so therefore I
think if you’re going to direct me to interplead, if that’s the motion, we should have that,
have that matter discussed in legal. I can think of some very practical consequences that
will bear fruit tomorrow morning that we need to discuss. I mean it’s fine to send me
court, but I think we need to determine what’s happening in the morning to the seniors.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I’m in order, I’d like to make a substitute
motion that we move this to go into legal so we can have further dialog on it to come
up with the right decision.
If we have to make a vote on it today, I think we need some
more information before I can truly give a vote, so if that’s in order, Mr. Mayor, I’d like –
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the motion?
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second to move this into legal. Is there any
discussion on the substitute motion to move this into legal? Mr. Cheek, we’re discussing
the substitute motion.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, you directly addressed some issues to me in my
commentary and I’d like just a moment for personal privilege for rebuttal.
24
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Cheek: The commentary that was used to, presented by RDC in their grading
are exactly the documents that were primarily blank that I mentioned earlier. Now I
could take a spoonfed document and regurgitate what’s on it, but I took the time to go
look at the document myself and half the pages are empty. So it’s not a valid assessment.
I’m somewhat ignorant of data taking, I only do it every day of my life – I would say
that’s an invalid data set and doesn’t constitute accurate information for a full assessment
of the Centers. We have heard from their attorney. I don’t – I’ve seen the documents,
I’ve seen the contrary information of what we received. We were told last time and I’ll
ask the Commission to recall that all the counties had bought into it, and now today we
hear that not all of them have bought into this. There is sufficient information to call this
contract into question. We have our Senior Center here who has served us faithfully for
many, many years, deserves a right to speak on this day, even though it will cause us a
little bit longer meeting. We’re hearing one side of the story and they haven’t had their
day before us. The action in court was not a victory, it was a delay. If the full evidence
of the law and the information comes out, then there are some pretty serious
consequences to be had with this. We need to consider not only this action today and
how it affects our seniors tomorrow, but what’s going to happen to them ten years from
now when further reductions and reprogramming is done, as has been done by RDC, and
funding is diminished for other [inaudible] programs and so forth, and also consider the
financial impact that will be passed on this city that is currently not there. We don’t have
the money for additional financial burden at this time, as we all know. This process is
taking us down the road to becoming more and more a burden of federal and state pass-
through dollars that should be coming for food services, that are now being
reprogrammed into other programs and not food services. And whatever we need to do,
whether it’s study it, I think our Attorney should be involved in the case with our Senior
Center, since it will close the largest senior center in the city. Mr. Mayor, by the way, the
other senior centers are profit making agencies, the profits go directly to the seniors here.
I guess by the comment that was made earlier that we would think it better that the profits
go in the pockets of some CEO in Florida.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Do we have any other discussion on the substitute motion? Mr.
Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ve done my best to keep up with this.
And I can go back to 1985 when I first went on the Senior Council board and served there
representing old Richmond County until 1996 and consolidation and I wasn’t there any
more. I saw every one of these programs put into effect. Mr. Mays and Mr. Grantham
were on the Commission when some of these were put on and as Recreation director it
was my job to work with Ms. [inaudible] at that time [inaudible] to get these
implemented. I also worked with the full Council to raise – I think it was $100,000 to
25
build a kitchen at that facility over there, so that this could all happen. And I guess the
only question that I have at this point is what went wrong?
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion on the substitute motion to send this to legal?
Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes. Mr. Mayor, let me, let me piggyback a little bit on Mr. Boyles’
question because I think it’s very much worth answering, if we’re at the point we are
today. It’s a lot floating around in the room now. But I think one of the key questions is,
one, what happens tomorrow with any decision that we make today? That’s one I think
that we need to know the consequences, where they are. I guess on a point of order, if
we, if the substitute motion, I assume that’s what it is in terms of going into legal, we’re
going to do that now and at this point and break away to deal with that? Because you
know, the motion could pass and the motion could fail. If the motion fails, then we got to
make a decision on this out here right now. And without the benefit of dealing with
anything going into legal. I think you got a court case but you’re going to hear a lot more
that’s in legal, but what my question would be, and we’ve not heard from the other side,
and we’ve got two motions that are out here on the floor. I’m interested to a point that it
seems as though, and something needs to be answered that obviously we may not have
the money [inaudible] find it at this point if we’re taking on a different responsibility
financially. But what I need to know is when the decision was made – this gets back I
think to Andy’s presentation – because was it just a clear decision to decide on vendors?
If there is something wrong where it is, I believe in stating that there is something wrong,
bring up what it is, say the current situation is bad, good, indifferent, but say it, and be
able to prove it. Now if that’s not the case, and what needs to be said is whether or not
the request that was made from RDC has actually placed the Center – because [inaudible]
State to de-budget somebody, then if you place them in that predicament, then they
automatically going to be at this city’s doorstep, if they’re going to resume that part of
their business. Now if it was in there and taken out by request, and I’ve not heard that
from either side, as to how the $100,000 and some got shifted [inaudible] one category to
another, whether that was requested by RDC or the state made a determination to move
the money, and I think that’s a clear indicator. What bothers me about this process that
we get caught up in, some things can be conducted [inaudible] and I agree, we should
take the lead in terms of being the urban center on what we do. But you know, it ought
not also be the ones who take the whipping all the time for being the urban center. I’ve
expressed this many times that I think dogs ought to cooperate. But the tail ought not
wag it all the time. Now if we in a situation to a point where, and this is what came up on
the same deal with the job situation, why we opted to stay where we were in a working
consortium, with Burke County, because when we were going to get that situation in the
13 or 14 county area to a point where we had no control over it, other than to say what
decisions were made and we would take that. Now I don’t want to see that same thing
happening here with this. Because the most important thing is that we serve the people,
regardless of who does it. But if there’s a situation that places a local group to a point
where it can’t fight, then I think that needs to be brought to the table and answered as to
whether or not it’s happening, or whether that is not. And that’s what we are being
confronted with to a point that this has happened. If that’s happened, then that needs to
26
be addressed. Cause I can’t move on as a Commissioner to a point on one hand that if
what’s being done is just and should be done, the contract should be followed. If bad
things have been done, then I say okay, fine, the case has been made, we need to move on
with it. But if on the other hand, if this is placed in by means of that just being put out of
the picture, by being requested to be put out of the picture, then I think someone that
needs to be answered. It needs to be answered in an open meeting. We don’t have to go
into legal to decide that. Everybody is in the room who has been represented. Seniors
[inaudible] sitting over there, RDC sitting here, we got a Commissioner that represents
the board, and you represent the board, Mr. Mayor. Somebody needs to be able to tell the
rest of us how that came about. Cause I’m not prepared to answer that [inaudible] done
and I [inaudible].
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion to move this to the legal agenda. Any
further discussion on the substitute motion? All in favor of that motion please vote with
the usual sign.
Mr. Boyles, Mr. Cheek, Ms. Sims and Ms. Beard vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mr. Mayor: So we will move that to our legal agenda. We have a delegation here
for item number 50A, so we’ll take that one up.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? One point of order.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: I asked the question during the proceeding whether or not the motion
passed we would go ahead and address this [inaudible]. It was stated by the Attorney that
we would and that we would do it now. Now I think that was the reason why the vote
was cast in the affirmative to go into legal. Not to move it to the legal agenda. And the
Attorney answered it. You are presiding and should have corrected him. If not, I’m
going to ask for reconsideration [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, would you like an answer? If you’ll stop talking, I’ll
answer you.
Mr. Mays: And if you decide properly, then we’ll know an answer.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: We have, we have a couple of delegations that we can deal with
quickly and then we’ll go into legal to take it up. Now if it’s your preference that
everybody sits in this room while we go into legal, that’s fine, we’ll do it.
27
Mr. Mays: I asked the question, sir, and it was answered by the Attorney. Both
of us have ears and he answered it.
Mr. Mayor: But the Attorney is not the presiding officer.
Mr. Mays: Yes, but you had the opportunity to correct him that you would rule so
if it was not going to be. You were silent on that matter and silence gives a code of
consent. These people who voted in the affirmative did that because that was what you
said and directed.
Mr. Mayor: This meeting is in recess.
[MEETING RECESSES]
[MEETING RECONVENES]
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, you want to make a statement?
Mr. Shepard: Sure.
Mr. Mayor: We have used this recess to try to expedite some of the discussion
and issues that involve items 42 and 43, and I’ll ask our Attorney for a report at this time.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have used the recess to confer with
counsel for both sides, and I think the wait to proceed is to interpret my advice that we go
into legal session immediately on this issue to determine some legal consequences of our
choices. But before we do that, I think we should take any further evidence from both
sides. We have not yet heard from the Senior Citizens Council, and Mr. Hammond is
here to do that.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Shepard: And so it is my recommendation, my interpretation of my
recommendation is that we immediately go into legal session after the hearing of the
evidence here that’s going to be presented by both sides, and that we not, we not defer the
matter until the legal agenda, which probably won’t come up until later. The idea that I
wanted to put forth was that we convenience the delegations that had come before us at
this time.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to hearing additional information and evidence
on this before we go into legal? Any objection? None heard.
Mr. Shepard: And when the evidence is concluded we would go into legal.
28
Mr. Mayor: We will. Absolutely. Mr. Mays, you had asked a question before
the recess and Ms. Cummings has an answer to your question. So we’ll hear that and
then we’ll hear from Mr. Hammond. Jeanette?
Ms. Cummings: Mr. Mayor, Commission Council, Mr. Mays asked the question
prior to break and I think Commissioner Boyles asked what went wrong. What went
wrong, we have the review process, as you will see [inaudible] multiple components and
one of the components [inaudible] very important component was the financial capacity
of the agency to provide the services. And we select not on low cost, but our RFP strictly
said very clearly that we would select the most responsible bidder. And the issue of the
finance became very relevant in this case cause for the last three years, the Regional
Development Center has worked very diligently with the Senior Citizens Council on their
financial management and on the financial problems that they had. During the time of
the review, the financial [inaudible] piece came in, the review team looked at the
information and deemed it necessary to ask for additional financial information because
they were concerned about the situation from the financials that were submitted. And
[inaudible] in reviewing [inaudible] it was deemed that the Senior Citizens Council had
defaulted or [inaudible] contract $223,000 [inaudible] on the day of submission that’s
what we had to go with, that the Senior Citizens Council did not have a line of credit with
a commercial institution but had arrangement with Lawrence Hammond for a line of
credit of $100,000 and he’s their consultant. When you’re talking about a major contract
and in light of the management issues that we knew were there and the fact that they were
on a cash flow basis with food vendors, we have deal with all that and we know we’ve
got a food vendor [inaudible] capacity to purchase food and get those meals out there, we
do not want to be in a situation that services would be abruptly discontinued because of
the financial management at the Senior Citizens Council. All this can be documented.
It’s in the audit report. And so basically there are other additional detailed information.
It was a lack of oversight over there. They were paying a van driver, like I think a van
driver was making over, they overpaid a van driver over $15,000 before it was detected,
and they went years without reconciling the books. And when you’re running a business,
you cannot run a business with that kind of financial management. So those kinds of
issue which we know we can substantiate, we would not have been responsible had we
not looked at those issue of a responsible bidder. And that was the basis, that was one of
the major issues we looked at. And so when we look at capacity, you have to look at
financial capacity of an organization. Did we try to work this out with the Council? Yes.
We entered into a contract with the Senior Citizens Council this program year, of the
fiscal year that just ended yesterday, June 30, with a contingent contract. It was a
contingent contract because of their financial management and their financial cash flow
problems. They are very grave. The Senior Citizens Council has due in September a
$600,000 note that has to be met. And when you look at all the financial concerns that
they have, their going concerns, how can we as an agency responsible for making sure
that we have services out there, so what I would ask you to do is look at all those details
and we would have been not responsible if we had not looked at, the review team – and a
lot has been made of the review team’s comments and the issue. One of the review team
members stated that it was their desire to actually – and this was one that was brought out
in terms of [inaudible] – that he really wanted to have that contract remain here, but after
29
seeing the financial condition, and you read earlier the concerns about the financial
capacity – it was a serious matter. Now I have you to also reflect on the fact that they
were the food vendor, we had the same sources of money that they want to retain, and
they had financial problems that they were not able to sustain the program. So if we
continue with them, they’ll get in the same, have the same fund sources and they were not
able to manage the program with the finances that they had, then those issue are still very
– on the day that we reviewed it, we’re talking about when we reviewed those proposals,
what were concerns prior to, and how did we get there? We have been trying, as I said
earlier, for three years to work with the Council. We have worked with them diligently.
And another issue that’s come up, did we use the right process and I think Mr. Hammond
will be speaking very shortly about the unit cost, the uniform methodology process.
Well, with the State, we chose, we decided this year that we would go back to the format
that we had used prior to going to the Senior Citizens Council, cooking on site where a
food vendor with the people with the capacity to know how to actually – in a food service
business – going with the capacity so we would not have interrupted services, and we are
desirous of the Senior Citizens Council remaining a vital agency. We believe by taking
[inaudible] financial [inaudible] in terms of food vendors and the major purchasing
requirements, all the capital outlays, all the expenses involved, that they would have an
opportunity by us providing meals through a vendor with the capacity to do that, that it
would give us an opportunity for that agency to come back. But as far as the financial
capacity, when we reviewed it, the long history, the audit reports, the financial concerns,
they were major concerns for a major food vendor. And those were some of the issues
that we looked at when we our decision.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Hammond, you’d like to –
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: You had a follow-up question?
Mr. Mays: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Mays: I want to thank you and then probably a question. I think we are
getting into some things that we definitely needed to hear in an open session, prior to
going into legal and I appreciate the information. Obviously they will have [inaudible]
but in a different manner than what you have said. But also, there was one question, Mr.
Mayor, and probably because I may have said so much in that one question, but it was a
little bit of it and I think you’ve answered most of it in there. In your opinion, in
reference to what has come up with the last budget request that came, that went to the
State –
Ms. Cummings: Yes?
30
Mr. Mays: - what – in light of the financial situation that you brought up in
reference to Senior Citizens Council, would the, would the request to not give them,
would that in your opinion, not made much of a difference per se in the way they were
running things or I guess, and we’re trying to look at it from, at least I am, from looking
at the measure on both sides, as to whether or not a request to move that much money
away from them if they are suffering at a point now, might have been the shot in the arm
they needed maybe to get over the hump. That was the question I had asked earlier,
along with the question that you answered.
Ms. Cummings: From our experience, no, when you look at the concern. And I
think if the Commission Council will look at the times that the Council has come before
you to ask for money and keep coming back to ask for money to do those, [inaudible]
enough, in terms of looking at that. Now in terms of shifting between [inaudible] and
fund sources, as the Area Agency on Aging, we get State and Federal funds in and then
they’re in categories, and we have the ability to shift money between categories and we
do that often when we know that say, for example, in nutrition, we are going to get more
dollars than we are going to get in support and services. That might be for people going
in, like home makers and personal care aides. We have the ability to shift a certain
amount of money back and forth. So throughout the program year we do that when we
are underspending in one category or we know we are going to get some adjustments in
that area, and we have a history of doing that, and that helps you to be able to keep
services in the community. It’s not any [inaudible] irregularity that’s done at a detriment,
but it’s done to keep services in place, and that is a legitimate process and one that serves
us and helps us to be able to provide services.
Mr. Mays: And I just wanted to get perspective on that. The only thing we can
look at are line items.
Ms. Cummings: Yes.
Mr. Mays: They make a counter-argument to say this was in what we requested,
but then RDC requested that it come out. And then if they are asking us for money. But
I will say this, in fairness, they are not the only ones who come back on a repeat
performance to ask the city for money. I’ve had rich folks who come and ask City for a
whole lot of money, too. So I mean a lot of folks have got their hands out. But I needed
to get that from your side in reference to how that would affect from RDC’s perspective
on how that would be done.
Ms. Cummings: And then, Mr. Mays, too, we were looking at the totality of the
situation and the issues and the things we were dealing with. The other issue that was
brought up in terms of the uniform cost methodology, that the process we used was
illegal, the process that we used was not illegal because we went back to the concept of
choosing a food vendor, and when you go back to choose a food vendor, the uniform cost
methodology does not apply. We have a statement that was issued by the Department of
Human Resources, Division of Aging, and [inaudible] April 17, we have that on file
31
showing that the process we used was a correct process. So we have documentation of
that process. It was not an illegal process.
Mr. Mays: Let me just ask this, cause when we sit many times, we like,
hopefully, for everybody to be from this city or this area that does business with us. But
oftentimes that’s not the case when you’re dealing with a situation of where you’re
dealing with competitive bidding. Were there any other submissions from food services?
And I guess particularly from this area or in the Augusta area that made any request,
other than Seniors Council?
Ms. Cumming: Okay, that’s a good question. Because a lot of what has gone out
is saying that we didn’t make an effort and the reason we had done – yes, a concerted
effort was made to the extent of that we sent out certified mail to over 25 people in our
region, to hospitals, to vendors that we knew were in the business, and then that survey
that has been reference quite a few times, that survey was sent out to local municipal
governments to ask them to help us identify if they knew of anyone that could actually be
identified, a hospital or someone to provide those services. So that survey was done to
help us to try to retain or get someone from the CSRA region, to give them the equal
access to do that. So we made a very concerted effort to do that. We had, we had in
terms of response, we had three come to the bidders conference. Valley Food Services,
the Senior Citizens Council and GA Food. But we have documentation on file where we
had those certified mail to go out where we made a concerted effort to do that. On the
other part about jobs, we are concerned about jobs in our area. With GA Food, we made
a concerted effort to ask them to pick up the positions, and in fact, GA Food is willing to
look at those positions. They interviewed some of the van drivers yesterday. They said
they’re very interested in hiring those positions. [inaudible] John Hale, who is a chief
executive officer, called me back and [inaudible] and I personally made contact with him,
asking, making sure that they give our people opportunities for jobs. They’re willing to
do that. They’re looking at that. So I think that the decision, like I said, in terms of GA
Food, being a responsible bidder, that we can document that process. Was our process
legal? Yes, our process was legal. The process we used and all the different rules and
regulations pertaining to all the different fund sources we have are very complex, and we
have to make sure all those different components really tie in to the process we use.
Mr. Mayor: Alright. Let’s hear next from Mr. Hammond, then.
Mr. Hammond: Mr. Mayor, ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, first of all,
you need to understand – and let me explain to you exactly what the contract is for. Now,
everybody keeps saying that this is a contract for meals, but it isn’t. This is a contract for
services. Under the Older Americans Act of 1965, the federal government said, you
know what, we want to provide services for the elderly of our country. So they want to
provide programs like Meals on Wheels. They want to provide what are called
congregant nutritional services. Now, the money is sent from the federal government,
through the states, through the AAA, which is the Area Agency on Aging, or the RDC, in
this case, to, to the services provider, the nutrition service provider. In this case, part of
the vitriolic nature between the senior citizens [inaudible] RDC has been the fact that 5.3
32
million dollars has been allocated for this region in the State of Georgia. The RDC and
the AAA, as a pass-through agency, keeps 1.2 million dollars of that money that is for
seniors. Now, as a pass-through agency, the Senior Citizens Council has continually
been saying that this is an excessive amount of money to keep. This money is for
seniors, and they are not even a service provider. So that’s the first thing to understand.
This money is for services. Now, the contract that you have here today is for meals.
Under the Older Americans Act, under the DHR regulations, you’re supposed to use
what’s called unit cost methodology. And the reason is because the meals are supposed
to be included with other services. You have two types of services at issue here today.
One is nutrition or congregant-based services. Those are the meals that are served in
nutrition sites, like the five sites we have here in Richmond County. With each meal that
is served, you’re supposed to receive additional money on a unit cost methodology for
the cost of the facility, for the cost of the staff, for the cost of your electricity, for the cost
of your knives, spoons, and forks. This is the money that you’re supposed to get in its
totality under what’s called unit cost methodology. And this isn’t set by the local
government. This is set by the federal government. It’s also set by the Department of,
Georgia Division of Aging Services. Georgia Division of Aging Services uniform costs
methodology manual. This is what they’re supposed to use. And [inaudible] they’re
telling you that you have to take – and you know what? You have a gun to your head.
So you either take their contract, or you can pay for the meals yourselves. Now,
Columbia County has told RDC to take a hike. So has McDuffie County. We don’t want
your money, is what Columbia County said. They’re cooking their meals out of their
gym. Of course, they don’t get any of the money. But you need to understand how this
contact is not proper, and how the citizens of this county are being ripped off. Because
with each meal that you serve, you are entitled, you are entitled to the money for your
space, for your electricity, for your building. And now, let’s look at what’s called the
Meals on Wheels program. You’re not only entitled to the money for the meal, you’re
also entitled to the money of your van driver, the money for the gas, the money for the
van. Using unit cost methodology, which is what the State says you’re supposed to use,
this is what that money is for. Now, there’s two types of programs here that we’ve been
talking about. One is the nutrition services that come from the State. That’s the Title III
money. The other money is what’s called the Medicaid Meals. Now, Medicaid Meals
are reimbursed at a rate of six dollars and 58 cents per meal. This is the money that the
Senior Citizens Council has been using to basically fund itself. Given, arguendo,
everything that RDC says is correct, the Senior Center had bad meals, which isn’t true.
But giving that whatever credence you want, why would they want to take away the
Medicaid management service contract from the Senior Citizens Council when that was
the basic source of their revenue? RDC is charging four dollars and 54 – I’m sorry – GA
Foods is charging four dollars and 55 cents per meal. 45 per meal. But understand this,
the Senior Citizens Council for this fiscal year has been charging four 41. Not just for the
meals, but for all the congregant nutrition services. For all the services. And what’s
included in meal services? In addition to your facility, you’re also required to have
nutrition outreach, nutrition counseling. You have to have oversight of it. Let’s say you
have a senior citizen that has special nutrition requirements. It is the service provider’s
responsibility to give that senior whatever meal, whatever special meal, that senior’s
doctor said they have to have, because a salt-free diet, a lactose-free diet – your service
33
provider has to do that. Now, I’m sure that you all realize that these are the services that
you are going to have to assume responsibility for. So the four 45 that you’re going to
get for the meals does not include all these services that RDC is saying, you know,
they’re not telling you this. They’re not saying, oh, by the way, you know all these meals
we’re giving you? Yeah, you got to do all these other services, as well. They’re not
telling you that. The whole goal here with the Regional Development Center is to shut
down the Senior Citizens Council. They want to shut them down. And the reason is
because the Senior Citizens Council caught the RDC with their hand in the cookie jar.
No one else here in this whole region has said, hey, RDC, do you think 1.2 million out of
a 5.3 million dollar budget is too much? No, because their area plan is 300 pages long.
Who’s going to go through 300 pages except someone else who’s already in the
business? This is why Commissioner Cheek’s recommendation that you recommend that
RDC be decertified as a AAA is very appropriate. Because the AAA and the RDC has
come in here time and time again, and they have misled you. They have misled you.
Ladies and gentlemen, a few weeks ago, Mr. Andy Crosten wrote a letter to Bob Young
saying, we are going to give you 364 thousand [inaudible] for meals for the County of
Richmond. They did not tell you that at the time that letter was sent, the meals budget for
this area was 800 thousand dollars, and they had just requested a 170 thousand dollar
budget shift from that 800 thousand dollars. How in the world could they give you 364
thousand dollars when they’re taking out 170 thousand? They can’t. And this is what I
told Mr. Shepard. And I’ve been telling people all along is, a budget you’re going to get
is changeable at will. I have a contract, a budget amendment right here, that the Senior
Citizens Council got last year. Now, they entered into a budget, thought they had firm
numbers. All of a sudden, in the middle of the contract, on March 3, they get this budget
amendment. They said, hey, Senior Citizens Council, on [inaudible], we’re going to take
away 3100 dollars. On Title III State, we’re going to take away 2000 dollars. On
congregant meals, we’re going to take away 9000 dollars. And it goes on and on. This is
money that they took at their discretion. Now, here’s something that you have to ask
yourself. The Regional Development Center is authorized by the State and is supposed to
be supported by the dues that you pay. Richmond County pays $100,000 to the Regional
Development Center for their administrative expenses. They haven’t been using your
dues for the expenses. They’ve been taking the money out of the Senior Programs. How
do we know this? Well, right now they have over $1 million in fund balance. They have
$1 million slush fund of your money that you’ve been paying, but yet they’re taking the
money out of senior services. These are questions that you have to ask yourself. The
reason is why are you doing this? We’ve been asking the question. They have never, in
the months we’ve been involved in litigation, ever answered that question. Why do they
have a $1 million fund balance and yet they’re taking thousands upon thousands of
dollars from senior programs? These are the questions that you have to ask yourself. By
taking away the food contracts from the Senior Citizens Council, effectively they’ve shut
us down. We are the only vanguards against the theft and corruption that has been going
on with the senior money. When the Senior Citizens Council is gone, there is going to be
no one there to provide any type of oversight. We’ve contacted the State. We said State,
what’s the deal with this? How can you let this happen? The State said these are 300
page [inaudible], we’re not going to read each one. You guys, you know, you measure
on your own. That’s what the courts are for. The State doesn’t want to get involved. Of
34
all the counties that are in Georgia, about 150 counties broken down into 14 regions, each
one submits 300 page area plans. You think the State is going to read each area plan? Of
course not. Now let me tell you real quick about this contract. The contract that you
have does not include the specific details that the contract should have. All you have is a
contract for meals. Your contract does not include health promotion, nutrition outreach,
recreation, specific line item for congregate meals, specific line item for home delivered
meals, specific line items for health promotion. You don’t have anything else for USDA
[inaudible] meals. You’re being given a contract [inaudible] you have to sign this. As I
told Mr. Shepard, you do. You either sign this contract and take their money and go into
court, is what you should do and fight this, because they are not being honest with you.
