HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-21-2004 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
December 21, 2004
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:10 p.m., Tuesday,
December 21, 2004, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Colclough, Grantham, Mays, Beard, Cheek,
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 Rev. Richard Sanders.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, are there any additions or deletions to the
agenda today?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA:
Items 23 and 57 (Requested by the petitioners)
23. Motion to approve a request by Bo Yun Chang for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Time Saver Convenience Store #3 located
at 601 Bransford Road. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee December 13, 2004)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, since I think there’s going to be
discussion from at least two commissioners on Item 57, we will acknowledge the fact
that the petitioner did send in a request to be withdrawn, but that first has to be
confirmed by this Commission. So the Chair will entertain a motion that we delete
Item 23 and that 57 continue on on the agenda and we’ll get to it on the regular
agenda.
Mr. Boyles: So move.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Cheek: Third.
1
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion and a couple of seconds. Any further
discussion on that item? If not, all in favor will do so by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, as we move through the delegations and
guests that are here, I’m going to ask the Commissioners to look at the consent agenda
while we are doing some of that so that in that interim they can be prepared if they are
going to pull any items for full discussion that may be on consent and we can probably
move with some time in taking that with one motion at that given time.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. The introduction.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We can move ahead through the delegation side and they
can simultaneously deal with what they want to pull, so when we get to that part it will be
a little easier to move.
The Clerk: Introduction.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That will be fine.
The Clerk: That’s for you.
INTRODUCTION:
Honorable Willie H. Mays, III, Chairman DBE/EEO Subcommittee
Ms. Yvonne Gentry, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Coordinator.
?
City of Augusta
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: At the last Commission meeting, I think I was – you
nicknamed me Superman. I didn’t have a cape that day but I was flying to more than one
place. It was the day we had the dedication for the Roundtree Athletic Complex at Josey
and I was thinking really that it had been done at that particular meeting. Is Ms. Gentry
present at this time?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And I wanted to formally introduce her as we do when we
bring on new department heads, not only to the members of the Commission, but to –
since we’re televised, to the entire city. We went through a process of where we
hopefully saved the City some money. We didn’t do any high priced head hunting. We
did it ourselves, and out of – for two positions I think we got in excess of 240 names.
And ironically, we came back, kind of like Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz, we clicked our
heels with a lot of searching but we ended up with a person right here in this city that we
feel that’s more than qualified to do the job. We don’t like to use the word we snatched
2
anybody from anywhere, but has had the current experience most recently at the Medical
College of Georgia, as well as being a former branch manager of a financial institution
here in this city, which we think will greatly enhance this position and allow her to be
able to work with the different departments here in city government. It’s one that we
worked on for a very long time. This probably dates back even to old county government
in terms of getting a start. And it’s been a part of the consolidation formula that was
there. What we got to finding out was that in doing so that everything that was called for
under that position, they were either going to have to have a cape, a mask, and several
other things in order to do the job. And so we’ve been able to satisfy one portion of that.
So I would like to introduce Ms. Gentry. If you would, if you’d like to have anything to
say, you’re welcomed to a long winded family and so you cut whatever you need to
shortly because we’ll be here for a while today. But we welcome you on board here with
us.
Ms. Gentry: Good afternoon, Pro Tem, Mayor, members of the Commission. I
am truly excited to be a part of this great team called the Augusta-Richmond County
government. You have charged me with developing a program that will provide equal
access to participate in the City’s procurement opportunities, construction projects, as
well as professional services. Establishing this position indicate your commitment to
support the economic development for local, woman-owned, and minority business. This
program is not only the right thing to do, but it makes good business sense. Forming
diverse business relationships help to ensure broader and more competitive supplier base
in terms of quality, product, delivery and service. Supporting this group creates a
stronger community by increasing the employment, rate, the tax base, which translates to
improved lives. To begin this task, I would like to meet with each of you individually to
discuss your envision of the DBE coordinator and how I will assist the City achieve its
goals. Secondly, to discuss five objectives that you would like me to accomplish in the
coming year. Again, I thank you for this great and wonderful opportunity, and I look
forward to developing a successful disadvantaged business enterprise program. Thank
you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Ms. Gentry. Welcome aboard, and I know that
we have to have equal access for people who apply from all over the world, but I’m just
glad today we’re hiring somebody that I don’t have to say welcome to Augusta. It’s just
good to have you living here already.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir?
Mr. Cheek: Just as a follow-on comment, and again welcome from me, but I
would hope that our new EEO director would be involved in the economic summit that’s
3
upcoming and be fully integrated in the hopefully laser beam focus of economic
development that’s going to come out of that summit in her capacity and I guess plug in
anywhere she can to help achieve those economic development dreams for small and
disadvantaged businesses, as well as those larger ones we hope to attract once we get
everybody on the same track.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Good observance.
The Clerk:
Mr. Mayor, Pro Tem, would you please – Mr. Mike Fallen, would
you please join the Mayor Pro Tem, Mr. Andy Cheek, the Chairman of our
Engineering/Public Works Committee, Ms. Teresa Smith, along with Mr. Derek Vanover
of that division, division manager.
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH AWARD (NOVEMBER):
?
Mr. Mike Fallen – Augusta Public Works & Engineering Department, Trees
and Landscaping Division
The Clerk: The City of Augusta Employee of the Month Committee writes:
Mayor Young, the Employee of the Month Selection Committee has selected Mr. Mike
Fallen with the Trees & Landscaping Department as the Employee of the Month for the
month of November. Mr. Fallen has worked for the City of Augusta for over five years
as a groundskeeper I. The committee felt that based on Mr. Joe Lowery’s nomination
and Mr. Fallen’s attributes he would make an ideal choice for the Employee of the
Month. Mr. Lowery states that Mike never backs down from an assignment or task, that
he always goes above and beyond to see the job is completed. Mr. Derek Vanover stated
Mike is always first to ask what can I do in emergency situations. He was the force
behind the over-seeding in Augusta. With Mike, you never have any doubts. You do not
have to go back to look over the job if he tells you it’s been completed. Mike’s name
always comes up when we’re selecting an employee of the month for the Trees &
Landscaping Department. He is considered to “go to” guy. I’m proud to have Mike as
an employee. The Committee would appreciate you in joining us in awarding Mr. Mike
Fallen as the Employee of the Month for November, 2004. Congratulations, Mr. Fallen.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk:
PRESENTATIONS:
A. Presentation of proceeds from the Annual Firefighters/Deputies Basketball
Tournament.
Perry Riley, Robby Burns and Paul Evans
? $1,000 to the Upside of Downs- The Up Side of Downs provides support,
monthly meetings with special speakers, special events, and a fellowship of families
that have children with Down Syndrome.
4
? $1,000 to the Sickle Cell Foundation- The mission of the Sickle Cell
Foundation of Georgia, Inc. is dedicated to providing education, screening and
counseling programs for Sickle Cell and other abnormal hemoglobin.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: While they are coming, ladies and gentlemen, those are
some nice looking [inaudible] public-private partnerships during the year that we
[inaudible] I think that’s something we can work on doing that across the city [inaudible].
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, this presentation is
proceeds from the Annual Firefighters/Deputies Basketball Tournament. At this time, we
will ask Messrs. Riley, Burns and Evans to make those appropriate presentations.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, ladies and
gentlemen, on December 11, the [inaudible] Fire Department and the Richmond County
Sheriff’s Department held a fundraising basketball game. The proceeds from this
basketball game, in excess of $1,000 each, is going to two different organizations, the
Upside of Downs [inaudible] and the Sickle Cell Association of Augusta, Georgia. The
representatives from the Fire Department are here to present that money to those
organizations and I will say, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, the winner of the basketball game –
unfortunately, Chief – was the Sheriff’s Department.
(Laughter)
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Speaker: Would a representative from Upside of Downs please come
forward?
The Clerk: The Upside of Downs organization provides support, monthly
meetings with special speakers, special events, and a fellowship of families that have
children with Downs Syndrome. The second presentation, $1,000 to the Sickle Cell
Foundation. The mission of the Sickle Cell Foundation of Georgia, Inc. is dedicated to
providing education, screening and counseling programs for sickle cell and other
abnormal hemoglobin.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk:
B. Richmond County Forestry
Annual Report for July 2003-June 2004.
Ms. Cathy Black
5
Ms. Black: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I’m Cathy Black, I’m senior
forester with the Georgia Forestry Commission, and in front of you I have given you our
annual report for the Richmond County Forestry Unit. I appreciate your having me here
today. In January of this year I started at the interim chief ranger of the Richmond
County Forestry Unit. The chief ranger senior, Jesse Townsend, retired as of November
of last year. When I first started with the job, I brought with me my other job, which is to
run Spirit Creek educational forest so we did both of those things. Spirit Creek
educational forest is 570 acres in south Richmond County and we educate the area youth
in earth, life and physical sciences as it relates to the environment. With me working at
the Richmond County Forestry Unit we have four fulltime personnel: Ranger II John
Pearson. He has been with the commission for eight years. He assisted me in the
supervising of this unit. We also had two Ranger I positions, Larry Felix and David
Cochran, and then we have a county-hired secretary, Connie Reynolds. At Spirit Creek
educational forest we had an environmental education coordinator, Katie Finch, and we
also had a Student Conservation Association intern, Katie Mischa. So all of these people
work together to provide services to Richmond County and the people of Richmond
County. Right now the county pays the Georgia Forestry Commission four cents an acre,
which comes to $3,220, and that allows us to protect 80,500 acres from wildfires. The
equipment that we use to protect the forest is we have two transports with two bulldozers
and we also have a T-6, which is pictured at the bottom of your page. This carries water
and assists us in fire control activities. Last year, we had 52 wild fires. The most-caused
wild fire was from incinerary burning. Not only did this cause the most wild fires, but it
had the largest acreage. Debris burning was second. And we’re very pleased because
Georgia throughout the entire United States has the smallest amount of acreage on the
average that was burned, only four acres. And Richmond County maintained this
average of four acres for all wild fires. We plowed, in order to prevent a lot of wild fires,
we plowed presuppression breaks, we did 75 miles of presuppression breaks. We control
burned 724 acres and we prescribe burned 45 acres. The men – the Richmond Unit has a
very aggressive Smokey Bear Fire Prevention program. They did 190 programs and
reached more than 9,500 children and adults. Spirit Creek Educational Forest also has a
very aggressive program. They put on 77 programs and reached more than 5,000
students. And while we were doing all of this, protecting the area from wild fires, we
also rebuilt our office. Now as of January 1, not only did I take over the fire fighting
duties, but I also became the forester once again for Richmond County. I wrote 34
management plans covering 2,300 acres. So there’s still a lot of management work,
forestry going on in south Richmond County. And unfortunately there’s still a lot of wild
fires going on. We had a very good public relationship going on. We did four parades,
in Hephzibah, Blythe, and Georgia Regional. We – the secretary was very busy. She
answered 4,000 phone calls and we gave out almost 5,000 literatures last year. So they
kept us hopping. Smokey Bear was very busy, as well. He was on parade – well, he was
literally on parade, four of them, but he also appeared at the Augusta GreenJackets
baseball game, the men’s cookout at Lake Olmsted, and various other activities. The
Georgia Forestry Commission this year partnered with Augusta-Richmond County to
celebrate Arbor Day and once again we are named a Tree City USA. Fort Gordon was
6
also named a Tree City USA. And we sold 24,000 seedlings to Richmond County
residents. As I said, I was the interim director – I mean not the interim director, that
would be nice – but I was the chief ranger, the interim chief ranger as of November.
They sent me back to Spirit Creek Educational Forest. And taking my place is Chief
Ranger Steve Abbott, who has been with the Georgia Forestry Commission for 22 years.
So you have an extremely well qualified person now in charge of the Forestry
Commission. I’d just like to thank first of all the Augusta-Richmond County Fire
Department. We’ve had a wonderful working relationship and we know that it will
continue. I’d also like to thank the Augusta-Richmond County department heads.
Everybody was wonderful in making my job a lot smoother. So thank you all very much.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk: The next recognition?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk:
RECOGNITION:
Global Community Development Initiative
The Community Advocate Award
The City of Augusta- For its support of the CSRA Youth No Sex, Safe Sex,
HIV/AIDS Prevention Awareness Campaign 2004
The Clerk: This recognition is to you, the Augusta Commission. The Mayor
received this on your behalf.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, let us go into the consent agenda from the
standpoint of just formulating numbers. There may be persons that are here that are
guests that some things may be approved on consent, where there will not be discussion.
We have probably at least three items I know the next delegation, which I’m going to
recognize on the [inaudible] of the delegation, Mr. Hannah, on the order where it’s listed,
but I want to go through to the consent, get them that maybe don’t have to wait. If
they’ve got a zoning matter, can get back to other business, we can take that where there
is no discussion and then move ahead and come back to his. There is an item in here that
may possibly be discussed that’s on consent that may be pulled, as well as items that are
there on the regular agenda, which would be found there under item 65. And therefore
we can got to those in that order and I think that will get us into a movement of clearing
out some of the tough parts of the agenda hopefully.
7
The Clerk: The consent agenda consists of items 1 through 55. Items 1
through 55.
For the benefit of any objectors on our planning petitions, once the petitions
are read, if there are any objectors, would you please signify your objection by raising
your hand? The same will stand for our alcohol petitions.
Planning Petitions:
PLANNING:
1. Z-04-103 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by J. P. Jones, on behalf of Truevine
Missionary Baptist Church requesting a Special Exception to bring an existing
church, including day care activities, into zoning conformance and to expand
church parking per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 1780 Martin Luther King
Jr. Boulevard and containing 1.04 acres. (Tax Map 59-3 Parcels 192, 193, 261, 262,
and 264) DISTRICT 2
2. Z-04-104 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by John Seaton, on behalf of Hale Street
Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception to expand an existing church,
including day care activities, per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 352 Hale
Street and containing .34 acres. (Tax Map 60-1 Parcel 39 & 40) DISTRICT 1
3. Z-04-107 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Ming F. Lin, on behalf of William H.
Hambrick, Sr. et al, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and
Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property
located at 3524, 3526, and 3534 Wrightsboro Road and containing 3.74 acres. (Tax
Map 40 Parcel 97 & 98 and Tax Map 53 Parcels 51 thru 55) DISTRICT 3
4. Z-04-109 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that 1) only one building may
be constructed on the property, not to exceed 4,000 square feet and 2) that a 50 foot
undisturbed natural buffer, that conforms to the Augusta-Richmond County Tree
Ordinance, be maintained along the Clark Road and the west property line; a
petition by Lisa McTier, on behalf of Ben McTier, requesting a change of zoning
from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone LI (Light Industry) affecting property located
the north right-of-way line of Clark Road, 410 feet, more or less, west of the
northwest corner of Mike Padgett Highway and Clark Road and containing 5.0
acres. (Tax Map 302 Parcel 18) DISTRICT 8
5. Z-04-111 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Richard Ret, on behalf of Sarah B.
Donar, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to
Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 2820 Milledgeville Road
and containing .33 acres. (Tax Map 70-4 Parcel 60) DISTRICT 5
6. Z-04-114 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Lamar McCoy, on behalf of Vanessa
8
Rogers, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone B-2
(General Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located on the
east right-of-way line of Mike Padgett Highway, 792 feet, more or less, south of the
southeast corner of the intersection of Bennock Mill Road and Mike Padgett
Highway and containing approximately 2.8 acres and part of 4474 Mike Padgett
Highway. (Part of Tax Map 234 Parcel 38) DISTRICT 8
7. Z-04-115 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) that the
development be limited to 250 homes and 2) that all wetlands be permanently
protected by restrictive covenants or conservation easements; a petition by Southern
Building and Development Corp., on behalf of Edward Pascarella, requesting a
change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) to Zone R-1B (One-family
Residential) affecting property located on the northwest right-of-way line of
McDade Road (a.k.a. McDade Farm Road), 202 feet northeast of Union Grove
Circle and containing approximately 98 acres. (Tax Map 182 Parcel 3.2) DISTRICT
8
8. Z-04-116 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Lakemont Neighborhood Association
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone R-
1 (One-Family Residential) affecting property known as Lakemont Subdivision
bounded by Lakemont Drive on the east, Redwood Drive on the west, and
Woodbine Road on the north and containing multiple parcels. (A complete list of
street addresses and a subdivision map available at the planning commission office)
DISTRICT 7
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those planning petitions? Under the
alcohol portion of the agenda, starting with item 21:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
21. Motion to approve a request by Dennis Abrams for an extension of time
(March 2005) to purchase the Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection
with Tribeca Lounge located at 968 Broad Street. There will be dance. District 1.
Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 13, 2004)
22. Motion to approve a request by Harinderjit Singh for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Stevens
Creek Hospitality, Inc. located at 1075 Stevens Creek Road. There will be dance.
There will be Sunday sales. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee December 13, 2004)
24. Motion to approve a request by Kil Sun Kwon for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Lee’s Market located at 839 East
Boundary. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
December 13, 2004)
25. Motion to approve a request by Anuradh Kumar for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Kateel, Inc. located at 3105 Deans Bridge
9
Road. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
December 13, 2004)
26. Motion to approve a request by Brent Lefevre for an on premise
consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Volume Services,
Inc. d/b/a Centerplate located at 78 Milledge Road. There will be Sunday sales.
District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 13,
2004)
27. Motion to approve a request by Marcos E. Thomas for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Chasers
Bar & Grill located at 724 Broad Street. There will be dance. District 1. Super
District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 13, 2004)
28. Motion to approve a request by Adolf Hermann for an on premise
consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Augsburg Haus,
LLC located at 1944 Walton Way. There will be Sunday sales. District 1. Super
District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 13, 2004)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions? No objectors, Mr.
Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. All right. During your time of perusal, ladies and
gentlemen, on items that may need to be pulled from the consent agenda, do I have any
that need to be pulled from my right?
Mr. Cheek: To add from the regular agenda.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If I can, Andy, let me get the pulls, first.
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I may have a senior moment out here. I need all the
thinking I can get today, so let me pull alls first and then we’ll get the put ons.
Mr. Williams: I got a couple, Mr. Mays, I’d like to pull. 34.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 34.
Mr. Williams: 34, 49, 50 and 52.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Give me those numbers again please.
Mr. Williams: 34, 49, 50 and 52.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You got two couples and a half in there.
10
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Sims, Mr. Boyles, either one? Anything to pull. Okay.
On this end, any items to pull?
Mr. Hankerson: 51. 50 already been called. 51 and 31.
The Clerk: 31?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. That’s everything on the left to be pulled? Don?
Sorry.
Mr. Grantham: 54. 31 been pulled?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 31 has been pulled.
Mr. Grantham: Okay. That’s it. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. If you can hit us back with those numbers, Madame
Clerk, and then I’m going to recognize Commissioner Cheek on the numbers that he’ll
need to try and add off the regular agenda, and that will clear us out of about 55 things.
50 of then at least, right quick.
The Clerk: The items that have been requested to be pulled are items 31, 34, 49,
50, 51, 52, 54.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if it please the body, I’d like to see adding 59
contingent upon a funding source and item 60 to the consent agenda, please.
59. Motion to accept 2004 Assistance to Firefighters Grant in the amount of
$393,970.00 from the Emergency Preparedness & Response Directorate and
approve the 30 percent matching funds totaling $118,191.00.
60. Motion to approve and sign a two (2) year contract extension with Motorola
for radio coverage. The contract extension will begin on January 6, 2005 and end on
January 8, 2007 at the same rate that is currently in effect.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Need unanimous consent to move to the consent. Is
there any objection on 59 and 60 being moved over to consent from anybody? None on
my right, none on my left. 59 and 60 so added to consent to be voted on. Okay. The
Chair will entertain a motion on those items that are on the consent agenda, with the
exception of the ones that have been pulled at this time for discussion.
11
Mr. Cheek: Motion to approve.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
PLANNING:
1. Z-04-103 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by J. P. Jones, on behalf of Truevine
Missionary Baptist Church requesting a Special Exception to bring an existing
church, including day care activities, into zoning conformance and to expand
church parking per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 1780 Martin Luther King
Jr. Boulevard and containing 1.04 acres. (Tax Map 59-3 Parcels 192, 193, 261, 262,
and 264) DISTRICT 2
2. Z-04-104 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by John Seaton, on behalf of Hale Street
Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception to expand an existing church,
including day care activities, per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 352 Hale
Street and containing .34 acres. (Tax Map 60-1 Parcel 39 & 40) DISTRICT 1
3. Z-04-107 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Ming F. Lin, on behalf of William H.
Hambrick, Sr. et al, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and
Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property
located at 3524, 3526, and 3534 Wrightsboro Road and containing 3.74 acres. (Tax
Map 40 Parcel 97 & 98 and Tax Map 53 Parcels 51 thru 55) DISTRICT 3
4. Z-04-109 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that 1) only one building may
be constructed on the property, not to exceed 4,000 square feet and 2) that a 50 foot
undisturbed natural buffer, that conforms to the Augusta-Richmond County Tree
Ordinance, be maintained along the Clark Road and the west property line; a
petition by Lisa McTier, on behalf of Ben McTier, requesting a change of zoning
from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone LI (Light Industry) affecting property located
the north right-of-way line of Clark Road, 410 feet, more or less, west of the
northwest corner of Mike Padgett Highway and Clark Road and containing 5.0
acres. (Tax Map 302 Parcel 18) DISTRICT 8
5. Z-04-111 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Richard Ret, on behalf of Sarah B.
Donar, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to
Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 2820 Milledgeville Road
and containing .33 acres. (Tax Map 70-4 Parcel 60) DISTRICT 5
12
6. Z-04-114 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Lamar McCoy, on behalf of Vanessa
Rogers, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone B-2
(General Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located on the
east right-of-way line of Mike Padgett Highway, 792 feet, more or less, south of the
southeast corner of the intersection of Bennock Mill Road and Mike Padgett
Highway and containing approximately 2.8 acres and part of 4474 Mike Padgett
Highway. (Part of Tax Map 234 Parcel 38) DISTRICT 8
7. Z-04-115 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) that the
development be limited to 250 homes and 2) that all wetlands be permanently
protected by restrictive covenants or conservation easements; a petition by Southern
Building and Development Corp., on behalf of Edward Pascarella, requesting a
change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) to Zone R-1B (One-family
Residential) affecting property located on the northwest right-of-way line of
McDade Road (a.k.a. McDade Farm Road), 202 feet northeast of Union Grove
Circle and containing approximately 98 acres. (Tax Map 182 Parcel 3.2) DISTRICT
8
8. Z-04-116 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Lakemont Neighborhood Association
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone R-
1 (One-Family Residential) affecting property known as Lakemont Subdivision
bounded by Lakemont Drive on the east, Redwood Drive on the west, and
Woodbine Road on the north and containing multiple parcels. (A complete list of
street addresses and a subdivision map available at the planning commission office)
DISTRICT 7
9. ZA-R-167 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition to amend the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County by amending Section 21-1 Permitted
Uses in a Neighborhood Business Zone relating to construction trailers.
10. ZA-R-168 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition to amend the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County by amending Section 3-12, Special
Building Setbacks.
11. FINAL PLAT – GRANITE HILL, SECTION ONE – S-670 – A request for
concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve
a petition by Southern Partners Inc., on behalf of Homesites Ltd., requesting final
plat approval for Granite Hill, Section One. This residential subdivision is located
on Crawfordville Drive, adjacent to Asbury Hills Subdivision and contains 37 lots.
12. FINAL PLAT – BARNETT CROSSING, SECTION 4 – S-613-IV-REV – A
request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission
to approve a petition by Southern Partners Inc., on behalf of Home Sites Ltd,
requesting final plat approval for Barnett Crossing, Section 4. This is a residential
subdivision is located on Barnett Crossing, adjacent to Barnett Crossing, Section 2.
13
13. FINAL PLAT – THE RESERVES, PHASE 1 – S-659-I – A request for
concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve
a petition by George L Godman & Associates, on behalf of G. B. Sharma, requesting
final plat approval for The Reserves, Phase I (aka The Reserves at Stevens Creek).
This residential subdivision is located on Stevens Creek Road, west of Claussen
Road and contains 59 lots)
14. FINAL PLAT – THE VILLAGE AT GOSHEN, PHASE I – S-682-I – A
request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission
to approve a petition by EMC Engineering Services, Inc., on behalf of Spirit Creek
Development Corp., LLC, requesting final plat approval for The Village at Goshen,
Phase I. The residential subdivision is located on Old Savannah Road at Goshen
Road and contains 111 lots.
15. FINAL PLAT – CAMBRIDGE, SECTION 8 – S-675 – A request for
concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve
a petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Nordahl & Co. Inc., requesting
final plat approval on Cambridge Subdivision Section 8. This residential subdivision
is located on Windsor Spring Road and Tobacco Road and contains 16 lots.
16. FINAL PLAT – BRIDGETON TOWNHOMES, PHASE II – S-673-II – A
request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission
to approve a petition by John M. Bailey & Associates, PC, on behalf of ATC
Development Corp., requesting final plat approval for Bridgeton Townhomes, Phase
II. This residential development is located on Bridgeton Road, adjacent to Bridgeton
Townhomes, Phase I and contains 18 lots.
17. FINAL PLAT – FEDEX DRIVE ROADWAY PLAN – S-700 – A request for
concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve
a petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Augusta Baseline Development,
LLC, requesting final plat approval for Fed Ex Drive Roadway Plan.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
18. Motion to approve a request from the LPA Group for Work Authorization
#17 – Proposal for Architectural and Civil Construction Administration of the New
Terminal Project. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 13, 2004)
19. Motion to approve a gas reimbursement at $.345 per mile or applicable
reimbursement rate in lieu of $2700 per year auto allowance and $.08 per mile. This
would become effective January 1, 2005 and apply to the inspectors in the Building
Division, License & Inspection Department. (Approved by Public Services
Committee December 13, 2004)
20. Motion to approve a request by Karen L. Walsh for a Therapeutic Massage
License to be used in connection with Jon Ric Salon located at 229 Fury Ferry Rd.,
Suite 101. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
December 13, 2004)
21. Motion to approve a request by Dennis Abrams for an extension of time
(March 2005) to purchase the Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection
14
with Tribeca Lounge located at 968 Broad Street. There will be dance. District 1.
Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 13, 2004)
22. Motion to approve a request by Harinderjit Singh for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Stevens
Creek Hospitality, Inc. located at 1075 Stevens Creek Road. There will be dance.
There will be Sunday sales. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee December 13, 2004)
23. Deleted from the agenda.
24. Motion to approve a request by Kil Sun Kwon for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Lee’s Market located at 839 East
Boundary. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
December 13, 2004)
25. Motion to approve a request by Anuradh Kumar for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Kateel, Inc. located at 3105 Deans Bridge
Road. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
December 13, 2004)
26. Motion to approve a request by Brent Lefevre for an on premise
consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Volume Services,
Inc. d/b/a Centerplate located at 78 Milledge Road. There will be Sunday sales.
District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 13,
2004)
27. Motion to approve a request by Marcos E. Thomas for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Chasers
Bar & Grill located at 724 Broad Street. There will be dance. District 1. Super
District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 13, 2004)
28. Motion to approve a request by Adolf Hermann for an on premise
consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Augsburg Haus,
LLC located at 1944 Walton Way. There will be Sunday sales. District 1. Super
District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 13, 2004)
29. Motion to approve increases in fees and charges for services provided by
Recreation and Parks as outlined in att. 1. (Approved by Public Services Committee
December 13, 2004)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
30. Motion to approve the Disability Retirement of Mr. Nicky Jewell under the
1977 Pension Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee December 13,
2004)
31. Deleted from the consent agenda.
FINANCE:
32. Motion to approve property insurance coverage for 2005 offered through
Affiliated FM Insurance Company for a premium of $202,369 plus engineering fee
of $5,700 (one time charge) on a $50,000 deductible policy. (Approved by Finance
Committee December 13, 2004)
15
33. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Ford Expedition for the
Augusta Regional Airport Fire Department for $27,387.00 from Bobby Jones Ford
of Augusta, Georgia. (lowest bid package for Bid 04-115). (Approved by Finance
Committee December 13, 2004)
34. Deleted from the consent agenda.
35. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Portable Organic Screener for
the Public Works Department – Solid Waste Division from Erin Recycling Solutions
of Portland, Maine for $197,130.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 04-145). (Approved by
Finance Committee December 13, 2004)
36. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Portable Waste Recycler for the
Public Works Department – Solid Waste Division from Pioneer Machinery
Company of Gainesville, Georgia for $409,827.00 (lowest bid on Bid 04-144).
(Approved by Finance Committee December 13, 2004)
37. Motion to approve a request from the Augusta Metro Chamber of
Commerce for funding in the amount of $5,000 for the Augusta Day activities at the
General Assembly. (Approved by Finance Committee December 13, 2004)
38. Motion to approve a request from the Mayor’s Office to reorder 1000
Mayor’s Office pins from The Pin Center in the total amount of $2,140.00 and
Commission and charge to the Promotional Account. (Approved by Finance
Committee December 13, 2004)
39. Motion to approve a request from the Mayor’s Office to order 100 frames for
certificates from Augusta Art & Frame Shop in the total amount of $1,300.00 and
charge to the Promotional Account. (Approved by Finance Committee December
13, 2004)
40. Motion to approve funding for November 23, 2004 General Election Run-off.
(Approved by Finance Committee December 13, 2004)
41. Motion to approve a budget amendment to increase the Landfill’s vehicle
cost allocation by $130,000 from contingency funds. (Approved by Finance
Committee December 13, 2004)
42. Motion to approve additional funding for November 2, 2004 General
Election. (Approved by Finance Committee December 13, 2004)
43. Motion to deny a request from Tabernacle Baptist Church for city
sponsorship of a scholarship to assist members of Tabernacle who are pursuing an
undergraduate degree at a college or university. (Approved by Finance Committee
December 13, 2004)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
44. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 131; Parcel 372.2
which is owned by WEC 98H-23 LLC for a temporary easement and permanent
easement on Project 90111-NAB Sanitary Sewer Extension. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee December 13, 2004)
45. Motion to approve a professional services contract with Graves Engineering
Services, Inc., an Augusta, GA firm, to complete a geotechnical exploration of the
Spirit Creek Collection System Pump Station and Force Main route at a proposed
16
price of $13,950. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 13,
2004)
46. Motion to approve funding in the amount of $24,400.00 for the purchase of
wetland mitigation credits to offset wetland areas disturbed during the Horsepen
Branch Sanitary Sewer Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
December 13, 2004)
47. Motion to approve a change order to the design contract for the Horsepen II
Sewer Project in the amount of $17,594.00. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee December 13, 2004)
48. Motion to authorize the closure of a portion of Smith Cemetery Road and
extension of Simkins Lane to accommodate the ingress and egress of private
properties and cemetery adjacent to the N. Max Hicks Tobacco Road Surface Water
Treatment Plant. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 13,
2004)
49. Deleted from the consent agenda.
50. Deleted from the consent agenda.
51. Deleted from the consent agenda.
52. Deleted from the consent agenda.
53. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget (CPB #323-04-200823808) in the
amount of $518,453 with 60,000 for engineering and $458,453 in contingency to be
used for future dirt road construction on Paving the Various Roads Phase VIII
Project. Also approve a Consultant Services Agreement with W. R. Toole
Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $59,303.00 to provide surveying and design
services on Hauchman Hill Road, Whisnant Road and Youngblood Drive. Funding
will be from the One Percent Sales Tax Phase III Paving Dirt Roads Account.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 13, 2004)
54. Deleted from the consent agenda.
55. Motion to authorize delegation of $85,000 in 2004 under runs in the
Engineering Division’s Highway and Streets Budget (101-04-1110) to fund
professional services for engineering support in the Public Works and Engineering
Department. Also approve a Consultant Service Agreement with EMC Engineering
Services, Inc. to provide engineering support to the Public Works and Engineering
Department in the amount of $85,000 subject to receipt of executed documents.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 13, 2004)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
56. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held
December 7, 2004.
59. Motion to accept 2004 Assistance to Firefighters Grant in the amount of
$393,970.00 from the Emergency Preparedness & Response Directorate and
approve the 30 percent matching funds totaling $118,191.00.
60. Motion to approve and sign a two (2) year contract extension with Motorola
for radio coverage. The contract extension will begin on January 6, 2005 and end on
January 8, 2007 at the same rate that is currently in effect.
17
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any
opposed, the same.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Madame Clerk, let it be known that I vote no against Sunday
sales.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Ms. Sims: Madame Clerk, also let it be known that I’m voting a no on 38 and 39.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Smith vote No on Sunday sales portion.
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 22, 26, 28]
Ms. Sims votes No.
Motion carries 9-1. [Items 38-39]
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-21, 24-25, 27, 29-30, 32-33, 35-37, 40-48, 53, 55-56, 59,
60]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Now that we have those items cleared out, Madame Clerk, a
lot of them, we’ll go back to items that we would not necessarily have to tie staff up on. I
want to try and get as many of these out of the way where we have guests that are here
concerning them. I’m going to go to the consent agenda first and what I’d like to do
since we have people here that are concerned about item number 31, that we go to 31,
and then we go back to Mr. Hannah’s delegation item and then we move into item 65, in
that order, if there is no objection from you ladies and gentlemen, to move in that fashion.
The Clerk:
31. Motion to approve a resolution supporting (the issuance of tax exempt
bonds) for the renovations of the Maxwell House Apartments. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee December 13, 2004)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. This item came before us in
Administrative Services and it was approved in Administrative Services to go forward
with this. We listened to the representatives from Maxwell House and also from some of
I’d like to make a motion to approve the resolution supporting this
the citizens.
bond and also include it in the motion that would be signed by the Mayor or the
Mayor Pro Tem.