Or you pay for the meals yourself. Those are your only two choices. Now let me talk
real quick about Ms. Cumming talking about why they took away the contract from the
Senior Citizens Council. The Senior Citizens Council, yes, you know what, they had
financial troubles. They didn’t tell you that they’re the reason that the Senior Citizens
Council got into financial trouble. Four years ago, the Senior Citizens Council had a
$500,000 fund balance. They’re doing good. Good management, good everything. RDC
comes in and says Senior Citizens Council, we want you to handle this transportation
account. We’re going to give you 250,000 trips, you tell us what your unit cost is going
to be. The Senior Citizens Council says you know what, okay, we’ll do each trip for $5,
$6 apiece. During the contract process, the RDC comes back and says well, we’re not
going to give you 250,000 trips, we’re going to give you 25,000 trips. So all the
employees, all the vans, all the infrastructure the Senior Citizens Council had established
for managing this contract all of sudden they don’t need. So the Senior Citizens Council
is left holding the bag. And the RDC says well, you guys must be bad managers.
They’re the ones that put the Senior Citizens Council in financial straits. And you don’t
hear them ever saying that the transportation contract with them is the reason why they
got into trouble. Now Senior Citizens Council went back to them and said you know
what, you guys aren’t giving us what you promised. You promised us 250,000 trips and
you’ve only given us 25,000. RDC’s response was well, that’s too bad. They should
have had a lawyer back then to sue RDC, because if you’ve got a contract, you’ve got a
contract. If you’ve got a contract for 250,000 trips at a unit cost – every contract that the
RDC has, I would say, almost every contract, purchase contract that you have as a county
should include unit cost and should go through the competitive bidding process. The
state law of Georgia says you have to have a competitive bid process. Now let’s talk just
real briefly about the difference between a food vendor and a service provider. The
money again flows from the federal government through the State of Georgia through the
AAA, or the RDC, to a nutrition service provider, which is what the contract that you’re
supposed to be signing now. The law says that every contract for nutrition service
provider has to go through a competitive bid process. One of the reasons why we’re in
court is because of the DHR guidelines that says that only the nutrition provider can
choose the food vendor. The RDC didn’t have a legal right to go and choose the food
vendor for nutrition service provider. They don’t. Mayor Bob Young thinks differently,
but I’m telling you they don’t, because the DHR guidelines are very specific. That’s why
they are called guidelines. This is what you have to do. They’re doing things which they
have no authority for. They say we have these letters from DHR that says we can do it.
No, they don’t. Like to see them. Never seen it yet. They’ve also said that they have
35
letters that documents the poor quality of food from the Senior Center. No, they don’t.
Like to see them. Haven’t seen them yet. I have letters that said you guys are doing a
great job. You guys are here, food quality is good. Every week Senior Citizens Council
sent out surveys to all the 14 counties that are receiving meals. Everybody but one
county, Wilkes County, said you guys are doing great. You know why Wilkes County
wanted another vendor? Because the hospital there in Wilkes County was right across
the parking lot from the senior center. And they were right. Wilkes County should have
been able to use their own hospital to cook their 15 meals a day for their seniors. That’s
all that [inaudible]. But the problem was the Senior Citizens Council was making such a
fuss about the $1.2 million that RDC is taking from senior services, RDC said we have to
[inaudible] the down. That’s exactly what is going on. Judge Fleming said – now we
asked for an injunction, we didn’t get it, but we have a court hearing on this case July 16.
Going back. We have a whole day. Going in front of Judge Fleming. Judge Fleming
said follow the money. If you’re taking $1.2 million and these people are trying to get
you, to stop you from taking that money, I mean what are you going to do? You’re going
to shut them down. What do they do with this $1.2 million? They’re taking brand new
computers every three years. What do they do with those computers? Well, find out
where they go. They get 50% salary increases. Mr. Crosten is making $100,000 a year,
up from $60,000. He’s only been there for four years. Plus on top of that, they get an
18% payroll based retirement account. So Mr. Crosten is making $100,000, he’s getting
another $18,000 on top of that for his retirement account, plus whatever else money he
puts in. That’s a lot of money. They increased that from 15% to 18%. So now you see
why they need all this money. They also has – and of course everyone has, this is
reasonable – health management programs, health insurance. Mr. Crosten, of course,
drives a free car, has little police lights on it, of course, you know, he needs that.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s stick to the fact here.
Mr. Hammond: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s not based this on personalities. If you want to talk facts, talk
facts, but let’s keep the personalities out of this. Okay?
Mr. Hammond: Of course, Mr. Mayor, but I’m – okay.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Hammond: Let’s talk about the waste that is going on. So they put on
$100,000 a week seminars with the money from the seniors. And all the time, they’re
keeping your money for whatever they want it for. They can do whatever they want with
your money. Cause it’s dues. Whatever they want. That $1 million they have in the
bank, they can do whatever they want. The senior money, no one has ever checked the
money. $1.2 million they’re taking. Now that would make me pretty mad, and it should
make you mad. Because this is money that should be going to our seniors. But it’s not.
Now when you go back into legal, I’m going to hand the Clerk – Madame Clerk – this is
the only copy that I brought with me today. But this is the itemized detail of what your
36
contract should include. The health promotion, the recreation, the [inaudible], everything
that your contract should include. I’ll hand that to the Clerk. Look over that. The
contract that you’re being forced to sign today, it’s not right. Now, real quickly I’ll talk
about the cost of the meals. The $6.58 for Medicaid meals begin – that program does not
involve the cooking of the food. Senior Citizens Council bought each meal from a
Mississippi-based company for $2.50. The $4 profit was put right back into the center
for services. They don’t have to take that Medicaid program away from the Senior
Center. Now what Ms. Cumming said is only half true. The food vendor, the food
vendor is responsible for cooking the Medicaid meals. But they’re not the one who have
to deliver the meals, they’re not the one who have to sell the meals to the seniors. So GA
Foods is getting $6.58 and providing no services whatsoever. None. Now that’s not
right. But also I remind you, and this is something that [inaudible], a service provider,
and we get into these terms of service provider and food vendor – a service provider are
the people who are supposed to, are supposed to handle the Medicaid meals. RDC went
to the State, specifically petitioned that GA Foods get a waiver. [inaudible] you know,
what, there is no service provider in our area, and you know why there’s not? Because
they wouldn’t renew the contract. There is no service provider in our area so will you
please give GA Foods this special exemption, this special waiver so they can make this
$6.58 per meal? That’s what they did. They didn’t have to do that. Cause that was the
money that was going to our seniors to support our center. Now how much money do we
need to support our center? I’ll let Mr. Hand get up, if I may, he’s the financial person on
this and explain this specifically what the financials are. Mr. Mayor, may we do that?
Mr. Hand: Mr. Mayor, board of Commissioners, I’m Lawrence Hand. I’m the
contracted CFO for the Senior Citizens Council. For a period of about 2-1/2 years I was
also the accounting manager for the Regional Development Center and I inherited the
transportation program. That’s why the information and the insight in the program – I’ve
got first hand knowledge of. The Council itself, and it’s true that I gave the Council a
$100,000 line of credit to shore them up. I matched what you gave them last year. And I
don’t think there is a person in this room who would walk the walk on that except me
right now. I believe so much in what they’ve done and the progress they’ve made that
that’s what I did. I put that in the proposal and I think it speaks volumes for my
perspective on how they have improved their financial condition. The Council itself
suffered $500,000 loss because of the transportation program. When you negotiate a
contract, you have a request for proposal. You sit down you say honestly, side by side,
you on one side of the table, I’m on the other, what are we going to negotiate? I’ve got a
quarter of a million trips. Okay, this is what I’ll do those trips for. If you hold me to that
price afterwards, it’s not right. Today the Council has suffered enormous loss because of
that, and if you ask yourself how much is that trip going for today, a for-profit provider
here in Richmond County is getting over $10 a trip for the same people being transported
to the same site on the same vans by half the same drivers. Had the Council gotten $10 a
trip like they would have deserved, they wouldn’t be in this position today. The financial
condition wouldn’t have existed at all. If you see the progress that I presented to you
monthly, since last June, I sat in front of the Finance Commission, gave them an update
every month, showed them the progress monthly. I did the same thing for the Regional
Development Center. Every single month, you had an update. This is the progress we’re
37
making, these are the costs we’ve cut, these are the meals we’re serving, this is what
we’re doing with our money. I took the advance that the RDC gave last year and
negotiated $200,000 worth of old debt, items that weren’t properly leased, and I
negotiated that debt out. I saved the Council $223,000. I’m kind of proud of that. Had
the Council gone ahead and paid those items, some of them couldn’t be substantiated,
some of the leases were poor leases, 22% interest, we took payoffs, we negotiated those
debts. I’m pretty proud that that took place. It saved the seniors interest, it provided
more meals, it provided more service. To hold that against somebody is wrong. In
January, the financial condition of the Council, and through February and March, those
financials are given to the Regional Development Center. The long term accounts
payable that needed to be paid off were paid off in full. We negotiated out the last lease
that we owed this past month. That information was given to the Regional Development
Center as well. Our food is good. There’s no doubt in my mind. We served over
400,000 meals last year, in the past 12 months. If we have one percent of any kind of
variance, that didn’t mean the standard, I can live with that, I’ll be honest with you. If we
have 200 or 300 loaves of bread, occasionally I think they may slide one in on us – I can’t
promise you that every loaf of bread will be completely, 100% non-moldy. There’s
procedures in place to fix that. You replace it. You go to the store. We reimburse those
folks. As far as any of those other items that the Mayor read off in the report, most of it’s
fiction. The emergency plans, those kind of things were included. The delivery issues, I
asked for what delivery dates, what were the sites, when were those meals late, when
were the sites not contacted, when was anyone not compensated for any bad meal? That
information never came. When we look at the condition of the Council going forward
without this food contract, I gave Mr. Russell a breakdown of what it would cost to run
the center, keep the doors open without the nutrition program. Yesterday, we gave our
separation notices to most of the staff. To keep the doors open just to be a community
center is going to cost about $12,000 to $15,000 a month when we [inaudible] back the
electricity and those kind of things. From basic staff for security, for cleaning, those kind
of things, will run $4,00o or $5,000 more a month with benefits. To operate the Meals on
Wheels program I estimate it to be about $13,000 to $14,000 a month. And that’s the
cost of the vehicles, the delivery of the meals to the homes, the cost to hand the meals out
in a congregate setting. When you add all that up, it’s going to cost $34,000 or $35,000 a
month that was included in the current four year proposal we responded to in 2002. For
the 14 county region, we were delivering meals, doing administration, providing extra
meals through our Medicaid profits, and this is all being taken away so that the counties
can pay $4.45, do the administration themselves, and Richmond County can take on the
burden of delivering the meals to the homes. For that other benefit, the Medicaid meals,
we serve over 1,000 Medicaid clients today. Those folks have been serviced by one of
the best run Medicaid providers, which is Senior Citizens Council, in this part of the
state. Those folks do not have a service provider today. GA Foods is not a service
provider. They’re going to get a waiver. They’re going to get $6.58. The $300,000 the
Council made last year from Medicaid is going to go to Florida in dividends. That’s the
money that we did not have to come in front of you for and ask. We did not ask you for
operation money to run our Center. What’s in the proposal right now is $47,000 for
Senior Corps, for a match of the federal funds, and for additional meals. Nothing else.
We have not asked you for anything else as far as keeping that site open. And that’s the
38
road we’re going down. Keeping this contract will do nothing but provide more and
more senior services on a long-term basis for the city of Augusta and the rural counties.
There’s no way that you can convince me that giving the money, giving the contract to a
Florida company is going to do anything but enrich those folks’ pockets. And to say that
it’s going to create better food or it’s going to provide better service is absolute nonsense.
If the financial condition is the only reason that the Council did not get that contract, at
the end of this fiscal year, June 30, the auditors are coming in in six weeks, take a look at
it, it’s going to look really great. I’ve look at the last six or seven years of financials, this
is the absolute best year the Council has had. If that’s the only reason, if the RDC did not
have a special stipulation in the contract addressing the financial concerns, that would be
one thing. But they did. The monthly reports. You had a monthly update where you
stood every single month. To say that the financial condition was the reason it didn’t
renew is not accurate. What I’m asking today from the Commission is to look at feeding
the seniors. You have to serve the seniors tomorrow. You have to sign this contract for
them. You have no choice. We’d ask that you step in with our injunction, with our court
case, and we’d ask that the money that’s left over from the UDAG funding from last year
be appropriated to the Council so we can keep the doors open for a few more months.
And that’s – if anyone has any questions, I’ll be happy to answer those.
Mr. Hammond: If I may, there are just a few things that we’re asking the
Commission to do here today. Specifically, we’re asking the Commission, and we didn’t
go into this, but if you want us to we will, we’ve given most of the information to
Commissioner Cheek, but we’re asking the Commission to recommend a formal criminal
investigation of the Regional Development Center. More than one occasion they’ve
come in front of you and have lied or misrepresented the truth, claiming that there have
been State budget cuts when instead there have been voluntary fund shifts. We are also
asking that you recommend that the RDC be decertified as the Area Agency on Aging.
We recommend that through the City Attorney to the Department of Human Services.
We’re asking that you intervene with us in our lawsuit, set in the court for July 16, to
protest this contract. If you have to sign the contract, let it state you’re signing this
contract under protest. They have a gun to your head. Either you cook the meals
yourselves or you take their money. And you have no other choice. And for Mr. Young,
we ask that you recommend at the RDC board of directors that you terminate Mr. Crosten
and Ms. Cumming for their misconduct in handling this whole matter. Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Are there any questions at this time? We’re going to go into legal
session to – we cannot - for the benefit of the people in the audience, we cannot discuss
the merits of the contract in the legal session. That’s contrary to Georgia’s Open Meeting
law. But we can go back and meet with our Attorney to consider the legal ramifications
of actions taken by this Commission. And that’s the purpose for which we’re going to go
into executive session. We already have a motion to do that, so at this point we’ll go into
the committee room.
[LEGAL SESSION]
39
Mr. Mayor: For the benefit of those of you in the audience, we’re going to
reconvene here in just a moment. Are there any people here for –
[MEETING RECONVENES]
Mr. Mayor: What we’re going to do now, as the lawyers work on that language
that they’ll have for us momentarily, we’ll go ahead and take up the consent agenda. If
you would go ahead and call that.
The Clerk: The consent agenda consists of items 1 through 41. that’s items 1
through 41.
For the benefit of any objectors to our alcohol petitions, once the petition is
read, if you have any objection would you signify your objection by raising your hand?
Alcohol petitions:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Motion to approve a request by Shatera Prince for an on premise
consumption Liquor & Beer license to be used in connection with Club Secrets
located at 1370 Gordon Hwy. There will be dance. District 1. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee June 21, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors to that license application? None are noted,
Madame Clerk. And we have no zoning items?
The Clerk: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion with respect to the consent agenda?
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Gentlemen and ladies, are there any
items you would like to pull from the consent agenda? Mr. Hankerson, which one?
Mr. Hankerson: I’d like to pull 6, 7, 8.
Mr. Mayor: 6, 7, and 8 for Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: Can we move 48 to consent?
Mr. Mayor: And add 48 to the consent agenda. Any objection to moving item 48
to the consent agenda? None is heard, Madame Clerk, if you would include that.
Mr. Mays: I have some questions. Y’all move to consent but I’m going to talk
about that a little.
40
Mr. Mayor: All right. Who else wanted to pull some items from the consent
agenda? Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Yes, sir, let me get to it right quick.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair would like to pull item number 22 just to identify a source
of funding for that.
Mr. Grantham: Pull item 41.
Mr. Mayor: 41. Okay. For Mr. Grantham. Anybody else want to pull an item?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Russell: Would you waive the second reading on item 18, which is the
solid waste piece?
Mr. Mayor: This is the ordinance for the solid waste piece. The Administrator
has asked that we waive the second reading of that. That would take unanimous consent
to do that. Is there any objection? All right, so that item will include the provision that
we waive the second reading.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Motion to approve a request by Shatera Prince for an on premise
consumption Liquor & Beer license to be used in connection with Club Secrets
located at 1370 Gordon Hwy. There will be dance. District 1. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee June 21, 2004)
2. Motion to approve a request by Julia C. Hall for a Therapeutic Massage
license to be used in connection with Cindy’s Hair Salon located at 3003-B Peach
Orchard Rd. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
June 21, 2004)
3. Motion to approve a request by Cindy Poss for a Therapeutic Massage
Operator’s license to be used in connection with Cindy’s Hair Salon located at 3003-
B Peach Orchard Rd. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee June 21, 2004)
4. Motion to renew the Sec. 5311 Rural Transit grant application between the
Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) and Augusta, Georgia. (Approved
by Public Services Committee June 21, 2004)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
5. Deleted from the consent agenda.
41
6. Deleted from the consent agenda.
7. Deleted from the consent agenda.
PUBLIC SAFETY:
8. Deleted from the consent agenda.
9. Motion to approve of server purchases, upgrades & replacements.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee June 21, 2004)
10. Motion to approve the replacement of obsolete computer equipment (laptops,
computers, printers) and purchase any required computer software upgrades.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee June 21, 2004)
11. Motion to approve the proposal from Rapiscan to replace the x-ray security
inspection system at the Law Enforcement Center. Rapiscan is the sole source for
this equipment due to the fact that all the existing equipment has been purchased
from Rapiscan all systems need be integrated and have to be compatible with each
other. (Approved by Public Safety Committee June 21, 2004)
FINANCE:
12. Motion to approve a request from the Richmond County Board of Health for
an allocation of SPLOST Phase IV funding for the design and construction of the
South Augusta Clinic Facility. (Approved by Finance Committee June 21, 2004)
13. Motion to approve a request for Commission approval to transfer $170,890
from General Fund Contingency to the 1945 Pension Plan. (Approved by Finance
Committee June 21, 2004)
14. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Sign Truck for the Public
Works Department – Traffic Engineering Division from Allan Vigil Ford of
Morrow, Georgia for $48,249.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 04-078). (Approved by
Finance Committee June 21, 2004)
15. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Sewer Rodder Truck for the
Utilities Department – Construction Division from Bobby Jones Ford of Augusta,
Georgia for $53,847.46 (lowest bid offer on Bid 04- 087). (Approved by Finance
Committee June 21, 2004)
16. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Portable Air Compressor for
the Utilities Department – Construction Division from U. S. Equipment, Inc. of
Augusta, Georgia for $10,200.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 04-085). (Approved by
Finance Committee June 21, 2004)
17. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Bucket Truck for the Utilities
Department – Construction Division from Altec Industries of Elizabethtown,
Kentucky for $54,485.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 04- 086). (Approved by Finance
Services Committee June 21, 2004)
18. Motion to amend Ordinance 4-2-6 to reflect Solid Waste fees at the Landfill
per the attached fee schedule. (Approved by Finance Committee June 21, 2004)
19. Motion to approve the abatement of 2002 Tax Account on Map 166, Parcel
24.05. (Approved by Finance Committee June 21, 2004)
20. Motion to approve refunds on six accounts as listed on agenda item dated.
(Approved by Finance Committee June 21, 2004)
42
21. Motion to renew the Sec. 5311 Rural Transit grant application between the
Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) and Augusta, Georgia. (Approved
by Finance Committee June 21, 2004)
22. Deleted from the consent agenda.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
23. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 051, Parcel
205.01, which is owned by Marce Malat McGhee a/k/a Marce M. McGhee for a
998.87 square feet, more or less, of permanent utility easement in connection with
Project 50130 – Butler Creek Collector/Belair Hills Estates. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee June 21, 2004)
24. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 139, Parcel 12.2
which is owned by Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota National Association (f/k/a Norwest
Bank Minnesota, National Association), as Trustee for The Registered Holders of
Morgan Stanley Capital I, Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 1999-FNV1, for a 36,239 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction
easement and 41,808 square feet, more or less, of permanent easement for Project
50215 – Jamestown Sanitary Sewer Project, Phase 2 & 3. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee June 21, 2004)
25. Motion to approve Deductive Change Order #2 in the amount of -
$243,691.40 for the Boykin Road Sewer Project contract with Mabus Brothers
Construction Company, Inc. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June
21, 2004)
26. Motion to approve funding for the Utilities Department in the amount of
$85,040.00 for the purchase of sewer inspection camera hardware and software
upgrades and a computer server to store sewer line inspection videos and images.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 21, 2004)
27. Motion to approve Change Order #2 to the Jamestown Sanitary Sewer
Extension Phase I project for the construction of the Flowing Wells Sewer Extension
Project in the additional amount of $65,000. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee June 21, 2004)
28. Motion to approve funding in the amount of $12,040.00 for upgrades to the
RCCI Water Tank. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 21, 2004)
29. Motion to approve in the amount of $12,500.00 for Stevenson & Palmer
Engineering, Inc. to provide professional services for construction inspection on the
samplers for industrial customer project. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee June 21, 2004)
30. Motion to approve adjustment of original purchase order for the Barton
Chapel Road Phase II Construction Project (CPB# 322-04- 292822678) to correct
original contract amount to be funded by the project construction account.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 21, 2004)
31. Motion to approve Change Order Number Three in the amount of
$29,648.25 with Mabus Brothers Construction Company, Inc. for the Warren Road
Improvements Project (CPB # 323-04-296823314) to be funded from the project
construction account. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 21, 2004)
43
32. Motion to approve funding for the Utilities Department in the amount of
$38,070.00 for the purchase of equipment to measure flow rates in the sanitary
sewer system. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 21, 2004)
33. Deleted from the consent agenda.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
34. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held June 15, 2004.
APPOINTMENTS:
35. Motion to approve the appointment of David Hogg to the Public Facilities
Committee representing District.10.
36. Motion to approve the appointment of David Fields to the General Aviation
Commission representing District. 10.
37. Motion to approve the appointment of Cleveland Garrison to the Minority
Business Development Council representing District 8.
38. Motion to approve the appointment of Gene Workman to the Animal
Control Board representing District 8.
39. Motion to approve the appointment of William “Bill” Wood to the General
Aviation Commission representing District 8.
ATTORNEY:
40. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend the code of Augusta- Richmond
County Section 1-10-52, “Rejecting Bids, Re-Advertising and/or Negotiating.” To
provide for a re-stated §1-10-52 captioned “Rejecting Bids and/or Negotiating.” And
to repeal any conflicting Ordinances. (Approved by the Commission June 15, 2004 –
second reading)
41. Deleted from the consent agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We’ll move ahead with the vote on the remaining
items. We’ve requested to pull 5, 6, 7, 8, 22 and 41.
Mr. Hankerson: I’d like to pull 31.
Mr. Mayor: 31?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Anything else? All in favor of the consent agenda then please –
Mr. Hankerson: Excuse me, please. I’m sorry. 33 instead of 31.
Mr. Mayor: 33 instead of 31?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir.
44
Mr. Mayor: All right. We’ll make that note. All in favor of the consent agenda
then please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 9-0. [Items 1-4, 9-21, 23-32, 34-40]
Mr. Mayor: We had some people here from the School Board. I don’t know if
they’re still here. 50A. So we’d like to go on and take that one up while we’re waiting
for our attorneys to finish their drafting. If you’ll call item number 50A.
The Clerk:
50A. Discuss sidewalks associated with the Warren Road Project. (Requested by
Commissioner Tommy Boyles).
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles, you put this on?
Mr. Boyles: I did, Mr. Mayor. I had I guess it was last Tuesday night, I received
a call from Mrs. Minchew and asked would I meet her at Warren Road the next morning
to discuss the status or the actual location of the sidewalks at the new project that’s being
done along Warren Road and the Warren Road School. Mr. Powell, the board architect,
was there also, and we’ve met with some people from our own Engineering and Public
Works Department and Mabus Brothers Construction to look at what the situation was
there, and the School Board has some concerns. And so Mrs. Minchew, I think would
like to bring those concerns to this Commission and then we can probably go from there
with it.
Mr. Mayor: Helen, if you’ll come to the podium, please. Speak into the mike if
you will.