18
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a motion and a second. I believe we have people
here that may want to address that and we’ll first deal with the discussion if there are
Commissioners that wish to address it, on item 31. Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I think the concern a lot of people
have with the 20% subsidized portion of the rent proposed – while I agree with the
program, my concern is that we don’t allow that 20% to be relegated to people with any
substance abuse problems or criminal records. We do have this problem at Richmond
Summit, and I want to make sure that the good neighbors at Maxwell House are protected
those who have truly physical or other needs not associated with any
and only
substance abuse or criminal behavior be allowed to occupy that residence,
that that
would be safest and best way to maintain a safe and consistently I guess pure
environment as it exists today. It’s a good community within that building and we want
So if the maker of the motion will accept as an amendment that the
to preserve that.
20%, that there be a limit be placed that there be no residents allowed in the
subsidized portion that have criminal records or substance abuse histories as a
stipulation to us granting this bond.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m going to recognize Commissioner Hankerson first. I do
think in terms of clarification of how those have been selected, we may also get a
clarification from those that are proposing it in terms of the makeup, you know, as well,
but I yield to the chairman of that committee.
Mr. Hankerson: I just want to call our attention to. We lengthily discussed this
and I think a few weeks ago we did have the Assistant Secretary of HUD here, Ms.
Peeples, and we signed, the Mayor signed a partnership for fair housing and I have an
affirmation of principles of fair housing. We must be very careful that we don’t violate
or discriminate and I want to read this to you. This is from a letter to the media, advisory
coming from the Mayor’s office. It says that equal opportunity housing cannot be
compromised. The Augusta Commission has affirmed our city’s commitment to fair
housing and has put into place a comprehensive fair housing action plan. And also in the
– I have here affirmation of principles of fair housing, it says whereas the objectives of
fair housing are to prevent housing discrimination on the basis of race, color, national
origin, religion, sex, handicap, family status, and to seek non-discrimination in all
housing programs; whereas the City of Augusta is committed to promoting fair housing
practice in its jurisdiction. Now I said that because of the fact that I think we looked at
that we also had a very good presentation in Administrative Services from the Maxwell
House developers there of the renovation. $6 million is going to be put into that building.
And the residents that are currently living there now came down, also. And we want to
ensure that we do not discriminate against anyone. I hear what is being said. It was
proven that this would not be a, would not be like any other area that we’ve had in the
19
community. It would hot cause a negative impact. So we can’t model this after anyone
else’s. This is a company coming in, putting $6 million into this building that has been in
this state for years, year. Some things in it is inoperable and it’s going to improve the
living for the citizens, 80%, and also guaranteed us or stated to us that the current
residents of that building, the Maxwell House, will remain there. So we only talking
about 20% of other tenants that will be coming in. Now we know that in our community
we have discussed many times, we’ve had delegations to come down from elite housing
areas and where they are placing out of the state now housing into communities. It’s no
stop. You can’t stop it. If they want to bring immoral or mentally ill into the area and
they find a house, you cannot discriminate against them for that. So this is basically the
same thing, so I don’t want us to get caught up into making a commitment here today that
we will be charged for discrimination against the Fair Housing Act. And I’m pretty well
convinced that this is going to be a better place, from what I’ve heard and I just, I don’t
see all the other things that I read about, the negative part. The only thing I see is
improvement. So that’s my comments on that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. And I fully agree with the Fair
Housing Act, but there are things that we should as a governing body take into. Good
neighborhoods, that we maintain them as a good neighborhood. This building is a good
neighborhood in and of itself. The problem we run into in all neighborhoods is Section
VIII and other types of subsidized housing where it’s not policed, properly maintained by
the authorities having jurisdiction over those properties. While I am a full advocate of
fair housing for all people, I request simply that a screening occur, that people that have
substance abuse problems or criminal histories, which I think is consistent with the Fair
Housing Act, be prohibited from coming into the Maxwell House community and
causing problems. The trend, and fair housing is part of this, sounds real good on the
surface, but the trend for fair housing as it pertains to subsidized housing is that landlords
see an easy check coming in, they do very little in the way of background checks when
they have vacant properties. Therefore, anyone that qualifies goes in there without very
much of a background check occurring. My main concern is to preserve a quality living
environment for those people in that residence, not discriminating against legitimate
people who have handicaps or mental problems or other things beyond their control, but
when it comes to things such as criminal activities and drug abuse, that is certainly
something I think they have a right, as I would in my neighborhood, to want to
discriminate against. I don’t want those kind of people living next door to me, and
certainly when you live in a hallway with several doors adjoining, you certainly don’t
want them on that same hallway with you, and that is all I’m asking, is that we ask the
developer, the contractor that will be running that facility, to give assurance that those
types of screenings will occur, that we do not have those types of people occupying the
same building where we have working class folks who are paying rent, who will be
eventually be run out by activity that’s inconsistent with good quality living as it exists in
the Maxwell House today.
20
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me do this for just a minute. And I’m going to
recognize, if we have, a spokesperson for any person that might be opposed to this. But I
want to skip to the developers for just a moment to answer part of what you may have on
there, Commissioner Cheek, because I think as it related to the security level, some other
screening things that were there, and I think they can tell you when I went and I’m sure
Chairman Hankerson did the same thing, in terms of being very tough and hard and
wanting to know what was going to happen, one of the things that I was pleased with
when I went, and I commented on this in the committee the other day, I was glad that I
couldn’t get into the building. I saw some faces that I recognized, but they’ve been
trained so properly in there to a point that people would not come to that door. I went
through the pharmacy in order to get in. There is a big sign in the pharmacy that says
there is no thoroughfare. The lady recognized me and did allow me to go over to the
meeting. And they spoke once I got into the hallway. But there is a procedure that’s there
that they deal with as far as some things that are there, and no wanting to be like some of
the activities that we’ve had. So I think to a point that we need to be clear and even from
our own attorney’s standpoint I think there are certain things that we can ask them to do
in the developmental process, be it security or be it screening. But it also should be clear
that we should not put something in there that we are going to have to come back and
[inaudible] from a federal level, either. And I don’t think we ought to get ourselves
mixed into that bag to a point that while on one hand we issue these proclamations. One
week we’re the fair housing city and then the next week we end up getting, you know, a
mandate down from a federal agency that says what we can’t do. The second thing is
that, just like I said about being a historic city, can’t declare it on one hand and then tear
down everything, either. So I think we need to be correct when we move cautious, but
we ought to be correct and we ought to be legal. So I’m going to ask if there is a
representative from the developmental body that can address part of that and then if we
have organized opposition to it, to allow that spokesperson to also give a comment and
then I think we need to try and move ahead with some type of vote. So I’m going to go
ahead and recognize you, Tom. If you would, state your name and address for the record.
Mr. Gallagher: Thank you, sir. I am Tom Gallagher. I’m a principal of the EMG
Group. We’re one of the developers of the Maxwell House property. And I have with
me today Yates Kellett, who is a project manager from Progressive Redevelopment, Inc.,
based in Atlanta, Georgia, which is a non-profit developer with an excellent track record
in Atlanta. And their subsidiary will actually be the manager. I want to speak to Mr.
Cheek’s concerns. First of all, we’re really happy with the amendment of whatever it is
that the Commissioner wants to include as long as we can also say it consists with
applicable law. Cause we have to be good, law-abiding citizens. A couple of things
about screening. First of all, we [inaudible] aggressively screen for criminal behavior.
We will not knowingly rent to a resident who has a criminal background in drugs or any
other kind of criminal record. And to the extent that we know those things, we will
disqualify anyone from being a resident. Second, we’ve offered through our community
contract mechanism an opportunity for a group yet to be identified called the Augusta
21
Community Partner a chance to oversee on a regular basis how we do screen residents,
consistent again with privacy rights of individuals and applicable – both local and federal
– law. Just one point of clarification. Commissioner Cheek did actually speak to the
20% of units set aside for residents who receive supportive house. They do not
necessarily represent people who will be on rent subsidy. They may well be people who
are paying the applicable rent. There may be some Section VIII certificates. Right now
at Maxwell House there are I believe four Section VIII households. The rest of our
households are primarily working people, pay their own way without subsidy. And I
expect that a substantial number of the supportive housing units will also be folks who
are working but who have some need for mental support. So with those clarifications, I
think we are happy to try and bring out criteria and oversight square with what the
Commissioner’s concerns are. Sir?
Mr. Cheek: Consistent with what you’re saying, I want to just, I want to have that
part of the public, the assurances – when we had this in committee, as the Commissioner
said, but that we have those assurances and that provides on the public record a level of
defensibility from our point if things should go awry.
Mr. Gallagher: Absolutely.
Mr. Cheek: And again I will say this about the Section VIII program. I have
Section VIII folks that live in my neighborhood who see that as a way up and they take
full advantage of having a decent home and a decent neighborhood, and then there are
those that don’t, are not policed by the landlords and those are the real problems in our
community. But I’m very pleased with the work that y’all are doing and I just want to
make that assurance on the record for the residents there that you guys are going to do
that. I have no problem with the motion as amended. Or to follow the Commissioner’s
motion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is there opposition from any organized source that wishes
to speak as well? I’m sorry, Commissioner Sims, you can speak while that [inaudible]
fellow, Rick Toole, is trying to make his way to the microphone.
Ms. Sims: Mr. Gallagher, I just wanted to ask you, are you free to disclose your
methods of screening with us here today? I mean I want to know what you mean when
you say you screen.
Mr. Gallagher: We run a criminal background check.
Ms. Sims: On every possible –
Mr. Gallagher: Every applicant who submits and application and pays the
application fee, whatever it is. We submit that to a screening service which screens for
criminal record.
22
Ms. Sims: And how many, how many apartments do you think this will affect in
the Maxwell House? Aren’t you sort of subject to the 20%?
Mr. Gallagher: Actually we have a couple of layers of rent set aside that operate
– some units are rented at 60% of median, some at 50% of median, and then I think about
10% of them are at market. We screen, though, and this is true of our properties,
wherever they live and whatever income, we screen every applicant for criminal
background check, so we would not be just identifying those units, but every person who
comes to us, we as a matter of company policy screen them for any kind of criminal
record. The drug abuse, if it’s not criminal, is a little bit tricky. We do not do and don’t
feel we can by law do any kind of drug testing on applications. For one thing, I think it
would completely dry up our applicant source. But we do take aggressive measures on
the screenings that come out. We have a company that runs the indexes of criminal
judgments and we, along with our credit checks. I felt that’s responsive.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. A couple of my concerns, and I
spoke with Mr. Gallagher the other day about it, was I was concerned about the present
tenants and how they would be treated, not only for the issue, but one, two, three years
ahead once all of this money is put into place, that I’m just concerned about the rate
increase that could apply, even though it may not apply. There is always a doubt there as
to how much these people might be charged, and they’re in there on such a low budget
right now that it concerns me based on what you’re going to do for the future. The
second is that you must realize that we’re tying this property up for 15 years, and based
on the bond that would be issued, then there is not any other control that can be done with
that particular property should anything happen to it until those bonds are satisfied. So
that’s one thing we need to be concerned about. And of course the other is that I
certainly hope and I anticipate local participation from contractors and the people that
would be doing the work on this property, I would like to see that included within your
commitments to this. Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any response, sir?
Mr. Gallagher: Don, I can cover the ground a little bit. I think it’s a great
relevant question. This is not a rental, this is not a rental subsidy project, but the rents by
regulation of the Internal Revenue Service are restricted. And let me, just without boring
you all to death, it’s going to be a long day, quickly go through. We have three layers of
rental restrictions. We have some units that are restricted to rents that are for people who
make no more than 50% of median. Some restricted to persons who make no more than
60%. And then 10% of units we can rent without regard to their incomes, whatever the
market will bear. So the rents are clustered by median income. And we by regulation
may not exceed a rent that’s tied to median income. As median incomes in the Richmond
23
County area rise, in theory our rents could rise as well over time. Every unit that is in
this property, I think with the exception of the 10% that are market, will have one annual
audit done, full compliance both with qualification criteria that we’ve talked about and
also that we’re charging the rents that are provided for by the program. So there is an
outside independent review of our rental practices, and there’s no ability in our firm,
other than the 10% which are truly market, to truly raise the rents to whatever we’d like
them to be. The average rent increase, assuming we’re successful, is about $5 or $6 a
unit right now. And this was, I think in the context you said, well, that’s great for this
year, what about next year? And the reality is that as years go by the rents are reset but
based against on trends and median income.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other questions to [inaudible] while he’s there? Let me
say this. Let me break for just a moment and let us welcome our Mayor to the Chamber
who has arrived. Hardworking young man. And even though he’s a pilot, he had no
control over the fact that somebody else was flying today, so he had to get on the ground
when they put him on the ground. So we’re happy to have him here, and after this item is
finished, I’m going to go ahead on an relinquish the chair as soon as he can catch his
breath a little bit there and turn the business affairs of the city over to him. I would like
to say this, and I’ll comment on one thing after Rick finishes, but I just wanted to make
sure that we were clear on what was on the table in reference to this, Mr. Chairman and
Mr. Cheek, in terms of what we were doing. I always like to make sure that whatever
we’re doing in terms of when we start restrictions that we make sure that whether we’re
in favor of a project or not, that we are on legally sound ground in terms of what we
attach to a particular motion. If the city’s footprint is on it, then that’s why I wanted you
all to get a chance to address him, I wanted to make sure he clear on it, but also I’d like to
ask Mr. Attorney is there anything in there to a point where we are on board, overboard
in that capacity as well? Because I mean we are doing some things in here and I see we
approve a lot of stuff a lot of times and I’m glad that we’re asking folk about helping
local folk when they come in to build. All that sounds good. I’d like to get all those
comments every day when somebody is coming in to [inaudible]. But I just want to
make sure that you are comfortable, if you’ve got a passing motion, Mr. Shepard,
anything in that agreement that cannot be written?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor and Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I had been requested to look at
one issue from a legal standpoint prior to the meeting and that was whether the
Commission or the Mayor are the appropriate legal approval entities for the, for this
agenda item. And we have looked at federal tax law and the approval from the local
elected representative is stated in the law in the form of a choice between the highest
elected official and the highest legislative body in the local government unit. I have had
a submission, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, from the attorneys for the housing authority which
was directed to the Mayor. They have also caused this agenda item to be placed on our
agenda today and it would be my opinion that either of those approvals would suffice for
this project. I had not been heretofore asked about the criminal histories or the substance
abuse of the potential residents. I would think there would be no problem. It could be
24
approved certainly with the additional language about the tax consequences, which I’ve
submitted to the Mayor so that the form is in a form that is usually recognizable in these
transactions. And I would say that you also approve the Cheek amendments which I
think the developer stated well would be subject to the applicable Fair Housing law.
Therefore, your counsel would – if they are not appropriate, I would have the authority to
strike them as the attorney when I review this matter as to form. That would be my
suggestion, passing it through the body one time.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, I’d like to respond to the legal opinion from the attorney,
if I may.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Sure.
Mr. Mayor: Obviously I’ve taken a different position than the attorney. With
respect to the resolution adopted by the Housing Authority, that resolution as I
understand it has not been amended since it was adopted on October 6, 2004. It says in
the last sentence a summary of the oral and written public comments expressed in such
hearing shall be conveyed to the applicable elected representative of the government unit,
who must approve the bonds under the code section, that is in this case the Mayor of
Augusta, Georgia, in order that he may evaluate some comments at such time as he
considers the issuance of the bonds. Further, in a public hearing held on October 29,
2004, in connection with the issuance of these bonds, Mr. Batchelor, the attorney for the
Housing Authority, made the statement and Mr. Mays, that keep verbatim transcripts
over there, too, in summarizing to those attending the hearing what comes next, he said
typically we do a summary, I think because of the interest in this particular project I had a
court reporter come and we’re going to submit a full transcript to the Mayor, can read
everything that was said here, and I trust that he will do that, and then it’s up to him to
either approve or disapprove it. Further, on November 2, 2004, the Housing Authority
transmitted to me a package of all this information for my consideration. The cover letter
signed by the attorney for the Housing Authority, Doug Batchelor, said in here enclosed
is the Mayor’s approval form as required by TEFRA for the above-referenced bonds.
The public hearing on the bonds was held October 29. A copy of the summary with
attachments, including a transcript of the comments made is also enclosed. I would
appreciate it if you would present these to Mr. Young – this was sent through Mr.
Shepard. Upon execution of the approval form, please return the entire package to me.
The approval form is headed approval by the Mayor of Augusta, of the Housing
Authority of the City of Augusta, to get multi-family housing revenue bonds. And after
you get through the preamble it says now therefore, the Mayor of Augusta acts as
follows: the Mayor of Augusta, Georgia hereby approves the bonds. So I would take the
position that the Housing Authority does indeed have two options in seeking approval of
these bonds. They chose to exercise the option to have the signature provided by the
Mayor, the chief elected official of this city. And that was properly submitted to the
25
Mayor. The Mayor considered the comments that were made and presented in this
packet, the comments made at the public hearing, and additional research that the Mayor
did, and the Mayor chose not to sign off on the bonds. So I would suggest that it’s my
position that this issue is not properly before this body because the Housing Authority
resolution, the resolution of the Housing Authority from October 6, specifically set out
that this would be approved by the Mayor and it was submitted subsequent to that
resolution to the Mayor for his consideration. So I would disagree with the attorney.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Oh, it’s good to be referee in this one for a change.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Attorney, you’re recognized at this time. Get to you in
a minute, Rick.
Mr. Shepard: I guess Mr. Young is not in the law firm today.
(Laughter)
Mr. Shepard: Although we have had many discussions about this prior to, and I’ll
be happy to furnish a copy of the resolution from the Housing Authority which said that
the submission is to the “applicable elected representative” and as a matter, most
submission that have been made under TEFRA, they have gone through the Mayor’s
office. And I’ll be happy to file that and let you see the resolution. But like the words –
let me see how they wrote it. Applicable elected representative can mean under the
Internal Revenue code, the elected legislative body of this government or the chief
elected official. And it’s written in there as I have previously told the Mayor, the
disjunctive word “or” and so therefore since it has come on the agenda, this has really
come in a two-track fashion. Had the Mayor signed it, we would not be here, but the
Mayor chose not to, and using his discretion in determining that this particular project as
composed is in his idea not, in his discretion not appropriate, but I submit to you that
based on advice from tax counsel which is tax counsel to the Housing Authority that
there is valid approval sought through this body as a whole. So either the elected
legislature or the chief elected official can sign off on this and I’d be happy to distribute
the copies of the federal tax code that have been furnished to my office. And here again
the resolution does say applicable elected representatives. So in my opinion either the
Mayor could have signed off alone or a resolution passed through this body would be
sufficient to approve the project from a local standpoint. So I would say it is properly
before this body. I’ll be happy to file any of this with any of you, or make copies right
now.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Before moving to Mr. Toole, are there questions from any
of the Commissioners or the Mayor to the attorney?
26
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: I’m going to talk over this bad throat, but Mr. Gallagher, I talked to
you several, several times on the phone and I also attended the meeting that the Mayor
spoke about, and it was my understanding, and you and I talked about this for a long
time, that it was only the Mayor, the chief executive officer of the city, could sign those.
Mr. Gallagher: I recall you and I had a conversation about that, but Mr. Rose, I
asked our bond counsel the same question, I’m not an attorney, but we were advised, and
I think the city attorney has been subsequently advised that this body may act if it wishes
to ratify these bonds. At the time you and I spoke, it wasn’t an issue for me and it didn’t
until later when the Mayor in his judgment chose not to approve it did we get into
looking at this issue at all.
Mr. Boyles: Well, that was what concerned me and we heard that at the hearing
when I was there, too.
Mr. Gallagher: Certainly the track that we were on, the presumption was that it
would go to the Mayor and my understanding of the record, and the Mayor’s here and
can speak to it, I think this is the first bond issue of its type that has never been approved
at the mayoral level, so we’re a little bit of new territory here, [inaudible] this body I
think because of a groundswell of interest among citizens and some Commissioners to
have this addressed from full [inaudible].
Mr. Boyles: As I might add on to that, then, just another item on the agenda
concerns – a little bit later – some power to be delegated to the Mayor, and it looks like at
this point we’re taking power away from him. Which way do we want it? But then I’ve
got one other question and I’m through, Mr. Mays, I’m probably talked out. But what
would happen if this does not pass, either the Mayor does sign it or the Commission
doesn’t sign it, what happens if it fails? The people are not going to be evicted, are they?
Mr. Gallagher: there will be no eviction. No. We looked very hard at this
property and as I think you’ve heard or seen the documents we pulled together and shared
with the Mayor and Commission, we looked at a number of options for Maxwell House,
including all elderly, all student housing, all luxury housing, and concluded among other
things, in a couple of cases there was really no market. Certainly not for student housing.
We beat the bushes pretty hard cause that was something people thought might be
attractive to bring more student housing and your local institutions really have no interest
certainly in that number of units. Maxwell House is 216 units. The only scheme that we
could come up with that would produce a substantial level of rehab, the level of rehab –
all the systems in the building are obsolete. I know several Commissioners have been in.
I’m not sure you’ve been in the property yourself.
27
Mr. Boyles: Yes, several times.
Mr. Gallagher: It is completely obsolete and we’re looking at a hard cost budget
of $6 million to bring this property into compliance with the modern codes and renew all
the systems we have to at least a 15 or 20 year life. There is no way to do that without
the layered financing that we have proposed. If this plan or some plan very close to it
does not go through, we’ll turn the property back to the existing owners. The property is
now in a default of bond situation. I would expect it will sort of drift downward over a
number of years. I would expect unless someone can step in. The systems are at a point
now where you can’t really do ad hoc repairs to the boiler plant or the electrical plant. So
at some point, units will start to go out of service because the units cannot be put back
into service. So I would anticipate a gradual, but not immediate decline, increasing
vacancy and sort of a chronic level of disrepair until the property drifts to some level
where economics might make it possible to do something else with it.
Mr. Boyles: One final comment or question, then. So if this again does not go
through, nobody is out in the street?
Mr. Gallagher: No.
Mr. Boyles: The current owner still owns the building?
Mr. Gallagher: Yes, sir. Yes.
Mr. Boyles: So you’re basically saying let’s let you have it and then we can
remodel it?
Mr. Gallagher: Correct. We have a contract now in force to acquire the property.
We have not acquired the property. And we wouldn’t take it on because of the standards
of our firm. We do manage it now for the existing owner, but we took it on only because
we anticipated being able to do a full renovation. We would not own the property unless
we could really bring the systems all back up to a modern standard.
Mr. Boyles: So you are now the manager of the property?
Mr. Gallagher: Yes, that’s right. Since April of 2004.
Mr. Boyles: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, Mr. Gallagher.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Appreciate it, Mr. Boyles. Mr. Gallagher, before I
recognize Commissioner Williams, for the record would you give us the current
residential count of Maxwell House?
28
Mr. Gallagher: There are 216 units, of which 83% are occupied. We have
roughly 200 citizens in the building. Eighty percent of our residents are employed. The
average income is about $17,000 a year. Eighty percent of our residents earn less than
$25,000 a year. They are essentially the working folks of downtown Augusta. They mop
your floors, they pour your beer at the local tap room. They may deliver the mail. They
are not on rent subsidy. They are not bopping you on the head on the street. They’re
essentially the working folks. Another 20% of our residents are retired and a number of
them are here today at this hearing.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And some that have preceding this representative into
office, I believe we’ve got some that have been there between 35 and 41 years.
Mr. Gallagher: Ms. Beard was a resident for a time when her husband was a
Commissioner and lived in our building. We were happy to have had her as a resident.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me, let me recognize Commissioner Williams, then Mr.
Toole. He’s a young fellow but his legs are going to get pretty tired there for a second.
I’m going to get to you, Rick.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. And I’m hearing, I’m listening
and we talked about this in committee. And I’m wondering what’s the problem and why
we are not wrapping our arms around this situation and trying to better and help it. We
talking about a dilapidated building where we’ve got taxpayers and they not all
[inaudible] but they’re working taxpayers that’s living there, where the fire department is
at its worst moment, every moment thinking something is going to happen where the
ladder would only reach maybe five, maybe six stories, and that’s all. The alarm system
in the place don’t work any more. The elevators is about shot. The property is defacing
and it’s falling down around the tenants that are there and they are in support. And I’m
sitting here and I heard the Mayor and I heard the Attorney and he makes some big bucks
and I’m glad that he makes the big bucks, he make the big decisions. I don’t always
agree, but I agree with what I heard today, that that’s the Mayor or this governing body. I
heard my fellow Commissioner talk about powers and stuff, too, that’s one reason I got a
hang-up with the power, Tommy, because if you let one person decide – it’s ten of us up
here now, but you have one person decide you’re going to have some stuff running loose
here and we’re not going to be able to deal with it. But I hadn’t heard anybody say
anything yet as to why they don’t want this stuff. And I see Mr. Toole here from his
group that may have some insight. But when you got a situation that is such as the one
that we’ve got, such as your mother, your father may be living there, your sister or your
brother or maybe even yourself, Ms. Beard, who lived there at one time, why would we
not want to support what is there? Because it’s not the rich and the famous? Because it
ain’t, you know, a certain group of people? What is it? Now somebody need to say
something and quit playing games up here with us and just put it out on the table exactly
what it is that that we are fighting to stop the progress. We talking about progress, we
talking about a $6 million venture. This ain’t no chump change. I don’t understand.
29
Nobody has said yet, even the Mayor, and he has that right, even to agree or disagree, and
that’s fine. But look like somebody would have said to us it’s not a good investment, it’s
not a good thing to do, the people are not going live there. We’ve got residents here now
that’s living in those apartments, who more than welcome this, who making phone calls,
who been to our committee meetings, who come down to want to continue to live there as
long as life lasts in their bodies. But we sit here trying to make decision on who we think
ought to be there and who we think ought to spend the monies. I want to hear something,
Mr. Mayor, from either you, from Mr. Toole, or any other group out there for a reason
why we should not do this. Cause everything I heard is an upgrade, it’s to change it to
make it better. One person lose their life because of the fire system or the fire capabilities
of our fire department to do that, and all the money we stand around here talking about.
Now if somebody’s got an answer, Mr. Mayor, I’d like to hear it from whoever got it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m going to break from discussion from the Commission
side of it. Rick has been standing there for a pretty good while. I’m going to go ahead on
and let him address under the rules of the Commission, and then I think we can come
back if we’ve got question, either for Mr. Gallagher or Mr. Toole, and then we need to go
ahead and make a decision.
Mr. Gallagher: Am I excused, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You’re excused, but don’t leave the room.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Unless it’s for a particular personal emergency, and I don’t
want to know that. Too much information. Rick, it’s your turn.
Mr. Toole: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, Mr. Mayor, ladies and gentlemen of the
Commission, thank you for allowing me to come up here today. My name is Rick Toole.
I’m chairman for one more week of the Main Street Augusta, and this is not the way I
would like to have spent my last hurrah. I’d like to start out by saying that Mr. Gallagher
and his associates at [inaudible] are outstanding. Two groups of professionals in the
management and housing industry. We’ve conducted our research on them, what they
have accomplished in Atlanta and other areas and they are outstanding. I believe that if
any group could make this project work that would be to the benefit of all parties, that
would be the group that I would select, and if I had my own projects of such, PRI
obviously would be my first choice in pursuing that project for management. I think they
come from a fine, Christian background. They emanated out of the Habitat for Humanity
organization and I’m much impressed, not only with their management group, but with
their CEO. Mr. Gallagher jumped through hoops for Main Street Augusta to answer
questions over a very short period of time. We found out about this project at the very
waning moments of decision making time and we had to come together and try to make
what I would call some educated decisions as best we could based on the information we
30
had. They did jump through those hoops for us and they provided us with incredible
information. They agreed to enter into a contract with the community to try to make this
a better location and a better place. In our deliberations – and then you ask why I would
be opposed to it based on those comments and I’ll be real honest with you – I will say it’s
the right project and it’s probably the right time. It’s the wrong location. Main Street
represents the business and the residents in the downtown area, and that’s from all the
way over to Laney Walker back to the river, and from down in Olde Town up to
Enterprise Mill. And the comments we’ve received over the past few months have been
just quite enormous from people. Some scared about the change and what may
potentially happen. Others, based on their own particular experiences with that type of
housing project, and other who have monetary interest in adjoining and close-by
buildings who are worried about what their monetary interests are going to do, and they
have more interest to actually spend on these other buildings. In doing so, in looking at
all the activities, there are certain things that we were able to uncover during this time
frame, and most of this was provided by Mr. Gallagher. He was very gracious in
providing us open information throughout this time period. One is that the Maxwell was
part of a trio of properties that were auctioned off. There were several local interested
investors in the Maxwell House but not in the other properties. Consequently, they were
not interested in some of the other further out in Richmond County, apartment complexes
and so forth, so they withdrew from that. One is a South Carolina resident in our nearby
neighbor of Aiken who had a particular interest, but it was no low-income housing and it
was not market-rate housing. It was for other purposes, both professional, commercial
and residential mix. His interest still proceeds today. What Main Street looked at is
you’ve got a 15-year contract. That’s 15 years, because the contract is with the address
of the property. It’s not with the individuals. They can sell it in two years, they can sell
it in one year to another individual. The Richmond Summit changed hands three times in
a five year period. So I have nothing to say other than I would love for Mr. Gallagher’s
group and PRI to manage properties, but in reality I have a 15-year lease that cannot be
changed. Have a 15-year commitment that cannot be changed. And we are finding that
out with the Richmond Summit as we continue on a daily basis to battle the problems
that we have on Broad Street in downtown with the Richmond Summit. Now I don’t
think those problems would occur as long as PRI and Mr. Gallagher’s group were in
charge of that. But I do know that there are other individuals who are interested in this
property and Main Street’s position is if there is another use, highest and best use for that
property, and I know Mr. Gallagher’s numbers said that they could make it work at
market rate, and that may be very true. But are there other uses? Our attention was they
spent a vast amount of money to get to this point, and we’re not trying to penalize them.
We just felt like that there were other uses that may be viable uses for that property.
We’d certainly like to have that, the opportunity to explore that and allow the [inaudible]
because if they don’t get the bond, it reverts to the owner, which SunTrust bank is the
paper holder for the bond, it will go back on auction as a single piece of property more
than likely, or we could lobby for that. And if it is, those other individuals who are local
who would like to see something else happen besides this type of housing project, then I
think we owe that to our community to allow that to happen. The people in downtown do
31
have some concerns and these residents will not be evicted. I think we’ve heard that.
But if there are other uses and changing it and committing us 15 years for this when
th
we’re looking at a very central hub of our downtown redevelopment area, from 8 Street
th
up to 10 Street is growing incredibly, and that’s in that in that corridor. I certainly
would want to support the wishes of the downtown merchants and those people who own
properties in Greene Street and say if we have other options, could we at least explore
them before we tie it up for 15 years?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Toole, let me say this, because I don’t think – you’re
one of the people that I regard in this community as being one of those folks like myself
that very much love this city and have for a long time. I was faced with a particular
dilemma in questioning Mr. Gallagher and his people in reference to some things that
were going to be there. Some things that you said, some of them that you brought up.
But I’m going to say something that I said in committee, because I don’t believe in
saying anything behind any individual’s back or group’s back that I won’t say to them to
their face. I said this and I hope it’s not taken harshly by anybody. But one of the factors
that I kept hearing or not hearing was the fact that it seemed as though there was never a
face or a life put with this project in terms of existing people. Maybe the numbers flew
over everyone’s head, maybe only a few of us caught it. That’s why I asked Tom to ask
how many people were there. Some that have been there 41 years. Maybe they don’t
own one square foot of the Maxwell House. But to them, for 41 years, 30 years, 20
years, whatever it has been, it’s home. Now the problem I have, and I said this, I’m like
Ross Perot, I’m all ears. I have a little bit of a problem that when people come to town
with projects and they want to do things that everybody who has been sitting always has a
better idea, it’s a bad one that’s coming, give us an opportunity, if you wait a little bit
more time. Well, then, what do I tell that elderly lady whose home in a Georgia southern
city near the heat and swelter of a river that the central heat and air that’s in her living
room, that to a point in the wintertime there is no heat, that she may boil that pot in the
middle of that bedroom floor in order to deal with heat, and that help is coming? Now if
it’s Augusta Tomorrow, Augusta Yesterday, Augusta I-Hadn’t-Heard-Of, if some group
is out there in the wings with some money and an idea that wants to do something, then
guess what, I’m your main man.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m there with you. But I haven’t seen those great
benefactors. The only thing I’ve heard is in some cases like I’ve heard about them, idea.
And I have been supportive of everything that has happened downtown. I make the
statement in committee the other day, I sat right there in one of those chairs. You were
sitting next to me, Margaret, when we put together the first half million dollars to even do
anything on the riverfront, prior to Augusta Tomorrow even being born. We took the
money out of minority economic development that Pop Newman left and established the
first money to hire American City Corp. and I wish we’d kept them a lot longer than we
did, cause they had the resources to do some things fairly in this town. That’s another
32
subject for another day. But to a point if somebody’s got a great project, they got a great
idea, then bring it. I still remain committed to being opposed to what happens on the
lower end, with Haughton School, those other facilities. Those are empty buildings. I
think we should try and get the highest and best use. If we can load all the yuppies and
buffies in those buildings we can and get as much rent out of them, guess what? I’m your
man with that, too. But my problem is to a point somebody still has to represent the
human element that’s there. Now I heard no, they won’t get evicted. But I mean should
that be our major concern as to whether or not they just simply stay or they go? Or do
they merely just exist? Do they sit and become the [inaudible] theory of benign neglect,
that it falls down around them and then when it gets to be condemnable that they become
the new project residents that we move them over into Housing Authority, those who
didn’t die in the process? And maybe that’s wishful thinking, too, on some parts. But to
a point they are there, they still have to be represented, they still have to be treated as
decent human beings. Now if y’all got something y’all are bringing, then I think this
hasn’t just started and the Maxwell House hadn’t just got there. [inaudible]. I’m real
concerned about it from the standpoint that I got 12 months and 10 days to stay here and I
try to represent all folks fairly. I don’t care where they live. The ones that vote for me
and the ones that don’t. And even the ones that I represent that don’t vote for me, I still
represent them, too. But the point being some of these started out as being residents that
were represented by the young lady whose job that I succeeded in taking on this
Commission in 1979. Some of those people preceded her and were already in place to be
here. If there is a plan to deal with those people and to put something in place decent
[inaudible] Section VIII, people who pay out their resources, they’re not on a subsidy,
most of them, to anybody. And they work, they go there. Everybody is not going to
drive that Beamer and that wide-bodied Benz up to that high rise and deal with it. Some
folks are going to catch ATA and some are going to walk. And the luxury ones may
catch a cab. Now if y’all are standing there and you’ve got plans, you’ve got an
alternative to what Tom Gallagher’s got, you got some money in your pockets,
checkbook, satchel, wherever, you got it, I’m willing to listen. But if it’s another war
story to a point that a plan is forthcoming, it may occur three to five years down the road,
then I don’t need for it to be like the prettiest golf garden up there that I’ve supported,
too, that’s never got a museum on it and it’s still growing pretty flowers in there, but yet
we supported that, too. I’m about ready to say that when projects come in, that you deal
with it, that we are not going to always be able to pick and choose citizens. Screening,
security, absolutes of making sure that they do what they say contractually that’s in there.
And then you mentioned the fact that Gallagher and those may go. Well, then, that gives
then some time that if the creative geniuses want to come forth and say we’ll put $10
million in it, we’re going to upgrade it, and then guess what, we’ve got somewhere for all
of these folks to live and we’re going to put them there, where they can enjoy being there
in the sunset of their lives and to have them somewhere to go. But until I hear that, the
only thing that I can deal with is what’s on the table. That’s all I’ve heard and I think I’d
do them a disservice as their representative for this many years to sit here and try and
down that while the building falls down in decay. You mentioned about the merchants.
I’m sure anybody who rides out from down here after the close of business would not like
33
to ride over there and live in some of those conditions to a point that are there. Some of
them for that four hundred and some dollars a month, they can’t go anywhere else. They
won’t be able to go to south Augusta and buy a home. They better not even think about
heading west. So I mean if you’ve got something, I think that’s what we ought to be
talking about and be creative about affecting folks’ lives, as opposed to a point of the
fears that we have. Cities are going to be made up of young, old, the elderly, the retired,
those who have problems, those who profess to be perfect, and in between we’ve got to
try and work it out and manage it. And I understand those concerns of people who are
there and who are nearby. If it was empty, I’d be the first one here today to say Rick,
hey, put the brakes on, Mr. Gallagher needs to ride back out of town, I can’t help you.
But when it’s 80% full and I’ve heard those war stories in that building, then I’m waiting
on an idea. I don’t need an excuse. And I don’t care whether it comes from whoever.
And so we’re going – I’m friends with both of you guys, I was friends before you got up
to that mike, I’ll be friends with you tomorrow when I see you, but I’m going to have to
represent those residents that are there in the best way that I know how. And I’m still
going to have to represent that 20% that come in. I’m going to have to deal with them,
too, because they’re God’s children as well. And they either will live as homeless people
or they’ll live somewhere where we put them, in productivity. And I think that’s what
our concern should be about. How do we better those lives and [inaudible]? I think to a
point and I’m not going to say what y’all’s mission ought to be downtown, but like I say
the building didn’t just get there, the folk didn’t just get there. And if somebody’s got
some great ideas, way before Gallagher rode into town, I’m sure we knew about it way
before he read about it. And if we want to do it, then we need to exercise on that mission
to do it. So I’m, I applaud you for being concerned. We need groups that are concerned,
who do the monitoring and who care. But at the same time, I’ve also got residents, many
of them in this room, that live there and a lot of them who are working. They’re not
somewhere panhandling or trying to beat somebody out of something. They are on a
meager job, trying to make ends meet. And when you start telling them that their rent
won’t be going up and guarantee it – and I appreciate Don’s concern about it, because
we’ve both had that concern about where were those rents going to go? $5 to $10 more
to [inaudible]. I mean I can’t sit here and deny them that right unless you’ve got a better
plan for me. And that’s where I’m coming from with it. If the plan is there, I’ll support
it. But if not, I’ve got to go with what’s out there. Andy?
(A round of applause is given)
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Just a comment and a point of
parliamentary procedure. One, Lord knows we’ve got so many plans for empty buildings
downtown that people have come in that before we start addressing buildings that have
residents in there I would hope we would address all of those buildings that we have
plans on the shelves for all of these years that they’ve never followed through on.
Secondly, a point of parliamentary procedure. An issue or mention was made of the
upcoming discussion on the veto power for the Mayor. The parliamentary procedure
point that I want to make is this is an issue that I’m sure enjoys six votes [inaudible]
34
which would have been a passed issue should it have come before this body. It would
have been passed to the Mayor’s office, which at this point the Mayor does not agree
with this and would have potentially been vetoed. What is about to happen is an override
of that veto. Therefore, any fear of the veto power being insurmountable or something
we should be terrified is not justified because this is a case in point of how it works.
Also, to say something else about the way these things work. 75% or 70%, seven votes
on this Commission would make a veto-proof resolution, which means it would enjoy the
power to sustain any veto and made into law. So I just wanted to make that as a point of
parliamentary procedure to allay any fears that giving the Mayor veto power, and
certainly if the override power is not there then perhaps the Mayor needs to veto the issue
and it sit on his desk. So I just wanted to make that point. I do support this for the
residents that are there, because there are so many darn empty buildings in the city with
great plans and no action being taken for so long.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. As a matter of form of the
resolution, I mean as to the motion, I would ask that it either be restated so that it
includes the language recommended by the tax counsel which I’ll file with the Clerk
today, and that it also include the Cheek amendment unless in conflict with
applicable law, which I will strike so it will not have to come back if it is in conflict
with applicable law. And thirdly, that the motion include the authority for either
the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem to sign the resolution so that there will be no question
about its validity.
I can opine further about even the absence of a signature from the
Mayor, but I’m not going to go there, we don’t need to go there.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is that acceptable to the maker of the motion?
Mr. Hankerson: The legal authority is accepted from the attorney.
Mr. Shepard: As to form?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, as to form.
You mentioned, I thought Commissioner
Cheek was pleased with the answer that he had received. I was taking that he would
I accept what
rescind his request for amendments. You added that in, Mr. Attorney.
you talked, what you mentioned about what is legal. I accept that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think his summation takes in what Andy had requested.
The only thing that it did was it went a little further that that would not be applicable
under law, that he may find that it would be of a discriminatory nature, then he would
have the right to so strike. Am I correct on that?
Mr. Cheek: That’s fine, correct.
35
Mr. Williams: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Speaker: May a tenant from the Maxwell House ask a question?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If you will hold, we’re in the middle of a discussion, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: Am I hearing him say if you find that it’s discriminatory?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir. I don’t anticipate that I’ll find it that way, but I had only
been asked to review this body’s role as an approval authority before the meeting. This
new issue came up and you indicated you didn’t want it back here, so you could approve
it with the first stipulation, which is we approve it in the form submitted by tax counsel of
the Housing Authority or by tax counsel, and that the, any problem of its conflict with
applicable law be dealt with, that the two Cheek amendments would be simply stricken if
in conflict. The third thing is I didn’t, I didn’t want this to get hung up by receiving a
signature, so therefore this Commission can designate the Mayor Pro Tem specifically to
sign it. And I have further opinions about that, but like I say that’s unnecessary in this
situation.
Mr. Hankerson: I will accept what – you’re mixing it in and your request for
amendment with what Mr. Cheek’s is. I accept the legal counsel amendment but
I’m not accepting the Cheek amendment. So that’s just clear in what I’m saying, I
don’t think we should put that stipulation on there cause it’s not the intention
anyway to do that, but I’m not going to even risk that that be discriminatory.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Andy, and then I’m going to recognize Ms. Bonner.
Mr. Cheek: I’m not going to risk being discriminatory, when it’s going to be
scrubbed by the attorney. Bobby, is it because it’s my amendment?
Mr. Hankerson: No.
Mr. Cheek: I mean it’s going to be scrubbed by the attorney and deleted if it is
found to be outside the law. All I’m trying to do is protect and make sure that this body
has given guidance in documented form that there will be a screening process and this,
I’m sure, if the lease is transferred, this is a stipulation of the lease, will be binding to the
next person who runs the facility, I would hope. Now that may not be the case, but in any
event I don’t want anything illegal, but I do want something on the record to protect these
tenants, to make sure that there is a screening process to protect them. And that’s all I’m
asking for.
Mr. Hankerson: No, Mr. Cheek, this is nothing personal about this item. I was
under the impression that you said – I accept the screening, that’s fine. He said he was
going to screen them. I don’t have a problem with that. But I thought first you said the
36
amendment that he, that you were picking and choosing who you put in, you said that
anybody that was substance abuse or whatever and would not be allowed.
Mr. Cheek: In layman’s terms, Commissioner, that’s called screening.
Mr. Hankerson: Well, regardless of his layman’s term or whatever, I’m not – I
just want to make it clear. The screening, that’s fine. I mean we can live with the
screening. That’s fine. I can live with the screening.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I want the $6 million. Rick, did you all need to make any –
Mr. Toole: No, sir, I was going to ask you if we were dismissed.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And you might even be able to leave the room. I might
need you later on. But thank you for coming, thank you for your concerns. See me soon
cause we got a bunch of stuff we need to talk about. We pretty much have had adequate
discussion on it and I was not being impolite just a minute ago. We were trying to get a
formal procedure through. I wouldn’t dare – she may not want to own up to it cause the
ladies always end up in our class looking younger than we do, but since I’m – I won’t put
what year on it, then. Ms. Brenda Beard, you wanted to make a comment in reference to
that, and then I’m going to go on and carry the vote up or down, as to where it is. State
your name and address for the record.
Ms. Brenda Beard: My name is Brenda Beard. I’ve been a tenant at the Maxwell
House for three years now. To the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Commission, thank you
for allowing me to address you. I would just like to ask a question. We were given a
letter when we paid our rent this last month, and in that letter it stated that after
rehabilitation your initial rent, including the estimated average monthly utility costs, will
not exceed the greater of (A) your current rent, average utility costs or (B) 30% of your
average monthly gross household income. And this is signed by Maxwell House
management. My question is, would this statement remain the same if, for instance, this
project would go to another management company. Would our rent increase? We’re
getting the guarantee our rent would not go up, is my question, due to this rehabilitation
and everything.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I guess that was one of the reasons I dismissed Tom but I
told him he couldn’t leave the room. I’d like for him to be on record with where they are
with that, because I’m not even familiar with what you may be reading. And I’ll say this,
for your consumption and the general public’s, with all the contracts that exist out here,
with private companies, obviously we will not be in the business of managing the day-to-
day activities and what procedures may change in a monthly basis with it, but I think it
leads to probably a greater question in terms of one you and I had, Don, in reference to
the money, so I’m going to let you – you’re more familiar with the document that she
has.
37
Mr. Gallagher: The restrictions on rents are within the federal tax code and have
nothing to do with who the manager is. As long as the manager is complying with the
code, and there’s an annual audit that’s done by the regulatory folks [inaudible] the
qualifications of the residents, screening, but also the fact that we’re charging the proper
rents. So it really is not a function of the management company at all. It’s a function of
the nature of the financing, what the duties are.
Ms. Beard: My concern was that, and as it is, for instance, you are not the
manager any more, then the statement still applies?
Mr. Gallagher: Yes, it does.
Ms. Beard: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m going to do it cause it’s a good day.
Mr. Speaker: David [inaudible], speaking with the tenants here, I’d like to ask
Mr. Gallagher a question. If you go and spend this money and all the tenants seem to
think they want this, the 15 year lease Rick was talking about, you can turn around and
[inaudible] lease to some other company who can raise the rent?
Mr. Gallagher: No, cannot.
Mr. Speaker: Why not?
Mr. Gallagher: The financing that we’re – well, first of all, let me step back a
little bit. We have never –
Mr. Speaker: I’m not saying what you’ve done. You signed that lease.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me, let me do something here a second. If you all are
going to have a debate about the procedures of how the management is going to be run –
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If you’re going to represent them, Mr. [inaudible], deal with
that representation of doing that. I asked earlier who had opposition to deal with it. We
[inaudible] the proposal of supporting that. What I would like for you all to do is to wrap
this one up in about 30 seconds on your side and 30 on yours and we’re going to carry a
vote, and whatever discussion you are going to have, have it, and you can use my office
for doing it, and take anybody you need to, but you’re going to clear this one up in here.
And either one of you can go first but you’ve got 30 seconds to clear it up.
38
Mr. Gallagher: The restrictions on rents are a function of the federal tax code in
which the bonds are issued. There is no lease on this property. We’re the owners of the
property. The financing that is being put in place, if the Commission sees fit, carries
those restrictions with it as a matter of IRS regulations. It’s not discretionary. And the
property cannot be sold without those restrictions passing, because that’s the financing
that’s on the property.
Mr. Speaker: Okay. So in other words you’re saying if you sublease or sign –
Mr. Gallagher: There is no lease.
Mr. Speaker: Let’s say you sub-lease your property –
Mr. Gallagher: We cannot sub-lease.
Mr. Speaker: You’re saying you can’t sell the property?
Mr. Gallagher: The owner that’s there now must be the owner for 15 years.
Mr. Speaker: The rent will remain the same except for –
Mr. Gallagher: The rent is governed by the guidelines of the code.
Mr. Speaker: These tenants want to make sure you’re not going to kick them out
and go up on the rent. You’re not going to do that?
Mr. Gallagher: Absolutely not. That’s been – we’ve laid that out in great detail.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’ve been overly generous. We’ve had a public hearing on
this, properly advertised, all the great advocates that could have been there that wanted to
wrap their arms around tenants, to do it. I’m going to recognize the chairman of that
committee and the Mayor of this city, and we’re going to take a vote.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will accept the attorney and
Mr. Cheek’s amendments.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. I just wanted to say in response to Mr.
Williams’ question that my record of decision on this was transmitted to Dr. Murchison,
the chairman of the Housing Authority, on November 12. My reasons for not signing off
on this, a copy of that letter was distributed to the Commissioners. You received a copy
of it and I hope you read it. There have been a lot of issues addressed and concerns with
respect to the health, life and safety matters involving the building, and subsequent to this
39
discussion we’ve had the fire inspector and the building inspector go through the building
and copies of their reports have also been provided to the Commissioners. One thing I’d
like to say in closing, Mr. Mays, and this is really in the form of a question. On October
28, the group that proposes to own this property offered to deliver within six months of
closing $25,000 cash to Main Street Augusta. Now I would like to know whether any
cash payments have been promised to any groups in exchange for support or cooperation
on this project, and I think those need to be included in the record today. If there are any
payments that have been promised to any groups.
Mr. Gallagher: Is that directed to me?
Mr. Mayor: If you’ve got the checkbook, it is.
Mr. Gallagher: I tell you exactly what has occurred. I talked to Ms. Beard a
couple of weeks ago, indicated that we have interest in putting $25,000 into downtown
Augusta in some form, and I said I was aware that Ms. Beard is an advocate of the Boys
& Girls Club of Augusta and said that if she wished the money to go there, it could go
there, and it could go there if she chooses. That’s where we stand today.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ve have pretty much discussion on that one. We’ve got
a motion and a second that’s on the floor that’s been amended. All in favor of that
motion will do so by the usual sign, and any opposed will do the same.
Mr. Boyles, Ms. Sims and Mr. Grantham vote No.
Motion carries 7-3.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: With that, Mr. Mayor, I’m even happier to see you now.
I’m fixing to give you your gavel and your job right back. What we did do, Mr. Mayor,
well, what we did, we had moved the delegation.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, let’s take the delegation of Mr. Charlie Hannah.
Take him for his presentation, and then we’ll take up item number 65, which is related to
that presentation.
DELEGATION:
Moderate Policy Action Council
Mr. Charlie Hannah
RE: Ramifications of At-Large Voting in Richmond County
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hannah, if you’ll come to the podium and give us your name and
address for the record, and you have five minutes under the Commission rules. The
administrator will keep the time. Thank you.
40
Mr. Hannah: Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem,
Commissioners. I’m Charlie Hannah, representing the MPAC, Moderate Policy Action
Council of Augusta. [inaudible] statement of our opposition representing at-large vote
and the Mayor’s possible veto powers. Augusta can never become a progressive city
without the inclusion of the inner city and south Augusta residents. [inaudible] without
the participation of all residents will only be mistrust. Failure to respect the needs and
desires from the poor communities demean any statements that may include the words
“all Augustans.” Indirectly ridiculing Commissioners who speak on behalf of their
constituency further questions the legitimacy of any progress [inaudible]. Initiatives
purportedly for “all Augustans” have no credibility to any city residents without sincere
and honest attempts to include and understand differences. When Commissioners discuss
new ideas for public funding, they have an obligation to weigh the benefits for the city as
a whole in individual districts. But just because [inaudible] disproportionate spending of
taxpayers’ money [inaudible] holding up Augusta’s progress [inaudible] elect our
Commissioners. Such words and actions are [inaudible] and willful persuasion tactic to
dilute, minimize or cancel out the voting strength [inaudible] city residents. Members of
MPAC are opposed to any attempt to restructure the way Commissioners are elected,
specifically at the at-large voting, for the following reasons: (A) It has the potential to
reduce [inaudible] representation of inner city residents; (b) at-large elections are winner
take all systems, giving the victors direct or indirect control of most, if not all,
Commission districts; (C) at-large representation seldom reflects the concerns of core
residents; (D) we have a version of at-large representation with Commission districts 9
and 10; and (E) a veto empowers the mayor to strike down initiatives for the betterment
of the inner city and their residents. It is obvious that Augusta is struggling in regards to
economic progression, but that is no justification to attempt to change our system of
electing Commissioners. There are many factors contributing to Augusta’s financial
challenges, with most occurring after September 11, 2001. That year alone contributed to
all sections of government and private industry to make changes that challenged all
Americans economically. Augusta [inaudible] financial downturn and the future
ramifications we face from federal and state cutbacks. Now we can thank our interim
administrator, Mr. Russell, for attempting to address the issues honestly. However,
progress and change by invoking economic fear and blame on some Commissioners for
problems that plague almost every city in our state and that [inaudible] national level is
close to deceit. At-large voting and veto authority would be a system advantageous to
communities and persons financially empowered. Attempting to control any city, inner
city representation with at-large voting or directly notifying an initiative relevant to the
inner city and parts of south Augusta through a veto are not the right course to pursue.
Honesty, vision, leadership, communication are the right courses. We are in hope that the
Mayor’s veto measure will be struck down today and discussion of at-large voting goes
unrecognized in the near future. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Hannah. The Chair will now recognize Mr. Cheek
for discussion of item number 65.
41
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, 65 needs to be – I’d like to see it broken down, but I
specifically want to address the comments on the veto issue as being completely incorrect
as the result of what just occurred the last vote. In fact, what we saw occur was a
majority of the Commission who had the interest of citizens in need over what would
have essentially been an override of a veto, and therefore the fear mongering that occurs
over some process improvements within our government is inaccurate and I have to agree
with the contention of at-large voting in that that would put those with the most money in
the position to acquire seats and then certain areas would go unrepresented, which has
been the case in the past. Mr. Mayor, I don’t know what order to proceed with. I would
like to take each of these individually. It is my hope that we will proceed with A, B, and
C with an up/down vote or a vote to send these to the work committee between us and the
Legislative Delegation. I would like to defer item 65 proper until after we emerge from
legal, if that –
Mr. Mayor: That would be fine, Mr. Cheek, so we’ll go with 65A. let’s get the
Clerk if we could to read the caption and then we’ll discuss it.
The Clerk:
65A. Discuss change from the 6 vote rule. (Requested by Commissioner Andy
Cheek)
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I have been a representative
who has equally represented all people of this city. I think my record stands pretty clear
in that. I have stood with both majority and minority Commissioners, have taken a lot of
heat for things throughout the years, but they were right issues. We have all missed for
one reason or another, missed meetings. We’ve had less than the ten members here.
What I’m asking for today is a vote to change to majority vote of those present, which is
consistent with what is done in other governments, while still maintaining the seven
member quorum requirement. This does not take away from the fact that we have a
problem with holding meetings during the day when working Commissioners have
trouble getting off. This is a practice that needs to be monitored. We also have a need
for us to respect each other’s wishes on issues that affect us in our districts or issues that
we are very passionate about, not to bring them to the table and basically do hit-and-run
legislation trying to end around people. But this will enable us to act with those present
on issues and address them in a timely manner. It is a process improvement that I have
heard not from just black people, rich people, but poor white people, black people, poor
black people, people in east Augusta, west Augusta, south Augusta. There’s concerns
about improving the process of government in the city so I’d at least ask that we – I’m
going to make a motion that we under home rule adopt, change the six vote rule to a
majority of those present with the requirement of a seven vote quorum.
42
Mr. Mayor: Is there as second to that motion?
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Let me ask Mr. Shepard, what would – under home rule, would it
take a super majority to pass this, six vote majority to pass this?
Mr. Shepard: I’m of the opinion that this is not a subject within home rule, Andy.
Mr. Cheek: According to the Legislative Delegation in two meetings that I’ve
attended and work sessions, they’ve said – and I’ll paraphrase, I won’t quote directly –
that if you guys want to do anything down here with your government, you can handle it
under home rule. And just recently we were told that if we wanted to do anything to
change or improve our government, that we would need to act on it here first and the
Legislature would either follow up on it or just let it lie.
Mr. Shepard: I interpret that as the request for a resolution from this body, as they
did previously to that. If you want, I think to paraphrase from the last time we talked
about this with the Delegation, not here, but the last time that we talked with the
Delegation before that, they suggestion resolutions passed by this body so that they
would then take action. Now I would interpret that as a request for a resolution from this
body if you want to go to that system. My opinion today is that that is a part of the
charter which would be reserved to their authority.
Mr. Cheek: Well, I would amend that to a resolution of the aforementioned things
to the Legislative Delegation.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been seconded. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, too, Steve, I got to say it, we two for
two, man. Hope it go like this all day. But I have now heard from several different
people about changing the rules, and I think it’s going to very unfair if we go to a simple
majority rule. We, we hear, we read in the news media and we hear with the reports that
nothing is getting done and that’s an outright lie. We get 98% of everything that comes
through this agenda on to us, we get it passed. There also some things that we have to
discuss. And I think from what Mr. Hannah just read and that report he just gave us, we
ought to take it really, really to heart. The simple majority rule, we hadn’t had anybody
not missing meetings, I mean all that’s going to do in my mind is create some more
division [inaudible]. We have got a government, we got a system through the Legislators
that’s been set up beyond our control. They set it up way before I got here and it’s
probably as fair as can possibly get. We have got to work together. And we been doing
that. If you going to change the six vote rule to a simple majority, then you going dilute
what we got already. We going to create some more gridlock. That’s all that’s going do,
43
Mr. Mayor. I’m not in agreement. I can’t support it. The Legislators did say that if we
had a resolution, to send it in with some things that we thought as a body, and it takes
from my understand 7% of this body to vote or to go on the resolution, Mr. Attorney, that
they would take a look at it if we as a body decided to. I’m totally against that. We been
working and probably as effective as any group in any city. We are not, Augusta-
Richmond County is not the only government that is set up the way we are set up. If you
leave out of the city of Augusta, if you travel and you visit and you interact with other
cities you going find out that the mayor that we have is not the only mayor that don’t
have a vote or don’t have any veto power. There a lot of governments all over this
country, all over this country, not just in Georgia, that have the same style of government
that we’ve got, and it works fine there. I remember, I remember when the previous
mayor was here and he didn’t need a vote [inaudible]. I don’t understand about this six
vote change. I don’t understand about the veto. I don’t understand about the mayor
getting a vote. I’m not in favor. I can’t support it, Mr. Mayor. Those are my comments.
I’m going to leave it just, just where it is with that. But that simple majority we trying to
do, it’s just another way to cause more gridlock or even adding gridlock to what
perception we have out there now. I don’t think that’s the true perception.
Mr. Mayor: Any other Commissioners wish to be heard? Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, too, am concerned about what
the perception of the people think and I feel like that with the article that Ms. Cooper
wrote last week and one that we’ve had prior to with George Eskola in doing research on
the votes, you know, we have been working together. But my concern about the six vote
rule is simply that from what Commissioner Cheek related to, that when you, when you
look at having a majority of the people here, we’ve had situations, and not necessarily
this year but in the past, to where people would just not be present here in the chamber in
order to not have a majority to vote on something. And I don’t think that’s really doing
the duties that we were elected for. To me, that’s important. And having seven attendees
of the Commission, the voting Commission, to be a majority, and then use a simple
majority rule in voting – our federal government is ruled by simple majority. Our state
government is ruled by simple majority. I don’t see why we can’t do the same thing in a
local level and still work together and do the proper things for the people of this
community. So yes, that is one issue that I am very much in favor of and one that I have
indicated that for a long time. Not just since I’ve been sitting in this chair since January
of 2004. So I’m going to continue to work in that stead and to try to see that we make
those changes and that we work together toward the betterment of this community. As
far as the others, I don’t think we need to change everything overnight. As we said in our
legislative meeting with the group here a couple of weeks ago, we talked about changes,
and Rep. Howard made a good comment. He said no, let’s call it improvements. And so
I feel like that what we would be doing would be making a tremendous improvement
toward making our government more acceptable by the people of this community. And
we don’t need to change or make improvements on every issue that is in our charter that
the public thinks is necessary to make those changes. But this is one that I feel that
44
would be very important to us, one that would be important to the people, and we would
be following the guidelines of how this country was developed, founded and the votes
that are taken on a basis in Washington, D.C. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Anybody else care to be heard? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I could have just as soon – if Mr. Cheek had put A and B
together, and I’ll reserve most of my comments for section B. I’m glad that he, that Don
brought up about the story that was done by both Sylvia and George, because I think
there are a lot of people that have been running on perception. I think if it’s such a
gridlock and [inaudible] -
(End of tape 1)
(Beginning of tape 2)
Mr. Mays: -- number of votes. Actually it’s gotten better since then and the
numbers were not bad then. [inaudible] less than 1%. Now what bothers me, we’re
trying to – we got all these meetings all over town [inaudible] meet here, we want to do
[inaudible] we want to do this. I find it real strange that if our main concern is where we
have a 1% problem, why don’t we get to some of the those that have 15%, 20% and 50%,
or problems, getting this city cleaned up, getting creative, getting with visionary things,
not to a point of where every time people tune in they will find out that this will end up
being another divisive situation. This particular vote, and I don’t have no crystal ball, but
I believe probably A and B, I see no problem why you couldn’t take them together, there
are as dead as both my grandparents on both sides of the fine, on both [inaudible].
Because it’s going to create that avenue whether you like it or not to a point that we could
spend better time dealing with those things that we have in common, that could move this
city forward, and we need to do. The six votes in terms of doing it – I didn’t like
everything about consolidation. In fact, I was one of those people that pointed out the
fact [inaudible]. All this stuff that y’all got out here today, the one that was developed
prior to the Revolutionary War would have been perfect. I was fine with keeping it. But
there were compromises made in many elite quarters and in many brilliant quarters who
knew everything. This was going to be the perfect cure all for every problem that the city
had. Let’s just consolidate it. We’re the only business that I know that brought itself
together and merged and never did an audit at all. We just merged. One bankrupt and
one trying to help the other one out of it. Now if we going to talk about consolidation
and we want to change the vote, I don’t think we ought to cherry-pick on the vote. We
ought to go back to every detail, now, about consolidation. We ought to go back to why
we did it, we ought to go back to the situations that surrounded it, what brought it
together, the lies that were told in the process, and a bunch of that we’ve been able to get
behind us. But now I don’t think you ought to come up to a point, no, I don’t want to go
a little farther than six votes. So if you are going to deal with six votes, then let’s deal
with a whole lot of stuff in there that was wrong and that consolidation, quite frankly,
swept under the rug that we didn’t have to deal with. Now you all were players basically
45
in the game, you wasn’t elected, but y’all were somewhere [inaudible] but it’s no secret
as to what went down. Now if we going to talk about it, let’s be honest about it. Let’s
take it about this town and then let’s talk about it. Let’s talk about why six was no
magical number that somebody pulled out of hat with a rabbit jumping around them. It
was put together to build a coalition government to make people work together. Worst
think in the world I think you can have is folk who take on a job, don’t read the job
description, don’t understand it, but then come to work on the first day and want to
change all the rules. I didn’t like it, either. I didn’t necessarily like term limits. As much
as I love Ms. Beard, I wish that my partner, her husband, had been able to live out his
term and to be here, from the standpoint that I said all along there’s a cure for bad and
good politicians. It’s called an election. Have them, they don’t work, kick them out.
You’ve had people up here that have been defeated. Other folk took their place. Other
folk that have been reelected. Now I probably have been more controversial than any
person that’s sat here. But you know what’s strange about it? My tenure has last longer
than anybody else’s. And it’s been that because I represented those folk that voted for
me by vote and those that I didn’t represent. I’ve not had a litmus test for color where
we’ve had to do things. I joke sometimes with Tommy and Don about being stronger on
putting stuff in their areas that they represent now than the folk whose places y’all took.
And wasn’t a vote up there for me. Everything that had to be fought about Raes Creek,
the new water lines, you name it. In west Augusta it’s got old Willie’s name on it. I
didn’t have a vote there, though. So I think in some of this media hype that’s gone on, if
we going to have a retreat we’re going to have some studies done. Maybe some folk in
the media need to have an examination on how they plan and do some things. If we are
all upset about this 1% but yet 74% of the people think it’s that way, then last time I
checked, Mr. Mayor, we wasn’t in the reporting business, we were just in the
governmental business. We don’t write the stories, we don’t cut the sound bytes. So I
think to a point there is a reason why that was done, why it was put there. Anytime
anybody wants to go back to some of those original horror stories, I don’t mind going
back. But I don’t think we ought to cherry-pick from the point of having to say why we
are going to do certain things. And I’ll say this, there were reasons why [inaudible] and
I’ll go on and say this about that charter. Some folk may say well, Willie, if it was so
good, why didn’t they just keep it? Let me tell you that while it was a real good
document, there were reasons why it wasn’t kept. At the very same time that we
consolidated, this government – and this is just one glaring example – that one side of
this community took as a compromise and [inaudible] and moved on. The whole police
department in the city of Augusta was under federal court receivership. A massive
discrimination that had occurred for years and was not out under it yet of how to deal
with it. So how do you get out from under it? You make the government null and void.
You relinquish the charter so that it becomes no more. It becomes a moot issue. Now
I’ve got a laundry list of them, ladies and gentlemen, that work with me, that I can pull
out that bag back there. And I sat down last night and wrote about 30 of them. Any time
you want to talk about what went into consolidation and why, we can meet in an
auditorium or a phone booth. I really don’t care. But the point is there were reasons why
the government of compromise was put together. And I said then that I thought that
46
people ought to be truthful when they did it. I mentioned earlier a meeting I was in with
some people this morning, where folk put things together with this government and why
it was done. My question was, and I said then, how long will it last? It will last as long
as some folk can control it. And whether it was at-large voting or whether it’s six votes,
they were working good, too. As long as you had folk you could bring down [inaudible]
and set the folk that they owed in front of them and say hey, this is the way you got to
vote today. Wasn’t nothing wrong with the six votes. It was a perfect government. It
was though when people started exercising some of those freedoms to represent their
constituents on the constituents’ bases that it became a problem. So if you want to talk
about it, then let’s go back and talk about the whole government. Not just about how we
vote, let’s talk about all the government that’s there. Why it got started, where the money
went. Hell, I been under special grand jury investigation for five years as a
representative. Been asking for the end or the resolution to it. Talk about malfeasance,
let’s go back and see how all the money got missing, all the credit card stories that were
never reported. Want to talk about all the horror stories of it, your six votes are not your
problem. What your problem is, it was put together in some cases for all the wrong
reasons. It was put together around personalities, it was put together on what would
attract neighborhoods, what would make certain folk in certain communities vote for it.
And folks sat down and they dealt in a devilish manner and yet the power elite of this city
started with the most rich and famous, agreed for it, signed off on it, and I still got the
faxed copy that came out of one attorney’s office to say hey, it’s okay for y’all to go and
vote on it now. So we want to talk about it? Then I’m ready to talk about it. But we
going to take it all the way back from the beginning, not start in the middle of it. Let’s
carry it all the way back from the very heart of it, and since there’s no statute of
limitation on running on us from being investigated, then maybe we can carry that one
back to see how we got out whack when we were told we had a water system that would
pump water all the way to Satan if we needed it, found out money had been spent in
reserves and went somewhere else, and folk were bragging about they hadn’t raised taxes
in 14 years. Don’t even get me started about what it took to put this monkey together.