Ms. Minchew: Good evening. Mayor Young, Mayor Pro Tem Mays, and also
Commissioners, I thank you for the opportunity to come and express a concern. My
name is Helen Minchew. I am the District 10 School Board representative. I have had a
delegation with me from 2:00 o’clock, however, I have lost quite a few of them because
they did either need to go back to work or have other obligations. I do want to
acknowledge the ones who were here, because they were representing different segments
involved in this concern. And also make mention that there is a letter which --
Ms. Minchew: our children who do walk to school. Warren Road has always had
traffic, a good bit of traffic that has come through, cutting through from Washington
Road to Warren Road over to Skinner Mill, going on to the shopping area. And the road,
the new roadway will definitely be an improvement and it has been something we’ve
been looking forward to. I think it’s been in the works now, I know maybe close to ten
years or so. But it will also pull in even more traffic because it will be a better roadway,
there will be in tie-ins better from Washington Road, and it’s my understanding in front
of the school that possibly there is going to be three lanes of traffic there. So it is an area
45
that will have much, will continue to have much traffic. We will still have elementary
school children coming to the school, and also right across from the school is the Warren
Road gym and park. Which the park itself is used quite often. People use this facility.
We have children that go from Warren Road school in the afternoons after school over to
the gym for after school activities. There is – and we have many, many residents that
utilize the park. So it is a high-volume area. And again, the concern is the safety of the
children, and I would like to know who made the decision to make this exception to the
sidewalk and what the reason was. Because again, of all places to do this is – again,
we’re talking about an elementary school.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s see if our Public Works representative is here and can go ahead
and answer your question.
Ms. Minchew: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Where is Eric? Eric, if you’d pull that mike over there so we can
hear you and so you can explain to us what’s happened out there.
Mr. Speaker: Good evening, Mayor, members of the Commission. As Ms.
Minchew – I hope I pronounced your name correctly – as she pointed out, the plans or the
typical sections in the plans for our Warren Road project did include the 30”, 2-1/2 foot
grass strip between the curb and the sidewalk. When construction began in that area, a
decision was made to eliminate the 30” grass strip, partly due to the fact that we
anticipated the School Board’s parking lot being on grade with the road. It’s some 4 feet
to 5 feet higher now. So in order to provide the grass strip, we would have had to go
back and redesign our retaining wall and to be able to tie those two slopes together.
Based on an evaluation of the area, the area right in front of the school will probably have
minimal pedestrian traffic. School children or otherwise. Approximately half of this area
that is under discussion is adjacent to a decal lane, so any traffic in that lane will be
slowing down in order to make a right hand turn into the school. So for those reasons,
and given our financial situation, a decision was made not to provide the grass strip in
that area.
Mr. Mayor: Now what would have been the financial impact to put the grass strip
in, Eric, with the design of the parking lot?
Mr. Speaker: Well, the prices that the contractor provided as a result of the
meeting last week was about $174,000, but that’s got some contingencies in it. It
probably won’t be that high, but it’s probably going to still be six figures.
Mr. Mayor: Just for the sidewalks?
Mr. Speaker: Sidewalks and retaining wall
Mr. Mayor: And the retaining wall.
46
Ms. Minchew: Of course, that would not have been if it has originally put in as
planned, that would not have been the cost. That’s the cost for coming in now and
redoing the whole sidewalk area. But it’s my understanding that certainly would not
have been the cost at the time if it had been done according to the original plan.
Mr. Speaker: And I agree with that 100%. And also if the parking lot had been
built at the grade that it was expected, there wouldn’t have been a need for the retaining
wall.
Mr. Mayor: Are there other schools where we have sidewalks that abut a curb?
Mr. Speaker: Absolutely. The School Board has actually built this themselves, so
it’s not that we’re doing anything that they’re not doing.
Ms. Minchew: I’m not aware that we build sidewalks on streets.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you, Ms. Minchew. I’m
concerned as well. I’ve got some photographs there of the sidewalks that was built at the
Wilkinson Garden area and they don’t have that 2 feet of grass space there either. And
I’m a little concerned, even with this particular school, Wilkinson Garden, the entrance
was turned around I think for traffic reason, for whatever, but the Board didn’t make any
compensation for the water that’s going come, that’s coming into the homes which don’t
have any drainage, and ditches in their front. I questioned our people why didn’t we get
together? In fact I had [inaudible] go out there an look at that to find out who signed off
on that and why wasn’t there some consideration. The rear parking or the rear parking
area and the play area there is asphalt now, but it wasn’t asphalt then. And it really
pushing a lot of water out to the front. I sympathize with what she’s saying but those
pictures that I passed down to the Mayor, it just one example of how the sidewalks have
been done. We need to get together. We need to work together.
Ms. Minchew: I agree.
Mr. Williams: We need to be coordinating our efforts and our plans rather than
going back and have to redo it. I seen those pictures that you passed, and I agree with the
height and the distance that they are. But somewhere we done stopped communicating.
We done stopped trying to work together. It costing the taxpayers more money when we
don’t do that. So we really need to look at our efforts from now on. And I don’t know
what can be done at this point, Mr. Mayor, but I’m in agreement with her, with the way
that was done, but especially the way that was done on Wilkinson Garden and the rear
and the front of that entrance. If you look at it, you going to see the curb is even with the
street, even with the sidewalk, so to speak, that there is no curb. And it just makes for a
bad situation.
Ms. Minchew: I agree.
47
Mr. Mayor: Does the, does the Commission have some direction or something?
Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Minchew, in view of the fact that
two wrongs don’t make a right, and here we are with a situation that we want to protect
our children most possibly that we can, certainly we need to protect the taxpayers in the
same light. I think a safety measure is what you’re looking for without maybe having to
go back and just redo the whole sidewalk to the tune of a cost of $160,000 to $175,000.
There has been some suggestions made and a lot of people have been talking about, and I
have with Commissioners Boyles and Sims and different ones over in that area where we
are responsible to that particular area. And I know that it’s not an absolutely foolproof
“you won’t get hurt” situation, but it would, it would, it would please me to see some
type of barrier, whether it be in the form of a, of a post with a chain through it that you
could at least deter people from walking out on the street. It’s certainly not a total
preventive situation, but it is one that is visual to the point that once you see it you know
not to go there. I know children are very inquisitive and they’re going to do any and
what they can, but I think we need to reach some type of conclusion in this that is not an
expensive situation for everyone involved, and certainly we don’t want to put any dollar
value on the life of a child, on the life of any of our citizens of this area, whether it be an
adult walking on that sidewalk. But I think there are some areas that we can look in and
hopefully resolve this in that light without having to go to a major expense of just tearing
up that sidewalk and redoing the curb and putting the grass area in. I guess the question I
have in some regards is that if, if you put the grass area in and it’s 24” wide, what have
you done any more than putting somewhat of a barrier up there that might help? The
grass is not going to keep them from going in the street. The barrier may deter, at least
give a second thought before they make that move toward the street, and when they do it
hit it they are going to think twice and maybe come back. I would like for us to look into
that type of situation and get with your people and get Eric and our Public Works people
to work on that, Mr. Mayor, and see if we couldn’t come up with a solution that would be
satisfactory with everyone. We know that it may not 100%. And it may not be the final
solution. But at least it’s one, I think, to start with and make an approach on and let the
citizens know that we are making every attempt we can to resolve this problem.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek:. A motion
Mr. Mayor, in light of that, a motion and a comment
that we get our staff to work with the School Board architect and Public Works to
develop a path forward on this, most cost effective, safest method of dealing with it
and report back to Engineering Services in two weeks.
And a comment, too. This is a
continued weakness between our two governmental entities. We have had problems with
Hephzibah Elementary, the sewer, the communication between our staffs has not been
good. I would like to see if we can, this board and the School Board committee, to where
when we start discussing new schools, that there be a level of dialog between our
architects and designers and planners to where we sort these things out before they
48
become a problem. The elevation of this parking lot and the location of this sidewalk
ought to have been something we could have sorted out before we started.
Ms. Minchew: It could have. I believe had it been brought to our attention, it was
certainly something that could have been resolved.
Mr. Cheek: And I guess my point is that dialog on both sides is not what it needs
to be. If we knew where the school out here in Fairington was going, we could plan
sewer and sidewalks and other things, but we’ve had no dialog. So these are, this is a
very big weakness within the city. And I understand proprietary concerns about real
estate purchasing and everything else, but there’s no reason in the world our staffs can’t
work together, just like our Recreation and Parks does with the School Board to improve
things. But you’ve got a motion.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second to the motion?
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second. Further discussion?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: I guess is Andy saying that when the city drew up the plans for
Warren Road and the School Board was doing the plans for the remodeling and
renovation of the school, or rebuilding of the school, that we didn’t –
Mr. Cheek: Communication isn’t there like it needs to be.
Mr. Mayor: It’s obvious there wasn’t any communication. Or we wouldn’t be
talking about this.
Mr. Boyles: But our plans, the plan that we used, that we worked with, is Eric
saying that wasn’t followed? I mean –
Mr. Speaker: Our plan includes [inaudible], show how wide the roads are going
to be, the curbs, the grass, the street, the sidewalk, and then the back slope. They would
have tied in with the back slope from their parking lot. Had the parking lot been where
our plans showed it to be, or where the parking lot used to be before the renovation, we
wouldn’t have this issue. But it’s four or five feet higher now, so when we got
[inaudible] go back, redesign the retainer wall and have that built and definitely not be
ready when the school opens August 9, or do what we could do to get the road finished in
that area, which was the goal since day one, to try to minimize the impact on the school
once the school starts in August.
49
Mr. Boyles: You know, when I met you up there that morning I took those
pictures that I just circulated here, and they were already taking out the old road, so that
puts us – and that section was supposed to be done before August 11, I think was the
target date that Mabus Brothers had, and they were on that one section, they were ahead
of it, so it kind of puts us in a bind as to what we can do. I mean what can we do about –
Mr. Mayor: The motion would have staff from our office and the School Board
offices work through this and bring a report back to Engineering Services next week, so
we can move forward with it. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I’ll say this and it’s going to sound hard. But while this is bad,
Wilkinson Gardens, Rollins, Bungalow Road – I mean this is a condition that exists all
over the city. This is bad because it’s a new project and there could have been dialog
about a change of further design or something between the two entities. But it hasn’t, it
didn’t happen where we’ve got the concrete on the ground and it’s been poured. If this is
a life safety issue for Warren Road, it darn sure is for Wilkinson Gardens and Rollins and
every other school in this city. So this is something that we may want to correct using
stripes or whatever we can, but if we’re going to go back in and correct this situation here
because it’s a life safety issue, we’re going to have to address it citywide.
Mr. Mayor: Anyone else?
Ms. Minchew: Thank you, Mayor Young. I just want to add yes, I would
certainly want every school anywhere in the county to avail itself to the safety features
that anyone can. We’re talking about any child walking to school, any age group,
wherever in the city, we do need proper sidewalks and markings. I know cross walk
markings have sometimes not been done. There are quite a few other measures we could
be taking. And I guess my immediate concern with the Warren Road project is because
it’s so close to my home and this is where my children went to school, and we have look
forward so long to having the improvement made on that roadway. And to have – and we
did, the School Board did give the easements. We did communicate. The
communication was there, because they were communicating about giving the easements
on this. And I believe coming down from the bus stop with the first grade playground, it
was going to involve taking, from my understanding that morning when we were talking,
it was going to involve taking six trees down and moving a chain link fence. And then of
course the next issue as we came down the street was having [inaudible] small retaining
wall is what we were told.
Mr. Mayor: Helen, I don’t think anybody here is trying to point a finger or cast
blame on anybody. If there had been communication, two way communication, we
wouldn’t be here today talking.
Ms. Minchew: My concern is an original plan, if you’re thinking you’ve got a
plan in place and it is the original plan, who makes the decision to change the plan
without getting into any reasons given to the Commissioners or whoever which comes to
involving –
50
Mr. Mayor: Eric said the School Board changed the plan. The School Board
changed the design of the parking lot, and that’s where the plan changed. And so they
had to respond to the School Board’s change from the information they had, and it was
strictly a budgetary consideration. They would have had to come back in here for a
change order on the project and they knew there was no funding source for it.
Ms. Minchew: There are some change orders that have come in. One is on
[inaudible] so I think –
Mr. Mayor: We can argue back and forth on this tonight, but we really need to
move the issue forward, as Commissioner Grantham has suggested, [inaudible] safety
alternatives.
Ms. Minchew: And we are – I’m just concerned with a chain link coming
through, little kids would just [inaudible] on that chain and [inaudible] over it. Maybe we
can look at something a little more sturdy as far as a guard rail with steel posts, come
across, that you can’t be playing around on a chain –
Mr. Grantham: [inaudible] School Board, Eric needs to get with them as quickly
as possible.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays:
Mr. Mayor, I was not going to jump in this. My Super District
colleague was sharing some preliminary numbers with me [inaudible] it’s something we
can look at [inaudible] gives us some options to support. Let me say this first. I’m
always glad to see my colleague from the School Board, who is probably at as many
Commission meetings as we are. And serves as a good liaison for that board and for that
area that she represents. Period. I think it’s a good thing that it’s brought to our
attention. We are not going to cure every sidewalk problem today, but to a point when
there is an issue to be addressed, sometimes it can be done and it helps to prevent
something else from happening down the road. Two things that I would like to see the
maker of the motion do that I think would be very helpful. None of us up here, none of
the School Board are out there in the building [inaudible] we just want to get good results
for the people that we serve. I think what would help in doing that, and we witnessed the
fact that we’ve worked together on a lot of things. I don’t think it’s bad that [inaudible]
here. That may not be the only one, but what I think needs to be done in that amendment,
and the reason why I [inaudible] goes all the way back to when we started the meeting
today, and over in District 5, Commissioner Hankerson made the statement about a
decision being made in that district that was made on an administrative level. It never got
before the floor of this Commission. What I think needs to happen, there can be valid
it maybe
reasons why things are changed, but I think when you make a change like that,
needs to come before whatever committee that there is so that at least we are
informed. That’s number one. The second thing that I think the Commission needs
to do and to do it jointly with the School Board is to pass a joint resolution which
51
reads the same way. You all are going to be doing massive building all throughout
this city, and that when on staff field level they notice something that is different or
out of the norm, then it is brought back to the respective bodies of the governments
and then sent to both our staff and the Board’s, whether they be direct or whether
they be contract people, that they come into those governing bodies. Then that
decision can be made. And many times prevented before it gets to that level.
I think
it’s a good thing that you are here to talk about it, because if you talk about it now, maybe
then with all the others that we’ve got to build, and the many other thousands of feet of
sidewalk that’s got to go in place, all the other drainage situations that have got to
I’d like
happen, then we get a chance to do those right, because we do them together. So
to see this as an amendment to the motion on the floor to do both of those things,
because I think some of this stuff that we go through many times, it’s preventable if
we take the steps to do it ahead of time.
I’m looking at a list right here of five different
options that the cheapest one is going to be several thousand dollars in order to do
something. And we are probably going to have to deal with that. But it’s not the only
one and if folks don’t talk, they can never get anything resolved. So I’m glad to see you
here today, glad you brought the issue up, glad we can work on it at our next committee
And I think we need to deal with the resolution at our next regular
meeting.
Commission meeting.
And I’m sure you will be able to [inaudible] through the Board to
do the same thing. And it just serves as a reminder to people we have to work with.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, Commissioner Mays, I understand the intent of the
motion. My concern is that with project changes coming back to Engineering Services,
that’s a two week delay on average. We don’t need to be in the business of being
involved in deal changes. This is Andy’s opinion. We need to sit down and have a
committee establish the projects like this with the school that we’re involved [inaudible]
contract persons and the School Board to hash out those changes within life safety codes
and so forth there at the site, not defer to committee that may not meet for another week
and a half. Which could delay the job. So I understand the intent of preventing this from
happening in the future, but I think the way we handle that is on the lead-in with a very
good project development meeting including all the stakeholders and then a
representative identified, points of contact from each side of the house, to where you can
come back before or meet those two people together, or three people, and sort out
changes to the project at the job level, not bring it back to committee. That just adds
many days to project. And I already hear, if I had a dollar for every complaint I’ve heard
about how slow Public Works moves, I’d be a millionaire right now. So we don’t need
to, I don’t want to see us add things to the process that are going to delay it. What I
would like to do is develop quality teams on projects like this that include the
stakeholders to sort out the initial plans and then have points of contact when we have
major changes and you come together and resolve these at the site level, at the lowest
level of responsibility, rather than have them come back before this board.
Mr. Mayor: Every day when we do projects, we deal with the gas company, we
deal with cable companies, electric company, the water and sewer, it would be just as
52
easy to deal with the School Board, and the School Board likewise deal with the city on
this.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, if I could clarify something.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Mays: It doesn’t have to be, I mean this amendment definitely doesn’t have
to be accepted and y’all definitely don’t have to vote on it. I did not authorize or intend
to cause a delay, Mr. Chairman. It was the fact that obviously if you’ve got the fact that
we have schools being built, buildings being built, whether it’s Wilkinson Garden,
whether you’re talking about what’s going to happen on Essie Mae McIntyre Boulevard
with Josey’s new gymnasium. If you’re talking about all those buildings, to a point
somebody in the field has not gotten the message. My point for making that it’s clear that
both governments can make it clear. We can make it clear to Public Works. Her
government can make it clear to the people who deal with theirs. Then that way there is
some document in writing which says that. What I don’t want to do is to a point they
already making decisions [inaudible]. The only thing I’m saying is maybe if somebody
knew it on the committee level, we would have said we need to [inaudible] do something
different. That was the only reason for saying it. Not to delay it at all. But if we don’t
catch it, and we’re not catching them now, if no signal is sent to the folk in both
governments who are doing the work that they need to talk with each other when they run
into a problem, they need to bring it here, because they can’t make it out there where they
are [inaudible] expense [inaudible] or at least we should know about it if it’s changed.
That’s all I’m saying.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Mays: But if they can work it out and get it done, that’s fine with me.
[inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Let’s work this motion out and get it done. We have a motion on the
floor. Any other discussion?
Mr. Grantham: What about the amendment?
Mr. Cheek: I’ll accept the amendment
and hopefully we can sort out in
committee a methodology that would prevent this in the future.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to amending the [inaudible]? None heard. The
[inaudible] will stand as amended by Mr. Mays. All in favor in the motion as presented
and amended, please vote with the usual sign.
(Vote on motion with amendment)
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 9-0.
53
Mr. Mayor: Could we get an update on Mr. Shepard? He didn’t leave the
building, did he?
The Clerk: They’re working on it. I just left them.
Mr. Cheek: Like Elvis.
Mr. Mayor: I asked, because we do have a hearing, item number 57, and I need
the Attorney in here for when we have the hearing. Sorry for the delay.
Ms. Minchew: Mayor Young, excuse me for clarification. What is the next step,
please?
Mr. Mayor: Our staff will get with your staff and then our staff will have a report
for our Engineering Services Committee –
The Clerk: July 12.
Mr. Mayor: - July 12.
Ms. Minchew: July 12 meeting?
Mr. Mayor: Would you like to receive notice of that, Ms. Minchew?
Ms. Minchew: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, if you would –
Ms. Minchew: And this meeting will take place soon, with this contact?
Mr. Mayor: You and Eric can talk about that in the hall.
Ms. Minchew: Okay. And we will discuss the different options then.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am.
Ms. Minchew: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Let’s, as we’re
waiting for our Attorney to come back, let’s take up some of these items that were pulled.
First we’ll start with item number 6, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
54
6. Motion to ratify an agreement with MACH Academy, Inc. for funding under
CDBG Program Recaptured Urban Development Action Grant Funds. (Approved
by Administrative Services Committee June 21, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, you asked that this be pulled?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir. I’m sort of concerned here, cause this was brought to
Administrative Services Committee as an add-on. At our last meeting. And I just want it
to be explained. I was looking in the background at the expense of a grant and the
[inaudible] and come from recaptured UDAG funds. I’d like for Mr. Smith to come up
cause I don’t want us to be caught with any surprises. I support MACH Academy but I
want to know how much money that we have in UDAG, what’s our balance to be left,
cause I know we getting ready to make some crucial decisions here that wasn’t known
last committee meeting, so we really know what we’re doing.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith, can you respond to the questions from the
Commissioner?
Mr. Smith: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. And Commission. What [inaudible] clarify is I
think from my conversation with you, Commissioner Hankerson, this afternoon, I was in
error in terms of what I was mentioning to you. The sources of the funds that were to be
made available to MACH Academy. The commitment of recaptured UDAG funds is in
the form of a $90,000 loan, and again it’s going to be repaid so that is going to come back
into the UDAG program over time. The other $40,000 – that’s what I was mistaken on,
cause we kind of went back and forth on it – the other $40,000 is out of recaptured
CDBG funds. It’s basically funds that were not used during the program year, and the
$40,000 is in the form of a grant. So we’re talking about loan of $90,000 out of UDAG,
recaptured UDAG, and the $40,000 in grant under CDBG.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Smith, being in error, I accept everybody being in error
when I called and asked on something and that’s the reason I’m caution when somebody
push something on me at the last minute. I always told you all I don’t want [inaudible]
coming in in Administrative Service giving me information, pushing something the last
minute before I have a chance to read it. And now I’m hearing different numbers here
and different allocations from where it’s coming from. So I still have, have a problem
with it. I don’t have a problem with MACH Academy, but I have a problem with the
funding source, what’s the balance for 6 – Mr. Mayor, I called for 6 and 7, and both of
them are coming from recaptured UDAG funds, so I’d like to know the amount we have
in recaptured UDAG funds and also the balance if this is approved, what it’s going to
leave us in recaptured UDAG funds.
Mr. Smith: Well, if I could pass you out a spreadsheet that shows the status of the
recaptured UDAG Program. I do have an accounting for that and I’d like to pass that
around.
55
Mr. Hankerson: I’d just like for you to just tell me the balance. If we got to pass
out information, Mr. Smith, I’d like for the committee to [inaudible] Administrative
Service and we could look at it. I don’t want to read [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Would you like to refer this item back to Administrative
Services?
Mr. Hankerson: I’d like to refer it back. 6 and 7.
7. Motion to ratify an agreement with De’Jour Innovative Solutions for funding
under CDBG Program Recaptured Urban Development Action Grant Funds.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee June 21, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Is that a motion?
Mr. Hankerson: 6 and 7.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to refer items 6 and 7 back to Administrative
Services. Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, I’ll second [inaudible] Administrative Services.
Mr. Mayor: All right, motion has been seconded. Any other discussion? Mr.
Smith, you want to answer that question about how much money is left in there? Kind of
leave that question hanging.
Mr. Smith: Current balance in recaptured UDAG is $2,741.10. That’s the
balance.
Mr. Mayor: Are there funds in UDAG that are encumbered but not spent?
Mr. Smith: There are funds that are obligated.
Mr. Mayor: Tell us how much.
Mr. Smith: The current obligation is $232,336.19. That’s the obligated funds in
recaptured UDAG.
Mr. Mayor: Does anybody have any more questions?
Mr. Hankerson: And I realize this concern [inaudible] in the allocated money,
you know, we just came out of legal with discussions here where some money was – I’m
concerned about that with this amount of money, and coming out of here, recaptured
UDAG funds, which I was told before I pulled this that the $132,000 was coming from
recaptured UDAG funds. And that’s a problem I have with it. I think there need to have
some discussions. My request from the Commission is to take it back to Administrative
56
Service so we can look at the details and see where we stand, whether it be accepted by
the body or not.
Mr. Mayor: Marion?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question is the loan that’s been issued to
MACH Academy and how they repay the loan and how they – this is a program that’s
been doing some things [inaudible] and I think it’s a good program. But when you say a
loan, and they been coming to us to try to get some assistance, some help. Now we give
them a loan. Is there a revenue base, income base that they going to be able to repay?
How is that? I guess we find out all that in committee. I just thought about it just then.
Mr. Smith: Just briefly, we have had extended technical assistance activity going
on with MACH Academy. We have talked to them about coming up with a business
plan, to move them toward being more entrepreneurial, looking at some ways that they
could capture revenue, a revenue plan that talks about a fee schedule and other services
that could generate income. Bottom line is that this project is a demonstration project to
turn around a non-profit into a more business-like endeavor wherein yes, there is a loan,
but there has been factored into this whole process the ability to repay this loan.
[inaudible] taken it to their board and their executive director is here today. I’m not
going to call on her, but believe me, we have gone through a process to really make sure
this is something that they can handle and it’s going to get turned around in the right
direction.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Smith, I’m not fighting that, but [inaudible] little deals I do
with the bank, my little money I own, I don’t have much dealing with it, but I was always
under the impression that you get a job before you ask for a loan or you get a business
plan before you go in and apply. Now it look like, and maybe you all talked about some
things already, but I’m just under the impression that that should have been laid out for
even us to know how, what they – and I’m not fighting this now. I mean it’s a good
program. I think that there some things we trying to bring together to try to help the, you
know, get on board. But if you going to put them under the situation where they got to
receive these funds under a loan and when they [inaudible] so when their payment gets
slow and they can’t get nothing else cause they in that situation. We can talk about that
later. The [inaudible] pulled it and we can talk about that [inaudible].
Mr. Smith: [inaudible] thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Any other questions? Mr. Mays, I know you wanted to say
something.
Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Mayor, let me, let me, let me say this about, let me first say
why we are probably dealing with this today. I have some mixed emotions cause as long
as they been trying to get help from the city, particularly MACH Academy, if, if I
probably wanted to be real personally selfish, we wouldn’t even be discussing this today.