And then now all of sudden six votes get to be the problem. If it’s six votes, it’s 1%, then
let’s deal with some of the other problems you got. When y’all want to do that, I’ll go
with you from First Baptist all the way out to Ebenezer. You can go from Beaulah
Grove, you can go anywhere you want to go and sit down and we talk about it. But don’t
come in and pick and choose what you want out of something and then you go and turn
around and I’ll deal with at-large voting when we get to that monkey because I had to sue
to get in this chamber. An election that I took 62% of the district. You remember,
Margaret. It took five years to be seated. And I hear folk talk about what you going to
re-institute. You turn around and change all the powers in this chamber, if you think I’m
that kind of stupid to believe that this would deal with one vote today and this regression
will not continue, it’s a very start and I’m not dumb about it. So y’all can put them
together, you can put them separate. Want to talk about the government and its changes,
bring all of it, let’s talk about it. But don’t let’s just come through here now and find the
one that’s got a 1% problem and all of a sudden that’s our whole problem. We need to be
trying to figure out how we can get some jobs, some working folk in there, get us down
47
there with it where we got a hotel complex down there and some other stuff developed on
that river to [inaudible] we can make some money in this community, feed our folks, and
when folk tune in to us we not the laughingstock of America because we always tied
down into some type of divisive boondoggle. This is the only place that this issue is
going to take us today and it’s not going to go any further.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anybody else – I’ll come back to you, Mr. Cheek. Is there
anyone else, any Commissioners who wish to be heard? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, this is – the conversation that I’ve heard is that there is a
lot of mistrust in this city about changing the government and it going back to a situation
where people are excluded. I want to remind my colleagues that there was a time when
there were six of us that stood against the storm, against the newspaper, and everybody
else who had historically denied communities in this city with proper quality of life
amenities. I was one of the six and proudly will stand with the six again if we ever need
to stand together again. As admitted, this government has had problems for years, before
it was consolidated, up unto consolidation. This is not a perfect bill. But to talk about
taking it all, to talk about taking some of it at some point in history or to looking at this
change and going to mysteriously make changes that’s going to make it improve, ladies
and gentlemen, I’ve been only the air more than all of you put together defending this
Commission and the action that – the positive things that we’ve done. I’ve stood in the
crowds where I was worried about rotten fruit being thrown at me in the name of this
Commission. Proudly so, because we have worked hard. We have a high percentage, a
very high percentage of positive things that we’ve done, that we never get credit for.
We’ve got to begin looking because this public outcry is not going away. Changing to a
majority vote is not going to deny, as long as I breathe and I know several of the rest of
you breathe, any segment of this community the goods and services they deserve, nor are
we going to march backwards to a point in time when you crossed Walton Way they’d
get nothing. They will always get, continue to get the same thing every segment of this
government gets as long as I live and breathe and I’m certain as myself and other
Commissioners come in here, we are beyond that. What we cannot allow to have happen
is for us to go back to a point to where if we change any rules and it’s us against them,
because it’s now. This is us, the city of Augusta, against the world, and yes, this city’s
government needs some process improvements. This is a suggestion that we can look at
an improvement that is consistent with other successful forms of government. If you
look at the statistic, governments that have weak mayors and municipalities like we have
are not as economically viable as having a captain in the chair to drive the ship and a
supportive board.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We’ll go ahead and call the question on the
motion. Mr. Boyles?
48
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mayor Young. I had had some conversation – most of
you know I used to work for State Rep. Henry Howard when he was chairman of the
Richmond County Commission in the old days. There’s a tremendous element of trust
between he and I. And after a function that we were at and some of the others were –
may have been the opening of the new Applebees or the groundbreaking for the new
Applebees last week, we were talking about this. And what he was – the changes, the
improvements that he wanted to make, and this subject came up. Well, I said maybe it
will run its course because when the Legislature gets back up there and they’re there
basically to the end of March, maybe they’ll – he’s going to try and work something out.
And then Friday afternoon about 5:00 when the news hit about the agenda, I don’t think
my phone has stopped ringing in those days since last Friday. I tried to work in my
wife’s business Friday night, Saturday, early Sunday morning, and everywhere I went it
was what you going do, what you going do? Y’all are going to get it passed, y’all are
going to get it passed? You know, instead of letting it run its course, and all of a sudden
it’s been [inaudible] and I’m just afraid now that we may have made some damage now,
have done some damage now that’s going to be very, very difficult to repair. The people
th
of the 7 Commission District have employed me to vote yes and I’m going to do that.
But I do think whether it passes or fails, I think we may have done some damage in this
community. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Boyles. Anything further? Are we ready to vote on
the motion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I’d like to have a roll call vote, please.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a roll call vote requested from the Commissioner.
Did you have your hand up, Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: I did.
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry, I didn’t see you back there. Go ahead.
Ms. Beard: And I simply wanted to say it’s so sad that we are here and we’re
about this, because when we look back we have had an excellent year. We have worked
together, we have moved forward, and it really doesn’t make sense what is happening
here. They may talk about us, all of the state of Georgia, but we probably have the best
group of Commissioners in the state. And I am not joking. And anyone who has gone
back to look at the voting, they will see that. I have tried to tell you that there is a silent
majority out there. And for each of your and all the ones who are out there, there is a
need to work together. We have had an awful problem in this city with the media. That
article that Sylvia wrote was different, because she showed both sides of the issue. We
are just beginning to do that in this community. That is what we need more of. And
when you receive that, you will not have the complaints that you have been having. And
I’m going to say I work very hard to do the right thing. I make the decision about my
49
vote, and I’m going to do what is in the best interest of this entire community. And when
I say entire community, and I know some of you are frowning and this and that, I can see
it, but I first look at the entire community and I then look at my district. But I’m going to
leave you with this. We have had an excellent year. We have had people coming to us
saying oh, everything is wrong with this government. But it is not true. And the
economics that are here, it is not because of the Commissioners up here. They are two
separate things. I think you have a good group and it’s difficult for you to realize it
because of what you read. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Ms. Beard. Mr. Cheek, and then we’ll go into the roll
call vote.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m just going to say this. The fact remains that most
meetings all of us will be here. A majority is going to rule the day anyway. This is not
about taking rights or denying anybody anything. This is an opportunity for us to make
and adjustment to our government that is really – and the reason these changes – I
reviewed the net impact, and if you think about abstentions and other diplomatic tools
that are used during our voting process, they’re still the same. And if there is a majority
of those here, there’s eight of us, for instance, you can still have people abstain. I mean
the tools are all still there. This isn’t taking the rights from anybody. But it’s simplifying
the process to a majority of those there. It’s not us against them. We’ve got to begin
taking a bite out of this elephant one bite at a time to improve the way government works
in the city of Augusta. While we have done a good job, while we have worked together
probably better than any other city that I know of, we’ve got a public relations problem,
folks, that isn’t just the media. We do need to work on improving our government and I
hope that these and the other things, these other things that I saw, that have been asked
for, and like Tommy said, by a majority of people calling, that have the least impact but
go a long way towards showing the citizens that we are addressing the improvements
they requested within their own government. I’m going to quote a former politician who
said in this, we have nothing to fear but fear itself. We can improve this city government.
We need to do it one step at a time, and these are the things that I brought before this
Commission today, are some of the things that have the least impact on the overall
performance of this Commission while addressing the desire by the community to see
process improvements within our government, plain and simple.
Mr. Mayor: Are we ready to vote? Yes, Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Can you read the motion, please?
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: The motion was to change the six rule vote to a majority of those
present, with a seven member quorum. And that would be in the form of a resolution to
the Legislative Delegation.
50
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got a request for a roll call vote, so Madame Clerk, if you’ll
call the roll.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Roll Call Vote
Ms. Beard: No
Mr. Boyles: Yes
Mr. Cheek: Yes
Mr. Colclough: No
Mr. Grantham: Yes
Mr. Hankerson: No
Mr. Mays: No
Ms. Sims: Yes
Mr. Smith: Yes
Mr. Williams: Present
Motion fails 5-4-1.
Mr. Mayor: The next item then is 65B.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m not going to go into great detail.
Mr. Mayor: Let the Clerk read it.
Mr. Cheek: I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
The Clerk:
65B. Discuss veto power for the Mayor. (Requested by Commissioner Andy
Cheek)
Mr. Mayor: Let me just state before you start, Mr. Cheek, the Mayor did not ask
for this and neither did the Mayor ask to have his salary doubled. So I just want to put
that on the record.
Mr. Cheek: For the record, I didn’t ask to have my salary doubled, although the
25 cents an hour change to 50 cents an hour would be nice. On the veto power, we’ve
seen the legislative example of the veto and the override today. Anybody who says it
doesn’t work has had blinders on for the last two hours. This is a power - the chief
executive officer of a city needs to have certain powers and authority. A veto is a
reasonable right our President enjoys, just like our Congress has the right to override.
51
We saw today we created a majority that made it veto-proof. It is a legislative tool that is
used in other forms of government. We saw a fine example of how that would work
today. I just make a motion that we send a resolution to the Legislative Delegation
granting veto power to the Mayor with a seven vote Commission override authority.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? Oh, is there a second? I’m sorry. Second to that
motion?
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: The motion has been seconded. Mr. Hankerson, you want to speak?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, my concerns about this, normally when we want
something to pass on the Commission, we do have some conversations. And I’m the
Commissioner who always say I don’t like surprises. Now in the last Administrative
Services Committee meeting, we had at least addendum items to come before us at the
last minute. Then I received my book I got at least – 65 got four items to be discussed
and two of them are totally out of place. That’s 65. About the administrator, the
appointment of the administrator and also the approving of the limits of the administrator,
and that all that need to be in committee. Personnel. All that need to be discussed in
personnel. And I think our senior Commissioners know this. So what are we doing
today? Are we doing a showboat before the cameras? Do we have ambition for some
higher positions or something? What are we doing? Why are we causing this type of
divisiveness among the Commissioners where it should be another procedure to do it?
To talk about it, to discuss it. You know, these items are here. We had the Legislative
Delegation to come and we had a golden opportunity to present to them. We presented
things to them for economic development, things for them to save us from having to
increase property taxes and we asked all of that, and it was time to – I think that I got an
email from you, a memo from you, Mr. Mayor. I think in yours I think you had that,
something about the changing of the government. It was this year, I think I was reading
this year.
Mr. Mayor: It was a reference to the grand jury request.
Mr. Hankerson: Right. A reference to the grand jury request. I read everything
that come to me, whether I respond to it or not. I read every paper. I got all of them. I
get the Metro Spirit, Augusta Chronicle, Augusta Focus, Metro Courier. I read them.
And I listen to comments. But I’m just concerned because of the fact of the way things is
presented to you. It could be some things here that I would have comments on, support,
but there would be a lot of questions I have to ask about it. And I think it’s the way we
present some things that causes this and why all these items are here today in full
Commission, nothing was discussed before our committee. A and B, the veto power and
all of that, you know, I been hearing that ever since I came on Commission. And when I
was campaigning, when I ran for this Commission seat, that was a question was asked of
52
me. There were two questions were asked of me, and that was would I, would I support
the Mayor with a veto and would I increase property taxes. And I said no on both of
those. Those sort of things that we talked about. But it’s the way it’s presented. I have a
problem with that. The appointment of city administrator, when that item comes, I hope
we send it back to Administrative Services where it need to be, cause there is a process
already in place. I have nothing against the administrator or the interim administrator,
but it doesn’t have any business being on this agenda. C, limits to our administrator,
from $10,000 to $50,000? Doesn’t have any business being on this agenda. And
anything, we better question when we start – and no reflections on no administrator. I’m
not talking about Fred. But anybody, we got people in court now getting ready to go to
jail because they had the opportunity to put $50,000 here and $50,000 there and $50,000
there. I mean that’s what that is. So I mean we need to discuss these things and make
sure that we know exactly what’s happening. We don’t need to just go wild and add a lot
of things to the agenda. If I wanted to cause division today, I could add some things in
here. I say what about Mr. Chairman of Public Works, why don’t we reform Public
Works? I get a lot of complaints from them. [inaudible]. I get more calls, I’ve gotten
more calls on that that I have on any of these items. I think I got two letters on these
items right here. No telephone call. And I got them since they been put on the agenda. I
met with my neighborhood association last night and they told me they don’t want to
have anything to do with it. Every three meetings I have a quarterly meeting to meet with
any organization. Any organization could come before me and I give them a breakfast,
too. A good breakfast. They can come to me and ask me any questions. Mr. Merry’s
group or anybody else. I did that because of the fact I have over ten neighborhood
associations in my district. I do not have time to go to ten neighborhood association
meetings, and many of them are on the same night, and attend all the meetings
[inaudible] and attend to all the constituents that call on the phone and return the calls. I
don’t have that time to meet with those. So when you [inaudible] every three months
[inaudible], Saturday before the fourth Sunday, anybody in here want to ask me any
questions about the government, you got the floor, and I don’t have a gavel. I’m not
going to give you a five minute time limit. We just talk about it. And that’s the purpose
of it and that’s my reason for it. Not responding to some things – as we spoke with the
grand jury, I met with the grand jury cause they said when the grand jury calls and the
President calls, you better go. I met with them and the problem I have with a lot of
people that responding to this don’t even know, have the slightest idea how the
government operate. When you asking me a simple question about do we use
parliamentary procedures, I mean things like that. The grand jury doesn’t even know
how we appoint our authority, and what authority our authority has. And I told them I
don’t know either, seem like they got all kind of authority. So I mean there are some
things, just simple things that we can do with just meeting without forming opinion and
blasting. And one thing about, I need communication. I don’t like surprises and you’re
not going to force me into doing anything. Not going to force me into doing anything. I
think about it, I talk about it, I discuss it, I like to discuss it with my peers. So see, I
really don’t understand why we are discussing all these things. That’s my comment,
that’s one reason I’m not supporting any of this on here, because to me it is, it is not the
53
place right now today to do this. It should be, we should do it, sit down and do it and ask
all the questions. What it mean after we do that. You know, I think if the people that
supporting consolidation, the individuals that supported consolidation, if they had asked
all these questions, what it’s going to mean after we do this, then we wouldn’t be where
we are now. We was written a bad check, stamped with insufficient funds. I was on the
other side when consolidated passed. Rev. Walker is out there, we are members of the
Ministerial Conference, and we fought it all the way. We fought consolidation every day
until it passed. We fought it. I fought consolidation cause I saw this coming. We did not
approve of consolidation. The ministers, the African American ministers went to
Washington, D.C. to try to overturn it. So here we are. So some things, a lot of things
we – yeah, it can work, some things can work that pass, but do it the proper way. And
that’s the only thing I have to say. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for allowing me to exhaust
that.
Mr. Mayor: Any other Commissioners wish to be heard? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, let the record reflect that the eight or so items given to
Administrative Services were asked to be added and deferred to the following meeting in
order to give staff and the committee members two weeks to look at that. They weren’t
dropped on the desk with an explanation less than a week to deal with, like many things
are. This Commissioner asked to have things added and gave the Commissioners and the
staff adequate time for review, which I think is a pretty prudent policy. Also, bringing
these things through committee, item D, excuse me, item C as well as this item have been
discussed and discussed and discussed, and we can defer, delay and deny, making
changes. This administrator has less approval authority on spending than a supervisor
does in a local cotton mill probably. He’s running a multi-million-dollar budget. We
can, tend to want to look at every expenditure we want to, and I’m straying into C, Mr.
Mayor, and I apologize. Time to discuss, Lord knows the veto power and the vote for the
Mayor, these are all things that have been discussed in the community and among
ourselves for years. You know, we can make excuses, just like we have with funding
public works and training programs and quality programs and so many other things.
Restructuring salaries and reorganizing. We can delay, deny and defer and say we’re
doing something, but we’re not. We have got – Augusta is – and we’ve done a lot of
good things. And like I said, I’ve spoken more than all of you put together on the radio
and on TV and everywhere else, fighting for our honor. And a lot of times getting beat
over the head. But the truth of the matter is we’ve got homes in Augusta, we’re
economically at or beneath Albany, which is last in the state in economic growth and
population growth. We’ve got some things that we need to do. We’ve got to clean up
our own house. This is not an attempt to gain any power. I think about retiring and
going to play golf in the afternoon all the time. And yes, when a large bureaucracy of
12,000 people is ten times more efficient than the local government that I work in and
represent the people, it disturbs me. We’ve got to take some action to change and
improve the structure of this government. It’s been admitted earlier that the consolidation
bill was not perfect. It’s been admitted earlier, too, that we should have let the city of
54
Augusta go bankrupt and no consolidated and try to do things. But not doing things now
is not going to solve or improve our lot in the future. Not taking bold steps together is
not going to improve the lot of the majority, the minority, the children to be, the children
that are here. It’s not going to improve our lot. Augusta is going to continue to shrink,
get grayer and poorer if we don’t start taking some actions. And as far as delaying things
and putting things off for the administrator or anything else, the reason that’s on the list
today is because over six of us sitting here said we’ve got a good administrator, rather
than wasting $30,000 or so on a search it’s time to put the man in the seat and let him
manage the budget. I guess some of us may have forgotten that issue. But we don’t need
to delay, deny and defer. You know, I’m not going to win today. My concern is while
we all may push this back, who is going to lose? The city of Augusta is going to lose if
we don’t recognize we need to improve this government. Not that we’re not doing a
good job, but improve our public perception, our delivery of service, and our image
throughout the state, and we can beat our chests about being the second-largest city all we
want to. That’s that piper tiger that [inaudible] talked about. That’s land only. We’re
first in major metropolitan areas in lack of growth, economically, population, and
educationally. That ain’t nothing to be proud of. And apparently we’re not willing to
take the steps necessary to do something about it. Call the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Let me say this. I loved Andy before he put this stuff on the agenda,
going to love him after we get through with this meeting today –
Mr. Cheek: I love you, too, Superman.
Mr. Mays: And I’m going to love him even better cause it’s his time to buy on
the next time where we’re eating, so we enjoy that friendship and to do it. I think one
thing that has started today is the fact that when we had the legislative meeting, and some
of the items that we were discussing, and let me defend the Mayor on something
particularly where that will get clear. The Mayor had no mention of any changes about
government or anything relating to himself, powers, or anything else. The Mayor had to
be at the Housing Authority meeting on the same day that we did the Legislative
Delegation meeting, and asked me to make sure that those things got submitted so that
there would be something in the delegation’s hands. And I thank him for that. The only
reference to government there was just as he said in reference to what had been asked by
the grand jury and to do and to send that over, and I just wanted to clear that point.
Nothing came up about the actions that were there. You ask people for trust. Trust is a
give and take situation and my colleague and I have been on – we’ve been in a lot of
trenches and got back to back in foxholes and politically fought our way out of them.
And one of the things that I think in the dialog of what is happening in this community,
Andy, is the fact that you mentioned about, you know, the different places you go. Now
55
one of them, you and I both know I ain’t going, so you be on that, you be on that show by
yourself. Forever. But you know, in terms of, I do speaking engagements every
weekend, every week, and tap every invitation I get I take them. There are phones
ringing throughout this community. I think the one thing that’s obviously needed is that
people don’t readily respond to folk in wanting to make change. When people ask you
questions and answer them at the same time and also have an agenda to do things to make
changes about, that you have to also realize that parts of this community have had to sue,
to fight, and to deal with other measures legally, just to be represented. So you do have
some fear factors and they need to be articulated, they need to have dialog. That’s how
you get to the bottom of some of these things and to talk and to deal with. I don’t think
I’ve been able to be here as long as I have with every friend that I’ve had that has to look
like me. And everybody who may look different is somebody who has to be my enemy.
That’s not a case at all. What I think is a clear case that has happened today to a point is
that items that are out there on this agenda under 65 are items that do need to be talked
about, but they cannot be talked about to a point on a yes or no, up or down vote and
come in and say bam, we’re going to do this today, without sharing in the mix of what is
going to be a part of where this city has to go. And I think people will be receptive to do
that. Bobby had a good point. You mentioned about the administrator. I hadn’t
forgotten what we said. In fact, if you remember correctly, I was chairing that legal
session. I was the one that asked Fred Russell to leave so that we could, those of us who
were there, to talk about his hiring. In fact, I’d rather see it done both. I just had a
problem going to $10,000 to $50,000 to a point that I don’t even know who the
administrator is going to be or whether we going to get together and even select one
th
between now and the 4 of July. I’d rather see us do that first. I’m prepared to do mine.
Been ready to do it. Will make the nomination to do it. Could do it today and waive all
the rules to do it. But I think the attorney was working on some information, too, that
you left out that there was a way to deal with how the procedure and the ordinance was to
take place. He was going to show us how that procedure could take place. What caught
some of us into a surprise mode is to a point when you look up and you see all these
things here, you met with a group of state representatives and senators, nothing has taken
place, nothing has come up, and to a point to say that we deny, defer and delay, I think
you’ve been here long enough to know now, all of us have, to a point that conversations,
building consensus, and coming out here to a point that you do some simple mathematics
of knowing that some things have been discussed. There are some things that some of us
do have to talk with about – I represent four districts. And one thing I learned about
th
respecting other constituencies, see, I respect all them calls Tommy got in the 7. And I
know probably 9 out of every 10 that you got was for the vote that you cast. I can respect
that. But I also want you to respect the fact that when I get them from the bottom, when I
get them from Laney Walker, when I get them from every Housing Authority place that
we’ve got in this city, when I represent a district that goes from the river to the north side
of Tobacco Road, the vast majority of the ones I got, guess what they said? They
reflected the vote that I cast. That’s because we had to make a decision on a vote without
sharing some information with people. Bobby’s got a good medium that’s out there.
That’s a place [inaudible]. You got two Commissioners who have breakfasts here.
56
Everybody is not going to come to where you summon them to come to. Folk who have
places that are set up and to do that with their constituents, come and share those ideas.
And I think, Andy, then you gather the means of support, you put together things that are
diverse when you do. When I hear about a committee of 100 and to change the whole
future of the government, quite frankly, I got a little insulted that I wasn’t invited over to
the meeting. I would have liked to have come.
Mr. Speaker: You were, three times.
Mr. Mays: No, no, no, sir. No, sir. Never had any communication from you
whatsoever about it, other than the emails that I’ve seen spun about the city, to a point of
how many people are going to show up with red ribbons, and I’m still looking for them.
But to a point, I’m saying is you don’t have a monopoly or anybody else doesn’t about
who has meetings in Augusta. Folk meet everywhere and we can discuss those things. I
can come to where you are, you can come to where I am, and I think that’s what makes
the beauty of a city and of sitting down and talking about it. But when you put stuff on
an agenda, I don’t care what Commissioner it is, if it’s me – and one thing I’ve learned
long enough since being here – if I want it to pass, I’m going to talk to somebody about
it. Now if I just want it to be on there, to prove some point, I’ll just stick it on there. But
if I want it to pass, if I wanted to be through with the people that I have to network with,
I’m going to have some discussion with them, because I know that they have constituents
that they have to represent, too, and I’m going to respect that. And I’m going to also
demand it on the other side of the fence that I get it. Now there are some things there in
65 that probably I can live with, may even go further than where Andy’s got it in there.
But to a point that I think you’ve got to have the structure and the timing to do some of it
with, and I’m open to deal with that in spite of all the meetings and times that we got over
in here.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further from the Commission? Mr. Williams, did you want
a roll call vote?
Mr. Williams: Yes. Yeah, Mr. Mayor, a roll call vote would be good.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, if you will proceed with the roll, please.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, could we clarify? Are we voting on item B or the whole
package or what?
Mr. Mayor: Item B.
Mr. Boyles: Okay. We’ve discussed all of them, so I just wanted to be sure.
The Clerk: This is a resolution to give veto power to the mayor with a seven
member override of the Commission.
57
Roll Call Vote
Ms. Beard: No
Mr. Boyles: Yes
Mr. Cheek: Yes
Mr. Colclough: No
Mr. Grantham: Yes
Mr. Hankerson: No
Mr. Mays: No
Ms. Sims: Yes
Mr. Smith: Yes
Mr. Williams: Present
Motion fails 5-4-1.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is item number 65C.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Let her call the caption, and then we’ll recognize you.
The Clerk:
65C. Discuss changing the approval limit for our administrator. (Requested by
Commissioner Andy Cheek)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek:
Mr. Mayor, this has been discussed many times. But in interest of
I would request that this be submitted to Administrative Services
the – and decorum,
for review at the next committee meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to make that as a motion?
Mr. Cheek: I’m going to make that as a motion.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to send this to Administrative Services.
Mr. Hankerson: Question.
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Hankerson: Are you speaking of C?
58
Mr. Mayor: C.
Mr. Hankerson: What about the first one? Because C –
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, item C is the item we’re talking about. That’s the
caption enumerated by the Clerk and that’s the item the motion addresses.
Mr. Hankerson: My question was, that wouldn’t go to Finance?
Mr. Mayor: The motion was to send it to Administrative Services.
Mr. Hankerson: That’s why I was asking. Wouldn’t that go to Finance? That’s
about Finance.
Mr. Cheek: Actually, that is a policy decision that should be before
Administrative Services Committee because it is administrative control, authority of
spending level.
Mr. Hankerson: Would you take an amendment and take 65, also? Amend your
motion? Send both of them and we won’t just have to be discussing that and voting?
Mr. Cheek: I was hoping to take 65 to legal and discuss that. 65C to be deferred
to Administrative Services. 65 to legal, which we discussed at the onset of this long and
arduous debate of these items.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and second to send 65C to Administrative
Services. All in favor of that motion, please vote with the usual sign. That will be
discussed in committee.
Mr. Grantham: C, right?
Mr. Mayor: 65C.
Mr. Grantham: I wanted to make sure.
Mr. Mayor: 65C.
Motion carries 10-0.
65. Discuss the appointment of the City Administrator. (Requested by
Commissioner Andy Cheek)
59
It was the consensus of the Commission that this be considered in the legal meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we’ve had a number of people waiting for item
number 57 and we can take that item up and following this item and we’ll take a brief
recess.
The Clerk:
PLANNING:
57. Z-04-106 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to deny a petition by Dr. Gordon Brown, on behalf of Bruce
Hitt, requesting a Special Exception to establish a Group Home per Section 26-1 (g)
of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 2046 McDade Road and containing 1.32 acres. (Tax map 196
Parcel 27.01) DISTRICT 8
Mr. Cheek: I move to concur with the decision of the Planning Commission.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second to concur. Mr. Austin, are you
going to give us the background on this?
Mr. Austin: The petitioner asked to withdraw, Mr. Mayor. We talked about that
before you came, and I would advise to deny the petition because I think most of the
residents would like that.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors here today for this item? If you would, just
raise your hand so we can get – who would support denying the exception. Who don’t
want this. That’s what I want to know. Do you support a denial? Raise your hand. If
you’re opposed to the project, we just want to get a count of who is here.
(8 objectors noted)
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here this afternoon? Is the petitioner here today?
Do y’all need to hear from the objectors? Okay, ready to go ahead and vote? Mr.
Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: A question of Mr. Austin. If this is, if this passes as a denial, he
can’t come back for a year; is that correct?
60
Mr. Austin: Yeah, if you allow him to withdraw without prejudice there is no
waiting period on him coming back next month. By a vote, it’s a year for him to come
back.
Mr. Grantham: Call the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’re ready to go ahead with the vote. All in favor of the
motion to deny, please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We will take a five minute recess. Sorry you had to wait
so long.
[RECESS]
Mr. Mayor: We’ll move along with the consent agenda items that were pulled.
The Clerk:
34. Motion to approve the acquisition of a 24-month Golf Cart Lease for the
Recreation Department – Augusta Municipal Golf Course Division from E-Z-Go
Corporation of Augusta, Georgia for $73,920.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 04-147).
(Approved by Finance Committee December 13, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I pulled this because in committee
[inaudible] but there was some question asked about the fees that was being charged to
the golf course versus the golf cart that we’re buying. And I never did get any
information, Tom, and that’s why I pulled it. I wanted to hear a report. I think Mr.
Russell was going to check into that and give us a report back on where we are with the
fees versus the money we spending for the golf cart.
Mr. Russell: As you know, Mr. Williams, I told you we’d get that back to you
and I apologize it wasn’t sooner. We anticipated getting back with you today. Tom can
speak to the numbers here. I apologize for not getting it to you sooner.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, would you like for Mr. Beck to proceed?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Beck: I was just waiting for everyone to get the information, Mr. Mayor.
61
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] check with the Commissioners.
Mr. Williams: No, if he can kind of share this with us and help us understand it –
I really hate getting something passed out to me, anything of this magnitude, you dealing
with this kind of money, you handing it to us and then explain to us where I might – I
may understand it, Mr. Mayor, and I may not. But it’s important that – we asked for this
in time enough to have it in our backup so we could ask questions, been better prepared.
So if Mr. Beck can help us understand it, I certainly would appreciate it.
Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, let me get the question clear,
Mr. Williams. Your question is the revenues, the expenses for this lease on the golf carts
versus the revenue that we bring in for the carts; is that your question?
Mr. Williams: Right.
Mr. Beck: We’ve done a breakdown for you of each of the categories of revenue
versus expense for the golf course. And as you know, it is an enterprise fund. And
we’ve got the major categories of revenue and expense broken down for you. And as you
can see, in 2003 I think – and I wasn’t at committee when this was, when this was asked,
but I think the issue came up on specifically maybe green fees and cart fees but each area
is broken down and as you can is 2003 we brought in $195,000 in fees directly related to
the rental of golf carts. And the cost for those, as you can see down – well, over on the
other side, for cart lease – the cart lease was $24,449. So that’s one of the major areas of
any golf course, and in particular the Augusta Municipal Golf Course. That’s a major
area of revenue for a course. That makes up for other expenses that don’t bring revenues
in, such as all the golf course maintenance.
Mr. Williams: So Tom, what you telling me as that the money we’re spending for
the golf carts, that the fees more than outweigh those coming back in?
Mr. Beck: The fees that are charged for the rental of golf carts, obviously we
make a lot more money than we pay for the carts. The cart lease is, was in 2003 $24,000
to lease 65 carts. The revenue we bring in from that was $195,000. That is, that is very
consistent with any golf course operation. That’s a highly profitable area, but it has to
make up for the areas in golf course operations that have major expense to it, such as
your utilities, such as your golf course maintenance personnel, all fertilization costs.
That’s the area that makes up for the expenses. The revenues in particular for golf cart
leases. And just as a note, as you can see, from a bottom line standpoint, we’ve got
basically the net incomes for 2003 and the projected through the end of this year.
Actually these figures are through November for the ’04 figures, but our net revenues are
there for your information as well.
Mr. Williams: And your net revenue, your net money that you’re showing here,
net income, share with me just a little bit cause you got a lot of stuff compiled into here.
62
We’re not just dealing with the golf cart fees and the money we spent for the golf carts.
You said you got other components at the golf course and we make a lot more money. I
guess I’m getting into another question. We’re getting past what I wanted. The – after –
and I been trying to find out, I guess, for some time as to what the golf course was
making or what it was projected to make each year. And this is through last year, 2003,
and to November of 2004.
Mr. Beck: That’s correct.
Mr. Williams: And I still don’t have a handle on what’s coming in, what we
doing, be it enterprise fund or anything else. I still don’t have a handle on what the golf
course is doing.
Mr. Beck: The figures are right in front of you, Mr. Williams. This is what the
income is, this is what the expense is.
Mr. Williams: Total expense is $578,000; is that right?
Mr. Beck: That’s correct.
Mr. Williams: And then the income is, the net income is $68,480?
Mr. Beck: Total revenues were $646,000, for a net of $68,480.
Mr. Boyles: It’s a plus, Marion.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] my previous recreation chairman down here trying to
help me out, Mr. Beck, and I appreciate it. Trying to enlighten me. Mr. Mayor, that was
my question. I wanted to know [inaudible] spending out [inaudible] versus the money
that we bring in. And if Mr. Russell would get me another breakdown, I guess I need to
get with the Finance chairman, I’m sorry, Mr. Persaud, our Finance director, and get
some questions answered through him cause that’s more information I need. But I’ll see
him about it.
Mr. Russell: Commissioner Williams, we’ll be happy to send it out and explain it
to you. David had a chance to look at that this morning and the numbers looked good to
him and we’ll be more than happy to get y’all together. David unfortunately was not
feeling well and went home early. So we’ll be happy to do that for you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham would like to be heard on this subject.
Mr. Grantham: Yes, just a couple of questions. Tom, it’s not broken down
enough for me to really understand what we’re doing. Based on the cart fees for 2003,
we had total revenue of $195,000. And green fees were $180,000. What is the
63
comparative cost of your cart fee and your green fee, and then I’ve got a couple of other
questions after that. What does your cart fee cost and what does your green fee cost?
Mr. Beck: Cart fees are – trying to think now. I believe cart fees – green fee and
cart during the week are $22. On the weekend, it’s $29.
Mr. Grantham: How do you break it down if you’re doing a one fee basis for a
round of golf?
Mr. Beck: I believe it’s $11 for half cart. I think that’s what it is.
Mr. Grantham: Any my next question is in 2003 you had a cart lease cost of
$24,449. In 2004 through November, you have $41,000 cart fee lease. It can’t be for
new lease cause you haven’t had a lease yet.
Mr. Beck: I believe the answer to that is, and I’ll have to get that clarified for
you, Mr. Grantham, I believe that was a case where there was 11 – sometimes the way
the payments are made I believe there were 11 payments done in ’03 and probably we’ve
had an extra one this year. I know that’s happened before but I can get that clarified.
Mr. Grantham: Well, what I’d like to have, and I think it would help us clear up a
lot of things, is some questions that I’d like to get with you on a little later, based on the
number of rounds you had for the year, and then your fees and your cart fees, so we can
look at basically where your revenue is coming from. Personally I think there could be a
tremendous improvement based on your net income as to the operation of that facility up
there.
Mr. Beck: Be glad to give you any advice that can help the operations up there.
Mr. Grantham: I’d like that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: How do you, how do y’all, how do the golf course keep up with –
I don’t know anything about the [inaudible], Don, but how do y’all keep up with the
number of people who rent and place 17 holes, play – how do y’all facilitate it, how do
you keep up with it?
Mr. Grantham: I can tell you’re not a golfer. You’re not a golfer, but you’re
doing okay.
Mr. Beck: It’s done by what’s called a point of sale system, through cash register,
and it’s a system we put in up there, that you, the Commission, approved about three
years or so ago, and it’s done anytime anybody comes up. I mean it goes right in to – you
64
punch in a nine hole fee on the, onto the computer and it actually registers into the city’s
network system. And so it’s kept up through a point of sale software system.