Cause wouldn’t anybody have known that it was on here to be discussed. Now we need
57
to probably thank the Clerk, because I guess we argue about who came here first, me or
her, but if she wasn’t so thorough in her checking the minutes of these Commission and
these committee meetings, we may not have known to a point that there was a procedural
situation that needed to be corrected. Now the motion that was made in the committee
gave direction to the Administrator on one side to deal with exactly what we’re talking
about right now, and that was to go in and to make sure that this type of situation did not
happen again unless it went through the proper channels to deal with. And I agree. I
agree with the chairman of that committee and I agree with Commissioner Williams in
that regard. But the point that I wanted to make and as of putting it on the committee at
the last minute, because when the agendas first went out it was something that was
actually caught after the committee agenda went out. And I asked the chairman and he
allowed it to come on to his committee at that time. That being that there was some,
some different in to whether or not the director, Mr. Smith, and that department had the
authority per se again, on the advice of the gone Administrator, as to whether or not this
could be done in this manner. Now what I don’t think needed to be done was the fact that
the deserving agencies who have been out there and particularly you’ve got one large,
one small request here. I think Recreation can probably attest to the fact that the market
is not just gone in terms of the sports activity of tennis, but in academics and discipline
and everything else that has been about this particular project. It has probably caused the
South Augusta Tennis Center that we’ve got out there to grow with more public access to
it than Newman Tennis Center on Wrightsboro Road. So all the positive things have
gone into it and grown. What I didn’t want to see was that the, particularly since I don’t
have but a year here, Mr. Mayor, is the fact that somebody dig up something two years
from now and say that it wasn’t done properly. And maybe say that they were in
violation of something, when all they basically did was request like they were supposed
to request. The Clerk did her job. It was noted that this was approved at a particular
meeting. The minutes of that particular meeting did not reflect that this item came
through and was ever voted on. Now that’s how it got in the committee the other week,
that’s how it’s on here today. Now the committee, y’all can take it back to the committee
and vote on it, I don’t have any problem with that. As I said in the committee the other
day, I was going to vote for the project regardless of where it is, but I think we ought to
be clear on how it got there and to straighten out the procedure in terms of how it’s done.
Because when those minutes, which are very careful, particularly when you are dealing
with federal money, they should respond to what the minutes say. If it’s saying it was
th
voted on July 4, 1776, then that’s when you ought to had the meeting. Was in 1776.
Not 1976 or 1996. That’s when you needed to have had it. So that I hope and I want to
share that with my colleagues that that’s why it’s here, to get it straight. Now we can in
turn come back, take it away, decide not to do it, do whatever you want to do with it. But
that is the reason why it is before you, to correct that, so that agencies do not get
victimized, so that the line authorization is clear with the department, of what they are to
do with these funds and when these things come up, that they are to go through the
committee and be approved by this Commission, particularly if the minutes are going to
say if we ever voted on them. We cannot have a phantom transaction which is reflected
in real minutes or vice versa. That’s the reason why it’s here. So I can respect wherever
you take it. I’m going to vote to support it whenever it comes up to be done. I think they
are very deserving of it. I think they have put on and proved their work in this
58
community over and over, and it’s remarkable in terms of the students and in terms of the
performance that they’ve had and what they’ve actually saved us in recreation by being in
there, by having the type of mentors that they have and being able to provide leadership
for those young people, both in terms of athletics and in academics. But I think this
needed to be done in the proper way. And I think Mr. Russell, I hope y’all have got that
worked out now to where that is, but I do know that [inaudible] to a point there is a
meeting and it didn’t take place during that meeting. One of the two of us is going catch
it, and that’s why I put it on that committee so it could be corrected, because I did not
think that the groups needed to be victimized and the department needed to know what
authority it had, and what authority it didn’t have. And that’s where I am on it, Mr.
Mayor. Send it back, it’s fine with me. I’m prepared to go on and vote for both items
today to be approved. Think they are very deserving organizations. If it comes back,
then I’ll vote for it the next time we get it back.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything further? We have a motion on the floor to send this
back to committee. All in favor of that motion, please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Point of personal privilege, if I may have. I’ve got some seniors
from Hyde Park, and it looks like it’s raining and they been here –
Mr. Mayor: Let’s vote and then let me recognize you.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Take the vote and then I’ll come to you right away. I promise you.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir, thank you.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, if I might, I know we voting, but I meant to ask, has any
of that money been disbursed yet?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith, has any of that money been disbursed yet?
Mr. Smith: Yes, the De’Jour funds. $5,000.
Mr. Hankerson: Yeah, we need to go back to committee.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Mays: Well, Mr. Mayor, [inaudible] not only committee, Mr. Chairman,
[inaudible] if we got expenditure we voting on you got [inaudible] problem. That was
59
my point of bringing it out now. I don’t think the folk ought to be victimized [inaudible].
We need to ratify that or do it.
Mr. Hankerson: We going to deal with it. We going to deal with [inaudible] but
the employees of this city are going to get what they deserve, too.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, let me just say this. If we have disbursed the money, I
assure you this city will make no attempts to recover any money until this thing goes
through the committee process and the rule of the Commission will determine. We’re not
going to do anything in haste, Mr. Smith. Take it on to committee.
Mr. Hankerson: I asked this question, I asked this question before [inaudible] and
this meeting this evening, and I was told no, no money was disbursed. Now I’m getting
tired of being taken for a fool. I’ve already said I don’t want no surprises and something
is going to be done legally about this. I asked this question before I discussed it and they
said no money was disbursed. It’s nothing against any of those organizations. I know
MACH Academy does well. I support them, but we are dealing with a legal problem
here. Employee problem. As chairman of Administrative Services, [inaudible] come
under me, we are going to deal with it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Williams, you said you had some
seniors?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, some seniors from Hyde Park. I’m looking out the
window and I can’t if it’s raining or not and I know they drove down here and they have
to take a boat back.
Mr. Mayor: Which item is that, Mr. Williams? Which item is that?
Mr. Williams: Item –
The Clerk: 57.
Mr. Williams: 57.
Mr. Mayor: They’re here for item 57. We’re going – what we’re going to do, the
Attorney is back in and they’re prepared now to dispose of items 42 and 43 and then
we’ll take that up.
Mr. Grantham: What was the vote on that one we voted on?
Mr. Mayor: I believe the Clerk published the vote.
The Clerk: No, we didn’t.
Mr. Mayor: We didn’t publish the vote. I’m sorry. Go ahead. Thank you.
60
Mr. Mays abstains.
Mr. Colclough votes No.
Motion carries 8-1-1.
Mr. Mayor: We’re going to go back now to items 42 and 43 and then Mr.
Williams [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mayor: We need to finish up 42 and 43 first. They haven’t brought it in yet?
Okay, you came in for that one? Okay, good. Madame Clerk, then we’ll go to item
number 57.
The Clerk:
57. Campbell Recycling Co., 250 Dan Bowles Road, Occupation tax certificate
suspension/revocation hearing.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, are you going to handle that, or is Mr. Sherman here to
do the presentation?
Mr. Shepard: I’m going to introduce the presentation, Your Honor, Mr. Mayor.
And it’s Mr. Harris and Ms. Hargis are going to present for License and Inspection.
Mr. Mayor: Does somebody want to give us kind of an overview?
Mr. Shepard: I can do that. There was a motion passed in the last Commission
meeting to rescind the license of this Campbell Recycling, located on Dan Bowles Road.
I interpreted that to be a direction to have them show cause here today because a
suspension, a revocation of a license can be done only after notice of hearing. That’s in
our Code. And therefore I asked that the proper authorities from the License and
Inspection revisit the site to serve the license holder and then to bring the matter to the
body today. So that’s what – we’d like to show what is in violation and there is a
recommendation of revocation if the Commission desires.
Mr. Mayor: And who will –
Mr. Harris: Larry Harris.
Mr. Mayor: Who is first?
Mr. Shepard: It doesn’t matter.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
61
Mr. Harris: I’m Larry Harris with License and Inspection. And Mr. Campbell
made application to us in April, looks like April 23, to open on 5/30. Looks like the
business license was sold 5/7/2004 and at that time he was to operate as a collection
center for aluminum, copper and was a collection center for cans, copper and aluminum.
He was told that he could do that under that zoning, which was HI, if it was only a
collection center, and none of the products were reduced in volume by anything as far as
th
putting it in a compactor or a baler. On the 7 of this month, Mr. Williams, Mr.
Sherman, Mr. Shepard visited the location. At that time, Mr. Campbell was told that he
was not to hook up the compactor at that location. We later received evidence or
nd
information that that compactor had been wired. On the 22 of this month, Mr. Sherman
visited the location. And at that time he did see and electrical work was done where the
compactor was made where it would be made able to work. Mr. Sherman got in contact
with the electrical company who did the work and checked to see if they had a permit.
And permit was not pulled on the job. So by him enabling the compactor to work where
he could reduce the material by volume and size and alter its shape and alter its use, he is
in violation of the zoning ordinance for that location. Thereby, we are asking for a
revocation of the license with intent to circumvent the rules.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Hargis, did you want to add anything?
Ms. Hargis: Yes, [inaudible] License and Inspection Department. The wiring
project was very expensive. It wasn’t just plugging it in. You had to actually pull 220
wires completely through the roof and to the side and to the junction box. And that was
done in one week’s time after the visit, the initial visit. That, the intent was definitely
there.
Mr. Mayor: Did he do the wiring himself or did he contract?
Ms. Hargis: He had an electrical contractor come in.
Mr. Mayor: Does that contractor have a business license or doing work without a
permit?
Ms. Hargis: He has a business license.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you. Bo, you represent the business?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I think they had some photographs.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. You want to explain what those are, or are they self-
explanatory?
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] the Commission.
Mr. Harris: Forgive us, we forgot the color photos, so what you’re looking at will
be black and white.
62
Mr. Mayor: Bo, you want to –
Mr. Hunter: Thank you, Your Honor.
Mr. Mayor: Give us your name and address for the record.
Mr. Hunter: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My name is Bo Hunter. My business
address is 266 Greene Street. I’m an attorney here in Augusta. And there are several
nd
things I wish to dispute. First of all, they said this happened on the 22. It happened on
th
the 24 of June, which they had already brought this letter requesting the revocation, and
I happen to know that because I talked to Mr. Sherman on the phone at the location on
th
the 24. So they had already decided this prior to their coming out to that place at that
time. When Mr. Shepard and I believe Mr. Williams visited the site, they said that the
machine does not work. It still does not work. It’s something that they’re going to have
in another location. It’s something that they’re working on. There has been no evidence
that the machine is operating. As a matter of fact, when the inspectors tried on the
machine and it couldn’t work, there was no evidence of bale material. The Code section
says specifically that you cannot do this. It’s not something that [inaudible] there is no
proof whatsoever that they have compacted, baled any metals at that location. They have
collected. This is an inside facility. It’s not a junkyard that stuff is out in the yard.
They’re required to collect in a building itself. I have been out there and looked at it. I
also represent a lot of the folks that live in Hyde Park, and they know me, and if I thought
that this was something that was not responsive to that, even with the zoning there, I
wouldn’t be standing here [inaudible]. The man has been given a business license by the
county, and quite frankly, I’ve just done some research on a development case where I
filed suit against the city and a developer and had to submit briefs to Judge Pickett, I
believe last week, which Mr. James has responded to those briefs. So I’m very familiar
with this area of the law right now. I just ask that you not revoke his license. If you have
any questions, I’ll be glad to answer them.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Bo. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission,
the matter was amended to point out, and I believe there was a subsequent notice
delivered to Mr. Hunter’s client indicating the violation and that the Code does provide,
our Code provides that your business tax certificate may be suspended or revoked if the
holder of the certificate intends to violate or has violated any federal or state or local
ordinance or resolution regulating such business, or intends to violate any regulation
pursuant to authority granted for the purpose of regulating such business. And I think the
wiring of this – I believe you called it a baling machine?
Mr. Harris: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hunter: That’s correct.
63
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. That would constitute the intent to violate the local
ordinance because he is not to do any volume reduction at that location. And I think that
the case changed between the time that Mr. Williams and I and Mr. Sherman and Mr.
Patty went out, because it was not hooked up at that time. It was subsequently hooked up
and so if the body feels that the matter has been proven, then suspension or revocation
could proceed. If the city has proved its case, then make the appropriate motion. If it has
not proved its case, make the appropriate motion in behalf of the license holder.
Mr. Williams: So move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll see if the Commissioners have anything, any questions for the
parties. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams:I make the motion that we go ahead and revocate the license,
Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to revoke the license. Is there a second?
Ms. Beard: I second it.
Mr. Mayor: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? Question any of the
witnesses or employees? All in favor of the motion please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Boyles: What was the legal recommendation?
Mr. Mayor: The recommendation from staff was to revoke.
Mr. Shepard: And the Attorney, as well, based on showing of intention to violate,
Mr. Boyles.
Ms. Sims: Mr. Mayor, could I just ask a question? Would there have been any
reason to have done any of the electrical work?
Mr. Hunter: The machine, which they had informed them, was not operating. I
mean does not operate and they want to give it fixed. They had it here for storage. The
also operate a facility in Lexington, South Carolina, which is where they do their baling
and their process work.
Ms. Sims: Why was that electrical –
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sims, I asked if there were any questions and then we began
voting.
Ms. Sims: Sorry.
64
Mr. Mayor: If you had one question, that would be fine. So we need to go ahead
and finish voting and have the Clerk publish the vote, please.
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 9-0.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Are you ready, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we can return to items 42
and 43.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Shepard, are you ready to proceed in the matter of 42
and 43?
Mr. Shepard: I am. [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Hankerson: Did you skip over 8, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor? Did we skip 8?
Mr. Mayor: No, we’re coming back to 8. We’re trying to dispose of these. I’m
coming back to you, Mr. Hankerson. [inaudible] We’ve got a motion for 42. Do we
have a motion for 43, also? Is that being passed out?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir.
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: No, that would be a motion to discuss [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: We have 42 and one that just says motion. We need 43.
Mr. Shepard: If I can get on the right page literally with you.
42. Motion to approve a contract with GA Food Service, Inc. for food services at
four senior nutrition sites operated by Augusta, Ga. (No recommendation from
Public Services Committee June 7, 2004 and deferred from the June 15, 2004
Commission meeting)
43. Motion to approve Augusta, Ga. being named a subgrantee to receive
funding through the CSRA Regional Development Center for the operation of
Senior Nutrition Program. (No recommendation from Public Services Committee
June 7, 2004 and deferred from the June 15, 2004 Commission meeting)
65
Mr. Shepard: If I can proceed, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Make sure everybody gets their copies of this first. Mr. Cheek, there
is a [inaudible]. Mr. Attorney, we’ll start now with item 42.
Mr. Shepard:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. As a result
of the discussions in legal and with counsel, other counsel in my firm and also with
information given to appropriate counsel for the parties in the court dispute at the present
we recommend the item 42 motion and item 43 motion and I’ll go ahead and
time,
read the language and it will be up to the Commission to choose the portions of the
language that it may feel appropriate. As to 42, we recommend that you be
authorized, Mr. Mayor, to enter into the contract presented by GA Foods, Inc.
provided that the following language is included and that the third sentence of
paragraph 23 is restated as follows and that reads, “Should the courts finally rule
adversely to the Regional Development Center and GA Foods, Inc. and void the bid
award to GA Foods as the new vendor, this contract will stand voided, terminated
and ended or otherwise conform to such final order as may be entered in said case
including any final order after appeal. In addition, purchaser specifically reserves
the right to terminate this contract for convenience as provided in paragraph 27.”
And GA Foods is represented by Mr. Wall. I think he indicated that, and he can correct
me if I’m wrong, that he could not reach his client tonight so he is not able to stipulate to
that language, but that would not prevent us from adopting it. And if they will not agree
to that language, then we don’t have a contract. But this would allow the contract to be
entered and the meals to be provided on a continuous basis. I can go ahead and look at
item 43 if you want.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s do that. We’ll vote on, we’ll take them up separately
[inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: As to the subgrantee agreement, in item 43 we recommend the
language that you are authorized, Mr. Mayor, to enter into a subgrantee agreement
through the CSRA Regional Development Center for the operation of the Area Agency
on Aging Cooperative Subgrant Agreement provided the termination provision for
convenience provided in paragraph 40C is changed from 60 days to 30 days and that
would make it consistent with the other contract and that would mean that the funding
would stop consistent with the obligations under the contract you would give the same
notice. Do you want to discuss the final recommendation?
Mr. Mayor: Let’s do these separately, these two contract issues separately and
then we’ll take up the other motion.
Mr. Shepard: I believe Mr. Harley indicated to me that the language in 43 was
acceptable to the CSRA Regional Development Center and he so stated [inaudible]
record.
66
Mr. Mayor: I think the Development Center also represented that if, if the court
takes the contract away from GA Foods that the Senior Citizens Center would be the
better choice for the contract; is that correct? Was that statement made to you, Mr.
Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: It was stated that the funding would follow the appropriate vendor.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: It would not be rebid?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: You say it would be rebid?
Mr. Shepard: The funding would go to the successful bidder.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Are there any – let’s take up item number 42 first. We have
two separate motions here. Item 42, is there any – do you have some questions?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I have some concerns. Mr. Shepard, you said that since Mr.
Wall did not contact his client, if his client disagree, we would not have a contract?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, you want to respond to that?
Mr. Wall: The scope of my representation of GA Foods –
Mr. Mayor: Would you give us your name and address for the record?
(Laughter)
Mr. Wall: Be glad to. Jim Wall, 453 Greene Street, Augusta, Georgia, an
attorney here in town.
(Laughter)
Mr. Wall: The scope of my representation of GA Foods did not involve this
contract. I did not prepare this contract and so therefore I can’t speak on behalf of GA
Foods. I did attempt to reach them. I had their cell phones. I’ve left word there. And so
I can’t do that. I can commit to you, however, that they will provide food tomorrow, as
though they had this contract, because that’s something that they intend to do. So you
don’t need to worry about food being delivered. If there’s any – and the substance of the
67
language has not changed as a result of this, I will recommend it. I just can’t commit to it
cause that’s not within the scope of my representation. Cause they didn’t ask me to
review the contract.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Wall, [inaudible] formal, you could make inquiry tomorrow to
determine –
Mr. Wall: Sure.
Mr. Shepard: - whether they oppose that language?
Mr. Wall: Oh, yeah. And we’ll come up with some – I mean I can’t imagine that
the language would be changed or they would have any objection to is, cause the
substance of the provision is not changed from what it was stated earlier. I just don’t
have the authority to say it.
Mr. Shepard: Here again, you can indicate that to me prior to the Mayor’s
execution tomorrow?
Mr. Wall: Sure.
Mr. Shepard: Are there any other questions or comments?
Mr. Cheek: We pass this on, contingent of agreement?
Mr. Shepard: That’s correct, Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Mayor: Any other questions or comments? We need a motion then
[inaudible].
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Second. All in favor then please vote with the usual sign. The Clerk
is not here, but we can publish the vote.
(Vote on Item 42)
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: Now we need to go to item number 43.
Mr. Shepard: Want me to reread the suggested text?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, if you’d read it for the record.
68
Mr. Shepard: We are recommending that the Mayor be authorized to enter
into a subgrantee agreement through the CSRA Regional Development Center for
the operation of the Area Agency on Aging Cooperative Subgrant Agreement
provided that the termination provision for convenience provided in paragraph 40C
thereof is changed from 60 days to 30 days.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. So we need a motion to adopt this language. Do we have
such a motion?
Ms. Beard: I so move.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: And there is a second. Discussion? Questions? Inquiry? Mr.
Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I have a question. If you can put it in the right perspective. I’m
concerned about after signing the contract what we’ll be committed to as a city as far as
funds. Do we need to vote on this now and discuss it afterward?
Mr. Shepard: Well, that was something we were not able to determine, Mr.
Hankerson. What we were able to determine is that the city’s – with this funding
contract, we will have monies from the RDC up to I think about $320,000. Will that
cover all of our expenses? Our answer was no, but if we did not accept this contract and
did not accept this funding source, we would have no funding source outside this
government. We will only have our own money to fund it, and that would be – I think
we can quantify that, we can determine that and here again, that’s why we think the
termination for convenience is an important thing to leave in the document at this time. I
think I tried to answer that question before and I said I’m sure we’re getting the monies
as provided in this, in this subgrantee agreement. Whether that will be cost, fully pay for
all of the county’s costs, I don’t think so. And we do not have an estimate about how
much it will be, but we will at least have the $320,000 should the contract be fully
performed. However, there are certain contingencies that may happen. This contract
may be terminated for convenience or it may be voided by the court. So we’re trying to
anticipate all contingencies, but what we’re trying to determine here tonight is that we
will have some outside funding source.
Mr. Hankerson: Let me say this. I’m quite sure that when we talk about senior
citizens and we’ve discussed this before and we had to have Recreation to step in and I’m
quite sure Recreation is prepared to give me something that I know this Commission is
going to know what it’s going to cost us. That’s one of the reasons I’m talking – I
mentioned earlier about the funds that we are going to need by signing this contract. Mr.
Beck, did you have – if it’s all right –
69
Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission –
Mr. Mayor: Can you respond to that?
Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, in response to the funding
and what this signing of this subgrant to the contract means, the numbers for the contract
are based on what the program is currently serving. Currently serving at the four sites we
th
currently operate, as well as the 15 Street site. We have within our budget the matching
funds and the additional funds for what’s call full site meals, for those who don’t qualify
for the grant fund, so we have those funds in place. The fund at RDC [inaudible]
approximately $320,000 would be the amount of the grant funds to serve what we are
serving now. So maybe that answers the question. The funding is in place to serve what
we are serving now.
Mr. Hankerson: But in this contract, isn’t it some other services that is, is, is
required? In signing this contract, and you have the responsibilities, I mean I mean how
much funding, you have enough funding to last the rest of the year?
Mr. Beck: With the signing of this contract, and that’s a good question,
Commissioner Hankerson. With the signing of the contract, it is going to put additional
responsibilities on our staff. We have had some additional responsibilities since January.
There is and we have had discussions with RDC about some potential other funding
sources to help offset some of these expenses that we have had, and we like that that
would be fruitful in the future, although what we are telling you here now, we made the
commitment to run the programs in January, we’ll do the very best we can to run the
programs efficiently, even if we don’t get any additional help. We’ll just do the best we
can. But we are working toward getting additional funding to try to alleviate that
situation.
th
Mr. Hankerson: What about that 15 Street site?
Mr. Beck: Well, thank you for bringing that up. With this action does come the
th
15 Street site situation, which in effect will close. And we’ve to figure an avenue out to
th
serve our seniors. Those seniors who were being served on 15 Street. So Madame
Clerk, if you would help.
Mr. Hankerson: I thought you would have something on paper for me.
Mr. Beck: Just a little contingency plan here in case. What the Clerk is going to
pass out to you are a couple of options that I feel like that we have now, and the only
options that I feel like there are to serve these seniors. And what the two options are
th
would be to take the seniors who are currently being served at 15 Street and relocate
those seniors to either Savannah Place or Brigham Senior Center. Centers that are
currently operating. The, there would be an additional cost with that, because we’ll be
taking on more client. We will need some additional part-time staff and some supply
70
monies to make that happen. The negative part of that is it would take those seniors
th
further away from their homes. Basically, the 15 Street site was made up of 30901 and
30904 residents. And so if you take them to those sites, there might be some that could
be closer, but it probably would take them out of their basic neighborhood. The other
option that we’re giving you would be to open a new site at our new Sand Hills
Community Center, which you haven’t had an official chance to see yet cause we haven’t
had a grand opening. We’re trying to finish up an outdoor pavilion there before we bring
you in for a grand opening, but it is open, we have a full service kitchen that’s been
approved by the Health Department for a potential site like this, should it come up, which
possibly it may be coming up now. But that would be the site we would recommend to
th
relocate the 15 Street site there. It’s an existing facility where we already have the
utility costs, they’re already budgeted. The costs that are not budgeted would be the
additional staff, just like we’ve got at the other senior centers, to operate that site. And
that would be approximately $40,000 annually.
Mr. Hankerson: That conclude my question, Mr. Mayor. I just don’t like
surprises when we talking about financing and budgeting and what we going to need to
continue the operation of this program. So I think the Commissioners need to know and I
know that we signing the contract, we have to do that, but we need to know the
consequences of the whole matter. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Anyone else? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m sitting here and I’m hearing these
additional costs to come out. I’d be willing to bet, and I’m not a gambling man, bet
money that there will be many more additional costs ladled out to this city, who is
already financially strapped, in the not-too-distant future. We are looking at closing or
defunding one of the most successful senior centers that is of great value to the people of
this city, and I cannot say or leave unsaid that RDC is not acting in the best interest of
this city or the seniors. The documentation, funding allocations granted from the State
have to be fully documented and prepared and submitted. Who will handle that
additional workload? Will it be within Recreation or RDC or who’s got that ball?
Mr. Beck: Our department will now become responsible for the paperwork.
Mr. Cheek: So with, here again a city who is struggling to maintain minimal staff
to keep our facilities open is now asked to take on an additional role, and additional
responsibilities, and we’re closing or defunding the Senior Center. You know, this all
could be solved if we didn’t reprogram money to house cleaning and this all could be
solved if we didn’t take $1.2 million off the top of our seniors programs. We cold fund
these things and keep things running, and this is why my stomach turns, as I sit here
forced to vote for this thing. And that’s why I’m going to be proud to make this next
motion. This is the tip of the iceberg. I guarantee you other cities that are in this
program are being forced to take on additional costs. If we’re the only one, then why are
we the only one? Further, if we look at the action that I heard earlier today of taking our
Medicaid money away, the Senior Center is gone, and we do not have duplicate services
71
in our Rec Centers, nor staff to cover those that they do at the Senior Center, without
adding additional personnel or taking people away from and cross training them in those
particular skill categories. So we are looking at a reduction of services, again at the
hands of the RDC. Now I ask you, this city is struggling to do the best it can under tight
budgetary times. We’ve demonstrated that by utilizing Rec and Parks, working with the
Senior Center to get them back on a financially sound footing. We are doing our job to
keep services where they are. We are doing our job to make sure that the [inaudible] for
seniors are not left holding the bag or shortchanged on needed programs. Again, the city,
I can say the city is doing all it can do. Right now we are being forced to do some things
by the RDC again that turn my stomach, and again, ladies and gentlemen, we have only,
we’ve only seen the tip of this iceberg. We’re going to be paying more out of our
pockets to cover these things and our seniors will suffer.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We have a motion on the floor. All in favor of
that motion please vote in the affirmative.
(Vote on Item 43)
Mr. Mays abstains.
Mr. Grantham and Ms. Sims out.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I’d like to make a motion that we direct the County Attorney to
intervene to protect the interest of Augusta Richmond County and its citizens and
the County’s internal auditor is directed to assist the County Attorney as a county
expert in said case.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, for purposes of the motion, we had, we’re referring to –
Mr. Mayor: Let me get a second first, and then we’ll – do we have a second to
the motion?
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Now go ahead, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, the case in reference
in the motion is the matter of the Senior Counsel of Greater Augusta and the CSRA
Georgia, Inc., versus CSRA Regional Development Center and GA Foods, Inc.,
which is presently sitting in the Superior Court of Richmond County, Civil Action
File #2004-RCCV-530
.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion?
Mr. Shepard: Should be part of the motion.
72
Mr. Cheek: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: The question of following this or not following this, if you see an old
person getting beat up on the side of the road, are you going to wait and see if they
survive the fight or are you going to jump in and help them? That’s where we’re at now.
Mr. Shepard: The direction I understand from the Commission is immediate
intervention.
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir, I’m just making that as a general statement.
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir. And if you want to make that clear, we understand that we
th
are not to wait until after the 16. This is to intervene and conduct appropriate discovery
in conjunction with the utilization of that expert.
Mr. Cheek: I’m hoping for some of that scripturally promised truth, which will
set us all free.
Mr. Mayor: Anyone else? Anything further? All in favor of the motion then
please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Smith: I’m sorry, Mr. Mayor, but we don’t know what we’re voting on.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: You’re voting on the motion that was passed out that says motion on
it. That’s the motion made by Mr. Cheek and seconded by Mr. Williams. Motion to
intervene in the pending litigation. Is everyone finished voting? We’ll go ahead and
publish the vote.
Mr. Boyles and Mr. Smith vote No.
Mr. Grantham and Ms. Sims out.
Motion carries 6-2.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Hankerson: Before we move forward, I’m a little confused here. We didn’t
give Mr. Beck no direction of which way to go with these options that he mentioned.
Mr. Mayor: I don’t know that he was asking for direction today. Were you
today?
73
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, we need to make a determination on what our
plan is for Monday. Do you want us to anticipate moving into one of the Rec centers or
negotiate with the Senior Citizens Council to see if they can stay open for another 30
days or so? Which we have some funding we can give them for that. We just need to
have some direction there.
Mr. Shepard: That does need to be done, Mr. Mayor, and I believe there were
some cost estimates passed out by the Senior Citizens Center and a funding source
recommended. The funding source being UDAG.
Mr. Mayor: I’m not familiar with anything passed out by the Senior Citizens
Center.
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Hankerson: And also, Mr. Mayor, one other question that was posed to the
Senior Citizens counsel. I think that they needed a certain amount to – they was
requesting the balance of their UDAG – I mean the funds that was allocated to them in
order to continue to operate. If the Commission need to grant them that, we need to – and
I move that we so do that.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s take the issues one at a time. The first one that you brought up,
Mr. Hankerson, was the [inaudible] center. The figures presented to us by Mr. Beck.
Let’s deal with that first and then we’ll go to [inaudible].
Mr. Hankerson: The reason I said that, I think if we give them that, then Mr.
Beck wouldn’t need to step in this early. That’s my impression, cause they are going to
be operating with the money.
Mr. Mayor: All right. This is the money they already have appropriated; right?
Mr. Hankerson: Right. It’s already appropriated but they drawdown on it. I
think they want permission, they don’t want to get nothing that’s not due to them.
Mr. Mayor: Shawn?
Mr. Hammond: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: You wanted –
Mr. Hammond: May I/
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
74
Mr. Hammond: Okay. We have enough money to stay open for right now. We
have a lot of money in account receivables. Money that is still flowing. We fully intend
to be open on Monday. What I gave to Mr. Russell was a breakdown of the expenses,
specific expenses to keep the Center open, the building itself, with and without nutrition.
Without nutrition, where we wouldn’t do the home delivery and we wouldn’t have to
congregate folks there, about $15,000 a month. If there is $33,000 left that would 2-1/2
to 3 months that we have based on that. I’m expecting Medicaid. I spoke with Ben
Harbin and Barry Fleming about Medicaid reimbursements last week. We expect those
things to come in about mid-July. If we do the delivery of the meals, about 140 home
delivery of meals, plus the meals in the congregate center, that’s in another section of that
letter, and that runs about an additional $16,000. So $34,000 or one month would be the
UDAG money. Or what we can do for three months, just keep the building open and
have those folks transferred to another site.
Mr. Mayor: Probably what we need to do tonight is go ahead and release the rest
of the money they’ve been appropriated and have staff come back with a
recommendation on how to go forward. I think that would be –
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, that would be appropriate.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I have no problem with that, but I think what Rec needs
clarification on is that if we are going to do the release, and I want to be fair to them, that
they are going to be able to handle for a specific period of time based on the drawdown
release, and I think probably – and they’ve had good communication this far since we’ve
been working this, is stay in tune. Because I think what Tom needs to know is that he
doesn’t need to I guess wake up one morning 45 days from now and inherit the fact that
th
he needs to move to a new center on Fleming Avenue from 15 Street. And I think if
you going, if you going do that, then that can be handled administratively but I just think
that needs to be worked out amongst the three bodies, Senior Center, Rec and
Administration to a point that it is clear [inaudible]. So if he’s got some other changes to
make, then we know that. And I think we’ve been able to work very well thus far on
doing that. Y’all have been doing very well in terms of reporting and representing
changes. We just need to know that like we’ve known when we need to make a slight
adjustment in that.
Mr. Hammond: [inaudible] case comes up for a final resolution relatively soon,
so [inaudible] there should be more than enough money remaining before we, before the
case is settled. [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I feel like it as our intentions when we
discussed this that we would see that both parties were utilized and treated in a fair
situation, and that by doing this we can continue to utilize the service of the Senior
75
Center until a time comes where either the court makes the decision for us or either one
of the parties violate the contract and we have to do something about it. And I think that
I’ll
was our intent to start with. So I would like to see us move in that direction and
make a motion that we allow the Senior Center to continue its services and
coordinate their efforts and work with our Recreation Department director Tom
Beck and authorize the drawdown on the funds accordingly.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second to that motion. Additional discussion?
Mr. Beck: Just a point of clarification, Mr. Mayor. This is the drawdown on the
UDAG funds that were initially appropriated, not the funds that are in our budget?
Mr. Mayor: The balance, UDAG.
Mr. Beck: [inaudible] I saw Lawrence over there with his eyes, the dollar signs.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, anything further on that motion? All in favor of that motion
then please vote with the usual sign.
Ms. Sims out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Boyles: I think we’ve sat here since 2:30 and we’ve heard a lot of he said,
she said. And this meeting being televised, there’s probably going to be a lot of folks out
there that are curious as to the final outcome of this. And if there are charges being
thrown this way, charges being thrown this way, I hope that in the motion that was for us,
this Commission to intervene, I hope that we’ll come back with a resolution so that it’s
published and people will know what the final outcome of this way. I hope that will
happen, because we have certainly heard the charges slung both ways. It hasn’t been a
very pleasant day to sit here through this, frankly. So I would hope that we will require
to get a report to come back to us.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Boyles. Let’s move ahead now with item number 8
on the consent agenda. Don’t y’all leave. You’ve been here this long, stay for the rest of
the meeting.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, we’re going to do item 8 next, as soon as the Clerk
reads the caption.
76
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir.
The Clerk:
8. Motion to approve a request from the Downtown Advisory Panel regarding a
recommendation concerning alcohol distance requirements in the downtown area.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee June 21, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hankerson, you asked this be pulled.
Mr. Hankerson: I pulled this because I don’t have a concern, it’s not a problem
with me on the first part of it. The one that regards the any structure not originally built
as a worship place. I don’t have a problem with that part, of adopting that. But I do have
some concerns about the second part, where it states that in the designated business
district, Downtown Advisory Panel, new alcohol applicants distance requirement of 300
feet shall be measured from the main entrance of the applicant’s structure to the closest
entrance or the closest occupied structure originally built as a place of worship or entities
protected by this requirement. And they are saying from, they are wanting from the place
of entrance, but I have concerns about that because of the fact that with church property
that they have some, the 300 feet to a property line - sometime churches change their
building structures and build family life centers and day care centers, and that would be
in closer to the area. I’d like for it to state, I think it’s safe if we state 300 feet from the
church property because churches buy and purchase property with the idea of future
expansion, and I wouldn’t like to see a church expand to a day care center and then you
have the bar right under the day care center or strip club or whatever right next to the day
care center. I think we safe with the 300 feet district. So I would like, I’d hope that we’d
support that. I’d like to put it in the form of a motion that we not change the 300 feet
distance from what it is now and let it remain the same and adopt the rest of it.
Mr. Mayor: Is that a motion?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? No second is heard. That motion
does for lack of a second. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make a motion to go ahead and
approve this.
This was reviewed by the Downtown Advisory Board, which does include
clergy that are in the affected area. The issue was the distance that would be imposed,
and 1,000 feet is an entire city block, and what we are doing is excluding the growth of
business within that area. The language change does provide protection as a buffer
between houses of worship. It’s been thoroughly reviewed. This Downtown Advisory
board has taken this to heart, and I just encourage the board to approve it as is.
77
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve it, Mr. Cheek
, and do we have a
second it?
Mr. Boyles: I’ll second that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles, you wanted to speak?
Mr. Boyles: I would like to speak to something, too, just to make sure that it’s in
the record that any structure not originally built as a place of worship, I want to make
thth
certain that we’re talking about from 5 Street to 13, from Green to the river, because
th
I’ve got a 2,000 member church up in the 7 Commission district that meets in a building
that was formerly a Piggly Wiggly supermarket, and I think all 2,000 of them may have
already called me this week, but I want to make certain that we’re only talking about the
thth
downtown, that area as defined by 5, 13, Greene to the river. So I wanted to make sure
that that’s in the record. I don’t see it in the backup and I just want to make certain that’s
correct.
Mr. Mayor: That is in the record now. Anything further?
Mr. Hankerson: Also, let me ask this.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Since it seem that it’s going to be approved, I got a question on
the downtown district only. That this 300 feet is just also we’re talking about downtown
district, and define downtown district to me, what area that covers, downtown district.
And is this downtown district only what we’re saying?
thth
Mr. Boyles: 5 Street to 13 Street. The north side of Greene Street to the river.
Mr. Hankerson: So this only pertaining to downtown?
Mr. Boyles: Downtown.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: The way I understood this action of the committee, and I talked
with Mr. Naylor beforehand, this was [inaudible] ordinance. This is, if you notice, is not
in regular ordinance form today. And so I’m taking that as should the body pass the
motion then I will draw the appropriate ordinance. And I know you’ve consulted other
78
ordinances. There may be, there may be some case law that I’ll bring to you that may be
relevant to this. I’ve been sent cases just recently which I haven’t read, but you’ll have
the benefit of that as well.
Mr. Mayor: And you’ll include a geographical description?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir. Mr. Naylor was sitting down, I assume that meant that the
geographic district was correctly specified, and he may want to put that in the record.
Mr. Naylor: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, to be really precise and technical,
th
the geographical district is – I get this correct – the west side of 5 Street to the east side
th
of 15 Street and the river to the north side of Greene Street. I mean the resolution is that
specific in order that we don’t overlap into the other side of the street or the other side of
th
15 Street.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Anything further? Yes, Mr. Mays?
thth
Mr. Mays: You say you’re talking about 15 and not 13?
Mr. Naylor: That’s correct.
Mr. Mays: I stand your first motion now. Because – well, let me ask you this. I
guess I need to ask this question of Mr. Naylor or the Attorney. How far does the
extension [inaudible] mention about the situation on Washington Road and others where
churches are going into large properties, but then how does that also go into determining
if there are expansions, then obviously expansion of an original place of worship that is
not separated from the original building, or if they’re still considered an entity, then how
are we basing that? I guess what I’m looking at is one of these situations, particularly if
th
you’re moving to 15 Street. I just wanted to be clear on how that was because
[inaudible] end of say classrooms or does it go from the point of a doorway of a worship
center? [inaudible] big argument to a point of where do you start and where do you
finish. I think that ought to be real clear.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, if I could. I think Mr. Mays’ point is well taken. We
would have to, I think define the, the location of the front door, the main entrance, excuse
me, to the structure, and that would be part of the test to designate that point in the
subject property. That may cause, that may cause us to have some problems. Here again,
I have some law that I just quite frankly haven’t had the chance to read. Would like to
read before we adopt anything. But nevertheless, I [inaudible] attempting to draw
something that will pass constitutional muster and also you know, move the development
agenda downtown along, too. But you’re right, there may be some, there may be some
problems with definition which could cause the ordinance to be vague and we’ll just try
to write that out. But if we can’t write that out, then I’m going to bring that back to this
body as a product. But you’re exactly right.
79
Mr. Mays: I’m wondering if we maybe need to give you the authorization in the
motion to draw up in language form the presentation which will come back and we then
discuss it because I foresee that as a point of major argument and a problem for License
and Inspection to deal with, then going to have to challenge or be challenged on whether
or not [inaudible] main interest, because you know, a main interest could be this week at
one point on the property and for whatever is coming the next week, it could deal with
the very end of it. And using the side of it. And I think that would eliminate a lot of the
situation where you’ve got the potential for 300 to 400 visitors at a time to a point of
making that argument. So it needs to be real clear about where that’s [inaudible] going
go. And I’m all for giving us the leeway that we need to deal with it in terms of
improving that central business district and I’m all for that. But I just think if that, if
that’s going to be a hang-up on it, we need to get it clear before we get out here and pass
it.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, that’s why the matter did not come under an ordinance
form tonight. It came on a conceptual form, which I’m fully willing to pursue, but I am
telling you that I was served with some material yesterday and that may, that may make
this, make this ordinance not feasible under under some Appellate decisions. So here
again, I don’t see it as passing an ordinance tonight, I see it as passing a concept, to me,
which we will deal with in light of what the development groups want and what the, what
the religious groups are going to bring forward. Because this was served on me by
members of the clergy.
Mr. Mays: And I, and I can understand the point of where the courts have spoken
and we’ve been down that and we’ve had to [inaudible] in some cases that have come
past an original decision that took a long time. We’ve been able to base that and it and
took a long time and say the courts have spoken [inaudible]. But you had exceptions to
that to abide by what the court has said. But I think when you step then across the line to
where there is strength on the other side of that line, then I think that’s where you’re
really opening the door to, to ask for trouble. I think when you east the court was more
lenient with the city. But I think if you’re going west, and I don’t have to be real specific,
thth
but you start going to 13 and 15 you better be clear when you write that ordinance.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion that’s been duly seconded. Any further
discussion? Okay, we’ll call the vote. All in favor then please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Mr. Smith and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Motion carries 7-2-1.
Mr. Mayor: The next item, Madame Clerk, I think we can dispose of pretty
quickly. Item 22.
The Clerk:
80
22. Motion to approve the commitment up to $20,000 for the National Science
Center subject to funding being identified by Administration. (Approved by Finance
Committee June 21, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: I asked that this be pulled so that we could identify a funding source
when we approved this today. Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell:
Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. After looking at that, the only appropriate
funding source I could find would be the Contingency Fund at this particular point in
If it’s not crucial, you might
time. We do have a balance of $223,344 in that fund.
want to wait until we do our six month review of dollars at this particular point in
time. It will tell you better where we stand fiscally at that particular point in time.
If they can wait for that kind of donation, I would recommend that you wait until
we do that.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners, what’s your pleasure? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, thank you. It’s my understanding they’re at a critical
juncture as far as laying people off and actually reducing services at the center. Is that
correct?
Mr. Russell: I can’t speak to that, sir. I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, as chairman of Finance, I would urge that we
concur with the recommendation of the Administrator
, because we need to be very
conservative until we get to that mid-year review.
Mr. Mayor: Is that your motion?
Mr. Boyles: That’s my motion.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor then please vote with the usual sign.
The Clerk: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I just was – my fault. I just was trying find out what, what kind of
time limit they were on.
Mr. Mayor: Six months.
81
Mr. Mays: No, I mean the time limit the folk were on. I mean my thing was in
committee, you know, we agreed to try to do some things jointly as far as speaking to the
Delegation or writing the Governor, talking about the importance of what the National
Science Center was, the needs that they had in terms of training. I mean that’s one of the
things we talked about the liaison with the Board of Education. I mean we spend a whole
bunch of money up in here today and I’m just wondering to a point that if we in the
deferral – and I know where the Administrator has got to come from. He’s got to protect
it from that standpoint. But I’m just wondering does this die on the vine to a point of
waiting that long, because I thought they were looking at a situation that was getting into
the within the next five to six weeks of trying to get some help one way or the other. So I
mean if we talking about something that’s going to be past that then, we might as well
just deny it if we going to do that, and I don’t think we ought to do that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, can you answer that question?
Mr. Cheek
: Mr. Mayor, I believe the conversation was that we would develop
and send I guess a letter of support for Fort Discovery, a resolution to Atlanta requesting
the Governor turn those funds loose. The commentary led to the Governor stating that he
had heard nothing from the local governmental entities concerning the need for the
I would like to
funding and so he was just going to sit on it. But I guess in that
authorize the Mayor to develop a resolution of support for release of those funds for
Fort Discovery and send it to the Delegation and the Governor
.
Mr. Boyles: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, and I’m going to vote for Commissioner Cheek’s motion,
but I think in addition to that, I think we need to, we have dealt with the School Board
today on an issue that we needed to communicate on, and one of the things that was
brought out in Fort Discovery’s presentation was the amount of educators that were
trained at that facility, that were adults, not only in terms of the exposure to children in
this community, and across the state. So I think we also [inaudible] since we were
talking about the resolution supporting us getting together and working on building
projects, that we need to ask them to send a similar resolution and we do it jointly from
the Board of Education and the City Government in order to do this, because they are the
recipients of a great pot of money that’s there and if he hadn’t heard from everybody, this
makes a way that he can hear from everybody, and that will take in all of us and give us
something for the Legislative Delegation to take back in their hands, that they won’t have
to argue about.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: What’s the motion?
The Clerk: [inaudible] mid-year review [inaudible].
82
Mr. Mays: But they need some dollars down there like they need the resolution.
I’m – I mean I want to hear something. I think we got to give the Administrator a little
something to deal with a directive now, cause we, we got money [inaudible] here, we
done, we done already moved the thing, Don, from Fort Gordon to downtown, we had all
these promises from all over the world, Congressmen sitting down here. Now everybody
want to run off and leave the project. And I think that’s bad. We ought to be able to find
something to help to do something with it, but we ought to pressure the State to deal with
their part, too. But if this is not a dangerous motion y’all got out there –
Mr. Mayor: It’s not dangerous, Mr. Mays. The mid-year review should be ready
in just a couple of weeks, shouldn’t it, Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: So we can dispose of that kind of quickly.
Mr. Mays: It ain’t dangerous, you just don’t do nothing.
Mr. Mayor: This is one of those occasions where they haven’t spent the money
yet.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Ms. Sims: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am?
Ms. Sims: Did Commissioner Mays make a motion that perhaps you contact the
Board of Education?
Mr. Mayor: I made a note and I’m going to take care of that.
Ms. Sims: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: I’ll handle that.
(Mr. Boyles’ motion)
Ms. Beard abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
(Mr. Cheek’s motion)
Motion carries 10-0
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go on to item number 33, if we may.
83
The Clerk:
33. Motion to authorize staff to being contract negotiations with Operation
Management International, Inc. (OMI) for a one (1) year contract extension.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 21, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek:
Mr. Mayor, I want to congratulate OMI on one of the finest records
of service that we’ve ever seen in this City and the dedication and the improvements
made at the Messerly Plant. In light of the gravity of the contract that’s coming up and
what I’ve heard as concerns of need for time to review and study the information
I’m going to go ahead and make a
provided from the performance audit and so forth,
motionthat we extend the contract for one year for review and allow us to study it
and then move forward with a plan for extension at some point in the future.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. And I appreciate what you said
about this, Mr. Cheek. The contract we have with OMI is a five-year contract with the
option for a five-year extension. And we knew what the option were when went into this.
It’s certainly no secret, no surprise, no backs to the wall that this is before us. This
Commission authorized a performance audit of the work that was done by OMI and
indeed that was presented to us, and they have substantially performed as anticipated and
as contracted for under the contract. And I certainly encourage this Commission to move
ahead to authorize the Attorney to begin the negotiations for the full five-year extension
as called for in the existing contract with OMI. Additionally, OMI has been a
tremendous corporate citizen in this community. If you look in the backup in the agenda
for item number, item number 7, you’ll see that the organization, we’re asking to give
$5,000 -- OMI has already given that organization $5,000. They’ve contributed
substantially to charities in this communities, as well as causes that have been dear to
many of these -- many of you Commissioners who are sitting at this table. The minority
participation has been excellent. They have performed in every measure that we have
asked them to perform in under this contract. We have, we were very, I think very
prudent in negotiating the initial contract, when we transferred the risk to OMI. And as a
result, we’ve gotten superior performance of the wastewater treatment plant. The
environmental violations we’ve been subjected to historically in this City have for all
practical purposes vanished under the operation of OMI. The improvements at the plant
have just been phenomenal, and I can say nothing but good things based particularly on
the performance audit that we had done. Likewise, we have people whose jobs are tied
directly to this contract and OMI at our wastewater treatment plant, and these jobs
represent people and families. And they deserve not a tentative one-year renewal of this
contract, but they deserve an answer to their question as to what is the future going to be
for them and that should be consistent with the original contract for a five-year renewal.
84
And I don’t know that I get a lot of support for what I’m talking about up here, but I think
it’s the right thing to do. They did what we asked them to do, every step of the way, and
we have an opportunity now to fulfill the other part of that contract which calls for a five-
year renewal, and I would encourage the Commission to follow that course of action, not
approving a five-year renewal tonight, but authorizing the Attorney to begin negotiations
on a five-year renewal. Mr. Hankerson had his hand up.
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir, I pulled that. And that’s exactly, voiced my sentiments.
I been following this company ever since I was elected, and we’ve had some high marks
with them. And also I’ve talked to our Director of Utilities and just questioned about
how jobs was going and how well they were doing. I would really like to see instead of
the one-year negotiation is to, if we need any kind of negotiation, to go ahead and do it
for the five year. They are right in the middle of jobs now. The Messerly Plant, they
doing a lot of work for us, and I don’t see no need someone with high marks to, to change
right now in the middle of the stream. I think that after the five years, it pretty will be
completed, most of the work probably, and if we need to change contract or anything, we
can to it at that time. But I also see that we could negotiate -- I would like to see that
negotiations be done and we come back to the next Commission meeting. And why just
extend one year when they are the middle of the job? And I pulled it to put it in the form
of a motion, whether I get a second to it or not, but that’s my feelings, to put it in the
form of a motion that we enter into negotiations with a five year contract.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Smith: I’ll second it to get it on the floor for discussion.
Mr. Mayor: All right, thank you, Mr. Mays. Further discussion? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think all of us up here will agree that the
company have did an outstanding job. And I don’t think that’s what is in question now. I
think that we as Commissioners have seen some evidence and some intentions on OMI to
continue to do a good job. But I still think if we are talking about extending a one-year
contract, I think that will give us time to look at a lot of other points in this thing, too,
now. You know, if we going do a five-year contract, and I sat in committee and I think
the group know where I’m coming from, that if we going look at a five-year contract,
then we need to talk about rebidding, because what we got now I think is good. But we
don’t know what else is out there. When you talking about that kind of money for those
kind of services, you can’t automatically take the taxpayers’ money and just, I don’t
think, Mr. Mayor, just my personal opinion. Everything that been said has been good.