Mr. Williams: And what I’m getting at, Tom, we been talking about check and
balances up there. You talk about a entity this wide, this big, this magnitude, there ought
to be some checks and balances as to however many played today, last week, last year,
how many golf carts. I mean [inaudible] try to get a handle on cause –
Mr. Beck: We can give you the information that you’re, that you just asked for
there, as far as the pure golf course. We’ve got those figures.
Mr. Williams: So there is – that’s the figures, but there is some checks and
balances? There is some ways of knowing if ten played or nine played? I mean you can
give me some figures, but if I wanted to go back and tell [inaudible] every Friday we
have 300 people play a round of golf, I can say here it is?
Mr. Beck: Right. And we have it through that point of sale software system.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Okay. That’s, that’s what I need to see. That’s all, Mr.
Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We do not have -
Mr. Boyles: I move to accept.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We do have a motion now and it’s been seconded. Further
discussion? All in favor of the motion then please vote – sorry, Mr. Colclough had a
question. We’ll suspend the voting.
Mr. Colclough: Are they coming back with the correct numbers on this? Are you
going to get with Mr. Williams and give him the correct numbers? [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] got me messed up with this golf thing.
Mr. Colclough: If your total revenues is [inaudible] and your total expenses
[inaudible] you have [inaudible]. Or maybe my math is wrong.
Mr. Beck: I’m sorry. Asked me a question?
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] $565,232.40 is your revenues and $518,679 is
expenses. If you subtract expenses from your revenues, wouldn’t that be [inaudible]
rather than [inaudible].
65
Mr. Beck: No, sir, as you can see under that we are projecting actually a deficit, a
$5,000 deficit in December.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] $5,000?
Mr. Beck: Sir?
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible]
Mr. Beck: It shows right there projected revenue deficit and that’s where the
$41,000 comes from.
Mr. Colclough: All right. That’s all, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll resume the voting. If you would, please vote with the usual
sign if you support the lease.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item, Madame Clerk, I believe is item number 49.
The Clerk:
49. Motion to approve Amendment No. 8 (Year 2005 Agreement Modifications)
to agreement with OMI for a 2005 budget cost of $6,220,812.10. (Funded by
Account No. 506043310-5211110) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
December 13, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams, you asked this item be pulled?
Mr. Williams:
Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. On break I had an opportunity to talk with
Mr. Johnson and somebody else and got some clarification I needed on this item. And he
reassured me that they were even returning some money back to the city with this, with
this agreement, and I was getting confused because what happened in our last committee
meeting, we had two committee meetings going on at the same time and I really didn’t
want to hold this up but I wanted to make sure I had an opportunity to address the issue.
I’m going to make a motion that
I got no problem with what was told to me earlier and
we go ahead and approve it.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve it and it’s been seconded. Any
discussion? I would just like to say that we had a performance audit done of OMI and the
66
work they have accomplished under the contract we have, and the existing contract, as
everyone knows, included a five year option for renewal. The Commission has chosen
through this action a one year renewal. And I would hope that the Commission would
not wait until the second meeting of December in 2005 to decide how to move forward
with this and I would charge you to let’s take a look at it early on, let’s put this thing
behind us and let’s move on. They are doing an outstanding job for us out there. They
are delivering what they promised and I’d like to see it continue. If there are not any
other comments, then please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next is item number 50, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
50. Motion to approve the Landfill to change its operating hours to 6:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 6:00 a.m. to noon on Saturday with the
Landfill being closed on Sundays. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
December 13, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, you asked for this?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I did. Thank you, sir. I got no problem with
anybody wanting to get up early in the morning and going to work, but I want to know
the financial impact, if there was any. The backup said at this time there wasn’t any.
And I guess my question is to Ms. Smith, what happens if there is a financial impact and
when will we know and to what extent it would be?
Ms. Smith: Commissioner Williams, two years ago we did a study out at the
landfill and we actually tracked the volume of waste that’s coming in based on the hours
in the day, what time of day it is. We tracked that on an annual basis. Earlier this year
when there were some changes in the rate at which the waste was coming in, early in the
morning we had trucks backed out onto Highway 1, and so that first two hours to two-
and-a-half hours every morning, we had more waste coming in than we could get into the
gate. So we made a decision to go back to the hours, operating hours that we had
previously been utilizing. But we do track that on a semi-annual basis. We will bring
that information back in six months if there were a negative impact.
Mr. Williams: I so move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? Mr. Hankerson?
67
Mr. Hankerson: This is an additional, extra hour; right?
Ms. Smith: Correct.
Mr. Hankerson: How would it affect the budget for 2005?
Ms. Smith: It won’t because the revenue associated with it is reflected in the
2005 budget.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? All in favor, please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is item number 51, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
51. Motion to approve the 2005 Holiday schedule to close the Deans Bridge Road
Municipal Landfill on Saturday, January 1st in recognition of New Years, Monday,
July 4th in recognition of the Fourth of July, and Thursday, November 24th in
recognition of Thanksgiving. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
December 13, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, you asked this be pulled?
Mr. Hankerson: I have a simple question I was going to ask before [inaudible],
would the half days remain the same?
Ms. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Hankerson: The half days would remain the same?
Ms. Smith: Yes. We just have to get our holiday schedule approved, just like the
rest of the city.
Mr. Mayor: No problem.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We need a motion to approve.
Mr. Hankerson: I so move.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. All in favor, please vote with the usual sign.
68
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Item number 52 is next, Ms. Bonner.
The Clerk:
52. Motion to approve contract for 2005 with Savannah River Trust for
Greenspace Services. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 13,
2004)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. The backup said I think $55,000 for this
contract, and my question was did we seek any other firm or anybody else to do this for
the $55,000? Cause I think the Savannah River Trust Greenspace is the same group we
had; is that right?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, that’s a continuation of an existing program. We do this
annually.
Mr. Williams: It’s been another year and I’m only asking the question. I have no
problem with them or anybody else, what we talking about keeping things on the table.
Should we not have bid that out or at least went out [inaudible] when you talking about
[inaudible] $55,000? I’m not opposed to them, I think they doing a good job. But that
was just my question, whether it be anybody.
Mr. Mayor: I think Mr. Grantham wants to respond to that.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think that’s a good question cause we
all should be cognizant of what money savings we can do, but I think with this operation
we are getting more than our money’s worth, based on what the experience has been and
what the history [inaudible] been a whole lot of land and greenspace areas that have been
contributed in a free fee basis based on this particular operation and the people involved,
and it really has assisted the city in acquiring greenspace locations, based on the amount
of dollars that we’re dealing with, the $55,000. And so I just feel like we are really
getting our money’s worth, Mr. Williams, in that effect, and I would encourage us to go
on and approve this.
Mr. Williams:
Mr. Mayor, I don’t have any problem, I just wanted to bring that
at least to the attention of this body. McDonald have no problem with Burger King
moving across the street cause competition keep the price down, and if we don’t have
competition then the price can always be whatever set it to be, and I think we [inaudible]
getting a bang for our buck, but we may get two bangs if we had at least looked around
69
and checked into and inquired. I got no problem, I don’t have any dog in this hunt. I just
wanted to bring that to the attention. We talk about doing things and every aspect, I
wanted to make sure we have gave an opportunity, which may be the same company each
I’ll make
time, whether it be greenspace or anything else. So if I need to make a motion,
a motion to approve.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approved and second. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just to add. This greenspace program in the city of
Augusta is recognized as one of the finest in the state and we have a very good team
working on it.
Mr. Mayor: And I would just – I appreciate the work that is being done. I think
they’re doing an excellent job. But we’ve reached the point now where we will no longer
have a state program that’s backing this up financially and I hope Mr. Russell and Mr.
Shepard, as we draft the contract with the group for this year, that we have some
performance measurements, let’s go out to some of these private foundations and look for
some grants and see how we can bring in some other funds to continue our program, not
just maintain. I think that would be important.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, they are doing that. They are already seeking
alternative funding sources. Mr. Williams, to answer your question, this is a group that is
not a competitive kind of situation. It’s a group with – came out of the National Sciences
Academy. There is nobody else that actually does this kind of thing for us. And that’s
why we continue to go back to them on a regular basis. They do bring in multiple dollars
for the dollars we invest. As I’ve said before, I think it’s a good deal for us but we will
continue to look for additional funding sources, if there are other people that would be
able to do that, we can continue looking for those things, too, Mr. Williams. That’s a
good point.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? All in favor please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, the next item is item 54.
The Clerk:
54. Motion to authorize delegation of $55,000 in 2004 under runs in the
Engineering Division’s Highway and Streets Budget (101-04-1110 for $35,000),
Traffic Engineering Budget (101-04-1710 for $10,000), and Street Lights Budget
(276-04-1610 for $10,000) to partially fund a human resources consulting firm
70
(headhunter) upon receipt of proposals and identification of the successful firm in
support of hiring an Assistant Director of Engineering, County Engineer and
Traffic Engineer. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 13,
2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham, you asked this be pulled?
Mr. Grantham: Yes, I did. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The reason I asked this to be
pulled is looking at the subcommittee that was appointed back about a month ago by the
Engineering Services Chairman. And I know we had talked in a couple of meetings
about our traffic engineer, county engineer and looking at some people to fill those slots,
and we have been encouraging that to be done through our HR and it concerns me right
now since we are reviewing the Public Works Department as to what may be done in the
future or may not be done, to go out and get a headhunter right now I feel like is a little
premature as to what our attempt is going to be. So I’m going to ask, I’m going to make
a motion that we deny this and we wait until the subcommittee brings back its findings as
to what direction the Public Works Department will look at going, discussing that with
the Commission. I think we saw this earlier, that we need to have dialog before we start
putting things out there and spending money, and I feel like this is a way to get this
accomplished. So I’m going to ask that we deny this.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Ms. Sims: I second.
Mr. Mayor: The motion has been seconded. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek:
Mr. Mayor, we talked about this earlier. My concern is, and this has
been an ongoing concern, the only dialog we’ve had so far is why aren’t we getting
things done in public works, and I can remember and probably sit here and list for an
hour the things we haven’t funded and haven’t done to support this department and its
work. While I agreed earlier about the subcommittee, the fact, this recommendation from
Commissioner Grantham, I just reviewed and thought about this thing and we’re still
going to need, no matter how we structure this, a director – an assistant director of
engineering, a county engineer and a traffic engineer. Further delaying then the only
dialog that I continue to hear is how they’re not getting the job done or how things are
delayed. We’ve waited for HR for over a year to fill some of these positions and we’ve
tried several other approaches to it and it’s just not getting done. While I do support and
have asked this committee to come back and look at things across the board, these are
three positions we’re going to need. I’m just very concerned that this expenditure of
funds is the same as we’ve listened to before. We want Public Works to walk on water
and everything else but we don’t want to support them or believe they can do it or give
them the support to make it happen. For lack of a better analogy, I just say this, that the
Commission has always – and I keep hearing all of these complaints about things not
71
getting done, but once again, this is a case of where delaying the acquisition of three key
personnel that we need, that we promised that we would put as a priority – we’ve
I’m going to offer a substitute motion
identified a way to do that and a funding source,
that we approve this.
Mr. Williams: I second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I wholeheartedly agree with my twin brother
on this item, 54. We been talking about, the subcommittee [inaudible] and from my
understanding it’s going to be [inaudible] and it’s going to take some time. This could be
another holdup for us to not get some things done. Regardless of what the subcommittee
comes back with, we going still need these employees that we should have filled up a
long time ago. So I can’t see stopping or waiting until a report comes, then go back and
do what we could be doing even now. I don’t think this have any impact on what has
already been done, only an impact on what could be done if we had these people on staff.
I talked to my good friend and chairman, Mr. Smith, about some positions we supposed
to fill some time ago, never filled them, but we still expect to get, we still expect to make
brick without, without, without straw. We need to go ahead and get these people in
place, get them on the job so we can do what we been calling and expecting [inaudible].
So I’m in 100% agreement with that substitute motion that we go ahead and approve this,
to get these people in place, and they should have been in place a while longer. In fact,
we ought to be – I mean we’re behind as far as going and making these positions we
should have had for whatever reason it just have not been done. So this is one of our first
efforts, I think, to go ahead and get this done.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair would like to ask one question and I don’t know who
would want to answer this. But what guarantees do we have the going down this path is
going to lead to the hiring of the people in these positions?
Ms. Smith: Ladies and gentlemen, the item that you have before you is not to
approve a headhunter firm, nor is it for the Commission to commit directly today to
utilizing these funds for a specific firm. The purpose today, as was indicated by the
administrator in the Engineering Services Committee meeting, is simply to identify a
funding source. Once proposals are received and once a firm is identified, this will be
brought back to the Commission for vote. However, earlier this year when we received
the grand jury report identifying that the positions, the vacant positions needed to be
addressed, we brought a proposal before the Commission. At that time, we did not have
funding to support a headhunter. What we’re doing now is in light of the fact that we had
some under runs in our engineering budget with some tasks and activities that did not get
initiated or all of the funding that was requested was not required. We are requesting that
those funds be set aside from the 2004 budget to utilize should we move forward with a
headhunter.
72
Mr. Mayor: I got a sense from the discussion up here at the table that hiring
somebody was almost imminent, if this thing is approved today. What kind of timetable
are you talking about, Teresa?
Ms. Smith: The request for proposals, we will be looking at, hopefully meeting
with someone, bring something back to the Commission in January to approve the firm,
and then I believe we were looking at 60 days to try and get information back from the
headhunting firm. However, as I understand it, and I didn’t write the proposal, however
as I understand it HR has written a proposal that requests three different ways that they
would submit their proposals. One is if they got a percentage of a fee if they hire
someone. If by chance there are costs up front, travel costs or whatever costs, that they
would expect to get – whether they hire someone or not, those are separated out and
would be identified. So this is not a guaranteed somebody signs on board and whether
they bring someone to the table or not they get $55,000. As a matter of fact, I’m not sure
$55,000 is even the right number. Those are the funds that we have identified that will be
available to support this particular initiative.
Mr. Mayor: And my final point is with the news this past week of the substantial
layoffs from Savannah River Site, 1200 people in current federal fiscal year and another
6800 in the second federal fiscal year, there are going to be some talented people on the
street and I’m sure there are going to be a number of engineers in that group and we may
be able to find some very skilled people who can do these positions who are already here
in this community. I would certainly encourage that we coordinate with Savannah River
on some of that talent and see how we can take advantage of that, in addition to any other
efforts.
Ms. Smith: And we certainly will, but that information wasn’t available when we
put the agenda item together.
Mr. Mayor: Sure. Absolutely. Mr. Williams, then Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, how many openings do you have now?
Ms. Smith: In the Public Works Department, we have –
Mr. Williams: Talking about critical jobs [inaudible]. How many of these top
positions that we need that you don’t have? How many is that?
Ms. Smith: About seven.
Mr. Williams: How long have they been open?
73
Ms. Smith: They’ve been open – a time frame I think the traffic engineer left in
November of 2001 and we have actually spent in advertising in professional magazines,
the American Society for Civil Engineers, the Institute for Traffic Engineers and several
other locations –
Mr. Williams: How long?
Ms. Smith: - $20,000.
Mr. Williams: How long have these positions been open?
Ms. Smith: They’ve been open as long, some of them have been open as long as
three years.
Mr. Williams: And these are critical positions that you been needing for quite
some time, we been asking Public Works and we been talking about what need to be
done and how can we do these things. We been operating without them and even though
this item is just to get on track, so to speak, we need to do a fast track because we been
without these people for quite a long time.
Ms. Smith: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Okay. That’s all, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My comment would be that it’s not the
headhunter and it’s not the open positions, but what I’m concerned about is that we have
had HR seeking people to fill these slots and they have brought people in that we had not
had the salary level in order to attract them. Now how is a headhunter going to find
someone that’s as capable of filling those jobs that the salary level, from what you have
said in the past and what we know to be true from HR, the salary levels aren’t high
enough? It looks to me like we need to go back and redo our salary levels and then try to
find the people to fill those positions instead of coming in and finding a headhunter to go
fill something or to find somebody to fill the salary level. That appears to me to be the
major problem.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Smith, can you address that?
Ms. Smith: Well, in some instances we have had prospective candidates that have
indicated that they were not interested in coming at the salary that was presented to them.
However, in all fairness, some of those items did not make it to me and some of those
items did not make it to you. And in order to give you an opportunity to make a decision
as to whether or not the city of Augusta would be willing to pay those salaries to those
74
candidates. In other instances we have not received qualified applicants. Now I cannot
tell you that people did not apply because the salaries weren’t high enough, because I
don’t even know who to ask if they didn’t apply. However, the general consensus, and
based on some information that was presented, that is a conclusion that was reached, was
that the salary issue, that salary is an issue with these positions. And we’re only basing
that on the reasons that most of the employees have left. And I requested that HR
provide me with a copy of a study that they did for the candidates – excuse me, the
employees that left these positions, a written copy. Because most of them have indicated
that they did indeed leave for salary-related reasons or opportunities to advance. Or that
they had not received a raise for one or two or three years, depending on their tenure. So
we simply were not competitive as a government with other entities.
Mr. Grantham: And I guess that’s my point. How is our headhunter going to
resolve that for us?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell and then Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Russell: As I said before, Engineering Services has got two issues here. One
is whether or not you want to go ahead and place the funding in place to do this. Given
the time frame that is available to fill the positions, I’m not too sure that’s not an unwise
thing and would support that, given the nature of what we’ve got. The second issue,
though, that we’ve got, that I wanted to make sure that you understood, was that this
money that’s being used is money that you’ve asked me to save. As we looked at our
budget over the past year and culled out dollars and tried to save money, what we are
spending is savings there. That’s a policy decision that you have to make. I can’t have it
both ways, and neither can you at this point. At the end of the year, this will be a
reduction of the amount that you’ve asked us to save during our, during the budget
process throughout the year. The policy decision that lies in your lap at this particular
point in time is, is this a good way to spend these dollars, and is it necessary for us to go
ahead and put this in place so that when we do get ready to move with a headhunter or do
get the report back from that committee which advised which [inaudible] we need to do,
that those dollars will be in place to do that. And that’s the policy decision that you’re
facing.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, it’s just essential that we begin this process and move
forward with it and not continue to study and develop plans. It’s time for the rubber to
hit the road. We’ve got to get candidates in house, depending on their level of
qualifications and skills. There are going to be different salary ranges. We’ve got to
allow the administrator and the department head some latitude and negotiate salaries and
benefits in order to get these people in house, but to continue to defer this again is – sets
up this department head in a position of having everybody gripe because things aren’t
flowing like water downhill through the department, when we’re putting dams in the
75
way. Or better yet, we want the water to flow, but we ain’t giving her any water. And it
just concerns me that we want to delay and study, but damn it, be first to gripe cause
things aren’t getting done. And that’s happened more than once, and quite frankly, I’m
fed up with it. We need to put this money in place to where we can move forward with
the process, identify the people and their funding requests or requirements, and then see if
we have budget to hire them. I guess really the best way to save money would be to just
completely lay off the entire Public Works Department and we could save a bunch of
money. But right now we’re neutering this department’s ability to do its job with great
plans for the future, but we have needs for today, and I just hope that we are going to
move forward with this, keep the process going, let’s get the positions filled. These are
critical positions. We’ve all said that. We’ve all said we’ll do what it takes to fill them at
one time or another, in case everybody’s memories are very short. [inaudible] several
other occasions I could list, when it comes times for the rubber to hit the road, we all get
selective memory. Well, the rubber needs to hit the road today, ladies and gentlemen,
and keep this process going. We can choose to as a body or continue to gripe because
things aren’t getting done and defer it to the department head when in fact we – and as
Eric said when he left and a lot of other people, they’re really tired of doing all this work
on studies and everything else, to do things like traffic calming, when we as a
Commission aren’t willing to do ours and to achieving –
(End of tape 2)
(Beginning of tape 3)
Mr. Cheek: - and allow staff to work it through and get these positions filled.
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion that we approve the agenda item. Any
discussion on the substitute motion before we move on with the vote? Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: The substitute motion is to approve it; right?
Mr. Mayor: To approve it as presented in the agenda item.
Mr. Hankerson: And the Engineering Services chairman made it? I have a
question.
Mr. Mayor: Speak into your microphone, please.
Mr. Hankerson: The subcommittee, Andy, if I could ask him. Didn’t you have a
subcommittee that’s supposed to come back and make a report to us about the hiring
process? Because the interim administrator – I was ready to vote on it, but he brought
something, he threw something out there at me, too, about the money that we’re using.
I’d like – where is that subcommittee?
76
Mr. Cheek: The subcommittee is ongoing and their charter was to do basically a
top to bottom review of and make recommendations as to process improvements and
restructuring, basically to suggest what needs to be done to assist in helping us attain
process improvements and different things within the department. That still does not –
and that report is forthcoming. The committee is working very hard on it. But that still
does not negate that there is some lag time between us beginning the process of looking
for these people, interviewing these people, and then hiring these people. These are
positions that are not going to go away no matter how we reorganize it. The Mayor is
quite correct, in the interim we may see several applications a year from people locally
that are already here from the layoff at Savannah River perhaps, but the bottom line is
there’s three or four months that we can begin the process and work through and have
these people there three or four months perhaps, or we can wait three or four months and
begin the process for the same people, and that’s my concern. But the committee is
working through this. But these positions are not going to go away. This is a funding
mechanism and a methodology to begin filling these positions. Other ways have not been
successful. The committee is working, but no matter what they come back with, these
positions – we’re going to need to a traffic engineer, we’re going to need a county
engineer.
Mr. Hankerson: On the proposals that you mentioned, Ms. Smith, do we have
those proposal? You mentioned that HR was doing some proposals?
Ms. Smith: No. HR has written a proposal, but we have not, to my knowledge,
received anything in on those yet.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. Are we going to see those? Are you going to bring the
proposals at the time that you, if you decide to go forward?
Ms. Smith: We will evaluate the proposals and then bring that back for approval
since there will be a contract. We will be required to bring that item back to the
Commission for approval.
Mr. Hankerson: So if it’s approved today and you’re approving to earmark the
money, is what you’re saying –
Ms. Smith: That’s right.
Mr. Hankerson: - You earmark the money, we’ll bring the proposal back, if you
decide to go forward, then we go forward, if not you’ll hire somebody from SRS, if not,
however. I mean however they come.
Ms. Smith: That is correct.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay.
77
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Ms. Smith, I heard you say that candidates did come in but you
wasn’t [inaudible] when we had someone who wanted a job you would come to us and
say well, this is a salary, but I need permission to hire, go 15% above the average salary
that we was offering. Has that happened? I understand you say you did have some
candidates to come in?
Ms. Smith: When those items were approved, they were approved specifically for
those positions at the time that they were vacant. We changed the language on that. For
instance, we did hire a county engineer after that, but we have since – that county
engineer has moved to a different job, I believe making about – well, he’s moved to a
different job. And so we in turn would be required to bring whatever we had back to the
Commission.
Mr. Colclough: That’s what I’m asking. A lot of times, you’re saying that a lot
of the candidates, or candidates would come in and they would not be hired for the salary
that we are offering.
Ms. Smith: Correct.
Mr. Colclough: And I’m saying that a lot of times in a critical position you would
come to us and say I have a candidate, but this is what we’re offering, I need permission
to offer this candidate 15% above what we’re – we’ve done that in the past, haven’t we?
Ms. Smith: Yes, we have.
Mr. Colclough: Why can’t we do that, or why couldn’t we have done that with
some of the candidates that I think HR saw, you never saw?
Ms. Smith: Well, they were candidates that were interviewed, but on some of
these positions, depending on the level of the position, I didn’t, my assistant directors
managed the hiring process of these positions, and once they selected someone and
they’re comfortable with what the salary level would be, they bring those to me, and in
turn they would come to the Commission. On at least two occasions I had, it became
abreast that we had candidates that would be potentially interested in coming aboard,
however those candidates were not interested in coming aboard for the salary that was
being discussed with them. I in turn got the information and called them they indicated
that they were no longer interested in coming to work for the city of Augusta.
Mr. Colclough: At the point where you had these qualified candidates who were
not willing to come for that, for the salary that was offered, could it have been possible
that you say I have two candidates or one candidate who is qualified and have the P.E.
78
and all this other good stuff that I need, and this person could fill that position, and I need
permission from the Commission to offer them 15% or 10% above what we are offering?
Ms. Smith: That was the purpose of my talking to the candidates. However, once
–
Mr. Colclough: That was after –
Ms. Smith: Correct.
Mr. Colclough: I mean you didn’t get a chance, if I’m hearing correctly, you
didn’t get a chance on the front end –
Ms. Smith: Correct.
Mr. Colclough: - to offer that to that candidate or those candidates this extra –
you say well, I need to go to Commission, let me see if I can get your salary raised,
would you be willing to wait?
Ms. Smith: Correct.
Mr. Colclough: That’s my question.
Ms. Smith: Correct.
Mr. Colclough: I think the candidates, if they are qualified and they have all the
specifications, like the licensure and everything, I think [inaudible], I don’t think HR
should be the one who is doing this.
Ms. Smith: It wasn’t HR.
Mr. Colclough: Or even your assistant director needs to come to you and say I
have this candidate here, with all the qualified licensure and he won’t, he or she won’t
accept the salary, what can we do to obtain this person? And I think that’s a decision that
you may need to be making. We do need to fill those positions.
Ms. Smith: I agree. And in the past when the positions were vacant –
Mr. Colclough: We may need to change that process.
Ms. Smith: In the past when the positions were vacant, as a department head and
working with the administrator, we were given the authority to hire those candidates up
to midpoint of the salary grade, and that is the authority that we do not have for these
positions at this time.
79
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, you had a couple of questions?
Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Mayor. I’m just [inaudible] we need go on and move one
way or the other. I serve on the committee and I want to support my chairman and the
department and to get it out the other day because we were a little split and I went ahead
and voted for us to do this, even though my great fondness when we need money is not
necessarily I feel best spent in paying somebody else to find somebody else to come draw
a salary. I had Don laughing a minute ago, I said I wish this was my [inaudible] last year,
I’d go hunt y’all a bunch of folk if you going to figure that out on that same scale. But I
do think if it’s going to come back to us, and if you just merely setting this aside as a tool
that you have to use for it, that was why I did vote for it in committee. But what I think
we need to be doing with Public Works on these positions is not assuming one avenue of
filling much-needed positions. If you going to have this much time to be spending and
getting a proposal back and looking for a headhunter, you know, the Mayor’s suggestion
about SRS to a point, doesn’t even necessarily have to go to a point of when those jobs
come up. You can actually start soliciting, quite frankly, now. I mean if people are in the
position where they know they are going to get a signal early, to be offering something of
this point now. The thing I would want to know, though, in clarification, do we need to
put something in there, if the motion passes, the substitute, rather – does something need
to be in there to address what Commissioner Grantham had, even though I know he’s in
favor of the other motion, but to address how do you deal with the recruiting? Because if
we can’t deal with it, the headhunters are going to have the same problem, if they can’t
take the salary level to the max of what’s expected for y’all to be able to land somebody.
And I think in doing so, we may need to – I don’t necessarily think we have to do it
today, but I think that needs to be in the formula, in the mix. So that whatever you’re
looking at, if it’s posted up X number of dollars, I think it needs to be some leeway to say
hey, the headhunter can offer up to blah, blah, blah and be able to go on and land it,
because if you are putting money aside, getting a firm and soliciting the firm and they
[inaudible] and they find somebody and then they can’t land them for what that is, and
then we come back to approve it, this could be [inaudible] and I just told the Mayor it
might be better if we get somebody with a sign and go look for some of them folk. Put a
sign out and hold it and say I’m looking for an engineer, to a point, if you’re going to do
that. Sometimes you have to go places and I say this all the time, I hate to use the term
stealing folks’ employees, but sometimes I’m wondering for that amount of money would
it be better to just put somebody in a car – and I [inaudible] stay on the ground more than
everybody else, but you know, just finding somebody to a point where you know you go
in to recruit, get in a city and say hey, do you want to come to work for me? And do it to
a point of taking some time off and dealing with it. It’s gotten to be that critical
Somebody left in 2001 now, we going to have get some of that [inaudible]. That’s why I
supported it in committee. I’m want to try everything we can that it can help to get to get
it done, but it’s not my favorite way of doing business through these headhunters of going
to get somebody. I agree with what you said in committee the other day, Richard. I just
think [inaudible] but I don’t want to deny it if that’s the only source that you’ve got and
80
that needs to be done. And if through HR is not working to get it done, in order to do it.
But then that means that you know they can’t find – well, that’s a whole another deal. I
ain’t going to bring that up in here today. I won’t, but it just bothers me to a point, you
know [inaudible] – well, anyway. That’s a [inaudible] another cause. I’m going to leave
that alone. But I just wanted to know could we add that in those numbers when we get
ready to do that. That’s all.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? We have a substitute motion on the floor.
We’ll go ahead and vote on that. All in favor of the substitute motion, which is the
approval of the agenda item, please vote with the usual sign.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Boyles, Mr. Grantham and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Motion carries 7-3.
Mr. Mayor: Next what we’d like to consider are items 58 and 61. I think for the
continuity of our discussion, what I’d like to do, Mr. Russell, is take up first 61.
PUBLIC SAFETY:
61. Consider final report from the 911/Rural Metro/First Responder Subcommittee.
Mr. Mayor: And then we’ll get into the discussion of the extension of the EMS
contract term, which is item 58.
58. Consider the extension of EMS contract term. (Deferred from November 8
Public Safety)
The Clerk: Item 58?
Mr. Mayor: We’re going to do 61 first and 58. We’ll kind of do them together
but we’ll take the report first and then go into the next discussion.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY:
61. Consider final report from the 911/Rural Metro/First Responder Subcommittee.
Mr. Mayor: And if you’ll go ahead and read 58, too.
The Clerk:
58. Consider the extension of EMS contract term. (Deferred from November 8
Public Safety)
81
Mr. Mayor: Who is –
Mr. Colclough: That’s me, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: You’re got that, Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All right, go ahead.
Mr. Colclough:
We looked at the Rural Metro and 911 process we had.
Everybody came in and did a presentation to us and we looked at that. We also looked at
the contract. There was some other stuff in there. What my recommendation, what the
subcommittee recommendation is, I hope, going to be is I don’t feel that the 911 contract
– I think it’s one of those evergreen contracts, that is not conducive to the citizens of
Augusta. The wait time and all the other stuff that they to put people out and the
I think we need and I would recommend that we take this
ambulance services,
contract out for bid
and Rural Metro or anybody else have the right to rebid it, but I
think the contract as it stands, it’s not user friendly for the citizens of Augusta.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the motion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I second that.
Mr. Mayor: Let me ask the attorney if we could, is there some perfection in the
language that will be needed to service notice?
Mr. Shepard: We need to have the motion state that we will serve notice
before the end of this year and take the evergreen part out.
Mr. Mayor: I think that’s the intent of the motion.
Mr. Colclough: That’s the intent of the motion that we send –
Mr. Shepard: Send a notice that it will – I think it cuts off as of January 1, 2006.
Mr. Colclough: Right.
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] and then [inaudible]. We have to send the notice before
the end of the current one. The current calendar year, the current calendar year so that
2005 you have the continuity, but then effective January 1, 2006, that should be the
culmination of the rebid process, would result in a potential new provider there, is the
way I understand it.
82
Mr. Mayor: The Chair just wants to make sure that we have our, whatever legally
we need to do it’s included in Mr. Colclough’s motion. We had a second. Mr. Boyles
had his hand up and then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, thank you. The contract is presently in place for 2005
and we know that, and I recommend that we extend the option until 2006 and during the
2005 and 2006 years we establish an appropriate committee as determined by the
chairman of Public Safety in order to incorporate the response times that Commissioner
Colclough requests in his December 7 report and report back to Public Safety for an RFP
to go over and go out for the year 2007. Additionally, I would recommend a management
study of the 911 Center to begin immediately to make certain that center is operating at
full capability either positively or negatively and I make that in the form of a substitute
motion.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion and a second. Mr. Shepard, a question
just came up in a sidebar discussion here. What is the – if the non-renewal notice is
served, what is the expiration date of the contract?
Mr. Shepard: If you serve the non-renewal notice, the expiration date is
December 31, 2005.
Mr. Mayor: And that notice has to be served by the end of this month, per the
terms of the contract?
Mr. Shepard: When it came up a few weeks ago, I pointed out that the
department head was, pointing out the evergreen [inaudible]. [inaudible]
Mr. Boyles: [inaudible] is a guarantee. I’m saying extend the option for ’06
because it takes more, and if you all remember, back in 2001, I guess it was, when this
contract was first – it took a while to get the proper people, I suppose, on board to
determine what a contract needs to do and therefore I think Mr. Colclough and the
committee that we served on was concerned about the amount of time, the response time,
and what do we need to do to make them all uniform. I think that’s what we all talked
about. And ’06, we have them set in for a guaranteed amount of money and if we go out
to the free market – I mean when this contract was put into effect, what, two years ago,
you can understand how gasoline and everything else, fuel for those trucks has risen, and
I think it’s going to cost us more than that $769,000 a year that we’re doing now. So I’m
just saying that this gives us time to go through ’05, which we’re committed to, and then
’05 and ’06, we’d put the appropriate committee under public safety, where it should be,
and determine what we need to do, and because it’s been some concern about the 911
Center, let’s just clear the air completely and go ahead and do a management study over
there, make sure they’re either working at their full capability, be it positively or
83
negatively, and see where we are with it. Because I think showed with several concerns
that the committee heard – I think, Mr. Colclough, you agree with that –
Mr. Colclough: Correct.