Commissioner Cheek start started off and Commissioner Hankerson, [inaudible] yourself,
Mr. Mayor, we have got nothing but high marks. Now everything that you mentioned,
Mr. Mayor, I don’t agree with and that just me. This is my personal testimony here. I
don’t agree that we have had all of the local participation that we could have. Now we
got local employees and I’ve some phone calls from some of them people. And I think
you’re right, Mr. Mayor, there is jobs. Anytime there is a entity doing business with this
government, we going to have people that’s working for those. I remember back when
85
we talked about the [inaudible] contract and the question was saying if changed
companies, what’s going to happen to the employees? Well, I mean those are things that
happen when you into a contract deal. We, we, we, we, we, we not here to put anybody
out of work. I think they did an outstanding job and I think if we continue to do what we
been doing, working with them, they going to continue doing an outstanding job. That’s
not to say that we’re not looking at the extension as far as this first year to go ahead and
give them another one. But if we going sit up here today and have a report come back
two weeks ago and then today just make a move, now anybody with two eyes and one ear
ought to know that ain’t right. Now if we, we, we, we going do things, let’s do it right,
let’s, we got time to look at this, we got time to continue work with them. And I’m in
support of Commissioner Cheek’s motion to go ahead and extend this one year and then
look at the situation. Don’t get up against the wall. [inaudible] getting against the wall.
We don’t need to get up against the wall. We got time, then, Don, to talk about some
things and look at some things. And make sure that, that, that, that, that the best option
for it. So I just want to put my little two cents in, Mr. Mayor. I’m not opposed one bit.
I’ve got 99.9% of the marks that going be graded with this company. And regardless of
what people say or what people think, at least they ought to know where we stand and
know what we’re about, we’re trying to do, and I think they continue to try to work with
us if we continue what we been doing.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, if the agreement stayed at five years, then why was it put
on the agenda as one year?
Mr. Mayor: That was the Committee action.
Ms. Beard: Who is a part of the Committee?
Mr. Mayor: Engineering Services.
Ms. Beard: Oh, Engineering Services.
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Ms. Beard: And I guess they’ve explained why they determined one year? I’m
saying this because it was such an outstanding report, well above average, and I can
remember when this area did not go very well and I can remember that actually my
husband pushed very hard to get this company in. And it’s just, in my opinion, in my
opinion, wonderful to see something as important as this going so well right now. And
with them doing that -- I mean I have listened, and it’s my opinion that if it’s going that
well that we should look at it continuing. So I would hope that others will consider that.
Mr. Mayor: Anybody else care to be heard?
Mr. Grantham: I just want to ask one question, if you don’t mind.
86
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Grantham: In the motion that was made, for the extension of one year, I want
to make sure that there is no time frame put on the negotiation period, that in the event
they get things put together within the next 30 days, we come back with the five-year
plan, and I don’t think no one has a problem with that. I think there’s just, when you,
when you start talking about contracts, and we get involved in a lot of them, there is no
need -- and I think these gentlemen and ladies are just as receptive as to what we are.
There is no need to go in and rubber stamp things. And just because it says five years
extension that we grant that five years extension. They’ve done a wonderful job. They
have been so generous to our community, as everyone has said, and I’m not going to go
through that. But I think when you start dealing with five-year contracts and you’re
dealing with the type of money that we’re talking about, I think it’s in their best interest
and ours to make sure that we’re all on the same page, and I would applaud the Attorney
and the people involved to come back to us within a short period of time and have a
contract on it and say here’s what we want to do for the City of Augusta again. That’s
my comment.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Well, I suggest that the time that I return with that
recommendation, Mr. Grantham, members of the Commission, be the first meeting in
August.
Mr. Grantham: That’s fine with me.
Mr. Shepard: But I think, what I’d like the directions from the Commission, my,
my book didn’t have the contract in it, it just says the contract runs through December 31,
2004. And now we are within six months of that.
Mr. Mayor: We have a -- as I understand, we have to give notice of 180 days.
And so we’ve got six months to negotiate the extension, so I don’t know that you even
need to extend the contract for 12 months, cause if you don’t reach your decision, your
agreement within six months, then you move on to the competition and go elsewhere.
Mr. Shepard: Well, if we can look -- I mean if you want to locate that tonight, we
can determine -- it’s 180 days.
Mr. Mayor: Is Max Hicks here? Does he have a copy with him?
Mr. Hicks: I don’t have a copy of it with me. [inaudible] get it.
Mr. Mayor: Why don’t you go, run and get it -- Mr. Mays [inaudible], got one
here? Show that to the Attorney. Okay. Mr. Mays, why don’t we hear from you while
the Attorney is reviewing the contract?
87
Mr. Mays: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m in agreement with a lot of the things that
have been said this afternoon. I seconded Commissioner Hankerson’s motion because I
didn’t think it was going get on the floor, and my reason for doing that was that I thought
we needed to talk about this. and Mr. Grantham, while he’s not on Engineering Services
Committee, I think he kind of answered Ms. Beard’s question pretty well, at least in the
Committee’s thinking. I’m the only remaining member on the Commission side, I guess
this year, when this contract started. And I agree, too, that they’ve done a very good job.
One of the things that came up in the Committee, and in the Committee’s thinking, the
question came up about how did the one year come about? It was [inaudible] if we
recommended nothing or sent it here for the full Commission to, to vote up or down on it,
then that would have been unfair and basically said in the light of a good auditing report
that we were not given any recommendation that was positive at all. On the other side of
it, you had the five-year term that was in there. But also we were thinking about the fact,
and if all minds are ready, it was fine [inaudible] Committee, but I think one of the things
we were giving consideration to is the fact that I mentioned when I started this a minute
ago that I’m the only remaining member that was here when it did start. We’ve changed
our Commissions, we’ve changed our Engineering Services chairpersons. When we first
started even talking about it, we’ve changed even since then Mayors from the first time.
And also with that was the fact that this year alone we brought on four new people, and
also changed the Attorney. We did a lot of changing. We talk about being ready and be
prepared to understand everything that’s in a contract and to read through. I think they
came through the auditing report very well. The Committee recommended the year from
the standpoint that it would take us from the end of 2004 to the end of 2005 as a total
guarantee, not to limit the negotiations, to go back to deal with that. We could start next
week. I even mentioned that it needed to be talked about very quickly from that
standpoint, not necessarily waiting to the end of this year or waiting to the middle of next
year, but it needed to be talked about very quickly because we did not know the feelings
of what you are were going to suggest as a body of needing time to digest it. Now if you
think back very carefully, most of the time we’re handed a book this big, we want a long
time to think about it. Now we got a book that’s three times as big and we were just
under human nature saying if we’d taken that long on a lot of other things, [inaudible]
ready to go ahead, but we didn’t want to penalize OMI by stepping out here in the face of
a good audit and not recommending something positive. I probably could vote for both
motions that’s out there on the floor and would not have a problem with it. But I do think
if we’re going to deal with the year, then we need to start some early negotiations and it
may be that in those negotiations, there may be something that [inaudible] better than
what we’re dealing with now. It may be that where we may have some questions that’s
in there. Those are the things that went into the Committee’s thinking of bring it out in
the year, and not in any way to penalize them. And I certainly would not have voted for
anything that would have done that. So I just thought the discussion needed to continue a
little bit more. I was glad that the Commissioner made that motion and that’s why I
seconded that one, to get it out where we could have a wider discussion on it. But I think
if, to a point, if we going to start those talks and doing it, the extension that the
Committee recommended would at least get us there, it gets us away from a year-and-a-
half from where we’re sitting right now, with the six months that are in hand, along with
88
another year, to through the end of 2005, and to a point that probably before this year is
out, we will know what we are going to be doing in terms of the fullness of this contract.
I wanted to speak positively on behalf of them. I think the other things in reference to
them being a good corporate citizen, to a point that probably very few other people and
companies have adhered to, they may be, quite frankly, the only one on the list to a point
that’s been doing that. So I think that’s something for them to be proud of, but also for
the City to be proud to be in partnership, you know, with a company that’s doing that. So
I just wanted to speak on behalf of that to a point that I can live either way. I just thought
to a point if it came time, with as many changes as we’ve had, five new folk in terms of
adding to this mix. Four new Commissioners since January and a new City Attorney for
the first time in 30 years. Then to a point that’s why some of that was done [inaudible]
but not to penalize the company, and to speak well of it. That’s how it came out of
committee with that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And one of my concerns, the reason -- I
want everybody to feel very strongly about this and have a 10-0 vote on it. There were
some concerns expressed from different Commissioners about taking some time and
reviewing the contract, the achievements that OMI has accomplished at Messerly, to look
five years into the future and decide where we want to be with that plant and Spirit Creek
in five years, look at unit prices, market costs, and so forth, energy, whatever else and
whatever issues Commissioners had, to address those and then come forward with a
recommendation from the Attorney on the contract, to go ahead and look at a five-year
extension for that. Madame Clerk, I’d like to go ahead and set up a work session for the
third Friday in June, in July, sorry, and this will be a work session to discuss this issue, at
noon on Friday, and I encourage everyone that can attend to please attend, but it will be
for Engineering Services to discuss this issue and begin working through it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I thought Commissioner Grantham was
right when he did not -- what I thought he said was not put a time on it. My other law
partner that used to be a partner, Mr. Shepard, I disassociated myself with them, but if I
learned anything from them I learned about contracts. And you know that’s been a sticky
situation with me for a long time. When you talk about contracts and when you approve
up here with this button, then you go back in and you don’t know what’s in there and we
have not always been afforded the opportunity to know some of the details.
Commissioner Mays mentioned about the Administrator who is no longer here. There is
several things we talked in contracts that most of us didn’t understand, didn’t realize, and
didn’t take the time, I guess, to, to, to follow through with. But when you talking about a
five-year deal, and I’m not opposed -- I keep saying I think everybody up here done said
some good things. Nobody said anything negative. But I think we ought we do --
Commissioner Cheek talking about a workshop. Get together and look at some of these
things a little by little to try to see where we are. We may want to change some things.
But we at a disadvantage, where I’m sitting. To go ahead and say okay, we’ll do a five-
89
year deal and you accept [inaudible]. I been here going on five years and I still don’t
know all the details. I still don’t, I still have not touched all of the things that’s there.
This is a overwhelming position with all the things you got to incur, all the things you got
to deal with. So I think it would be more than fair to us, more than fair to them to do the
extension and work on something. Not to say that we want to change, not to say we
going change. But at least work on something. That contract thing, Jim Wall taught me,
made me very cautious, Mr. Shepard, and that’s why I’m so adamant about it.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: I’m just going to say in my opinion five years isn’t a long time and
we should look forward to doing more things, say for five years. we have so many things
we’re working with. And the evaluation was just outstanding and they also compared
what they are doing with other cities. You know, what I’d really like is to hear what that
department, the Utilities Department has to say in reference to what is going on. And I --
maybe this is a lady speaking You know us, you can’t dwell on every little thing. When
things are going well, let’s accept it and move on with it and work on other things.
SPLOST is coming up. All sorts of things. We feel everything is moving along well
here. And why spend all this time? Let’s put our efforts where it’s needed. That’s what
I’m saying and I’d like to end by, I guess, asking Mr. Hicks how he feels about this.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Ms. Beard. I was going to get to Mr. Hicks when we
finished with the Commissioners up here. I don’t see any more hands, so Mr. Hicks, if
you’ll come up here, if you would, and let’s hear -- we’re talking about your business.
What’s your recommendation?
Mr. Hicks: Well, I would make the comment that OMI is indeed doing an
exceptional job for us. We’ve gone now for, I think it’s 15 months, with no violation of
the discharge permit. First time that’s ever happened, you know, to the Messerly Plant.
And there’s a number of projects that they have ongoing. I would like to see their
contract be for another five years. However, I would agree with what I think the mood of
the Commission is, and that is do we want to take the exact terms of the existing contract
and extend those for five years or do we want to look at the language of the contract and
say for the next five years we want it to read such-and-such? I think that’s what I hear
everybody saying. And that, to me, would be a reasonable thing to do because there were
conditions that existed when this contract first started that are not there, because OMI has
done a good job. We’ve worked together, we’ve made some progress, so there may be
some terms in terms of what would be capital and what would be maintenance, maybe
we’d need to work on those terms. But I would, you know, I really would hate to change
horses right now, so to speak, in the middle of the stream, but I can understand fully how
you’d want to look at the language of the contract as we went forward. I would feel the
same way about that. And I know the new Attorney would like to do that, because I
doubt that he’s had a chance to really review the contract and feel comfortable with it.
That’s my thought. I would like to see it extended for the five years, but negotiate the
terms you talked about.
90
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If you and the members of the
Commission will indulge me, I was handed a copy of the contract which I can read into
the record the relevant part about term and termination. And it states as follows: the
initial term of this agreement shall be five years, four months, 25 days, commencing on
August 7, 1999, and ending on December 31, 2004, followed by a successive five-year
option, which option is renewal at the sole discretion of the owner. Such option can be
made effective by written notification from the owner to OMI 180 days prior to the
expiration of the previous contract period. All contract periods and renewals are subject
to and contingent upon yearly budget approval by the owner. So in my opinion, you are
not letting any deadlines slide by here. It is your official call to renew it for five years. It
says you can do it, doesn’t say you shall do it, it doesn’t say you’re penalized if you don’t
do it. So I think the owner’s rights here are fairly broad, and if you direct me to do a one-
year, I think I could. If you direct five-year, we could negotiate that. We might bring
back a set of alternatives. But I don’t see that a deadline has run past. And such option
can be made effective by written notification from the owner to OMI 180 days prior to
the expiration of the previous contract period. So with that being the language, I don’t
think we’re up against the wall, Mr. Williams. Put in the record here. I think it’s within
our, our call here, so I think the appropriate thing to do is, is to take the Administration
and my office to, to come up either with one or both, I mean, the options. I think we
haven’t gotten against the wall, Mr. Williams, I’m pleased to say.
Mr. Mayor: As a matter of clarification, if the Commission today approves a one
year extension, then OMI would have to agree to that?
Mr. Shepard: Absolutely.
Mr. Mayor: Because that would be a material change in the contract.
Mr. Shepard: Absolutely.
Mr. Mayor: Any other questions or comments, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Grantham: Call the question, Mr. Mayor.
Ms. Sims: I just had a question. I’m a little confused as to why we’re even
addressing this now. Could we not begin negotiations but not enter into a one-year
contract? Could we not begin to redefine or negotiate with a five-year contract?
Mr. Shepard: Well, I think we could -- if OMI were willing to accept a one-year,
that’s true, we could. But I think it’s here so that we kind of had a [inaudible] date so that
we’re on notice that this thing runs out at the end of this year. And the prudent thing to
st
do would be sometime between now and December 31 have it, have it worked out on
terms that are satisfactory to the body and to the contractor. The audit report has given
this contractor a glowing report, from what I can see. And the contract here gives this
91
body the option, so it -- but you don’t have to use it. And I don’t think you’re precluded
from using it. I think, I think we’re just trying to do something ahead of schedule and do
it right. That’s the way I see it.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We’ll move ahead. The question has been called
by Commissioner Grantham, and the Chair will rule there has been adequate debate. We
vote first on the substitute motion from Commissioner Hankerson, and that’s to enter into
negotiations for the five-years renewal. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote
with the usual sign.
Mr. Smith: Was that to enter into negotiations, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Enter into negotiations for a five-year renewal. And of course, the
results of the negotiations would have to come back here for approval.
Mr. Grantham: [inaudible]
Mr. Colclough: What’s the original motion?
Mr. Mayor: The original motion is one year.
The Clerk: Approve the one-year contract.
Mr. Mayor: We’re voting on the substitute motion, from Commissioner
Hankerson, which is the five-year. We need to go ahead and vote.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Smith, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Williams and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Mr. Colclough not voting.
Motion fails 4-4-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to the original motion, which is the one -year
extension. Any questions or comments on that? All in favor then please vote with the
usual sign.
(Vote on original motion)
Ms. Beard abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: We still have a number of items on the agenda. The Chair is going to
declare a very brief recess.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, before you declare the recess, my good friend, Mr.
Morris, the Board of Health, has been sitting here since 2:00 o’clock. He may not be my
good friend any more, but he’s got some information for us, very quickly.
92
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, if you’d like to continue presiding, I’m 30 minutes
overdue to call Ms. Young, so let me go call Ms. Young.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’ll go ahead, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: If you’ll go ahead and preside then we won’t recess and we’ll just
keep going. And I’ll be right back.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, item 54, Mr. Morris has some additional
information for us that concerns the timing of what we’ve done.
The Clerk: Let me read the caption.
Mr. Morris: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hold on just one minute, Mr. Morris.
The Clerk:
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
54. Consider approval of Richmond County Board of Health – Fee Schedule for
Environmental Health Services. (No action vote at the June 15, 2004 – requested by
Mayor Bob Young)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Just for the record, Mr. Morris, give us your name and
address.
Mr. Morris: I’m Read Morris, County Manager for the Richmond County Health
Department, 1916 North Leg Road. I was here at the last meeting telling you that we
would like to increase our fees, which we haven’t done in about 15 years. A lot of things
have happened since then. I left the last meeting thinking that the fees had been
approved. I found out two days later that there had been another vote after I left and they
had been turned down. To make a long story short, our fiscal year started today. And
our invoices should have gone out 7-10 days ago so the people that we do business with
would know what the fees were going to be. When we found out over the weekend this
past weekend that the motion had been turned down, of course people have been calling
us all week and wanted to know what we were going to do. We said well, my response to
them was since the Commission turned the motion down that we were going to stick with
the fees we have from last year. So I spent the better part of probably eight months
working on this and I really think we need the increase in fees, but at this point in time, I
think we’re [inaudible] foolish and me and the secretaries in my office have been telling
everybody that we were going to stick with the old fees from last year if I go back and
tell them no, we’re going to change and go with the new fees. So I’m kind of caught
between a rock and a hard spot.
93
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I guess my question would be then have you all had any
further board action on it since we did the rejection of these numbers?
Mr. Morris: No, sir.
Mr. Boyles:
Mr. Mays, we have no. The Board of Health hasn’t met since we –
two weeks ago, when we did this, the Board of Health hasn’t met yet to – and it was my
intention to ask the Board to reconsider what we could do over there. I spoke to Mr.
Morris about it just a little bit earlier and I’d like to have the option to talk to Dr. Rumph,
since I am the representative over there. And see where we might could go and how
I would just like to, I guess, make a
much confusion it would or would not cause. So
motion that we send this back to the Board of Health and I’ll take it back.
Mr. Morris: The only problem I have with that is we have to send these invoices
out eventually, if not today or next Monday or six months from now. People are calling
us every day wanting to know what the fees are. And we don’t really know. Well,
apparently the motion has failed so we just tell them we’re going to go with the fees we
had last year and maybe work on increasing fees next year. The reason I started, I started
working on this early thinking it would be approved sometime during the Spring so we
wouldn’t be here at the last minute doing what I’m doing right now. But like I say, our
year started today. It generally starts July 1.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mays, that request, Mr. Morris, didn’t get to us, to the full
Commission until two weeks ago, which I guess, as Mr. Williams likes to say, we did
have our – without knowing, probably – we had our backs against the wall again. If we
had got this in the springtime, we probably would have had some more, we would have
had some more time.
Mr. Morris: We had some problems. I started, like I say, back in February
working on this. I got information from other counties throughout the state, see what
they were charging, compared their fees with ours. I was supposed to go before the
Board of Health in April. Didn’t get to speak at that time. Supposed to have gone back
before the Board of Health in May. They cancelled the meeting for May. I had one shot,
and that was June and that’s why we’re so late.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, I’ve served on that Board before, I know sometimes a
quorum may not be there. Let me, before recognizing the Attorney, we may be thinking
on the same lines. I guess what, then, have you conversed with Dr. Rumph yourself in
reference to any of these?
Mr. Morris: Not since I went to the last Commission meeting.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We could do that. I know the dilemma you’re in there with
that. I guess what I was going to maybe ask and eventually ask the Attorney, were we,
were we pretty much able to pass the increases with the exception of maybe that one item
that was there, that I think got us turned around on one vote? And what I’m wondering
94
is, Mr. Shepard, if we might not, if that’s the one that’s the sticker, could we not give him
a little bit of leeway in terms of approving everything with the exception of that, that one
where we had a problem, and it may be tonight that it all might pass.
Mr. Morris: That was brought up by the Board of Health. My recommendation
was everybody be charged, and not have any 25 or less. But the Board of Health thought
for the sake of mom and pop operations, which there are very few, probably less than 30,
where you serve less than 25 people, but they recommended we have 25 as a dividing
line. If you serve 26 people or more, than you pay one fee. If you serve 25 people or less,
then you have another fee. However, my recommendation was not to make any division
at all, just charge everybody $200 a year. We’re talking about four inspections a year,
anywhere from four to eight inspections a year. And my thinking is, if a restaurant can’t
afford $200 a year, they shouldn’t be in the restaurant business.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, I guess maybe depending on how many [inaudible] if
they pay it enough, they might not be in business. And that was the thinking of the
Commission to a point that if you had some that bordered on that 25 and 26 situation
where maybe they had a table of four and you had five or six tables in there, it doesn’t
take long to get to 25 people, and I think that alone kind of knocked the whole thing, you
know, off the balance at that point, because [inaudible] bottom.
Mr. Morris: Right.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So I mean we could either – I don’t know how that affects
you in terms of your paperwork. It’s one of two things we can do. We can either tie it up
down here, which I don’t necessarily suggest or we could pass you something maybe
with the stipulation that if that’s the [inaudible] of this Board that we might be able to get
it through with the exception of that, of that one item. And I kind of would look to our
representative on the Board and yourself for some guidance on that.
Mr. Morris: We can take it back to the Board of Health and let them come up
with some kind of recommendation.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m going to recognize the Attorney.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I think you just have to make the policy decision of
where you want to draw the line. And I remember this was on – I think it passed and
then reconsidered and I think it fell one vote short last time. So the Health Department is
on the record in favor of the new fees based on their June 8 meeting. They approved the
new fees. Now this body had the option to, to amend any or all of the fees. Or to defer to
the expertise of the Board of Health. So if it, to get it passed, if there is to be an
amendment in one category, that would be authorized. Or it may be tonight the matter
could be passed as is. But here again, if the body feels that the fee increases are too
much, then now is the time to send it, send it back. Just a policy decision.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The Chair is open.
95
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mays, I would just like it go back to the Board of Health at
our July meeting.
That’s called, I think it’s the second Tuesday, I think it is. Second
th
Tuesday. The 13.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You want to put that in the form of a motion?
Mr. Boyles: I don’t know exactly what I’d like to say in it. I’d like it to go for
discussion with Mr. Morris and Dr. Rumph.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, why doesn’t the motion be then, Mr. Boyles,
that you refer it back? Refer is what you’re looking for, or remand.
Mr. Boyles: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: One or the other. I mean we used that terminology on a Historic
Preservation decision. One of those two motions I think would send it back, if that’s
what is the pleasure of the body.
Mr. Boyles: That would be my motion, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, is that we send
it back and then if we need to bring it forward at our next meeting we can do that
here. But I just make a motion we refer it back to the Board of Health for their July
th
13 meeting.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor of the
motion will do so with the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We got some other items, I believe, in legal, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I kind of would like to -
Mr. Shepard: I have lawyers waiting for that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] legal, if that’s okay.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, we moved around.
96
The Clerk: We have item 41.
41. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend §7-4-32 to provide a process for
appeals to the Augusta Commission from the Historic Preservation Commission: to
require mediation prior to submission of the appeal to the Augusta Commission;
and to repeal any conflicting Ordinances. (Approved by the Commission June 15,
2004 – second reading)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You want to –
Mr. Grantham: Yeah, I’ll do it. Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I asked
this be pulled and spoke to our attorney about it. I know we’ve had a first reading
on it, and that was at our last meeting, but after carefully reviewing this, and after
the issues that we have dealt with in the last couple of months, I felt it necessary that
we do carefully look at it, because there are a couple of things in here that I think we
need to change. And one of them would be under the second paragraph, under the
7-4-32, that any such appeal must be filed in writing with the Clerk of the Augusta
Commission within 15 days and I think that needs to be a 30 day issue for
determination of that filing. And then in paragraph B, I think 15 needs to be
changed to 30 as well. The, the major issue that I had with it was in paragraph F
stating that if the mediation is not scheduled and heard within 30 days of the filing
of the appeal, the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission shall be
affirmed without further hearing by the Augusta Commission. And that was of
major concern to me, that when a person makes an appeal and I think there are a
lot of reasons you could delay having a mediation within 30 days’ time, and I feel
like it certainly did give a lot of leeway to the committee to make decisions that they
wanted to make and not either have to come into mediation with more than 30 days
or even come to the Augusta Commission, which they have had to in the past to get
some remediation involved in their problems. So I think we need to change that to a
particular paragraph F to the 90 day period of time, and that would give folks an
opportunity to review the appeals, to make sure. Granted, anyone that’s wanting to
build, anyone that’s wanting to add on, wants to do it as quickly as possible, but I
still feel like we need to give the due process in a situation like this to the, to the
appealer in this case. So that’s going to be motion, that we make those changes and
I’m open for other recommendations if anyone has any.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a motion that’s on the floor. Is there a second?
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and quite a few seconds. Do we have any
discussion on the motion? I see two hands. I’ll go to the lady first and the gentleman
second.
Ms. Sims: Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I don’t want - I think to change
“shall be affirmed without further hearing” I think we should amend “and further hearing
97
by the Augusta Commission.” I mean that should be removed totally, in my opinion.
They can decide and never have to come back to this Commission. So I don’t know if
that was in your motion, Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: No, it was not, because I feel like 90 days should give both
parties ample time to be able to meet.
Ms. Sims: So if they haven’t met in 90 days then they don’t come back to us?
Mr. Grantham: That’s right. If there’s not an interest on either party’s side to get
together.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you. Don, I agree with you 100 percent, with the 90 day
time period because the conflicts in schedule and stuff, people may not be able to get
together in 30. But I think the Historic Board has got a lot of leeway and I think they got
the, an advantage in a lot of cases when people trying to do some things. We have got
some history here that in my District, I’ve got some stuff that I need to forget about, and
people trying to hold onto. And I’m glad to see this, that there’s somebody caught this
and changed that. You got some people who trying to do some different construction,
you can’t afford to re-build a home in the way we building in 1805 or whenever it was
built. You have to make some changes. And I think as long as they not totally changing
the structures, we need to be very mindful how much authority they got out there. Mr.
Bush came and said he didn’t appreciate the tongue lashing, Ms. Sims, and I wasn’t
giving him one. But he just don’t understand what dilapidation exists out there and
people have to, trying to get rid of and have to deal with. But if this doesn’t do it, we
need to look at this again, Don, but I think that’s a good move. I support you 100% with
that. It’s about time we stepped in there and did something on that level.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You got a motion and a second. Is there any further
discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign; any opposed,
the same.
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And it’s back in the hands of the Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Where are we on the agenda, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think we just finished the last one on consent, wasn’t it?
Mr. Mayor: Did we get the Health Department out of the way?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
98
Mr. Mayor: Okay. I think that takes us to item 44, Madame Clerk, on the regular
agenda.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVCES:
44. Discuss extending the hours of public swim at the Augusta Recreation pool
facilities. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams)
Mr. Mayor: Let’s see who put this on. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Thank you again. I had this added to the
agenda for the fact that, to find out some of the hours that the swim, the Augusta
Recreation pool facilities be open. And from my understanding, there are four hours per
day, except the days that they are closed. We just had a community come down from
Valley Park and talked about their pool that was filled in and they don’t have anywhere to
go in that area. A lot of the pools, a lot of the facilities closed on the weekend. And I
like to hear from Mr. Beck, though, is there any changes that will be made or concession
that have been done in lieu of the heat, in lieu of the situation we dealing with with this
weather? I think it’s wrong, it’s not enough hours to have four hours a day for public
swim when we got a multi-million dollar facility such as the Aquatic Center and even the
smaller pools. So I like to hear from you, Mr. Beck.
Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, as to the question about
whether or not we’re anticipating or planning any changes, the answer is no. This – our
pools are open. We have pools that are open, three pools that are open every day during
the week, outdoor pools - Brigham Swim Center and the Aquatic Center is open six days.
Four hours a day is what we’re open five days a week at the Aquatic Center, on Friday,
six hours. The, as far as extending any hours at the Aquatic Center or Brigham Swim
Center, if we extended any public swim hours, something would have to be canceled. If
we want to get into it further, I’ve got the schedule to show the Commission about the
schedule at the Aquatic Center. I mean we have a full array of programs there, from
aerobics to therapeutic classes for the handicapped. We have diving clubs. We have just
a full array of programs, including open swim.
Mr. Williams: So the pool is not closed then, but the, it’s limited to public swim
because of the other activities you got. Is that right?
Mr. Beck: Well, if you want to call it limited, you can, but it’s one of the
programs that we have, which is public swim in the recreational pool. There are many
other activities in the recreational pool during the course of the day. I would like to point
out to the Commission that the lap pool, I hope all of you have been to the Aquatic
Center – the competitive or lap pool, there is a lap or a lane open from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. daily for any citizen who wants to come in to do recreational lap swim. And that
doesn’t matter whether or not we’ve got a swim team that’s practicing there or what other
99
events are in that pool. It’s always 6:00 a.m. through the course of the whole day. That
accessibility is there for the public. The other pool, the recreational pool, is where the
classes are held, the aerobics, the therapeutics, and the other active swimming lessons,
that’s where they are held, in the recreational pool, as well as what’s called the public
recreational swim. Of course, because of the shallow water.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Beck, the lap swimming that you’re just mentioned is good,
but we got a multi-million dollar facility, and I said that earlier. But we got a facility that
was built for the community, and I’m in support of the swim team, the dive teams, even
the lap swimming. But I think we got a facility of that magnitude ought to be open to the
general public. You saw the lap swimming from 8:00 to 6:00, I think you said.
Mr. Beck: 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Mr. Williams: 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. But public swimming is only four hours.
That don’t sound right to me. I mean that may be right, but it just don’t sound right to me
to have a, a, a facility like that where retired or college students or even a grammar
school student could come in and lap swim but the average person on the street can’t
come in if he’s not going to be doing lap swimming. What happen if there’s – and you
got one lane open, so I don’t how many people will be able to swim in that lane. But if
you’ve got a multitude of people that want to do lap swimming, then what do you do?
Mr. Beck: Well, the one lane, it is a 50 meter pool. There are quite a few people
that can get in one lane and quite a few do get in one lane to lap swim. How many that is,
I mean it probably could be as many as 30 in one lane at one time.
Mr. Williams: Okay. And you couldn’t take that one lane that can hold 30 people
and we just, we just learned last committee meeting that you can house 25 per lifeguard
in the pool, and if you got 30 people in the lap up there, I’m sure you got to have a
lifeguard for them, as well.
Mr. Beck: We do.
Mr. Williams: But couldn’t we not use that facility then for, for public swimming
and not lap swimming then? Cause I think it’s wrong to have a facility which only four
hours a day, considering the pool that we got closed down right in the very next door to
where you are now. That’s Highland Park. We talking about filling that in and we
talking about people getting turned around there. That facility. Then you got the one that
just came today from Valley Park, that don’t have a place to swim. People are looking
for hours, and when you turn people down at the door and saying that we’re closed or we
don’t have any more public swim at this hour, it kind of deter people. They tend to go
back with their heads down. And I’ve had a lot of complaints. And I told you, I been
dropping in and I’m going to continue to drop in to see is there anything we can kind of
do to alleviate that. But this an indoor facility that ought to be used year-round, not just
the summer. But if people don’t know, and I’m not saying it’s not, Tom, but I’m saying
100
four hours is just not enough. If I have to put it on the committee to talk about, maybe we
can go over the schedule some and try to change it.
Mr. Beck: I’ve got the schedule right here.
Mr. Williams: Well, we may need to go over those schedules and try to change
some of those hours then at our committee to bring to this body. Because I think the
Mr. Mayor, if I can, I like to have this put on
general public is the one that’s suffering.
the Committee, Ms. Bonner, that we be able to, next week, be able to discuss the
hours of swim in Augusta.
Mr. Mayor: Week after next.
Mr. Williams: When is our next meeting?
The Clerk: July 12.
Mr. Williams: July 12. Put it on that committee.
Mr. Mayor: So you’re not asking for any action by the Commission?
Mr. Williams: No, sir, we go ahead and put it on the committee to have it
discussed.
(No objection to placing this item on the next Public Services agenda)
Mr. Mayor: Let’s move on to item number 45.
The Clerk: Item 49?
Mr. Mayor: 45.
The Clerk:
FINANCE:
45. Motion to approve the lease/purchase of a replacement grinder not to exceed
$600,000 (six hundred thousand dollars) using the GMA Lease Program. (Deferred
from the June 21st Finance meeting).
Mr. Williams: So move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor, please vote with the usual sign.
Ms. Beard and Mr. Cheek out.
101
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next is item number 47.
The Clerk:
47. Receive report from Actuary on requested benefit increase for 1945 Pension
Plan. (Deferred from the June 15 Commission meeting).
Mr. Mayor: Is Mr. Persaud here tonight?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: You’re doing this for Mr. Persaud?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Persaud is out of town at a conference. Be back first thing in
the morning. It’s my understanding the request was to increase the pay of $150. It’s also
my understanding, according to Mr. Persaud, said funding is not available at this
particular time. The only way that would be available would be a supplement from the
General Fund. The funding is not available in the Retirement Fund at this particular point
in time.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Mayor: Didn’t item 13 on the consent agenda, we took $171,000 out of the
Contingency to put in the ’45 Pension Plan.
Mr. Russell: And that’s to meet the unmet need at this particular point in time.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Russell: So actually there were $107,000 in the hole.
Mr. Mayor: So to pay the increased benefit, we’d have to go deeper in the hole?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, we’d have to go deeper in the hole.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I thought that their attorney, Mr. Long, was working
with Mr. Persaud on that and they were to get back together and come back to the
Commission with a report for those folks.
Mr. Russell: And that might well be true, sir. If it was, I was not involved in that
conversation. I might suggest you might want to put this off until Finance Committee on
th
the 12.
102
Mr. Boyles: I think we probably should because I think Mr. Long was involved,
Mr. Shepard, am I right?
Mr. Shepard: That is correct. I know he couldn’t be here the last time and
requested it be deferred to tonight. I don’t see him here tonight. I would say as a
courtesy to the ’45 Pensioners that probably the best thing would be to refer to Finance.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Shepard: Or to the next Commission meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, in view of the fact that Mr. Long is not here and
Mr. Persaud is not here, not questioning the report that has been presented by our
Administration, but I make a motion that we accept this as information and refer it
to the next Committee meeting, which would be on July 12.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Just in reference, I think, out of respect to Mr. Long. We were on the
elevator together and that was a long, long time ago. And so that may account for the
fact of why he may not be here at 9:00. I think that motion is in order.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? All in favor of that motion please vote with the
usual sign.
Ms. Beard and Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Item 48.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
48. Consider allocating reserved parking for commissioners in the Municipal
Building Parking Lot. (Requested by Commissioner Bobby Hankerson)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I thought that was on the consent.
(Laughter)
103
Mr. Hankerson: It didn’t get by the consent. I still, I’m making this request for
service of the Commissioners. It’s more convenient for us to come to our meetings, not
only on Monday and Tuesday. I heard someone say we’re just here Mondays and
Tuesdays, but for subcommittees and so forth, I know many times I have a Wednesday
meeting and also a Thursday SPLOST, so that’s four days a week right there that we’re
down here. And I would hope that we would go ahead and allow the Interim
Administrator to designate some reserved parking spaces for the Commissioners.
Everywhere you go, you go to other places, it’s not unusual, so I don’t see why people
are getting hyped up about it, that you have designated parking spaces for people that do
business and do that. I think right now you probably know several Commissioners park
across the street now to get here, to come in. A lot of time we’re running late and we’re
running late because we are in meetings, doing government business before we get here,
and discussing. And by that time, we have to ride around and try to find a parking space.
Just for convenience, it’s for service, and it’s not at a cost. So move.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Did somebody second it?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Williams seconded it.
Mr. Williams: I seconded it.
Mr. Mayor: I thought Mr. Williams made the motion.
Mr. Williams: I thought Mr. Hankerson made the motion.
Mr. Mayor: I thought I heard somebody down here say so move. Did you hear
that? Madame Clerk, do you have a motion and second?
The Clerk: I do.
Mr. Mayor: All right, discussion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, this came up in our Engineering Services Committee
and we were glad to have the Administrative Services Chairman over and the Public
Safety Chairman, too. And I can understand frustration with limitations on the parking
lot that we’ve got. Now the committee did take some action in there that I think part of
that action that the committee took should also be recognized. One of the things that the
committee asked the Transit director, Mr. Johnson, to do was to come back with some
numbers in reference to how we would also help, and which I think is the most important
aspect of our parking needs, to help with our general public. I mentioned the fact in that
committee meeting that the hospital – I was recently on visitation and a lady came up
behind me with the shuttle to help with their parking, and I was probably parked in an
area that was maybe not as far away as some people were parked. And needing the
104
exercise, I just kept walking. But what I’m concerned about is we have a lot of people
that come that may not have handicapped stickers but to a point they park so far or may
be elderly that are actually winded when they get to the building, stop at the benches that
are out there in the back and then have to do the task of coming around to the front. And
I just thought it would be a good measure that if we were going to talk about parking
spaces for ourselves that we talk about how we would also alleviate the general public
that also comes to this building and come, not necessarily where one person may come
every day, but open our entire business hours, that come in here and deal also with the
inconvenience. So Mr. Mayor, I’d like to allow Mr. Johnson to have some time to talk
about that. Now I’m going to say this one thing and I made a suggestion at the last
meeting that I know it might be said well, maybe he shouldn’t talk about the fact to
anybody else having a parking space cause the Mayor Pro Tem was designated one.
Well, I didn’t start that designation. It was started by the first Mayor Pro Tem of the City
of putting that one down there and if it’s problem, the Commission can get it back
anytime it wants to, cause I made statement in committee that out of three governments
and 25 years just about of being down here, I’ve walked to find a parking space far more
than the days I had a reserved one. So it won’t kill me in doing it. And I also said to a
point that you got two down there, I don’t think that the Interim Administrator is fighting
to have his, and neither am I. So to a point that I wasn’t trying to be patronizing, but to
the point of having two new ladies on this Commission, if you want to take mine and
Fred’s and give it to them, and Richard got a designated parking space to a point where
he can park most of the time, I’d like to see us if we going to do something, quite frankly,
to do something to benefit and extend that many public parking spaces and take them
away particularly at a close proximity to the building, then we ought to at least undertake
what the committee did decide to do to pass on and that was to help alleviate the general
public from some of its inconveniences with this building. We start talking about how
we are going to deal with [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Just to remind the Commission, from the minutes of the
Administrative Services meeting, the motion was made by Mr. Smith to ask the
Administrator to study this, the concern expressed by Mr. Mays, and bring it back at the
next Engineering Services meeting, so that will come back at that time. And that was
seconded by Mr. Cheek and adopted unanimously. So that will be on the next agenda.
So before us tonight is the issue of reserved parking for the Commissioners and whether
you want to take some action on that. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, if I may respond. I know that was said. I don’t have a
problem abiding by that, but I do think to a point – and we can hear it at the next
Commission meeting, but I think as much has been said about it and made about it, I
didn’t want anybody to think that it was not being worked on for the general public. And
in fact, some of that has been done. The Transit director has got some figures on, got
numbers and what it will cost this government at a minimum to provide that service to the
public. If I’m going, if I’m going to get beat in one area talking about it, then I think we
ought to say mutually what we’re doing to benefit the public in terms of while we’re
dealing with it. But it cam go to this committee, and you’re technically right that it
should, but I think they should also know that the Transit director has been at work in
105
terms of doing that and is prepared, if asked, can give what those costs are and how we
can help alleviate that problem for the general public.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Mays, I agree with the
general public, but I also agree about the parking facilities for the Commissioners. The
Mayor Pro Tem explained how his parking place got to be where it is, because of the first
Mayor Pro Tem. The Administrator’s parking area that’s been designated never came
before this body. It was, a decision was made in the Administrator’s office and not by
the previous Administrator who just left, but by somebody in the office went down and
designated a spot. It didn’t never come before this body, and I didn’t think it was right. I
mean because we are the elected officials, we come here in this building from the courts
and everything else, it’s congested, we can’t find no place to park. When it rains,
anything else. Now we don’t have a lot up here. Nobody want to talk about that. But
with the little money that they give us for doing what we do, I think the parking places is
something we really ought to have. I think that we shouldn’t inconvenience the public,
but I think that if anybody going to have a space out there, then certainly we ought to be
entitled to one if we want one. We been criticized for burning this City’s fuel. We been
talked about the gas that we burn. But if you a elected official, your phone, your
transportation, Mr. Shepard, you know how many miles we spend riding through this area
and what we do. But I said all that to say that we voting on something here now that
didn’t take a vote to put the others out there. It was arbitrarily done. And I think that we
can arbitrarily do this one. So I’m in support of that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham and then Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, I certainly see some of the
reasoning behind it. I’d like to know what areas you’re looking at identifying from the
standpoint of taking up nine or ten spaces out there. And I do feel the same way that Mr.
Mays, that Commissioner Mays does about the other, the senior citizens, of which I am
one, and I need to walk probably as much as anybody, being the oldest one on this
Commission. But anyway –
Mr. Colclough: You can’t claim that. We’ll talk about that later.
(Laughter)
Mr. Grantham: Well, we can. We can talk about it now if you want to.
(Laughter)
Mr. Grantham: But anyway, the point I’m making is that if we are going to
identify these places, I was going to suggest that maybe the, maybe the time or the
number of days could be restricted and there’s some things I think need to be studied on
this before we vote on it. I don’t think we need to just jump into this subject tonight
106
cause everybody is not going to be in favor, everybody is not going to be for it, so you
know, why do we want to have a brouhaha over something so immaterial right now, that
we can have a little better information coming from either our Administrator or from our
transportation people? They can bring us back a good, solid, firm recommendation.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was just thinking about on the Mondays
and the Tuesday that we meet, if you could put the signs up, and maybe on other days
you could put a bag over that sign or some sort of coverage and maybe hold one or two
spaces, because you do have to come in for committees, as Rev. Hankerson said, but it is
very tough to get in here, but maybe on the days the Commission meets you could take
the bag off the sign or the cover off the sign. But that’s a study problem.
Mr. Mayor: Let me suggest if I may, cause the first day I took office there was a
car in the parking place out there waiting for me. But let me suggest this as kind of some
middle ground, because obviously there are some Commissioners who would like to have
a space and others it’s not important and they don’t care if they have one or not. Why
don’t you just leave it that those Commissioners who want a reserved space who want a
reserved space ask the Administrator and let him add that to the reserved spaces out there,
and those who don’t want one, don’t ask for one and leave it at that. That would be a
simple way to solve it. You’re not forcing anybody to get one.
Mr. Grantham: I’m going to disagree with that. The reason I’m going to disagree
with it because, you know, Marion is going to request one. I’m going to come in here
one day and I’m going to pull in Marion’s place. Are you going to put his name on it?
Mr. Mayor: You’ll know it’s his place. If you’d like to have a reserved space, if
you’ll notify the Administrator, he’ll have a space for you, too, when you come here.
Mr. Grantham: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: We’re not, for security reasons, we’re not putting people’s names on
the places. Jimmy, did you want to say something?
Mr. Smith: No.
Mr. Mayor: There is a motion on the floor.
Mr. Williams: I seconded it. What do I need to do?
Mr. Grantham: By the way, I yield to the oldest Commissioner down here to my
left.
(Laughter)
107
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We’ll go ahead and vote on the motion. Mr.
Mays?
Mr. Mays: I just wanted to know what was the motion? I know you made a
suggestion.
The Clerk: To allocate the parking for the Commissioners at the Municipal
Building. The Mayor made a suggestion but –
Mr. Hankerson: Allocate them if they told them. If someone say they don’t want
one, then don’t allocate –
The Clerk: Allocate according to request; is that what you’re saying?
Mr. Hankerson: Correct.
The Clerk: You’re amending your motion to say that?
Mr. Hankerson: Yeah, I amend that. It’s a friendly amendment. If you don’t
want one, don’t park in mine now. I want one.
Mr. Mayor: Does everybody understand what the motion is? No? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: The only thing I was just going say, I’m not in mine tonight and not in
it a lot of other days, but I’m still in here in the building. I mean that’s a personal choice
and I don’t have a problem with the Commissioners voting to do that. I just hope they’re
just as courteous when the committee comes back and presents what could have been
presented tonight with the full figure to do for the people that are out there and still have
nowhere to park and park two and three blocks and walk and then rest when they get to
the back door of this building and have to walk around to the front, that they’ll deal with
that as well and vote unanimously to make that shuttle [inaudible]. It’s going to cost us
only a few bucks per se of all the money we spend to make that convenient on everybody
else.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion then vote with the usual sign.
Ms. Beard and Mr. Cheek out.
Mr. Boyles and Ms. Sims abstain.
Mr. Grantham and Mr. Mays vote No.
Motion fails 4-2-2.
Mr. Mayor: That’s a no action item, so Mr. Hankerson, it can come back anytime
you want it to come back.
Mr. Williams: We can park in the Mayor Pro Tem parking place if we get here
first.
108
Mr. Mays: You do that anyway.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mays: And I hadn’t towed you, either. But don’t bet on it now. [inaudible]
play by one set of rules.
Mr. Mayor: Item 49, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
49. Revise the source for additional funds needed for the Morgan Road
Improvements Projects (CPB # 323-04-296823665) from the Dirt Roads Program to
$549,192.67 from the One Percent Sales Tax Phase I Recapture Account and
$1,000,000 from the unbudgeted funds identified by the Internal Auditor in the May
24, 2004 report and approve CPB # 323-04-296823665 Change Number Three in the
amount of $1,549,192.67. (No recommendation from the June 21 Engineering
Services meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Your pleasure? Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I make a motion that we pass this item [inaudible] sales tax
[inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: There’s a motion. Is there a second?
Mr. Mays: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Is this the money that we just got through haggling over and I
think Commissioner Hankerson and myself and [inaudible] the dirt road man, Mr. Smith,
my friend over in [inaudible], is this the same work we talking about now, to go ahead
and do Morgan Road with? Is that the money [inaudible]?
Mr. Colclough: Sales tax.
Mr. Williams: Sales tax is recapture money for the last five sales tax that we got;
is that right?
Mr. Boyles: No, sir, this is Phase I. That’s the only one that’s complete.
109
Mr. Williams: Well, that’s the only one we brought back.
Mr. Boyles: That’s right.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] I can’t support that now. I can’t. It might be six of
y’all that can but I can’t support that. We been haggling back and forth over this same
issue with other improvements, road improvements, unpaved roads and everything else.
So.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? All
in favor of the motion, please vote with the usual sign.
Ms. Beard and Mr. Cheek out.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor: Item number 50.
The Clerk:
50. Consider a request by Ms. Jean Lovell for an exemption from the City’s solid
waste collection program for the Gaskins Mobile Home Park, Augusta Estates
Mobile Home Park and Carmell Mobile Home Park. (Deferred from the May 18,
2004 Commission Meeting)
The Clerk: Ms. Lovell asked that this be rescheduled to the July 21 meeting.
Mr. Mays: I so move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection?
Ms. Beard and Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Item number 51.
The Clerk:
APPOINTMENTS:
51. Consider the reappointment of Ms. Nita Mulherin to the Richmond County
Board of Family and Children Services Board for a four-year term ending June 30,
2008.
Mr. Mays: So move.
110
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor, please vote with the usual sign.
Ms. Beard and Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next item is number 52.
The Clerk:
52. Consider the following nominations from members of the Augusta-
Richmond County Legislative Delegation for appointment as
Chairman of Richmond County Board of Elections.
1) Clinton Lowery
2) Carol Spurgeon
3) Harvey Johnson
Mr. Mayor: The, under the ordinance, the law I guess it is, the state law, the
Legislative Delegation sends us three names from which we pick one, which is the
Chairman of the County Board of Elections. Mr. Shepard, did you want to be heard?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I have had correspondence from two
members of the General Assembly and they indicated that there had been no meeting at
which a resolution was passed making the nominations in this item and in the next item.
And I’m, I can render you an opinion. I think I should render you an opinion as to the
status – I should render you an opinion as to the status of these nominations. It’s my
opinion that the Delegation act as a body. I don’t have any information that they have
acted as a body. I notice that the letters that nominated these individuals were dated – I
believe the first was dated June 11, and I think there would have been a time for which to
have called a meeting where these could be properly considered and a resolution. I know
the Legislative Delegation has told us send us a resolution from the body below. This
puts these in nominations in this case, I think in this case it makes a difference because
they have to submit names to us [inaudible]. Under the next items, the provisions of the
various boards are that the Legislative Delegation make appointments. And so my
opinion would be that these three individuals have not gone through a meeting of the
Delegation and there being a resolution of the Delegation properly passed, that would not
be properly before us tonight. I would ask the Commission to defer consideration of this
item in particular until a resolution is sent indicating that the Delegation has acted as a
body. At that time, there would be no question these people were properly before this
body. There could be some question and if you want to eliminate that, I suggest that you
defer consideration of this so that they may have the opportunity to call a meeting in the
two weeks or so that ensued between this meeting and our next meeting. I’d ask it be
deferred.
111
Mr. Mayor: And with respect to item 53, we are not, we’re not a ratifying body to
the appointments. It was sent to us as information.