Mr. Boyles: And that would kind of – cause I think – I have now seen or heard
anywhere that, oh, I guess bar a few instances, but almost every report that we receive
from Rural Metro, they were almost within the times that were allocated and even
though, in the far out end of Augusta, in south Augusta those response times are very
difficult to get because of the amount of time out there. And so I just think that we might
be financially better to go on and extend through ’06 but be prepared to do in ’06 for an
’07 new contract.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As chairman of Public Safety, and I did
get with the subcommittee, we have not come to any resolution as far as Rural who have
the contract now, meaning that it’s no negative light on them. I don’t understand my
colleague saying go through 2005, then go to 2006, going to be the same thing.
Mr. Boyles: No, sir, that’s not what I said. I said in ’05 we start the process.
Mr. Williams: Let me finish, Mr. Boyles, please, let me finish. You said go
through ’05 and start the process for ’06 and at the end of ’06 we bid it out for ’07; is that
correct?
Mr. Boyles: For ’07. Correct.
Mr. Williams: Okay, that’s the same difference. And that’s what I was trying to
say. We, we – this is the time for us to come to the table and do something if we going to
do it, in a progressive manner to go out for bids. This same firm may win it. We as a
city neglected our own taxpayers when we agreed to those respond times. Those respond
times are not conducive to the 250,000 or 240,000 people we got here. The number of
ambulance service that we have in this city is not conducive to the needs of our
community. The Rural or the ambulance service did their job. They [inaudible] but the
respond time is really – we agreed to some stuff we shouldn’t agree to. We don’t have
the number of ambulances available for this community. We should have had more
ambulance in that proposal, we should have had better response time, whether it be Rural
or anybody else that gets it. I think if we wait a year, we done had problems and
everything. I mean this is no knock on no company. We done had problems from
customer service to response time and if this deal hadn’t came up with Commissioner
Hankerson, we probably wouldn’t have had this subcommittee there. But since the deal
did come up with the ambulance service, and I agree with you on the part about the 911,
there is another entity that need to be brought in the same time when we looking at some
84
things, 911 need to be scrutinized even more carefully as to what they do over there. So
if we wait through next year, ’05, then start out with ’06 with a bid, we going to be at the
same point. We need to go ahead now. If we going bid it, if we going leave it with them,
then we need to make a decision to do that. But to prolong it or to wait until two more
years from now and then say we going look at it, the taxpayers, the citizens of Augusta-
Richmond County is the ones that’s going suffer. We have been blessed to not have
many fatalities, but there are some that happen, and maybe it wasn’t the ambulance
service but between 911 and the ambulance service, we had some lives to be lost. And
we need to face that fact there. So I’m supportive of Commissioner Colclough as to
giving the notice, not awarding it, so it go through 2005, but in the next month, January,
Fred, we need to start to look at proposal for another ambulance service to bid or to get
that service to bid with different rules and guidelines so we can better meet. Now if
Commissioner Hankerson had a incident that was, I mean just truly out of whack, but
from across town, from what we got here now, out county is so spread out, our fire
department do a great job, is what they do, because we got more fire stations. As Public
Safety chairman, I would love to see the fire department take on the ambulance service. I
heard there going to be a lot of money. Well, we paying a lot of money now. But the
people are not getting the service for what we pay. Our fire trucks arrive on the scene a
lot quicker than the ambulance service cause we got more fire trucks. So we nee to look
at what we paying and what we getting. That’s no knock on the company that’s got it.
We did this subcommittee. It came back with a recommendation. The recommendation
was to go out for bid and let us look at finding somebody. But I’m not going to sit here
and vote to give any service two more years, then start to look at it for ’07. Your family,
my family may need that service. We ought to have a better service for what we got for
Augusta-Richmond County. If I had my way, I would love to have it in the Fire
Department. We are cross training men. We got people that we trained. We even got
people that work for the ambulance service when they off from the Fire Department.
Mr. Boyles: That idea, if that idea that you have comes to fruition, then that
would give us the ’06 year to look at buying the equipment that we would need for the
fire services to do that. But you’re not going to be able to get those ambulances or
whatever on a spur-of-the-moment type thing. It’s going to take a while. It’s going to
take a while to do the RFP’s. It’s going to take a while to get everybody together. Then
it’s got to go out for bid. And then there is always a negotiation part that’s in it. And if
we’ve got this figure, this price that’s locked in, for ’06, I mean that’s already locked in.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] take the same time if you do it in ’06, ’07, ’05. It’s
going to take the same time. If we going do it – my proposal is just go into the
ambulance service – the Fire Department. We’re not at that level yet. We are getting
people trained. We are getting ready to do it. So I’m not proposing to do that next year.
In fact, we ought to have a period where we could phase in, where we could maybe put
the ambulance service in one or two and as we are able to do that, we could phase them in
[inaudible]. But eventually, there’s a lot of cities who opt not to do it, but there’s a lot of
cities that are doing ambulance service within the fire department and doing a great job.
85
So I’m not advocating just do it next year, 2005, just [inaudible]. I’m saying that’s
something we need to be thinking about. But if we going wait two more years, which I
disagree with. With all of the complaints, all of the problems we done had, with 911 and
the ambulance service itself, with no more ambulances than we got, for 200,000+ people
in Augusta, we had how many, Fred, eight, nine, how many ambulances we had?
Mr. Speaker: Nine.
Mr. Williams: Nine ambulances for 200,000+ people in Richmond County, then
we going wait two more years to even go out for bid?
Mr. Boyles: Don’t we have the right to modify the contract if we want to add
more, add more trucks to the fleet?
Mr. Williams: And my opinion, if we going to be modifying the contract, for
going out for bids and give them the time, along with anybody else who can provide the
service, time to modify or change it. But we need to put some more guidelines in there.
They done what we asked them to do. And that was wrong. That was totally wrong. We
asked them for those times and for those ambulances, we should have requested – may
have cost us some more, but we should have requested more. I hear the complaint about
how often certain ambulance run. Well, if you ain’t got but nine ambulance, you got
200,000 and you ain’t got but nine, somebody better be running 24/7. And that what it
going take if you don’t have that. So this is no knock on the firm. We’ve got to get
what’s better for the people. We got to do it as soon as possible. It can’t wait.
Mr. Boyles: I don’t dispute that. I’m just looking at it from the economic point
of it. But you know, we’ve really got more than 200,000 cause a lot of the people that
come into Augusta are visitors and they’re in traffic accidents and transported, too.
Mr. Williams: And I, I, I, I, I,I –
Mr. Boyles: This gives us a guaranteed figure for 2006 while we’re trying to
phase in.
Mr. Williams: As the Public Safety chairman, I’m going to – the subcommittee
came back with a recommendation and I agree with the recommendation of
Commissioner Colclough and that’s to go out for bid. We got a whole year starting
January 1. We got a whole year to start the process to do what we need to do rather than
wait two years then start that same process [inaudible]. I mean to me that’s not feasible,
but that just my opinion and my vote. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, that’s all.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other questions on that end? Any on this end?
Anybody need either one of the motions restated?
86
Mr. Smith: Yes, read them.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Just do both of them, Madame Clerk and then all that will
be done.
The Clerk: Mr. Boyles, the essence of Mr. Boyles’ motion was to extend the
contract through the ’05-’06 period, appoint an appropriate subcommittee to review the
contract, and to employ a management study of the 911 Center. The original motion was
to give notice January 31 of this year and to rebid the contract for ’06 contract.
Mr. Shepard: You need to give the noticed before –
The Clerk: December 31 of this year. Rebid for ’05-’06 contract.
Mr. Shepard: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me just ask this of the makers of both motions, and I’m
just being curious here. On a little something. I don’t really have a problem going into,
into ’06, but I don’t know whether or not this was discussed in any of the talks with
administration or with any of the committees. But I know it’s been a rough taste with the
Commission. And I don’t think one, that this item ought to be [inaudible] in terms of
contracts [inaudible] individuals working here. On the evergreen product of contracts,
and I just wanted to know if you had any conversation to a point of maybe of some
compromise in the measure that if you did the extension and went into ’06 that, was there
any conversation that talked about the ending of the evergreen provision and then
entering into a contract that actually had a cemented in to it with a date that was concrete
and then you knew automatically to a point that everybody would compete at that point,
which would do two things? It would give a level of security to where you got a firm in
place with locked in numbers and you carry it out into the second year. But it also
satisfies the Commission’s desire to get out of the evergreen business per se. And I’ve
heard that a lot expressed with Commissioners throughout and of doing so and I think
that does a little bit of both. It carries it out to a point of where you are with the two
years, but then you’re not [inaudible] where you, you are dealing with a bidding situation
and then trying to deal with whether or not your are questioning the vote on an existing
contract per se. I bring that up because, and I know what person that’s going to
obviously be gone, the one that’s doing the talking right now. But there will be five folk
that will basically leave here. And one of the things I’ve found out about evergreens,
[inaudible] contract, but on evergreens to a point when we start having a lot of turnover
and Commissioner folk coming in, reluctance [inaudible] deal with evergreens and
deadline dates and all those things. And I appreciate the attorney keeping us up to speed
on it, saying [inaudible], Fred, you’ve done an excellent job on that as well. But I’m just
wondering if that may not be the [inaudible] achieves both purposes [inaudible] firm is
87
out there and you’ve got some numbers that’s guaranteed, your fuel cost and everything
else is going up [inaudible] gets you out of the evergreen business. And I’m just asking.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I have not had that conversation with anybody
or with the committee.
Mr. Shepard: Nor have I. But the issue here, [inaudible] Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, is
do you go ahead and give the notice and have the contract process rebid during your next
year? If there are not enough votes to do that, then it’s going to carry over [inaudible].
That will give you two years. But it just depends on what the sense of the Commission
is. Do you want to go ahead and tackle this problem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: What I was trying to do was relieve the possibility of this
hypothetically happening, the possibility of a new five member Commission sitting here,
trying to make a decision on emergency services to a point of walking in on it and not
having those answers at all as to what to do with it. [inaudible] where you move into a
two year cycle to deal with it, but then it also ends the evergreen one that you’ve got and
then you put it on a firm basis to where the numbers are and then your firm knows that in
24 months basically they are out of the situation of where they’re got to compete and
which competition is good for everybody. But at the same time, trying to end evergreens
is what we’re trying to do, that’s just one way that that can be done. And I’m just
throwing that out there to a point that there is something you may want to think about
doing. It gives fairness to a firm that is serving. It locks in numbers that you’ve got. It
gives two years to a point of where you’ve got people working and dealing with it, but
then it also deals with ending the contract in the way that we know it, to a point of where
notice is served but then authorize maybe the attorney to draw up something that’s totally
new. In other words, you go from an open end extension type contract to a closed end
contract. And it’s got a certain dates that runs out to a point that you simultaneously you
can say maybe after six month period you can start looking at whatever [inaudible] you
want to look at, 911, emergency services, whatever you want to do with it, but then folk
know that their jobs might not necessarily [inaudible] after 12 months [inaudible]. That’s
the only thing I was just looking at.
Mr. Shepard: Well, I think that if you think about it, if you deal with the
termination before the end of this month, then it’s going to be this Commission that deals
with it again in the fall time frame. If you pass the substitute motion, then that will fall to
the new Commission.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And I’m not saying that new Commission ain’t wise
enough to make that decision. But it’s to a point that I know a [inaudible] hearing that
tone ringing that we want to get rid of every evergreen contract we got, and it’s not so
much with firms, it’s just [inaudible] nothing wrong with the people that have had them.
But it just cause us a problem to a point that every time we say we’ve got to notify X
number of months in advance and try and keep up with the date, how many days do you
88
have to run out, at least this way somebody knows it runs out on December 31, or
whatever, they going start getting stuff in to the procurement seekers to a point six
months ahead or time or whatever it is and then they will either be, they will either be
reelected to serve for two or three years, whatever the prescribed contract is at that point,
or some other firm will, but that gives some cushion notice in there. And I just throwing
that out. I can live with where y’all are [inaudible]. Commissioner Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, maybe Commissioner Boyles will accept
that as an amendment, what you just stated. Is that possible to do that?
Mr. Boyles: If you were talking about the contract ending basically in 2006, I
think that’s what I said in the motion, that we go out for bid. You know, it’s going to
take about nine months, so if we went out in March of ’06 to be ready for ’07, because
whoever gets the contract, be in the present one or another one, it’s going to take six to
nine months just to get the ambulances in. It’s just –
Mr. Hankerson: My question – my concern is what the contract already says, and
he’s saying that if you put that statement in there, amend the contract [inaudible], amend
the contract, that it would end the evergreen part in it, in case of something comes up.
Mr. Boyles: End in December 31, ’06.
Mr. Hankerson: Right.
Mr. Boyles: But that needs to be a part of the motion. I have no problem with
accepting that. No problem accepting that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think it gets some clarity to a point that if we’re talking
about the evergreen side of it, it’s out of there.
Mr. Boyles: Right.
Mr. Hankerson: Yeah.
Mr. Boyles: You remember, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, too, when Rev. Hankerson and
I came down here in 2002, that’s when you were right in the middle of it. So you’re
talking about new Commissioners coming on. It hasn’t been the easiest thing in the
world to learn, this ambulance stuff.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And that’s where I was looking down that [inaudible] –
Mr. Boyles: [inaudible]
89
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It may all nine of y’all that’s here at that point, but it may
be five of you and five other folks, and to a point of being presented with an evergreen
situation and then you change, you have the right to change attorneys every year, you
may flip that, it may get to a different situation [inaudible] how did we end up in
September or October and we didn’t know what to do about the renewal of a contract? If
it runs out, then it just runs out. But you also know you’ve got to deal with procurement
in that process about the middle of the year. And that’s the only thing I was making an
observance on. It gives us a two year cushion in there to a point that everybody gets
ready. But what the difference is, and I don’t know if the motion covered this or not, is
that I thought you had a notice in there that [inaudible] notice deadline on the current
contract.
st
Mr. Shepard: December 31 of this year, 2004.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, now, that’s my difference in terms of where the
motions are flowing. Mine was – that’s why I [inaudible] to a point you’d have to end up
ending and giving notice that you are getting out of the current contract and then they –
the only thing that changes is they agree to get in one that takes them to a closed-end
date, that locks in to where it is. And it ends the evergreen come New Year’s of this year.
And then everybody is on a competitive basis to a point when it ends in [inaudible], at the
end of 2006. It sill gives the same time period but it ends what you are trying to get out
of in terms of evergreen contracts.
Mr. Shepard: Well, we’re right on the anniversary of the contract. The
st
anniversary is the 31 of December of each, of the next two years. So do you want to
have a one year period of the extension ending and you’re rebidding, which is what I
understand the recommendation, or do you want to give this vendor an additional – not
vendor, but this contractor – additional time? If – the way I read it, if you don’t do
anything tonight, then it’s going to go to 2006.
Mr. Boyles: That’s correct.
Mr. Shepard: December 31, 2006.
Mr. Williams: That’s right. And it will be two years.
Mr. Shepard: I think the choice is do you want one year to make the decision to
rebid and get potentially another contractor in here? Or do you want two? The
subcommittee has voiced its concern that, about the service, and they want to go ahead
and proceed with a rebid process in 2005 while this contract runs out.
Mr. Williams: Exactly. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Shepard: So that’s the choice.
90
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And the only reason I made that suggestion is it’s a
compromise in between the two of them. It gives the company a chance to go through
the two year period, but it ends your evergreen process of your contract and gets us out of
that. That it would be one more off the table that we have. Because – Mr. Williams, I’m
through. Go ahead.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. I want to clarify something and I guess what I
don’t understand and Commissioner Boyles said we got to give the vendors or whoever
time to get the ambulances. Anybody who bid on this job, any firm, they have to go out
and buy the horses that they going to ride us on, they evidently, when they come in, if we
got to wait for them – I think about the garbage situation, Steven, when [inaudible] get
the trucks in and we waited on that. But this year, you got 365 days to negotiate a
contract that [inaudible] December of 2005 if we give them notice today. So it could
begin another contract in ’06.
Mr. Shepard: January.
Mr. Williams: January of ’06 with either this, this provider or another one. But
our response time, the number of ambulances is way off from what we need here anyway.
And we don’t need to wait two more years because we want to wait. Now if that’s
something we had to do, that may be different. But to give a year’s notice and that’s
what it going to take, a year to go through 2005, at the end of 2005, January of 2006,
either this provider or another provider would have bid on the contract. And it just as
simple as rolling your trucks out, rolling another person’s trucks in. I hope we don’t take
a firm on who’s got to buy the equipment, train the people, then put them out there to
transport people. So that’s, that’s, the subcommittee I think did a great job. We already
done talked about this over and over and over again. We did have a quorum the other
day, Mr. Pro Tem, so [inaudible]. I’m read to go ahead and vote, up or down, we need to
go ahead and do what –
Mr. Boyles: I’m just looking at it, too, Mr. Pro Tem, from the financial end of it.
You’ve got a locked-in contract. You don’t know what the cost is going to be. Then how
much, how much ambulance service can we really afford? I mean we raised taxes last
year to pay for the ambulance service. Are we going to raise them again to put additional
out? I mean that’s, that’s a problem we’ve got to face. We’re running short everywhere
in this government and we know that. We’ve got the tightest budget probably we’ve ever
had or ever will have. Because we – we cut, we didn’t cut to the bone, we cut into the
bone. And so to come back – yeah, it would be great to have an ambulance in every fire
station, but I don’t know if we can afford that.
Mr. Williams: I think Commissioner Hankerson may be the man to answer this
question. When, when, when you call that number and you need somebody at your
house, I don’t think you sit here or any of us sit here and say well, we couldn’t afford but
91
nine so we’ll wait until the next one get back in and then come on over here. You talking
about emergency equipment, as far as fire, police, ambulance, those things are necessities
that we are going to have to do. We going to have to provide those services for the
people of Augusta-Richmond County. Ain’t none of this stuff easy. If we had the money
– unless y’all want to do like Commissioner Mays talked about earlier and find that
money that walked out here with them charge cards and other stuff [inaudible]. I don’t
know nothing else to do but raise taxes or cut some other services, but we need to provide
the services for the community to have ambulance service. And what we got now is not
adequate and that came through a personal even where one of our Commissioners, that
came up where even a threat of going to the hospital, we need to have those ambulances.
We still don’t have enough to have for everybody’s address, I’m not saying that. But we
have sit here with the response time and the number of ambulances that we agreed on was
never even close to what we needed here in Augusta. And I don’t want to bring the fire
chief in this, but I can [inaudible] Fire Department, too, to share with you how important
this issue is. And we can’t wait two more years to decide. We need to go ahead and do it
[inaudible] this year. They have another year to provide the service with the same
guidelines that we already put in place, the same number of ambulances, and we ought to
be looking for a better service or a better response time and more equipment to be on the
street, even if it ain’t but one more than we got now, it going to be more than what we
presently providing for the people of Augusta-Richmond County.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Hankerson, do you have any final
comments?
Mr. Hankerson: No.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Anybody else on that end? Anybody on this end?
One thing I do want to make clear, though, and I’m not bringing up anybody cause
they’re not here. But in fairness to both the ambulance service provider and the Fire
Department, one thing I think we need to make clear is that they both in terms of being
handed budgetary monies have to take basically what we send to both of them. And I
think, Tommy, there was some confusion in there to a point that did not come from either
one of the entities from the department or from the ambulance service, but I want to make
sure that we don’t have a situation of where we got two entities. And you made reference
to what we have to deal with. Make sure we don’t have two entities that to a certain
extent have been through the writing of budget language, put in a position to have to
scramble for the same pot of money, and I think there was a problem with that. And
that’s not a fault of either one of those entities cause they were not handing out the
money. They were on the receiving end of where the money had to deal with. But there
were some effects that happened in there that I think when we started off in this thing to a
point that were not thoroughly disclosed [inaudible] like they should have been. And I
think that’s what put us in the predicament of having to go back and to look at those
numbers again, because you know, it just was not done to a point, and that’s not their
fault. It’s not their fault. But we just need to make sure that however we move with this
92
that it’s clear whoever is supposed to get X number of dollars just actually gets X number
of dollars. And the other entity, if they [inaudible] they get that. If I had my druthers
with each one of these [inaudible] I’d rather see them in one and to a point I think there is
a way to work out part of it. I want to respect what our subcommittee has done
[inaudible] contract side of it, but I also think there ought to be – I don’t want to punish a
company that is there that if we’ve got some things in there that gives a level of security
and gives a level of security to folk, of being able to have the proper time to carry that
out. So we are going to take the substitute motion that’s on there first and all in favor of
the substitute motion will do so by the usual sign.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Ms. Beard, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Williams and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Mr. Mays not voting.
Motion fails 5-4.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go to original motion.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Recommendation of the subcommittee, to rebid the contract
and to serve notice December 31 of ’04.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Boyles, Ms. Sims and Mr. Grantham vote No.
Mr. Mays not voting.
Motion carries 6-3.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I guess we go to whatever is next, Madame Clerk.
Wherever we are on the agenda. I know one way, the Mayor had another way, we moved
back. Let me just say this for the record. I certainly would have preferred ending that
evergreen. I want that in the record. Ending that evergreen and dealing with the two
years or the extension of the contract. That’s my preference. But that wasn’t a part of the
motion. It wasn’t accepted as an amendment.
Mr. Boyles: What was that? What wasn’t accepted?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, what I’m saying is he said we voted on the motion.
They gone now. But I said I would have preferred compromising on this situation of
giving those two years but going ahead and ending the evergreen portion of the contract,
like we talked about.
Mr. Boyles: I accepted that as an amendment.
Ms. Sims: He sure did.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
93
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible]
The Clerk: Item 59?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Uh-huh [yes]. Where are we at? Got anything that’s left?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Have 62.
FINANCE:
62. Motion to approve the acquisition of Three (3) Compact Pickup Trucks for
the Utilities Department – Administration Division for $17,765.25 each from Bobby
Jones Ford of Augusta, Georgia (lowest bid package for Bid 04-120) (No
recommendation from Finance Committee December 13, 2004)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. This came out of Finance without any recommendation,
Mr. Mays. It was stated that three compact trucks, four wheel drive, and I question that
because we just had a city auction and we sold some Utilities trucks, Public Works
trucks, Water Works trucks. Whichever they was. Really could have done this job. And
I’m a little at odds at buying the four wheel type trucks [inaudible]. I understand these
are inspectors, they going out to construction site. When you go out to the construction
site, they don’t mean you doing construction work. They don’t mean you got to go drive
up to the door. We might need to buy some rubber boots but we don’t need to buy no
four wheel drive trucks. So I’m, I’m, I’m, I’m not in favor of buying three compact four
wheel drive trucks when we could have got some of those trucks we just sold, that
somebody else is going to get 150,000 miles out of. So if we going to spend the
government’s money like that, I’m, I’m just not [inaudible] myself. In fact, I make a
motion that we deny and find something in the fleet they can use to go on construction
with.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a motion but there is no second.
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second it.
Mr. Williams: There’s a motion with a second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Anybody, any other Commissioner want to address that in
terms of the need of it or how we move with this? Trying to give everybody a fair shot at
this.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible]
94
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I don’t now. I’m not on Finance.
Mr. Colclough: Can we hear from Utilities or somebody?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir, please. With all due respect, we understand. We have
heard the conversations about trucks being sold, etc., but the sites that we build sewer
utility lines on and water lines on are miles and miles at time. In fact, the Raes Creek
line, right now, for instance, you can’t walk hardly on this site. And we truly need four
wheel drive vehicles. In fact the two vehicles that these are replacing are actually full
size. We’re downsizing for the compact reasons and the four wheel drive to kind of
offset the cost because that was what we had, I guess, agreed to do. These lines, we have
over 700 to 800 miles [inaudible] sewer lines. These trucks are being used to inspect
those lines, to map those lines, to taking surveying equipment across these easement, to
actually go stand on manholes and get these things. So it’s not just a matter of the
construction sites. It’s the inspection and mapping of the system. So with all due respect
we request that these be granted.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any questions to Utilities or Fleet? Commissioner Smith?
Mr. Smith: Doug, how are these trucks equipped?
Mr. Speaker: They are very basic. These four wheel drive, they’re extended
cabs. That’s a decision that was made by the city years ago, to get the extended cabs.
But they’re about as basic as you can get on a truck.
Mr. Smith: Transmission?
Mr. Crowden: They’re automatic transmissions, sir. It’s jus a straight automatic
transmission. Tool box on the back. The bed liner or spray liner.
Mr. Smith: Is it air conditioned?
Mr. Crowden: Yes, sir, it is. It’s pretty much, that package is a standard package
as the truck itself. AC is pretty much standing across the board for any truck. You have
to order special not to get AC.
Mr. Cheek: On these vehicles that we’re auctioning and all, are we still turning
them at under 100,000? Do we plan on keeping these if we buy them for 150,000 miles
or so?
Mr. Crowden: Sir, your policy right now is based on several factors. It’s not just
mileage. Your policy considers the age of the vehicle, the mileage of the vehicle, the
severity of use of the vehicle, the maintenance cost of the vehicle, including the fuel and
maintenance cost if you will. The operating cost of the vehicle. And if they meet a
95
certain point value, which was basically it follows the guidelines of the American Public
Works criteria which you approved in April of this year, if it meets all of those factors,
and I have included an evaluation sheet of the trucks in your agenda item. You can see
how that’s weighted out. Then and only then would they be considered for replacement.
I also need to inform you that in order to – it all plays as part of the budget as well. It
takes a year-and-a-half to buy a truck. So those trucks were actually looked at a year ago
plus, to be presented this year for replacement. You have to start somewhere. Now y’all
have indicated an interest in changing your methodology, which we can do. So to answer
the question, it’s not just a mileage consideration. It’s a [inaudible] evaluation.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. I just want to add one thing. Ron, this is no knock on
you or Doug, who needs the truck. We paying Fleet Management to maintain our
equipment and they do a really good job for what we paying them. And I know the
criteria, the Mayor brought that up at the committee meeting. It may need to be looked
at, that we may need to alterate that some, to try to change some things. But when you
talking about trucks, especially if you going to go out in the field and construction and
work with and we going to buy a new truck to take out in the field to work with, when we
got older trucks that’s still in good shape. And Ron, we sold everything we had out there.
We didn’t leave nothing. I stayed all day, the whole weekend. My point is, though,
we’ve got to – Commissioner Boyles brought a good point up about the budget, about the
money. We’ve got to do some things differently. We can’t just spend it because - if I
was going hunting I sure wouldn’t take my new truck to go out in the woods to go
hunting with. If I’m going in construction, whether it be Phinizy Swamp or anywhere
else, I would want something that would go down there, but it certainly wouldn’t be a
new truck. And we’ve got a fleet of stuff. And I’d like to see the stuff that Doug and
them got now that’s going to be traded in when the new stuff come in. I won’t win this
fight, but I put my two cents in. I want to see the trucks that has been run already, which
is a larger truck and going to the smaller truck, but I want to see the condition of them
versus what we going to buy the new trucks and put in there.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I move we accept it, approve it.
The Clerk: Substitute motion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Make that as a substitute motion?
Mr. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and a substitute motion. Is there any
further discussion on either one of them?
96
Mr. Williams: Got a second on that?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes. Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Crowden, is that, is this from the enterprise fund? Am I correct?
Okay. It’s still money, but which source.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion will
do so by the usual sign. We’re taking the substitute motion first now. That’s to approve.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Williams and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
The Clerk: 63?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I guess so.
The Clerk:
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
63. Ratify appointments of the Augusta-Richmond County Legislative
Delegation.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir?
Mr. Hankerson: I have a question on the backup. Is the first one – we supposed
to select one of the three?
Mr. Grantham: That’s what I was going to ask.
The Clerk: Is that the Board of Elections?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: One of the three?
The Clerk: One of the three.
97
Mr. Hankerson: Do they normally send them to us in their preference order or –
The Clerk: No, the – the language of the, states that they send three nominations
and from those three nominations the Commission will select one as chairman of the
Board of Elections.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay.
The Clerk: The language of the legislation.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead. I think I know where you’re going.
Mr. Hankerson: That’s all right.
The Clerk: And if you don’t –
Mr. Hankerson: That’s all the questions.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Ms. Bonner, looking at this, and of course if we have to select out
of that top group, and I guess my question is, have we looked at to see if we have two
people serving on boards and have we been able to check that out based on this list we’ve
been provided?
The Clerk: No, sir, because it was ruled by our last attorney that those rules did
not apply to the legislative delegation, that the Commission had no authority over their
appointments and those rules would not apply to them. Only to the Commission.
Mr. Grantham: But then later on if we’ve got a Commission appointment that
also –
The Clerk: You couldn’t do it, but they can.
Mr. Grantham: - how are we going to handle that?
The Clerk: You wouldn’t appoint them. The Commission –
Mr. Grantham: If it’s the same person, serving on two different boards.
The Clerk: Yeah, but if it’s a legislative appointee, then they could do that.
However, Commission ordinance would prohibit you from appointing someone that was
on an existing board.
98
Mr. Shepard: And I agree with that. They have had a meeting and this is the list.
I understand the meeting was on December 8.
Mr. Grantham: Well, then, I’ve got a problem with a person on this board that
they are appointing, and that’s the General Aviation at Daniel Field.
The Clerk: Is that Mr. Fields?
Mr. Grantham: Yeah. Cause that’s David Fields and I appointed him about four
months ago.
The Clerk: And –
Mr. Grantham: And what I’ll do, then, I’ll leave him on as their appointment and
I’ll go get me another one.
The Clerk: That’ll work. That’ll work. That’ll work. I think –
Mr. Grantham: I want you to know that when that comes up. That’s what is
going to happen.
The Clerk: That was a conflict because they had submitted Mr. Fields but in the
meantime you had appointed him.
Mr. Grantham: That’s correct.
The Clerk: And then that’s when we were sending it back.
Mr. Grantham: I’ll handle that, then. Thank you.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I make a motion that we select Harvey L. Johnson as the
chairman.
Mr. Colclough: I’ll second.
Ms. Sims: Excuse me. Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion to [inaudible] Harvey L. Johnson. The Chair
recognizes Commissioner Sims.
99
Ms. Sims: I’d like to know, how can I know if Carol Spurgeon – we don’t have
any talent sheets on any of these people, we just don’t get them? Do we know who Carol
Spurgeon is? Because if it’s the Carol Spurgeon I know I’d like to nominate her.
The Clerk: No, ma’am. Since they’re legislative appointees and
recommendations. But I mean you can certainly request that information. We can try
and get it for you.
Mr. Williams: We need [inaudible] so we know who it is.
Ms. Sims: I’d like to nominate Carol Spurgeon.
Mr. Hankerson: That’s why I made my nomination, cause I didn’t know but one.
Mr. Grantham: That’s right.
Mr. Williams: So how many can we appoint? Just one?
The Clerk: One. One from these three.
Mr. Boyles: Well, Mr. Johnson is also on the Board of Zoning Appeals as their
appointment. So we’re going to appoint, can they appoint one to two positions?
The Clerk: I think the Clerk’s point is well taken. The appointment that you’ve
voting on, ratification of, is from the legislature. What we prohibit is the person being
put on boards, permanent boards, the same person cannot serve on more than one
permanent board. We’ve had other appointees serve in ad hoc capacities on special
committees.
Mr. Grantham: They can put the same person on every board, then.
The Clerk: Their legislative council sent us a letter stating that we had no
authority over their appointees.
Mr. Grantham: I knew that.
Mr. Shepard: I have the same – they have met and I have no further comment.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’m going to probably end up batting 1000 for
this next comment for my day’s success. But am I the only one or is anybody here, since
we’re going to be stuck with the coliseum for a while, fed up with the lack of anything
going on over there other than just an occasional performance? I mean maybe if we hold
100
up the Coliseum Authority nominees and suggest we all get together at our next work
session and set some sort of performance measures or threaten termination of the
Coliseum Authority – I mean we need some leverage over this thing. I don’t know if
y’all noticed, but there was absolutely no summer concert series. You know, they’re
bragging about saving money but it’s because the lights aren’t on because nothing is
going on over there. I’m just very dissatisfied with that, and they, they seem to be
pleased with it. I’m not pleased with it. I don’t know if the board of Commissioner is
pleased with it. I think that’s one thing we ought to really look into holding our state
legislative delegation and the coliseum authority accountable for is just a lack of
productivity over there. They have, the state delegation has authority over them. We
don’t. to do anything. But I guess for me, enough is enough. I don’t know if that is,
strikes a bell with anybody else on the body, but dog gone it, I mean, not running it to
make a profit is one thing, but to run the darn thing in the ground is another, and they’re
running it in the ground over there.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, Mr. Cheek, I suppose you could make a
substitute motion that did not ratify those nominees but we are on the eve of the session,
so take everything into consideration.
Ms. Sims: What does that mean?
Mr. Shepard: Right now I think the motion is to pick one of the three and ratify
all of the others? Is that it?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We also – Mrs. Sims nominated Ms. Spurgeon. And what
we’ve usually done, when nominations – I mean it’s both ways. We can do it [inaudible]
or just to a point of being nominated period that we vote up or down on names, I think.
Don?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mays, that being the case, why don’t we go and take the
board of elections recommendation first and let’s get that cleared away and then we can
come and take a motion based on maybe what Mr. Cheek was trying to put in, without
having to do a lot of substitute motions and then we’ve got two people that’s been
recommended for the board of elections? I would recommend that we take that issue up
alone and then come to the group [inaudible]. You want that in the form of a motion, I’ll
do so.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ve got –
Mr. Grantham: We don’t have a substitute motion.
101
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Don’t we have a motion that’s on the floor, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: We have a motion from Commissioner Hankerson, and Mr.
Colclough, was to nominate Mr. Harvey Johnson as the chairperson and to ratify the
remaining appointments. Ms. Sims nominated Carol Spurgeon.
Mr. Hankerson: And you’re going to ratify the rest of them, Ms. Sims?
The Clerk: Are you going to ratify the rest of them? Is that part of your motion?
Ms. Sims: No, it was not.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me, let me just say this and I think will get to what Don
is going to do. We can just do a substitute motion to deal with getting the board of
elections out of the way, if y’all want to do that. And vote on the two nominees that are
out there. And then just take a motion on the ratification of what’s, of what’s out there.
But you’ve got to put it in the form of a substitute motion. It would have to come under
the one that Mrs. Sims would have in terms of dealing with both of those names. She’d
have to take both names in order to do it cause you’ve got a motion that’s out there. I’m
just trying to get it on the floor to get some clarification on it.
Mr. Grantham: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yeah.
Mr. Shepard: Substitute motion to deal only with the board of elections and
nominate the candidates –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, I think probably in order to get a vote [inaudible]
probably deal with both of them that’s on there, if you want to separate that from the
other delegation –
Mr. Shepard: Well, you could separate it and you ordinarily vote on nominations
in the order they’re nominated.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We can do that but it needs to come under her substitute,
though. Or either an amended version of the first one. Go ahead.
Ms. Sims: I’d like to make a motion to vote on the board of elections first, the
nominees.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
102
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Substitute.
Mr. Boyles: Substitute motion.
Ms. Sims: A substitute motion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Have to be cause you’ve got one that’s on there. That’s
ahead of it. That deals with the nomination on one and then [inaudible]. Okay. And
you’ve got both of the nominees that are out there, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. And you’ve got your first nominee?
The Clerk: Carol Spurgeon. Oh, Mr. Harvey – we’re going to – in the order – he
was nominated first, but we have a substitute motion so I mean how are you –
Mr. Hankerson: Got a substitute motion and you have my motion.
The Clerk: And you ruled that we vote on the nominees as they were nominated,
that means we have to go from the top.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me make it real easy for y’all. The Chair will allow a
roll call motion to be done and call the two names and everybody go on and vote.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And you either vote one way or the other. Vote by the
name. That will clear that up.
Mr. Shepard: On the Commission [inaudible] –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ve got a substitute out and I’ve asked, I’m going to put
them in a roll call. Therefore, we can vote on the names and vote by the name. You’ve
got two folk out there.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. So we’re going with the substitute first?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Going with the substitute motion. That contains a name.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Roll Call Vote for Ms. Spurgeon
Ms. Beard: No
103
Mr. Boyles: Yes
Mr. Cheek: Yes
Mr. Colclough: No
Mr. Grantham: Yes
Mr. Hankerson: No
Mr. Mays: No
Ms. Sims: Yes
Mr. Smith: Yes
Mr. Williams: No
Motion ties 5-5.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go back to the original motion.
The Clerk: The original motion, Mr. Johnson, and ratify the appointments.
(Vote on original motion and ratifying appointments)
Ms. Beard: Yes
Mr. Boyles: No
Mr. Cheek: No
Mr. Colclough: Yes
Mr. Grantham: No
Mr. Hankerson: Yes
Mr. Mays: Yes
Ms. Sims: No
Mr. Smith: No
Mr. Williams: No
Motion fails 4-6.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That gets us – both of them failed and that gets us back to
[inaudible]. The Chair is open to take a motion on something regarding this information
that the delegation has sent to us. And before I entertain a motion, I make a suggestion,
that we probably let them [inaudible] with some of their business and if we going to take
something off another board, we also make some appointments [inaudible] one
suggestion might be that if we are going to do that, that we take our folks off. I mean that
may be where you move, because if that’s what you’re going to do, but I’m saying I don’t
want to get, I don’t want to get our business for the entire legislative tied session tied up
into one board’s business to a point that while we got an option to deal with our business
on appointments that we make. That’s the only thing I’m saying there. I don’t
[inaudible] them dealing with them not wanting to satisfy some of our needs that are
there because we didn’t approve what they’ve got. If it’s one board in there we also have
some options. I mean we [inaudible] and take some action on what appointments we got
there, if that’s something Commission wants to do, if it decides to rescind them, change
them, or do whatever. I mean that’s another way to skin that cat to a point without
making it go that way. Mr. Hankerson?
104
Mr. Shepard: I hope you’re thinking of that another day.
Mr. Hankerson:
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, since Mr. Johnson, I didn’t know he was
I motion that we select Carol
on all those boards. I keep hearing a lot of board.
Spurgeon and ratify the rest of the authority board of Commission.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second to ratify Ms. Spurgeon and the rest of
the list that they’ve got there. Is there any discussion? Hopefully not. All in favor of the
motion will do so by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And I hope, too, with all these folk they sent us, these lists,
of selecting one person out of where all of us know, I am really getting tired of that kind
of business, cause you too many people that’s on these lists and to a point of where they
are, and it makes really no different – you vote on them in a public body and you have to
say no, it makes it very difficult as if something wrong with somebody that you’ve got
out there. I’d rather us be able to get some of that to a point where they’ve got one
person or preference or ranking or something. And I say that not only to the legislative
delegation. All these other boards that send us some folks, too. It will make it a lot
easier and a lot neater way to do business.
The Clerk: The next item, Mr. Attorney.
Mr. Shepard: Want to head into this, or you want to – a question Mr. Hankerson
posed about the possibility of fines for violation of the alcohol ordinance. It’s my
opinion that we –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: What number are we on?
Mr. Shepard: 64.
The Clerk: You want me to read the caption?
Mr. Shepard: Yeah, please.
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS:
105
64. Consider approval of Ordinance regarding penalties for alcoholic beverage
license holders for serving alcoholic beverages to minors. (Requested by
Commissioner Bobby Hankerson)
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Commissioner Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: This is, you know, we’ve had this on the agenda for several
times and it certainly as a great need. I didn’t call the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers
and all the community leaders in the community today because I know we had too many
folks already in here. But I think that I have something that we probably can compromise
on. I’d like to make a motion that we amend the ordinance for the penalties for the first
offense will pay a $500.00 fine and be placed on thirty day probation for the first offense
and the $500.00 will be deposited in our general fund.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a motion and a second. Is there discussion?
Commissioner, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mays. I’m, I have another suggestion to make, Mr.
Hankerson, and I haven’t been able to get to you at this point. I think I can skin the cat,
but not as a fine, and I would appreciate – either we can – I don’t know that we can talk
about it in legal but I would like to talk to you one-on-one about it. We can either
postpone it to the end of this session today or to the next time. This is not deferring and
delay, it’s just I’m concerned that the presentation delegation of powers from the state
code only includes probation, suspension and revocation. Not in combination with any
other fine. So there are some other states that are doing some creative things.
Unfortunately I don’t think Georgia is one of them. I kind of like the idea and I have
another idea that may skin the cat, but I haven’t had a chance to talk to you about it. If
you would slow this train down a little bit I think we’ll keep it on the track. But I’m
concerned that you’re fining people in the courts below, I’m concerned that this body
does not have the authority from state law. I would have to say that I’m not prepared to,
based on my research to this time, to recommend a fine be imposed up here as well,
according to the research we’ve done to date. It’s because the alcohol statutes, the
regulatory statutes are to be strictly construed and they have clearly delegated the
authority to deal with suspensions, probation of those suspensions and revocations. But
the other aspect that you’re asking for, a fine per se, I don’t see they have delegated that
as a matter of that statute. So I don’t want you to make an illegal motion and I have an
idea to fix it. I know how other states have done it but we’re not governed by other
states’ rules. We’re governed by our state’s rule that when they delegate the power to the
municipal corporation or to the county, it’s got to be strictly construed. We don’t see fine
in there at this point.
106
Mr. Hankerson: So you can’t handle that under a home rule?
Mr. Shepard: Well, it’s a matter of not being – you have to be consistent with
what the state statute does. I would – you had asked me to research this and I have. I
would like to – I’m not trying to minimize the issue. I think it’s important. But I do
think we ought not to put in a fine at this point. Now y’all go ahead and vote it, that’s
fine, I don’t have a vote. But I would like to massage it a little more because I don’t
think it’s legal.
Mr. Hankerson: You don’t think it’s legal?
Mr. Shepard: Correct.
Mr. Hankerson: So will we know after we go into legal whether it’s legal?
Mr. Shepard: Well.
Mr. Hankerson: You said go into legal.
Mr. Shepard: I don’t know that this concerns potential litigation. It certainly
doesn’t concern real estate and it certainly doesn’t concern personnel. But I can talk to
you individually and in groups less than the amount of the quorum.
Mr. Hankerson: With the suggestion of what we can do?
Mr. Shepard: With an idea that I got since I’ve been sitting here.
Mr. Hankerson: So what is, I tell you, what if we go ahead and vote and then if
it’s not legal, then change it? Then you come back and bring us information that –
Mr. Shepard: Well, it may be nullity of what you’re doing, is what I’m saying.
I’d really rather you not do anything for this meeting.
Mr. Hankerson: For this meeting?
Mr. Shepard: Yes.
Mr. Hankerson: Or we can lay it on the table and come back and make the
decision?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, if you want to, if you lay it on the table that means it has to
come back to this meeting. If you postpone it, that means it comes back next meeting.
107
Mr. Hankerson: I don’t want it to come back next meeting. I want to go ahead
and handle it now. It’s been on the table. And I think that if it is illegal, you know, if it
something we doing wrong I think you come back and null it or whatever the reason for
it, but I’d like to go ahead since I had already discussed it and asked for it. So I rather go
forward with it.
Mr. Shepard: I would still ask that this motion, this motion, a substitute motion
that it be handled – a substitute motion to postpone, really, is what I’d like to do, or at a
minimum to put it on the table.
Mr. Cheek: A substitute motion to postpone until the attorney has a chance
to further massage this and bring it back.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a substitute motion that’s on life support that has
no -
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Cheek: No, we got a second. My twin brother.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Still flickering down there. Just did make it. Got a
heartbeat. Got a substitute motion and a second. Do we have any discussion on either
one of these motions?
Ms. Sims: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, ma’am?
Ms. Sims: If we pass this with the condition that you, Mr. Lawyer, look into the,
well, the legality, yes, of the fine or however we want to phrase it, could we pass this and
then you would come back with another, an addition or anything?
Mr. Shepard: This is, this is a concept Mr. Hankerson asked me to explore. I
have explored it. I would, I don’t see why it couldn’t wait two weeks, to tell you the
truth.
Ms. Sims: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: I have – I just haven’t had a chance to get with him.
Ms. Sims: I withdraw.
Mr. Shepard: If you pass it and rescind it, what are you going to do with the cases
that come up in the – there may be no cases.
108
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: The attorney has asked for a little time to look into this a little further
and bring it back to us. Why are we so hell-bent to do it tonight when everything earlier
was so wrong for putting on the agenda and addressing it? I mean, you know. Why is it
right for some and wrong for others? I mean the bottom line is he’s asked for some
additional time. It’s not going to hurt anything to bring this thing back. I can’t believe
I’m hearing that we want to pass it and maybe if it’s legal or not legal, adjust it. Let’s
wait for two weeks and come back. I mean –
Mr. Hankerson: Well, you won’t believe, either, how long I been asking for this.
I don’t want to get into that, now.
Mr. Cheek: I have been asking for a lot of things for a long time.
Mr. Hankerson: Well, that’s you. This is Hankerson. I been asking for this item.
I don’t want to get into this with the attorney, but you know, is this government I get tired
of asking for things and not getting it until –
Mr. Cheek: By all means, let’s bow down to Bobby.
Mr. Hankerson: So you have to understand that, too.
Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Hankerson, all I can say to you is when this – [inaudible]
liability and I’m not able to foresee all consequences, but I want the most defensible
position with what we pass here and that would be in your interest. I’m not trying to
delay it because it, because of its sponsor. I have, like I say I have one other matter that
may skin this cat. I’d like to have the two weeks, really.
Mr. Hankerson: Like to have what?
Mr. Shepard: Like to have it postponed until the first meeting in January. That
will be more than enough time. But it’s on, obviously it’s on the agenda. It’s on my
radar screen.
Mr. Grantham: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Substitute motion will go first, and I believe that includes it
being automatically placed on the agenda in dealing with the two week period. Am I
correct, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: For the attorney’s review, placed on the January 4 agenda.
109
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of that motion will do so by the usual sign. I
think y’all are probably a little ahead of me of getting there.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Grantham: Point of order, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir, Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: I just want, I want to echo both Commissioners’ verbiage here in
this last motion, but I fee like both of them have good grounds to stand on, but I, too,
applaud Mr. Hankerson for coming around and getting this thing done and it just shows a
spirit of cooperation and this is the time and the season for us to be a little spirited.
Thank you.
Mr. Cheek: It’s easy to be spirited when you’re not on the [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, it did involve spirits. Go ahead, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
66. Discuss the process and procedure of the Water and Sewerage Revenue Bond
Series 2004. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I asked this to be put on the
agenda and I talked with our attorney. I’m not fully understanding the process and the
way things was handled. The bond counsel, I know nothing about. I tried to attach
myself to several lawyers but they won’t have anything to do with me. And for good
reason. When I find out the type of money, and my question is to our present attorney.
When the bond was sold, Steve, and I guess this is the way the process works, I don’t
think anybody did anything wrong, but from my understanding there was some $400,000
that was paid out to the city attorney versus another $400,000 paid out to the bond
counsel. And if that’s our process I think we got a serious, serious problem that we really
need to address. Can somebody explain to me the process and the way that work? And if
there was a, if that was a given, meaning that there was no work involved, but if there
was some work involved, I need to see some kind of documents, I need to see some kind
of pay scale would be good. I mean I just couldn’t, I couldn’t understand it when I heard
it. Then I need to ask about the airport bonds and was that a part of the same scenario
with our own attorney? We talking about monies and how important it is. Where the
money is. I mean that’s over $525,000 that I’m hearing and I really had a problem. I just
110
need to the attorney’s chauffeur, I don’t have to be a lawyer. I mean can you explain
that, Steve or somebody?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if I could?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Williams, this benchmark 2000 program carried with it an
appointment of bond counsel and with that bond counsel a rate for bond counsel. And
when I requested that you see fit to appoint me as your attorney, as the Commission
attorney, I asked to be designated as local counsel. And I – if you want me to pull the
minutes from January, I will indicate to you that the proposal I laid out was for certain
hourly rate services, certain fixed rate services, and I also asked to be bond counsel. I’m
sorry, local counsel. And so therefore, I was the last person to join the team. I was local
counsel. And the bond counsel utilized a formula that is, is used throughout the state, and
that is for the bond counsel and the local counsel to share a fee. And they offered half of
that. And I accepted it. And it’s a fee for the responsibility. You know, it’s revenue.
It’s not the expenses. It’s not the net. But that was done. I told any of you that asked me
about it, I discussed my fee in private or public because it was within the, within the
guidelines of what’s done in standard bond practice. There is an appointment of me,
there is an appointment of bond counsel, and there is appointment of fiscal agent, all of
record in this bond. The fiscal agent was Mark Widener. Bond counsel was Sutherland,
Asbill & Brennan. And I was local counsel. You know, it just – your, your fees were
related to the size of the issue, and the size of the issue was really determined because the
interest rates went down. And they thought in June of 2004 that they were about as low
as they were going to go. And the refinancings that took place in the municipal bond and
capital bond area in this concluding year, this ensuing year, 2004, have been many
because the rates are down. And I have been to court, I have been assisting bond counsel,
talking to issuer’s counsel. I attended the closing. I have – it’s a substantial amount of
work to do it. And I just charge that, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Shepard, and all those folks who think we shouldn’t
talk about issues, who think we hold too long in here needs to understand how important
talking about issues is. When I heard about you being our counsel and we understand
how the process work of selecting a counsel. And when I heard about the bond being
sold and you being bond counsel, never in my wildest imagination did I ever think that
the city’s attorney or whoever the attorney would be would receive a sum of some
$400,000 for being the attorney and even going to legal meetings or whatever. If you
went to a meeting every day for seven days a week, 24 hours a day, Steve, I can’t see
how $400,000 would have came to not just you, but any counsel. That’s a process. I’m
not saying that you done illegal. But I think we as elected body ought to be addressing
those issue, but I mean it’s too late. The horse is out of the gate now. I’m not pointing a
finger at you, but I could not sit here and let those type of funds float by and nobody said
a word. I mean nobody address it. If that, if that’s a legal procedure, that’s fine, but I
111
don’t agree with it. And I think that we as elected officials, we ought to be able to –
something got to be done, man. I mean – with the airport, and I hadn’t heard anything
about that, and I asked for a report. I asked David to get me a report. You contacted me
and told me you would get me that report, which I hadn’t got. I want to see a breakdown
of what we done, what kind of hours, how many times you been to court. In fact, you
ought to have a bedroom in the courthouse cause you should have spent so much time
down there you ought to be sleeping in the courts to, to obtain that kind of finance. I just
disagree with it. I think it’s something we need to as an elected body to talk about,
wherever it needs to go to change that, to pay you for what you do and pay you a fair
wage. But I just totally disagree and the rest of them probably feel the same way, Steve.
They ain’t going to come to you and tell you. They going to talk when you go out the
door. But I’m going to tell you right here. I just totally disagree. But I see
Commissioner Hankerson, I don’t have anything else to say, but we need to, I need to see
those records. I still need to see those papers that would reflect the work on the bond
counsel – not counsel, but the bonds that counsel done and you done as well, for those
funds.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Williams, the orders that resulted in the validation, be happy to
put that in the record. The official statement. I brought that. But that was the, that was
the prevailing rate set by this Commission with Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan as the bond
counsel, and I was able, I negotiated – you have to have a bond counsel, Mr. Williams.
The last time an attorney who was not a bond counsel tried to get the bond issued through
the various regulatory agencies that you need to touch base with, it was a total, total
mess. It was not in this county, either. It was a county – I won’t mention it by name.
But the responsibility that my firm undertook because of this bond issue and were paid
within the legal parameters.
Mr. Williams: This whole thing came up cause another scenario came up about
the bonds when it happened with the other firms that was here. And I’m asking the Clerk
now to put that on the next committee meeting that we talk to those other entities who
sold those bonds and those entities that was supposed to be brought to the table, that was
not brought to the table. I think we need to discuss whether it be in committee meeting,
at this open session, or somewhere. But there are some other things that stem to this.
[inaudible] but when some things was brought out, this was brought out as well. And I’d
like to have it on committee, Ms. Bonner, to be able to talk.
Mr. Shepard: May I speak?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, and I’ll get Commissioner Hankerson in here.
He had had his hand up down there.
Mr. Shepard: My point, Mr. Williams, is that if you have it on Finance, the fiscal
agent should be here and he’s willing to come. And bond counsel is more than willing to
come. I’m here today, I’ll hopefully be there the next time. And we can go through all of
112
that. And it’s – but it’s an established fee and it’s – I’ll say this, it was directly
proportionate to the size of the issue. That’s the way the fees are set.
Mr. Williams: I understand.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I think we are being educated here today on
something or informed on something that we did not know. But the problem that I have
with it, as our attorney said that it’s legal to do this, what I’m looking at the bond and
local counsel, $800,000, underwriting counsel, $110,000. That’s $910,000 that we
paying out. My problem with this is, as I heard the attorney say that you have to have a
bond counsel. But I thought we had a city attorney. I mean my problem is how do you
separate that if you are working for the city? It seem though to me that the $400,000 that
you receiving is the city’s money and you bill us just like you’re billing us for everything
else. Now that’s the way it should, to me, it should be. I can see it be separate if we
hired a bond counsel out there and this is the agreement, that he gets, but we have a city
attorney. We have a law department here. So how does that work, how do you separate
yourself from being a city attorney and then
Mr. Hankerson: Merrill Lynch Capital Services, and also A. G. Edwards. I think
those are the names you’re looking for, Mr. Williams, Commissioner Williams, to be in
the next Finance Committee, because there are some questions I have about those rate
lock payment, that they have been paid $12,420,000, and our Finance Director don’t
seem to know anything about this agreement, and I think it need to be cleared up about
this money. It wasn’t up front. David does not understand it, my comptroller does not
understand, he didn’t know this was a deal and how things get by him that he didn’t
know? This $12 million? I’d like for that to be on the agenda, with those companies
coming back and explaining this, how they received this rate lock payment and how this
process is done. Because it’s something here, it’s a lot of money here. We discussing
$12 million here. $910,000 there. It’s a lot of money out there in these bonds here and
things that when the Finance Director don’t understand about it, and I trust David
Persaud’s judgment cause he’s been doing this for quite a while, and here is something
that he has put the Commissioners on watch to know that this has happened, and if it
comes up a year later and we can’t come back on him and say I didn’t tell you about this
$12 million, so I’m concerned about that, so we ask for that to be on the agenda. But my
question is still yet how do you separate being the city attorney and being the bond
counsel and the money, $400,000, go to the attorney and the city does not get any of it?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I still continue to be honored and privileged to serve as your county
attorney, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and all the members of the Commission. I turned in a letter
of interest, which is dated a year ago, December 22, that I was interested in being the
legal counsel. And I set forth the categories of my rates. And I had a meetings rate, a
contract rate, a general litigation rate, paralegal rate, closing rate, and I also said that my
113
firm would be local counsel in bond – local counsel in bond matters in association with
bond counsel. That was turned in to you a year ago, sir. And submitted to the body.
And then on January 6, you appointed, appointed legal counsel. And I looked back on
the verbatim minutes of January 6 and I was appointed after some other matters had been
dealt with, I was appointed and it was motioned and approved and said – this was right
here on this floor – Mr. Boyles said I would like to nominate from my own board of
commissioners the Honorable Steve Shepard and accept his proposal that he presented to
us for legal services for Augusta-Richmond County. And it was seconded.
Mr. Hankerson: I think that would have been really questions if would say now
Commissioners I want you all to know now when this is over with I would receive
$400,000 for being your bond counsel or else there’s a conflict of interest of saying I’m
going to submit myself. What happens if one of the other attorneys, if Ms. Flournoy had
said I want to submit being bond counsel? Would that be any different?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, because she’s a staff attorney and paid a staff rate.
Mr. Hankerson: Because she’s a staff attorney?
Mr. Shepard: That’s correct. Staff attorney. Now I asked for, to be appointed for
those categories of legal service, and I, I am obviously the beneficiary of a large bond
issue. The bond issue was brought forward from future phases of your water and sewer
improvements, mainly on the basis of a decision about interest rates which they declined
to a level that nobody had ever seen historically before and really I think the, my office,
the fiscal agent, the persons you name, A.G. Edward and Merrill Lynch, all welcomed the
opportunity to come to the Finance Committee because I think you’ll see that the cost of
the overall issue was an appropriate one, including these fees. And like I say, these fees
are revenue to me, my firm. They’re not what we, what we take home. There are
expenses, there have been people that have been added to my firm. I think that this is
well documented and I’ll say that if Mr. Persaud – I know he’s not here, I’ll be happy to
let him speak, but the rate lock issue was followed by the CPA that works in the Utilities
Department. It was followed by Max Hicks. The problem, what we were trying to
address in June, 2004, when the rate lock was entered, was rising interest rates. Because
if the interest rates had risen, it would have impaired the amount of the projects that went
into the ground. You’d be paying more interest than you would project. And I agree
with you, Mr. Hankerson, these are big numbers and they work out, I think they work out
to the benefit of this city. Because if the rate had gone up [inaudible], then this board
would have been accused of not being diligent and locking the rates where they are. And
I’m just, you know, this has nothing to do with Steve Shepard the lawyer, but this
program has been well-handled from its inception. And it’s a down payment on the
growth of Augusta-Richmond County. The Max Hicks Plant where we had the pre-
closing is there for a purpose. It’s there so that south Augusta can develop. So the
returns of this whole [inaudible] project I think will far exceed the cost. And here again,
I set forth – we might have no bond issues this year. I just covered the waterfront.
114
Mr. Hankerson: Well, I can understand what you’re saying, Steve, but to me, to
separate you from being the city attorney and then taking the role of just being bond
counsel – let me read, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, what our Finance Director said about the rate
[inaudible] payment with Merrill Lynch and A. G. Edwards, and I want to talk to Merrill
Lynch and A. G. Edwards, cause I got another bone to pick, too. I got an Indiana,
Indianapolis, Indiana bone to pick with them. I got some more coming. When I go out
of town, I be looking, I be asking questions. I don’t waste your money when I go out of
town. I’m going to save you some. The Finance director says here since Merrill Lynch
and A. G. Edwards share joint agreement with the City of Augusta to provide financial
advisory services and they were also underwriting the $160 million bonds, I found that it
gives an appearance of conflict of interest based on – he has A, B, C, D, E, he has it here
– that that conflict of interest type thing, doing some things here. That’s what I got a
problem with. But that would be answered when they come to the table.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Cheek and then Commissioner Boyles?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. And I’m going to follow along
with what my two colleagues have said here. This is a practice that has occurred by the
legal firms that represent every governmental entity in this city, and there’s fees
associated with that. I guess this is one of the things, when we consider in creating a law
department, would be to have in events like this, to have our own staff attorneys serve in
these capacities in order to roll these dollars back into the general fund and offset the
operational costs of the legal department. But this is a practice that has been consistent
with other entities within this city, finders’ fees and so forth. You know, quite frankly,
[inaudible] great deal of money going into firms, local firms. I guess it’s the wish of this
Commissioner that we could eventually get to a point where we have a staff person that
could serve in these capacities or staff attorneys serve in these capacities or to roll that
money over, and that would bring this year’s budget for our legal department, probably
cut it in half or bring it close down to a zero balance. Of course, that’s one of the things
that I considered when we talked about the law department years ago. But what has
occurred here is nothing any different than what is occurring in other governmental
entities, the Aviation Commission, the School Board, or Coliseum Authority, I’m sure.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mays. I want to make sure that if those, if Merrill
Lynch and A.G. Edwards come to the table, I want to make sure the Finance Director is
there, too, because I thought it was on his recommendation, if I recall right, and I’m
going from memory, and it’s a little bit late. But I thought it was on his recommendation
that we use them as financial advisors. I think that was questioned once or twice and it
had to come from somewhere and I think it probably had come from the Finance
Department. But I’d just like to, I want to make sure that he’s there, too.
115
Mr. Hankerson: Of course he’s going be there. I got the documents I requested
from him so he’s going to be there to lead this. [inaudible] one thing about it for sure is
that it would clear him in the future because he’s bringing it to our attention [inaudible]
David, if you had of told us this and that and want to terminate him for something. $12
million in the future, you know, it’s enough to terminate somebody.
Mr. Boyles: Well, if he doesn’t understand something [inaudible].
Mr. Hankerson: Well, I guess I been snooping, Tommy. I mean I’m asking for it
to come to your committee, Finance Committee, so I been snooping around.
Mr. Boyles: I appreciate that. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Somewhat in defense of Mr. Shepard, I
think we need to understand that [inaudible] mentioned a few minutes earlier that this
practice has been a standard practice for years and years, based on bond issues by any
government. And the reason for these bond counsel is that they have to certify and verify
that these documents are legal and that these documents are saleable by whoever you get
to handle the sales of them. I guess one of the points I’m making is that if we had a in-
house counsel that did that and was on staff, then the funds that an outside counsel
received would not come back to the government, it actually goes to your bond
purchaser. It reduces your bond or reduces the rate of your bond at that particular time.
So what we are talking about, that we are not taking money out of the government to put
into Steve’s pocket. This has been a practice that’s been had for years and years. It’s a
part of that profession and it’s a part of doing business with people who are qualified and
who know what they’re doing. They have to be responsible when they sign off on these
documents, and personally I think we’re getting a service for what is being provided
Whether he’s – if we didn’t have him as bond counsel, I think it’s under regulation that
you’ve got to have someone. So we would have to go out and find a bond counsel to do
the work that he has done in house. And if we want to do that, then I think that’s
certainly something in order, that we go out and find another bond counsel. And Steve
would still be your legal counsel here. But under the circumstances, the bid that he gave
us or the proposal that he gave us happened to include bond counsel. And that’s what we
accepted. So I don’t think that we are, you know, looking at Steve taking stuff away
from us or out of our pocket. This is something that was service rendered, and he was
paid for it. And had we had to have a bond counsel to do it, we would have had to pay
the same thing or maybe even more to an outsider to come and do the same type of work
that he has performed for us.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
116
Mr. Williams: I want to close, and I just want to say this is not a knock on Steve.
I don’t blame Steve one bit. In fact, if [inaudible] my point is being an elected official
here, we ought to know in the beginning what those fees was going consist of. I mean we
depend on our attorney to guide us. He is our legal – I mean, but, I mean I been here five
years now and this ain’t the first time we did bonds. Steve ain’t the first one to do this.
But if we don’t address it, it’s going, it’s a continuous, it’s an ongoing thing. So when we
are bombarded with all this other stuff and the rates – I had the question that never got
answered. I said Steve, what are your people in your office that are connect with this
government, what are they making? Steve told me he was going to look at that the first
of the year, we going get back, we going to share those things. I voted against
[inaudible], the staff attorney couldn’t even apply for the attorney job. I thought that was
wrong. That was set up. When we put it in place. That the staff attorney couldn’t even
apply for the job. Well, this attorney is another attorney and I disagree with him. If they
are capable of doing the job [inaudible] and I’m not advocating that they ought to be the
bond counsel. But there certain things we may [inaudible] and say things we just leave
vague so that [inaudible] continue everything. We can go on, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’m
through with that until we meet with the group that coming in, cause I’m like
Commissioner Hankerson, I got some more questions. That’s how this whole thing came
up, some more questions arose and [inaudible] the money said of it.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I make a motion that until that happens
that we accept this as information.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. I’m going to recognize Ms. Beard.
Ms. Beard: I would like to amend that that we accept it as information but it
is about that time where we need to review the contract, and I’d like that included,
his contract is reviewed at this time.
Mr. Shepard: Well, I don’t, I didn’t serve for longer than a year. And my
appointment is up for review at the next meeting in January. My appointment is a one
year appointment.
Ms. Beard: That’s what I was saying. It’s absolutely the perfect time to do that.
Mr. Shepard: Suits me. But it’s what I always said, the first meeting in January.
It comes up in the first meeting in January every year.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Is that an amendment? Is that a substitute motion?
(End of tape 3)
(Beginning of tape 4)
117
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Richard was asking you what was the motion.
The Clerk: The motion was to receive it as information and to review the
attorney’s contract.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any
opposed, the same.
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk:
67. Approve purchase of tickets for the Augusta Regional Economic Outlook
Conference January 7, 2005 at Radisson Riverfront Hotel funded from 2004 budget.
Ms. Beard: I so move.
Mr. Hankerson: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Is there discussion? All in favor of
the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
ATTORNEY:
68. Authorize Augusta Utilities Department to execute Change Order #1 to
contract with American Hydro Corporation regarding Goodrich Street Raw Water
Pumping Station – Rehabilitation of Turbine Unit #4.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’m passing out proposed changed order
number 1. I know that the Commission has an aversion to change orders but this was
made necessary because the [inaudible] contract [inaudible] fabricating this assembly – I
think it’s in York, Pennsylvania where they are doing the work – the, that they asked for
certain changes in the general conditions and we asked for a possible negative change
order up to the amount of the installation costs, which could result in a credit or a
reallocation of the money in the amount of $156,000. The contract, the basic contract has
been approved by this body for $730,000 and then the amendments that were made
118
necessary in the negotiations, I think, Mr. Goins negotiated this for the Utilities
Department, I think Mr. Hicks may have reviewed it, and each of the changes is set forth
there . The damages were limited to indirect and consequential damages. We had a
dispute about whether we could take position of the tools, appliances, construction
equipment. We wanted to take possession of the materials and equipment that were
incorporated in the work. There was an error in the designation of the engineering firm.
We caught that. There were special conditions inserted. Like I say, the benefit to the city
would be to go ahead and have this piece fabricated and have it available and then if it
could not be installed on the schedule of American Hydro, then we could – in fact,
they’ve already agreed that if you agree to this change order that we could have a credit
in the contract of $156,200 if we need somebody else to install the part. So it was some
considerations that made this necessary, all set forth there. We didn’t have all the details
when I prepared the agenda item last Wednesday, but I did indicate to the Clerk that I
would be supplementing it with this contract and I have initialed it at the end saying it is
approved as to form. So that’s – I ask that you approve the first change order to the
contract with American Hydro.
Mr. Cheek: Move to approve.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Steve?
Mr. Shepard: Yes?
Mr. Colclough: I see here you’re deleting four here and adding the words two
here. This is a two year contract?
Mr. Shepard: The Utilities Department asked for that, Mr. Colclough. They
wanted a two year [inaudible] period [inaudible].
Mr. Goins: Yes, sir, that’s a warranty period. That’s not a contract itself. We’re
extending the warranty period from generally a one year to a two year. We’re getting
more for the same amount of money. We’re extending it. Instead of a one year warranty,
we’re requesting that that be a two year warranty. That’s in our favor.
Mr. Colclough: So you’re saying the original contract was for $730,500
[inaudible]?
Mr. Goins: Yes, sir. And the language changed from one year to two years, it
was originally negotiated but when we were cleaning up the paperwork that was inserted
in. The general language in your contracts is a one year agreement but we had requested
119
a two year agreement. So Mr. Shepard caught that and added that as a two year
agreement.
Mr. Colclough: Number 7, item number 7 [inaudible] following language
[inaudible]. What do that mean?
Mr. Shepard: That’s something they asked for, Mr. Colclough. In negotiations.
It was bilateral negotiations.
Mr. Colclough: If the work is not done properly, you’re saying we can take the
tools and machinery?
Mr. Shepard: Materials and equipment. They didn’t want us to take possession
of their tools and equipment. And it was broadly drawn and so [inaudible] we could take
possession of what was going to be incorporated into the work. And so I negotiated –
they had everything. I wanted some security for what was down here already. In other
words, we would have - they had, I don’t know, cement or whatever delivered to the site
[inaudible] we could take possession of that. They wanted [inaudible] everything.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] is that a change in the contract? I know [inaudible].