Mr. Shepard: I think you receive those as information but this one, 52, I ask the
body to defer so that we could have some evidence that a meeting had been called and
appropriate resolution passed.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me, if I might, cause it looks like we’re talking about
52 and 53. I think we need to check the language on the consolidation bill, when you
start talking about 53. Particularly now whether or not we define ourselves as a ratifying
body or not. In that bill, of course, that was met with mixed reaction when the
Delegation decided to put membership on these different boards by how they would send
them to us. But I thought that that was part of that language that was in there in reference
to the boards and committees. It may be something we need to check that section of it
and to see. As it relates to 52, I think we need to get some clarification from the Board of
Elections Director in terms of the necessity of when this position needs to be filled and
how. Everybody in the Delegation is grown. All legally grown. They can buy anything
that grown folks can by. And I think to the point that I think you’re right that we
shouldn’t be [inaudible] per se, but I’m concerned about that one to a point we’ve got an
th
election on the 20. I think something needs to be heard from Ms. Bailey to a point of
where there is going to be a chairperson coming from. And maybe there’s time to still do
it. But I think if we’re not approving anything, we need to at least send something to that
office to get back to her so it can be sent to the Delegation. The Delegation had a
meeting, from what I understand. I don’t know if it was in this building or there, but that
meeting was adjourned before they had anything done. Now if we talk about defining
what constitutes a legal meeting, I don’t know, maybe some folks would define what we
[inaudible] and put six names on it, whether that constitutes a legal meeting or now. And
we go out, we take action, we [inaudible] spend millions of dollars based on what we
decide. Now if we are going to get a letter from a majority of the Delegation, we ought
to decide whether or not that’s something we accept or we now, [inaudible] any live
meeting per se. And when they’ve had a meeting, you know, so I mean they’ve had a
history of where they poll folk themselves and didn’t even send a letter. That’s been
there, that’s a documentation of their past of where they got on the phone and polled each
other. And so it’s proof to that effect. Now I’m not going to try and define whether they,
whether they legal or illegal. I’m going to rely on the advice of the Attorney, Mr. Mayor,
that that may be what they are, in this case of how we do it. But I think if information is
going to be sent over [inaudible] cut to the chase and [inaudible] and to a point all of
them were invited to attend. I don’t see any from the letter who signed it and I don’t see
any of the people who against it. Certainly it would have helped us if somebody had
been here to decide [inaudible] we been here for seven hours and 20 minutes to deal with
ours without trying to deal with theirs. So it’s a little bit to a point that I think [inaudible]
get together. But I am really concerned about 52 to a point of what that does with our
Board of Elections, as to whether or not that position is something that needs to be done
with it, and maybe we can [inaudible] information on to the Board of Elections in terms
112
of getting somebody [inaudible] Legislative Delegation as to how that would be. And
you know, [inaudible] comment about them not having a meeting, you know, but well, I
understand that had a meeting, they had a whole meeting and didn’t invite nobody and
didn’t tell [inaudible] to discuss one particular piece of business where they were at
[inaudible] not having one to deal with a few names, but they going to discuss other
business [inaudible] and maybe [inaudible]. So I’ll end my conversation.
Mr. Mayor: What is your pleasure? Legal counsel has recommended we ask the
Delegation to send us a resolution containing the nominations in it. What’s y’all’s
pleasure? Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, if you like, we can call Ms. Bailey at home. I don’t
know whether or not the importance of the action today, if you’d like for us to try to do
that. I guess the next question would be [inaudible] appropriate or not.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: You could table it. My partner, Ms. Flournoy, is still here. She
could make that. If you’d table it to the end of the meeting, maybe resolve it.
Mr. Mayor: Table item 52.
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Tommy?
Mr. Boyles: Do we not have a current Chairman of the Board of Elections in
place?
Mr. Mayor: I think he resigned because he moved out of town.
Mr. Boyles: Who was it?
The Clerk: Tim McCall.
Mr. Boyles: Okay. So there is a vacancy? Well, on this list that they’ve given
us, I only know one of the persons involved. That’s Mr. Johnson. But I don’t think I
know the others. And there’s no backup information that tells us a little bit about them.
Mr. Mayor: Talent bank forms.
Mr. Boyles: Talent bank forms. And maybe the Delegation doesn’t have to use
talent bank forms, but we’ve always required it here so we’ve got some information on
113
people. I’m sure they’re all good people if the Delegation recommended them but I’d
sure like to know who they are.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to table it? Motion to table?
Mr. Colclough: So move.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to table is non-debatable. We’ll call the question on that and
this will be available later on in the meeting after the phone call to Ms. Bailey. All in
favor of tabling, please vote with the usual sign.
Ms. Beard, Mr. Williams and Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: You already did 54, didn’t you, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Go to 55.
The Clerk: 55?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS:
55. Discuss roof leaks in the security area of the Joint Law Enforcement Center.
(Requested by Commissioner Bobby Hankerson)
Mr. Grantham: On 53, are we waiting on [inaudible].
53. Consider a request from members of the Augusta-Richmond county
Legislative Delegation to ratify the following appointments.
Authority, Boards & Present appointee Nominee-appointee
Commissions
Coliseum Authority Dr. Wayne Frazier Dr. Wayne Frazier
Coliseum Authority Ellis Albright Ellis Albright
Coliseum Authority Bill Maddox Billy Holden
Coliseum Authority Bonnie Ruben J.R. Riles
Personnel Board Vacant Dr. William Mazyck
Personnel Board Charles Walker, Jr. Craig Smith
Augusta Port Authority Jack Brown (resigned) James C. Murray
114
Authority, Boards & Present appointee Nominee-appointee
Commissions
Human Relations Wilson Rice (deceased) Dr. Thomas Clark
Commission
Board of Zoning Appeals Bill Maddox Bill Maddox
Board of Zoning Appeals Harvey Johnson Harvey Johnson
General Aviation Daniel Locke McKnight David Field
Field
Tax Assessors Board James Scott James Scott
Tax Assessors Board E. L. Thomas Robert H. O’Neal
Augusta Aviation Vacant Kalton Howard
Commission
Augusta Canal Authority Turner Simpkins Turner Simpkins
Minority Business Vacant Lester Lowery
Development Advisory
Council
Minority Business Vacant Ella Jones
Development
Mr. Mayor: It’s my understanding we don’t ratify these things. These
appointments are made by the Delegation. I guess they send them to us for information.
Cause they’re the appointing authority.
Mr. Shepard: You have to look at each board by its category. And for example,
Mr. Mayor, the Coliseum Authority, if I can find it, it says the members of the General
Assembly [inaudible] shall appoint four members. And that is their appointment. That’s
the language I see there. The Personnel Board says the Richmond County Legislative
Delegation [inaudible] appoint two members provided in the consolidation act, such
members shall serve for a term of four years and until [inaudible]. So let me see if I’ve
got any more law to read.
Mr. Mayor: The law firm of Shepard and Bonner.
Mr. Shepard: Yes. I appreciate this. Thank you, Ms. Bonner. It’s this, this act
says that, I guess this is the charter. It says [inaudible] recommended by the Richmond
County Delegation in the General Assembly of Georgia and appointed by the
Commission Council established by the act [inaudible]. But here again, have they acted
as body? I don’t think that cures that.
Mr. Mays: I think it does say clearly, though, we are a ratifying body because it’s
sent to us. Those boards were joined together by that language because they spoke
differently to that, and that, I believe, was the purpose of the consolidation language
[inaudible] boards was to incorporate them and we would do the ratifying. I think you’re
correct but I think it may be old language that you’re reading from in reference to how
singular boards are done. It brought them under one thing and we’ve approved those.
115
Mr. Shepard: But see we also have mixed, Mr. Mays and Madame Clerk, we
have mixed in here authorities and boards which are not within our act. For example, the
coliseum has its own act.
Mr. Mays: They got their own act, but when we consolidated, though, it made a
measure of taking people out of the appointing process so it has [inaudible] because that’s
why Don Grantham and I don’t have appointment to that board. The Coliseum
Authority, by legislation, they removed [inaudible] used to laugh about it all the time
[inaudible] and that’s what made room for the Legislature to have [inaudible] Coliseum
Authority, cause they took them from the Super Districts. So they [inaudible] and that’s
how we got into the appointment business.
Mr. Shepard: But whether we ratify them or whether we receive them as
information, my first point is are they properly here after being passed in a meeting of
that Delegation?
Mr. Mays: I think you’re correct. I don’t know whether they had a meeting or
they had a fight, but the point being [inaudible] clear, though, that the language states that
we are the ratifying body. I think we need to agree on that point because it was said we
are not, and the language is clear in the consolidation bill that we do. They recommend
that we ratify.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, based on item 53,I’m going to make a motion
that we receive item 53 as information and send it back to the Delegation and ask
them to send us a letter indicating that they have had a meeting and then present to
us the slate that they would like to, and then we’ll consider ratification.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Further discussion on that item?
Mr. Hankerson: I have a question. You said send a letter that they’ve had a
meeting? I thought they already sent us a letter saying they had a meeting.
Mr. Shepard: The letters I got, Mr. Hankerson, was that they had not had – if they
had a meeting, it was [inaudible] appointed and therefore they haven’t acted on these
appointments. And so my opinion is that they should have a meeting and have some
communication to this body that the appointments that they are making have gone
through the Delegation as a body.
Mr. Hankerson: Wouldn’t it be, if you were going to look at something, in my
opinion this should have been resolved before we got to this point, whether this letter that
they send us with signatures on it saying that they making this appointment, whether that
is legal versus the other letter saying that it wasn’t, didn’t create a quorum or whatever, is
that true or is it not? A good question came up and I always, you know, I mentioned that
before, too, about us signing something, just signing off on it and saying that it’s legal.
116
You know, I mentioned that one time about telephone calls and just getting a poll of
Commissioners and whether that’s legal. I mean you got a letter here from the
Legislators, the representatives saying that they approved this. Now is four legal or what
we going to go by when we get letters?
Mr. Shepard: It’s been my policy and I’ll be happy to put it in the record, that you
know, when we pass something, say at a committee – I remember like we did for ANIC, I
think is the last item we took up as a [inaudible]. Last week we immediately ratified that
in a full meeting. And there has been sufficient time [inaudible] elapsed that they could
have called a meeting and had this, had this slate, had this slate approved and I don’t
think there is any question about the legality of all these appointments if that had been
followed. But I have a letter from a member that said that they have not had a meeting
and the rules default to, the rules default – if the rules of the Delegation don’t control, it
defaults to the rules of the House of Representatives and then in the absence of the
[inaudible] rule to Delegation rules to Roberts rules. And this Legislator, and I’ll be
happy to make this part of the record, said that there could be no authority found where
four members of the Delegation, which is one short of a meeting quorum, take official
action in the absence of a duly called meeting at which a quorum is present. And so my
suggestion was that the matter be deferred so that that ambiguity could be cleared up.
Either they had the authority or they didn’t have it. Certainly if we approve it, I think we
run the risk of having the litigation in the nature of what they call a pro [inaudible] which
is a suit to determine who has validly taken office under this action. And I think
prudence just indicates that we defer until they are given the opportunity and I’m asking
you to send them a signal that they meet and pass a resolution as a body. That’s my
opinion and I think it’s a considered one under the facts.
Mr. Mayor: Well, it’s the same standard that they use when we make a request to
the Delegation. They tell us to have a meeting and pass a resolution. And what that
resolution is tell them what action we want them to take. They don’t want us
independently coming to them and asking them to pass laws on behalf of the government.
It’s holding them to the same standard they hold us to.
Mr. Mays: I don’t have a problem, Mr. Mayor, with the, with the delay. I just
wanted to clear that one item, though, that we do have, that we are the body that approves
if it is a, a, a, a legal thing before us, that we are the ratifying body. But I have no
problem in following the Attorney’s direction in terms of the delay, but I think we ought
to ask them something else, though, when we send back to request about a meeting.
Cause as I said earlier about grown folks, you know, a bunch of grown folks can’t make
other grown folks go meet. But what I think we do need to request from them, though,
and hopefully they’ll send this is a copy in writing of whatever rules that they do have.
Because now I’ve heard different stories about what constitutes a quorum of the
Legislative Delegation, who can call a meeting, when they can call it, who has got to be
there, whether both sides of the General Assembly representatives have to be there or not,
whether it’s got to be a Senator there, and I think that’s what you basically, what you
basically need.
117
Mr. Mayor: But it’s not up to us to police their rule. That’s up to them to do that.
Mr. Mays: Well, let me tell you what, Mr. Mayor, [inaudible] the reason why I
said you’ve got some different opinion. This is signed by Representative Jack Connell,
who is Former Representative, and the argument was was that they were supposed to
adopt different rules at the beginning of that session. They did not adopt them and a
majority of them signed it. So I think there still needs to be some clarification because
you are operating under a document signed by a Legislator who is no longer there. I love
him and respect him, but I think they got some in-house business they need to clear up.
[inaudible] and get to us, and I respect the Attorney’s right to delay, but I think that’s
what caused the problem. One of them was operating out of the fact that those were still
the rules. You got four of them saying those not the rules. So we need to get something
where the rules or whatever their rules are. We’ll know that [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go ahead then and dispose of this motion then on item number
53. Anybody need the motion restated by the Clerk? All in favor of the motion then
please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Cheek, Mr. Williams and Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: We have the answer, Mr. Mays, you were looking for for item 52.
52. Consider the following nominations from members of the Augusta-
Richmond County Legislative Delegation for appointment as
Chairman of Richmond County Board of Elections.
1) Clinton Lowery
2) Carol Spurgeon
3) Harvey Johnson
Mr. Mayor: We could entertain a motion to take item 52 off the table and
dispose of it.
Mr. Colclough: So move.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to take item 52 off the table. Is there any
objection? None is heard, so item 52 is back up for discussion. Mr. Russell, you’ve
spoken with the Director of the Elections Board and you have a report for us?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, Ms. Flournoy spoke to Ms. Bailey and it’s not crucial
that we take any action on this item tonight. They have a sufficient number to operate.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. So what is your pleasure with respect to item 52? Do you
want to send that back, also, or what? Or do something else.
118
Mr. Boyles: Refer it back to the Delegation and give us [inaudible].
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second to send it back to the Delegation.
All in favor of that motion please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Cheek, Mr. Williams and Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Boyles: When it comes back, we would like to have some backup
information since we’re appointing to this. They’re recommending that we appoint
someone. We’d like to know who they are.
Mr. Mayor: We might send the Delegation a copy of the talent bank form and
suggest they use it. All right, item number 55.
OTHER BUSINESS:
55. Discuss roof leaks in the security area of the Joint Law Enforcement Center.
(Requested by Commissioner Bobby Hankerson)
Mr. Hankerson:
Mr. Mayor, I talked with the Sheriff and he wants to speak to
. I’d like for this to be deferred to the next committee meeting. I
this issue, also
make a motion.
The Clerk: Committee meeting?
Mr. Hankerson: Committee.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to sending it to committee?
Mr. Cheek, Mr. Williams and Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: The vote is unanimous. Item number 56.
The Clerk:
ATTORNEY:
56. Create street lighting district on Spring Grove Road.
119
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Attorney?
Mr. Shepard:
Yes, sir. I have been requested by members of the Commission to
create a street lighting district. We have created street lighting districts in some of the
And I would just like to have that authorization to create the district.
other areas.
th
This was in an area that was of particular interest to the 5 District Commissioner and I
, I just suggested that we put this on and give me the direction I need to create
was
that district. I have not drawn the papers for it, due to other demands that came
this week, but I would ask that that authorization be granted.
Mr. Colclough: So move.
Mr. Mayor: Motion. Second?
Mr. Hankerson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor then please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Cheek, Mr. Williams and Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next item is item number 58.
The Clerk:
58. SPLOST V- Approve beginning of procedures necessary to call referendum
election.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Attorney?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. I have given
heretofore, given a calendar to go by if we choose the most immediate SPLOST
referendum date, which I believe is September 21. The next one after that is the one that
is paired with the general election. And there are certain time lines that have to be met
st
between now and the 21. And this will show that we will probably be one of the first
governments, if not the first, to use the new SPLOST law. There are several
requirements that must be met in order to have this referendum properly called. And I
have overlaid a calendar of that law with various dates that we will be in session as a
Commission and we need to do, we need to do certain things. The first thing today, if
you want to move toward this vote today, and that’s, all this is predicated on how fast you
want to move toward this vote date. Or do you want to take more time and look at a later
date? But in my opinion, you should authorize the Mayor tonight to pass a resolution to
convene a meeting of this body, which is the governing authority, which as a
consolidated government it is the entity that calls the referendum and passes the county
tax. It’s still viewed as – actually it’s viewed as a special district tax. The SPLOST V
has some flexibility that other SPLOSTs haven’t had. I was in two seminars this past
120
week about it, one for the attorneys at GMA when some of you were down there, and
others put on by the ACCG, and the first step is to have a meeting of the, of this body and
the governing authority of the qualified municipality in the county, which I think the only
one qualified because it provides the necessary services is Hephzibah, and it is a
municipality, it is within the county, and I thought you might as well include Blythe, but
my suggestion would be that you could call that the same day you met in committees on
July 12, that that would be within the rule that says that meeting must be 30 days before
the call. The call, if you wanted to issue it in a regular meeting of this body, then I have
marked the calendar that says you would have, if you wanted to here again time it to the
meeting of the Commission, you could have the first opportunity to pass the SPLOST
resolution on July 21. Then again, if you wanted to observe the time, you could still call
a second opportunity to pass the SPLOST resolution in the meeting of August 3. Then
I’ve marked on here that we needed to make a submission to the Justice Department. I
have diaried the calendar for August 6 for that. The Board of Elections is going to be in a
special called meeting on August 12 for consideration of the issue of provisional ballots.
The SPLOST call could be part of that meeting for them. Then it goes into a series of
advertisements. August 19, August 26, September 2, September 9. I’m sorry, September
16 ends the calendar. So that would time these procedures for September 21. And here
again, this is the first opportunity out of the box to use the new law. It didn’t go into
effect until now. Some of the substantive benefits of this new law are that more repair
type expenditures, particularly to roads, can be authorized under this, under this act. In
addition, it has more bonding flexibility. The, the capital projects which we’ve all
contemplated here in these work sessions could be authorized. There’s, there’s plenty of
enabling authority here but I suggest if you want to move in that direction in a fairly short
order, then you should go ahead tonight and pass a resolution authorizing the Mayor to
call that meeting. And here again, I’m just suggesting that it be called convenient to this
body’s schedule on its regular schedule meeting. Here again, if there’s, if there’s some
unreadiness on behalf of the body then there could be – the next election date would be
November. And it’s got to be a decision of this body. So I know the hour is late and this
is very important business, but I felt compelled to bring it to the Commission tonight so
st
that you move down the track toward the 21 or you knowingly move down the track
toward the general election in November. Of course, SPLOST continues, the present
SPLOST continues until January 1, 2006. It goes through the next year, so the SPLOST -
if you vote it in, if the people vote it in, it will be reimposed in the timeframe beginning
January, 2006. So I just bring this schedule to you and indicate that if you want to move
st
for the 21, you better go ahead and start this process.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I think the Attorney has done an excellent job of keeping us informed
on these, these deadlines, staying on the toes, and that’s probably [inaudible] gave us
deadline where we really get our attention and to a point [inaudible] and I think it’s good
121
information and we need to be aware of the fact that the clock is ticking to a point that if
we’re going to do something soon. But I also think that we need to be driven by accuracy
as thorough as possible. I think that we need to work with each other and with our new
Interim Administrator and the, and the two Assistants that were appointed in the interim
and working with our department heads to really get in line the information that we have
on our side of the fence, but still has to be decided. And I still think that should be our
real driving factor is of making sure that we know what we want to do on the
governmental side, setting the budget to deal with that. Obviously we cannot do it all,
but I think that’s going to be a key factor in getting that done. And just today when the
Commission unanimously agreed to help over in District 5 in the Recreation project that
it probably will not be the last one that’s added to the list. We talked about that in that
area and also in the area of Public Works. And I think those are two key departments to a
point that we still have not done the finalization and done the plugging on those numbers.
That doesn’t prohibit us from making that deadline, but I think [inaudible] for keeping us
on a timetable of what are we going to do. But I think the driving point to putting
together a package should be dealt with first on its thoroughness and the numbers that we
put together, as opposed to the fact that we may [inaudible] a deadline and then decide
that [inaudible] because that’s something we voted to do. And that’s just my opinion on
it. But I applaud the work that he’s continued to do this and of staying on top of new
SPLOST laws and most recent two meetings that he’s had and it brought back very good
information from both of those.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to make a motion to receive this as information?
Tommy?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, does it hurt or maybe ask the Attorney, does it hurt to go
ahead and call that meeting? I mean for the record.
Mr. Shepard: If you authorize – I think you authorize the call. I can still work in
some flexibility in the schedule through some special called meetings of this body. Okay.
But basically I’m just looking at if you just add back on the calendar, I’m looking at a 29
day period between the referendum and the call of the Board of Elections. I think I’m
looking at the 30 days deadline between that action and when this meeting is called. This
meeting has to be called on a 10 day notice. So I could, I knew this schedule would work
and I could figure out what the absolute drop dead date is. I think we figured that. So at
some point you’re going to go past the opportunity to call the meeting.
Mr. Boyles: So you’re saying if we go ahead and call the meeting or authorize
the Mayor to call the meeting, we’re just acting on the safe side?
Mr. Shepard: Absolutely.
Mr. Boyles: And it doesn’t mean we have to commit, does it?
Mr. Shepard: You [inaudible] SPLOST process was not sufficiently completed.
[inaudible] project list together, then you could abandon the, you could abandon it and
122
say we want to go for the December date. Now the December date, as I recall, has a little
longer time frame. Still buy you some – I don’t mean December, I mean November.
And so if you wanted to try to go for that, this process could be, could be stopped. But I
would suggest that you allow the Mayor and I to agree upon a drop dead date, and then if
we pass that, that means we’re going to, that means you’re going to November for your
election. Or you can call it in – I’ve always told you the alternatives. You can call the
election in the calendar year 2005. Cause you can’t impose that. I mean you can – there
is a reimposition language that’s still there, and the reimposition, it can be done during
the current SPLOST, but you can’t have more than one [inaudible] out there, unless
you’re Columbus, and we ain’t Columbus. They’ve got an extra penny because of some
local considerations [inaudible] but we’re not the beneficiary of that.
Mr. Boyles: But if we go in and allow the Mayor to call the meeting then we
have –
Mr. Shepard: We could always call it off.
Mr. Boyles: We could always call it off. At least we could go ahead and – I’ll
make a motion we go ahead and authorize the Mayor to call, call the SPLOST meeting.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Shepard: That would be with the affected qualified municipalities, is what it
would be.
Mr. Boyles: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: That would preserve your options to go. If you don’t feel like
you’re ready at that time, you could stop the process.
Mr. Boyles: This just gives us more of an area to work in.
Mr. Shepard: That would be prudent.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Ms. Sims: I seconded it.
Mr. Mayor: Second. Discussion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me just ask this question. Is this for just the inter-
governmental meeting to talk about what we’re going to talk about?
Mr. Shepard: Yes.
123
Mr. Mays: My, I get back again to my point about accuracy, and I don’t want to
stress this too much. But – and it’s not a big thing because some of them use their money
to deal with offsetting their property tax. But [inaudible] small but it’s still Richmond
County people that when we go to neighboring governments that you and the Mayor are
prepared to tell them what’s on our plate that we are going to deal with. I mean I think
when you set a date for business [inaudible] I mean [inaudible] vote on [inaudible] if
you’re not ready by that time, then, you know, you need to move on anyway. But to a
point of while we’re still trying to get finalization on two of the biggest departments that
we’ve got and putting those in order, we talking about going out and talking to somebody
else about what may happen [inaudible]. And I just think to a point that in the world of
indecision, which we [inaudible] so many times, you know, [inaudible] give credit to
press people, they [inaudible] beyond anything we’ve done. If you wake up in the
morning and you say dates for SPLOST referendum and we still sitting down here
debating about what’s going to happen with Rec, what’s going to happen with Public
Works, and whether or not the numbers are right [inaudible] right numbers and the we get
this – it’s kind of like Chris Rock say, you know, we have a grand opening for one day
and then have a grand closing, you know, so I mean, you know, I can, I’m not, I’m not
going to vote against it, but I’m just, I’m just saying I think y’all ought to be ready with
what you’re going to do in a vote [inaudible] and getting [inaudible] to a point this is the
day the referendum is going be and then we’re sitting here on a drop dead date to a point
that you’re not ready. And then worst thing, I think, is the signal of the fact [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion on the motion? All in favor then please vote
with the usual sign.
Mr. Mays: I made a little promise to myself, Mr. Mayor, I wasn’t going to vote
for it till we were ready, but I didn’t make the promise to nobody else. I’m going to keep
the promise to myself.
Mr. Cheek, Mr. Williams and Ms. Beard out.
Mr. Mays votes No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion fails 5-1-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 59.
59. LEGAL MEETING.
•
Pending and potential litigation.
•
Real Estate.
•
Personnel.
Mr. Shepard: I request a legal meeting for the topics as stated in the agenda book,
Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Colclough: So move.
124
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Mr. Grantham: Yeah. Second.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection? None heard.
Mr. Cheek, Mr. Williams and Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 7-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will entertain a motion authorizing the Mayor to sign the
two affidavits for the two legal meetings.
60. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia’s Open Meeting Act.
Mr. Colclough: So move.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Any objection? None is heard.
Mr. Cheek, Mr. Williams and Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: I will sign those. Is there any other business to come before this
body tonight? We are adjourned without objection.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on July 1, 2004.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
125