Mr. Goins: That was a typo.
Mr. Shepard: That was a typographical error.
Mr. Goins: The engineer of record is Zimmerman Evans & Leopold, and the
general conditions that were incorporated in the contract listed CH2MHILL. That was a
typographical error.
Mr. Colclough: Then you’ve got [inaudible]. ZEL, what is that?
Mr. Goins: ZEL, Zimmerman Evans & Leopold. It’s just an acronym.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Marion?
Mr. Williams: Yeah, number 9 scared me a little bit there, when I saw that,
Richard, too, as well. But I need to ask a question. Steve, why are we negotiating taking
the equipment or possibly taking equipment or taking materials from a firm who is a
legitimate firm, who ought to be doing good work and – I mean how does it get to this
point as far as us wanting to even consider. They don’t want us to take the equipment,
how did we get there? No other contractor we done where we would consider taking the
equipment from a group. That throw my whole – where –
120
Mr. Shepard: Both parties desired changes to the contract, Mr. Williams. We got
some of what we wanted, and they got some of what they wanted, subject to your
approval.
Mr. Williams: I hear you but I’m still – [inaudible].
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] amount shall not exceed [inaudible] $156,200. That’s
[inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: If, if –
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] $156,000?
Mr. Shepard: Drew, if –
Mr. Goins: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible]
Mr. Goins: $735,000. And if for whatever reason the person that is
manufacturing the [inaudible] can’t install it, then they are deducting the $156,000.
Mr. Shepard: Here’s the problem, Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Colclough: It’s been a long day.
Mr. Hicks: It’s going to take them about six months to make this. It will arrive
here, we had hoped it would arrive here in April, but [inaudible]. If we make it through
the summer with no, without anything happening to the existing [inaudible] these same
folks will install it probably next fall, and the total sum that they will get is $730,000. If
something should happen to the [inaudible] and we have to get this new one, which will
be sitting on the site, installed, and American Hydro can’t get a crew to come down and
do it, we have a local crew to install this facility. They can’t manufacture one. It’s a very
skilled thing. But they can install it. And so we could have them do that, and in that case
American Hydro wouldn’t get the $156,000, the local [inaudible] would get that money.
That’s basically what this is all amount.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible]
Mr. Hicks: It’s them saying if we can’t install it [inaudible] then you get some
other person and we’ll give up that amount. [inaudible] That’s the whole basis for this.
[inaudible] change order, to me it’s just a common sense modification rather than a
change order. The initial contract that y’all have approved, it’s not a change order in any
manner, but I won’t get into that.
121
Mr. Shepard: That’s the language we use. This is giving permission [inaudible]
we just didn’t want to be in a situation where we have the [inaudible] on the ground and
American Hydro not being able to come get it and we not being able to postpone it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Anybody else got any questions on it? [inaudible]
depending on y’all to [inaudible] make sure water keep running, and you ain’t got no
problem out of me. Okay. There is a motion and second. There being no further
discussion, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the
same.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I’d like to make a motion to reconsider Item 58.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
58. Consider the extension of EMS contract term. (Deferred from November 8
Public Safety.)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second on the reconsideration of item number
58. Do you want to go ahead, Andy, on a discussion, since you brought it up prior to
going into legal? [inaudible] might as well talk about it.
Mr. Cheek: Two things that concern me is, one, as mentioned, a contract that
we’re locked in to. I know that there are some concerns from the committee, some issues
that need to be addressed. The turnaround time is right at one year to turn around the
RFQ’s, RFP’s necessary to get this job done and turned around, if we go out and have it
ready by ’06. Is that adequate time? And two, the cost of fuel and other things continue
to go up, is going to be an impact on this government’s general fund. I just wanted to
make sure that the body had an opportunity to bring up any other issues or concerns and
at least reconsider this and vote if that’s still the will to do what we did initially.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If I could say this before hand. Let me, and I guess, and the
reason why I want to jump in this before you, Tommy, I guess I kind of started this cause
y’all had two motions out there and I wanted to get, I wanted to get us, I thought, off of
[inaudible] square one and I may have missed the amendment [inaudible]. But I didn’t
probably hear your amendment that was in there in terms of accepting.
122
Mr. Boyles: You asked me to accept an amendment and I did.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And I may have [inaudible] missed that on where we were
[inaudible] and that’s probably why you gave me that look, Ms. Bonner, [inaudible] did
that, across that. I didn’t hear him when he accepted it to a point because I knew the
concern the Commission has about evergreen contracts and still does, and that was one
thing I was trying to get us out of. But at the same time I thought it gave us the time to
deal with that on locking in of numbers and of doing some other things. And I kind of
thought I was out there without a motion period that I probably wanted to vote for, and
that was why when you asked me what my intentions were, frankly at the time I was
thinking that after the first one didn’t pass, the second one wasn’t going to pass, either,
and then I [inaudible] amendment, Tommy. Then the numbers came up different and it
kind of shocked me. I was trying to figure out how we didn’t and one did. So, so much
for guessing and know what y’all are doing. [inaudible] old age [inaudible]. But I’m
going to recognize both you and Commissioner Williams on this side.
Mr. Boyles: That was my point, Mr. Mays, is that I didn’t think that you heard.
When you asked me to accept the amendment and I said I would that would end the
contract basically on December 31 of ’06, I think it was. I think that was the amendment
that you combined both together, and I did say, and I think others heard me, that I
accepted that amendment to work it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Y’all talk a lot up on that end.
Mr. Boyles: I know it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All the time. We get the volume down here on this end.
But in all seriousness, what I think threw me off was when were talking, Steve, in
reference to the termination part of it and getting out of the evergreen, I had mentioned,
and this is where maybe I missed your talking about that in the amendment, was that,
what did we need to end out of where we were and to re-write a contract that changed
none of the details per se but just basically changed the dates of where we were and put it
on a closed-end contract, or could we deal with closing it [inaudible] because technically
speaking if it’s got an evergreen, it needed to have notice that you are ending that
contract. Now that was my point, that I never did hear specifically spelled out as to how
that would end. And that’s where I may have got caught in that cross wind of dealing
with that. I can, I can deal [inaudible] maybe that’s what I want to get now of how we
get to that point of doing it.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mays, the way I understood the subcommittee’s
recommendation was that we go ahead and give notice now so that it terminates a year
from now, which would be December 31, 2005. At that point, we would negotiate
whatever contract we wanted, but you would have your procurement process, your
123
purchasing process, move ahead during the ensuing year, 2005. Now if you want to
make the agreement terminate on December 31, 2006, then you can do nothing tonight
and it will roll on, but if want to close end the contract, you can make the motion to
terminate it or you make it now to terminate it in December,. 2006. You have really a
year to do that now, but it just depends on how fast you want to get in here and address
the performance standards of the provider. So do you want to have a procurement
process in ’04, excuse me, in ’05, or ’05 and ’06, if you think it’s going to last longer
than that? That’s, to me that’s a Commission decision. I hear complaints that the service
is not what you think it ought to be and you want to go ahead and terminate it. Well,
passage as it stood with exercise of the right of termination as of December 31, 2005, is
what you want to do. And, but you’ve got to give that notice at this meeting. You’ve got
to go ahead and authorize that notice to go out at this meeting. Now if you want to take
longer, then you can. And you can take through 2006. But if a motion tonight doesn’t
carry to give them the notice of termination as of December 31, 2005, then the thing is
going to go on through December, 2006. I thought the subcommittee’s point was that
they wanted to exercise that right. And start the procurement process next year. Is it
going to be a [inaudible]? It may well be. But how serious do you feel about revising the
performance? I mean that’s what comes out. If you want to get to it now or potentially
do you want to take – I shouldn’t say now, but in the ensuing year, or do you want to take
two years?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Let me try and clarify
something. First of all, if you going to do something different than the contract already
calls for, you got to negotiate with the other parties to see whether they be willing to in
the beginning. The next thing is I hear that there may be gas prices, there may be
increase. The longer we wait, the more probability going to be for increases. The sooner
you move, and I’m thinking [inaudible], but the sooner you move, the better it’s going be
to get a rate or get a new situation under hand rather than waiting two more years down
the road. We don’t know what the economy, we don’t know what tomorrow holds. Now
don’t y’all start no preaching service here, but let’s be real. If you going do something
different from what the contract calls for, we notify them as we have already voted to do,
we got a whole year, all of 2005. January, six months to [inaudible] leave mine alone.
To do all this. And we can start the process. If we wait until then this government never
got progressive [inaudible] two years, so let’s get to work on it, cause we going to be that
much further behind. We’ve got to go ahead and do something. [inaudible] proper
amount of time, we going to change what we got with them, we’ve got to go and ask
them, do you want to change? Do you want to go for another additional year?
[inaudible] well, we done, we done let the time went by. We’ve got to move. We up
against the wall again with another situation. And not to put any damper on the firm
that’s doing it. We may end up with the same firm but we have said many, many times
that response time, that the number of ambulances that we using are not sufficient for
what we got here. Well, yeah, if we get more we going to have to pay more. I agree to
that. But we agreed to the number of citizens we got and 911 need to be drawed into the
same picture, too, because there some problems, not just with the ambulance service, but
124
911 they got some things that Public Safety need to deal with and we going deal with
those things. But they are not responding and doing what they need to do. If we wait and
that what holding us down right now, we been waiting around till the last minute and then
we want to do something. We got time now to do it. We already done voted to do it.
What are we still talking about? If you know what the fuel [inaudible] going be in the
next two years, then somebody needs to [inaudible] crystal ball [inaudible] we know what
it’s going be in two years. But not knowing what it’s going be in two years, we need to
take advantage of the time we got and get started now. They will still have the contract
all the way through 2005. And if we can’t get our procurement, if we can’t get this stuff
out in a year’s time, then we either get rid of some folks that’s supposed to be doing some
things in that department. It just as simple as that. You run business like business. This
is government business and it ought to be run like a business. I didn’t mean to go on that
long, Mr. Mays, I just, I don’t understand what we doing. Rather than go ahead on, being
fair, upfront with this firm, let them know what we going do, and do it [inaudible]
procrastinate and tell them we going wait [inaudible] we going get aggressive, we going
stop this thing, in the middle of next year we going to have it down so then when the time
come around to another year-and-a-half we done done something. That’s not, that’s not
what we need to do.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Who are the departments responsible for this RFQ/RFP process?
And can we get an [inaudible] we’re going to have a contract for us to review in the next
six months or less in order to go out? I mean my concern is the compression of time in a
year to get a good contract or a good proposal out there and then a good contract in.
Mr. Russell: When we did the contract, they started that prior to my arrival, but it
was done through a committee consisting of one of the deputy administrators. I believe
Walter was involved. I’m not sure. Phil Wahl [sic]and a couple of other people actually
put the – not Phil Wahl. Phil Wasson actually put the RFT together, working with
Purchasing and those people. Might have been somebody from the Fire Department
there. I’m not sure.
Mr. Boyles: Wasn’t there also a consultant brought in?
Mr. Russell: I think George had talked to a couple of people from outside.
[inaudible] Overton I think from Richmond was involved in some of the discussion and
reviewed the contract, reviewed the RFQ, RFP.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mays, on the record, if the motion to terminate, to be given
notice by December 31 of this year does not carry, you are going to have a one year
renewal. I mean not just one year renewal, but two.
Mr. Boyles: That’s why I was trying to –
125
Mr. Hankerson: Somebody make a motion.
Mr. Boyles: That’s why I was trying to [inaudible] the substitute motion that I
made, which incorporated the concerns that the subcommittee report had and also call for
the management review of the 911 Center where we think we’ve got some either positive
or negative problems over there. So I tried to incorporate it all at one time. I make that
motion again using the termination date at Mr. Mays’ suggestion of December 31, 2006,
which gives us a year-and-a-half to really work on it, to get it out and be ready.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a motion and a second on Mr. Boyles’ motion.
The Chair recognizes Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you. And Tommy, I would like for you to accept to
include the excluding of the evergreen so that you don’t have that problem now or in the
future. And that’s what Mr. Mays was trying to get across when the first amendment was
not accepted.
Mr. Boyles: But I did accept it. He apparently didn’t hear.
Mr. Grantham: The point is it didn’t get carried through.
Mr. Boyles: Okay.
Mr. Grantham: But that was the point that was made, in order to use 2006
funding right now on the bid and on the contract. If we go out and say right now that we
are not going to extend it beyond that period of time, I don’t know that they’re not
welcoming that idea in order to rebid it and come back with a higher bid to get it in 2006.
Mr. Boyles: That’s true.
Mr. Grantham: So that’s the point that I’m making and I feel like that we’ve
made a point with the, with the Rural Metro that service is of the utmost thoughts in our
mind and that we really need to have the type of service that’s going to be needed. If it
takes more ambulances, then they are going to need to put on some more ambulances.
And Marion, I’m agreement. Nine may not be enough. Fifteen may not be enough. I
don’t now. But then again, we have 911 involved, we have ambulance service involved,
we have fire calls involved. And I think all of that culminated into the problem that we
faced with Commissioner Hankerson, and that’s why we’re here talking about this today.
But I would like for you to include that we immediately stop with evergreens and there be
no evergreens included in any new contract.
126
Mr. Boyles: That would be on the notification and I accept that.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: The contract, Steve, let’s get back to the contract now. The
contract calls for when you do away with the evergreen, then you got to give the notice.
The contract already in place. That if you don’t follow through with you going to
automatically violate anyway.
Mr. Shepard: It’s just going to renew for that second year, Mr. Williams. If you
want, if you want to terminate it in a year, then you’ve got to vote tonight.
Mr. Williams: I understand that. And that’s the point I’m trying to bring out.
You can’t add in additional time, in a year-and-a-half or whatever. There’s an evergreen
contract that we talked about changing, get rid of not, not just with this company, any
company, that we need to go ahead on and do something with it, because of the term of
the contract. This is the time to do it. It was brought to us in plenty of time. We started
the subcommittee. We at the finish line. We’ve got to do what the contract [inaudible]
or it’s going to automatically do something. Now if we going, if we going to get a better
contract, or we going to rebid this situation or go out and get another provider to come in
and give us some competitive prices, this is the time to do it. Tell me what genius done
walked in here and blown our minds to get aggressive and do something we ain’t never
did before? All we doing is procrastinating, waiting on another incident to happen. If we
going do it, then we already done voted on it. Now we bringing it back up to vote on it
again. We got a year. If you can’t do it in a year’s time, we need to get rid of some
people in this government. I don’t want to hear that about all we got to do. We got a lot
to do. And you can’t turn your back and walk away from it. It got to be done. We pay
more people in this government to do nothing that we are paying people to do something.
We need to find those who not doing nothing, take the money from them or else send
them down the road. It just as plain as that. I mean I don’t understand this.
Mr. Hankerson: Call for the question.
Mr. Williams: Got a year.
Mr. Shepard: In view of simplicity, in view of the message, if that’s what you
want to send, I fully recommend that the motion be to give them notice by the end of this
year, December 31, 2004, that it’s not going past 2005, next year go through your
procurement process.
Mr. Boyles: I thought we already had the motion on the floor.
127
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, actually we’ve got to reconsider and get a vote to
reconsider first. Technically speaking. Then we can make the motion really on the
details of it. First motion is to reconsider whether we do it, and it’s going to take six
votes to reconsider. What I, what I think the attorney is telling us, with the one that’s on
the floor now, is that it may be hard [inaudible] one of the reasons why I didn’t have a
problem with reconsidering, but I thought we were maybe going to reconsider it probably
after legal, but I didn’t want to keep people tied up here to wait on us until after legal.
But there is something that the current contract holder may want to accept and may not
want to accept, and in fairness to them they need to know what, what, what I was still
getting, trying to get going, get clear is if we get hung up back there on these existing
evergreen contracts – I’ve heard it across the board, Commissioners on both ends, that
they would like to see the last of all them that are out there, whether they relate to a
person, whether they relate to a company, they want to see some beginning dates, want to
see some ending dates. Now what I was trying to search for was to enforce the
termination side that ends the evergreen, but then extend an opportunity to deal with that
same time frame, but deal with it with an ending part in there. Now I think what the
attorney is saying, there’s either a simple way to do it or you can end up dealing with a
whole other contract that changes dates and closes the end of it. But I think if you, and I
want to ask him this. I think, though, if you go to the route of reconsideration to change
what you’ve got in place and you extend to 2006, even with the amended version of the
[inaudible] you’re in, I think still if you go to that route, [inaudible] some point in there
that you still have not taken out your evergreen provision, that you still have got to do a
cancellation of that, at some point in time.
Mr. Shepard: Yes.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And see, that was my point with [inaudible] when I said
what I was talking about went into [inaudible]. Because it’s just like you’ve got
somebody that, you’ve got to get those parties to agree. And what I was searching for
was the point of seeing maybe whether or not the current provider wanted to deal with the
city on that basis. You not doing one to a point of going [inaudible] where they pick up
on the positive side of this, they get a year past where they are, but what it gives to us, it
gives an ending provision that you’ve got to close end contract. And I think that’s a little
different with where the parts of dealing with the possibilities of a different, amended
motion. Now maybe I was halfway [inaudible] when we talked about that before and that
may be something they wouldn’t want, may or may not want to legally be doing, but I’m
more inclined to [inaudible] going but still keep an open mind to a point of coming back
in here at another time and dealing with them on a separate situation. But I think to a
point if you are going to deal with getting it evergreen, you are either gong to have to
deal with [inaudible] evergreens and the part where it [inaudible] a closed end contract,
or you going to have to end up [inaudible] and keep [inaudible] and keep [inaudible].
They don’t end. And that’s what, that’s the dilemma that I see us in. And I didn’t want
to be punitive in that cause I don’t think it applies just to this contract, but we’ve talked
about this more times than we wanted to about these contracts and what you find yourself
128
doing. The new Commissioners, when they came on, we found a lot of people walking in
with contracts, wanting to know how we got into them, how we [inaudible], and then the
tendency is that you never get involved in any form of procurement process that differs,
because you never catch those contracts because they keep staying. And that’s what we
been saying in legal about evergreens. Now, you know, but the choice is up to us
whether or not we want to reconsider putting something else on the table. You already
have [inaudible] so if we reconsider, we vote on something and it goes up or down on a
substitute motion, then [inaudible] something that has already passed that’s on the floor.
Mr. Hankerson: [inaudible] and to get us where you’re talking about, then, if we
make, if I make a motion to not extend the current contract but, but give another contract,
a new contract without a evergreen clause in 2006.
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Hankerson: I was just saying, in 2006.
The Clerk: One year extension.
Mr. Hankerson: One year extension. So what you’re saying, we have to get rid
of the current contract and in order to put the [inaudible] evergreen clause that you’re
talking about. So we would not extend the current contract but we would extend a
contract upon agreement that ends 2006 without evergreen.
The Clerk: Right.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You’re absolutely correct. That was why when I first
started the part of the conversation, I posed that question, had that ever been talked about
in the discussion? Because in fairness to Rural Metro, they would have to first agree to
deal with anything that would be new under the current auspices of the way the contract
goes. We’ve got a right to serve notice if we’re not going to extend, but then they also
have the right to say whether or not they want to be in here in a hybrid situation or
something new and I didn’t know if that would be fair in terms of [inaudible] something
out there to them in a new manner like that, but I know we’ve been talking – I didn’t
want them to be the new victims of where we start hitting all these evergreens at the same
time and then [inaudible] mainly because they just happened to fall in that category.
Mr. Williams: Excuse me, Mr. Mays. What happens, Mr. Mays, if we extend
that to them and they say no, I don’t want to do that? Do we have time to call another
meeting to come back and say well, you know, we extended them a partial contract or
extension on that contract, pulling out the evergreen part of it but just give them
additional year? We are violating the contract them. The contract call for us to make a
decision this month whether or not we are going to continue it.
129
Mr. Hankerson: But in the motion, Mr. Williams, it says we will not renew. So
that takes care of that. But we will extend upon their agreement, so if they don’t agree to
it, then it’s not renewed.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And it reverts back to what you [inaudible], which is really
what you’ve already done.
Mr. Hankerson: So they are here, can they speak to that? We can just move on.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Steve? I’m sorry?
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] copies of this language or read it into the record. What
the terms says is the term of the agreement commences January 1, 2003, at 12:01 a.m.
and ends at 11:59 on December 31, 2005, provided that, unless either party gives written
notice by December 31, 2004, that it does not wish to renew the agreement. The
agreement shall renew automatically for a term of one year, subject to contractor’s
continued designation by the [inaudible] as the primary provider of responder of 911 calls
to the service area, shall be for an additional one year unless either party gives notice by
December 31, 2005, that it does not wish to renew the agreement. So you’ve got a right
under this contract, if you want to exercise it or not.
Mr. Hankerson: So you do or you don’t?
Mr. Shepard: Right.
Mr. Hankerson: So we saying [inaudible] only difference in what I said, you got
to put it in writing to them and extend that, and if they agreed with that, what we going to
do, and that’s the same thing. It’s no different than what we discussed when we
discussed the former administrator’s contract or something. We said the same thing. The
only difference is we just put it in writing and they accept that agreement of extending the
contract or a new contract till 2006 and they locked in, 2006, and that’s it. No evergreen.
Is that right?
Mr. Shepard: How quickly do you [inaudible]? Do you want to [inaudible]?
Mr. Williams: Unlike this government, business runs like business ought to run.
They are not going to sit here and make a decision when they got to go and talk to some
business official on accepting a contract, whether it be with this city or any other city.
And I don’t blame them. But for us to sit here and to go through all the stuff we going
through, you going to lose a quorum in a few minutes, not just me, but you’re going to
lose several of us in a few minutes and we ain’t going to get nothing done and they going
be automatic, I guess – no, it won’t cause we already got a vote, the way it been voted
on. But I don’t understand why we are going through all this when we could be getting
the administrator, the assistant administrator, to [inaudible] Purchasing right now, to get
130
something in the process or start the wheel to rolling. We sit here talking when things
could be happening. With all the technology that we got [inaudible] from cell phones to
emails to faxes to everything else, but we talking about it’s going to be – this don’t make
no sense.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: My only reason, Commissioner, for even making the
suggestion was the fact that it would not be punitive to them but also it would get us out
from under a contract, confinement that we don’t want to be under, and at the same time
I’m looking at a history. You asked it so I’ll answer it. I’m looking at a history of time
frame things that are not getting done. I agree with you. Some folks are not doing some
things and maybe they do need to get on down the road. But I wanted us to make sure we
had the adequate time to put the proper things together, too. That whenever we are going
to send it out, that we are on a sound basis of what we got to do. And I mean I think, one,
we hadn’t even voted up or down to decide whether we are going to even reconsider this.
If we do reconsider it, I think what Commissioner Hankerson is driving at is that a
motion can be crafted to terminate a contract as it is and be subject to that if the attorney
has language that they basically do not accept in a new closed-end contract, then the
motion that’s on the floor that has been passed, it reverts to it and it means it goes out as
it is and you go on about your business. And I think that’s where you were driving at,
wasn’t it, to get that done [inaudible] but it closes the evergreen. It knocks it out all
together. And I do think in fairness to the chairman, I agree with you, Marion, they can’t
necessarily make that decision tonight, per se, but it gives another option that’s in there.
They can at least say we can accept the closed end, we can deal with the numbers, or
what we can deal with. They know that at the end of 2006 that to a point they got to be
ready to have bids ready per se because they are going to be coming into [inaudible] to
deal with that. We also have the proper time to put it together and do it and then we ain’t
got to decide 90 days before or the end of the year 2006 to come up and to deal with this
hassle because it’s a closed end situation. All I was trying to get us to, to a point you’re
absolutely correct about everything on the contract, but to a point I mean looking at the
history of where some of these things have taken us, I don’t want [inaudible] 2005 and
sitting up here at Halloween and ain’t got nobody to take over, what we going do? Now
that’s the point of that other point [inaudible] and then saying we going to run some other
folk off [inaudible] that’s not going to cure the problem, either. Somebody is going to
have to end up doing the job. And I think that’s what, that’s what the motion was driving
and taking us to do. They may come back and they may tell Steve, no, we can’t do any
of that y’all want to do. Then, his motion will include the [inaudible] of what’s been
passed [inaudible] 2005 and then you doing that. That’s where you’ve got time on one
side. You’ve not killed them and you’ve got rid of the evergreen contract. That’s just –
and I think that gives us an attitude of fairness to everybody.
Mr. Hankerson: Can they speak to this tonight or what [inaudible]?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m open to hear them, but I also think that – I’m not their
lawyer and Steve [inaudible]. State your name, Gene Peebles, for the record.
131
Mr. Peebles: Gene Peebles. We would be willing to accept Commissioner
Hankerson’s recommendation to end the contract with the stipulation we would have the
two year deal, with no renewal, evergreen to be involved. However y’all would like to
word it. That’s up to you. I agree with that [inaudible] there’s no way [inaudible] in the
short period of time. Want it done, I’m like you, I want it done right. I’m a citizen of
this county and if I’m going to be represented by an EMS service, regardless of whether
it’s mine or somebody else’s, I want it to be the best that it can be under the stipulations
that everybody agrees to, and if we need to add additional ambulances to meet the
parameters that y’all established, certainly, if another vendor needs to add ambulances to
do this, to meet the response time, be more than agreeable to that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We wanted you to understand and fully to the point that the
contract as is, that it’s making, it does close out.
Mr. Peebles: In December of 2005.
Mr. Shepard: I understand what he’s saying. And so you’re really going to have
– if this motion passes – well, first of all [inaudible] you’re talking about a drop dead,
absolutely end to the contract on December 31, 2006.
Mr. Peebles: That’s correct.
Mr. Williams: Can we do that?
Mr. Shepard: If both parties – I assume you have the contracting agency authority
on behalf of Rural Metro?
Mr. Peebles: That’s correct.
Mr. Shepard: If he doesn’t, then you fall back to your number one position, but
keep it simple, Steve, is if I have two recommendations to make, I stand by my first
recommendation.
Mr. Williams: I understand. But I mean we even talking about [inaudible]
services being bidded out. But can we do that, legally extend the contract for another
year without another provided being even – I mean I’m asking the question. I asked 40-
11 and ain’t nobody give me an answer yet. But can, can we do that? Can we extend this
contract to them without going to even asking somebody else now? If we end this
contract, which is supposed to be ended –
Mr. Shepard: Well, you have to look at – contracts can be modified for a
consideration.
132
Mr. Williams: Well, that’s a difference now. I learned that from you.
Mr. Shepard: I understand.
Mr. Williams: There is a difference in modifying a contract and then extending a
contract for another year. Once we close out the written thing you just read, one got to
notify the other one, that legally now [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: Now we’re talking about negotiating another [inaudible]. So do
you want to negotiate another [inaudible]?
Mr. Williams: Can we do that? That, that, that, that, that’s my question.
Mr. Shepard: I think you can, Mr. Williams, but I – if you want the quality of
review, I would, I still go with the subcommittee’s recommendation, because you’re
within your rights.
Mr. Williams: I understand that.
Mr. Shepard: And –
Mr. Williams: And that’s, that’s – I can see. I can see. If we had not come to the
point where we need to be with finding somebody else and we said we need to extend the
contract cause we ain’t did what we need to do, I can understand that. But to go and
extend a contract and sit here and say we got a year but we ain’t going to do nothing in a
year, let’s give two years, that’s, that’s ludicrous. I don’t, I don’t, I don’t, I don’t
understand how we can do that. If we hadn’t found somebody, we might even go to them
and extend the contract and say you know what, we ain’t did nothing, y’all ain’t got a
proposal, nobody else got a proposal, so we, it’s six months down the road, we going to
extend it. But to sit here now.
Mr. Shepard: Here again, I’m, I’m telling you –
Mr. Williams: Is it legal? That’s all I want to know. If it’s legal, fine. This ain’t
nothing personal, I keep saying that. It’s nothing personal. The subcommittee brought a
recommendation back. We knowed this contract was coming to an end this year, we
need to make a decision about doing something, we know the response time is off.
[inaudible] we did, we need to start at looking at changing those things and then we going
to make an agreement to end the contract, but at the same time, extend the contract
another year without asking anybody else. Now you [inaudible] you going to [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: That’s why I keep it simple, Steve, rule earlier.
Mr. Williams: I understand.
133
Mr. Shepard: And that way you’re within your rights. And I think if you – you
can always back off of your termination, in my opinion. So I think probably the safest
thing to do would be to exercise your rights and then come back and we can –
Mr. Williams: Exactly. If we deal with the subcommittee’s recommended and
we see where we can’t, we hadn’t done anything, we ain’t on the track, we can always go
back.
Mr. Shepard: That’s correct.
Mr. Williams: But now they want to put it out there as if we, we [inaudible]
nothing we did in here [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: Well –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me, let me –
Mr. Shepard: I don’t see the – the clarity from the city’s side would be to exercise
your right of termination. Now if don’t want to exercise your right of termination, let it
continue, that’s fine. But the clarity is to do, to act before the end of the year. I don’t
want – I mean I have no axe to grind here, but that to me is you’re within your rights. If
you want to do that and then at the same time you think your procurement process is
going to take longer than a year, you would be more, in a stronger position, after you
terminated, to come back and waive that termination.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And even possibly put in place a contract that’s agreeable
between both parties, that they can live with, we can live with, and to deal with that, if
that be the case. What I, what I, what I, what I, what I’m getting into the scaries about
and I’m getting this feeling on this end of the table and it may be down there, too, lose
quorum and everything else, is that if we got the action of the attorney that’s here, we’ve
not had a chance to talk in legal, if the action just stands in terms of terminating the
contract as it is, nothing precludes, and this may be a suggestion to do, nothing precludes
our attorney and the administrator from continuing to talk with Rural Metro on what can
be acceptable in terms of a separate contract per se. It gives some breathing room that’s
in there that they don’t necessarily – and I’m not trying to run y’all’s business in there,
but it gives y’all some breathing room if there’s something in there legal that you may
need to do, or maybe to protect yourself with, that it gives you that opportunity to still do
th
it and doesn’t get us into an 11 hour decision to night that we might have to end up
reversing. Cause I’m just getting that feeling that it’s going to get out of whack here to
do it. You’ve got something that’s been passed. It’s probably the simplest thing
[inaudible] –
Mr. Shepard: Back off the severity of that situation, yes.
134
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You’ve got an opportunity to do it. Technically you’ve met
the law with what’s already been done.
Mr. Williams: I understand, but my question would be suppose the service say to
us we going to give you a letter that we want to opt out. We be December here, or any
other time, are we going to say please don’t leave us, cause we got to have your
ambulance service? It’s in that document that they can or we can.
Mr. Shepard: That’s right.
Mr. Williams: If they came up and say well, we moving to the North Pole, Santa
Claus needs some ambulances up there so we going move up there, what we do then?
Are we going sit here and twiddle our hands and say, you know, I don’t know how we are
going to make it now cause the ambulances done pulled out of town?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I guess, Reverend, that could kind of get into that
conversation of the one you kick today, what you do with it the next day, if you have to.
I’m not going to answer that but it may be a case of kicking and kissing, so I’m not going
to say. But I think what you may want to do to a point if you got [inaudible] passed, if
the parties know each other, what I’m trying to find is a non-brutal way to get [inaudible]
service to provide, that if what stands, stands, and you want to back off a reconsideration,
we can do that. But what I’m trying to do is keep the door open to a point that they can
still be talking. That you move on and maybe something that they want to bring back to
us, that gives and opportunity to deal with that two years or whatever you deal with under
professional services, that you’ve got a working agreement and that we are out of the
business of evergreens of how we deal with it, and I thought that was one of the main
things that we wanted to be out of. That’s the only reason I started this whole discussion.
If I had known it was going on into here, I would have never said that. [inaudible] so
y’all can blame me for that one. I take that blame on there. But we have taken action.
We got a motion here for reconsideration. We can move into that, but what I’m feeling
is, the attorney has us on a comfort zone. We probably may need to stay on it. It will
given Rural an opportunity, too, to do, to take care of some of their business not in our
surroundings. So there’s no pressure to deal with it. And then they can continue to talk.
We are legally protected. They are, too. But it doesn’t preclude us from drawing
anything to a point to come back.
Mr. Shepard: We expect it to move a lot faster [inaudible]. This body would
have to have another session in order to take action again before the end of the year
[inaudible] six votes [inaudible] so I’m just thinking that – certainly your word was
correctly used. It would not preclude further discussion. But yet it would line up.
Presently the subcommittee’s recommendation has been passed by the full body. Which
that is we’re giving notice of termination.
135
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And it may start our talks even earlier of some things that –
Mr. Shepard: That would be within our rights to do. And they could do the same
thing.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] my suggestion is maybe to a point that we go
ahead on. We’ve obviously got to take the vote on reconsideration. Let’s do that. Vote
it up or down, deal with it, and then to a point that’s probably we need to do that and then
just maybe move – what we’re talking about, Andy, was the point we’re protected on
what’s already been done. Maybe allowing them some time to deal with this. It doesn’t
preclude Fred and Steve and them from talking. We can still come back in here in
January and deal with maybe something else that’s crafted. But I think to what the
[inaudible] –
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible]
Mr. Cheek: I withdraw my motion, sir.
[inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No objection from the Chair. Any objection from anybody?
Okay. None is objected. The motion that’s passed tonight still stands, but again, it does
not preclude them from talking, and obviously y’all are going to have to deal with that
anyway. There’s a relationship that we have that’s ongoing, they are providing a service
to us that is vital, and I think in the meantime it gives the opportunity in January to be
able to craft something to do with – we are protected on the legal ground, they’ve been
served notice, but I think to a point if we are going end what we’re talking about with
those types of contracts that for the record that’s not punitive on them. That’s on
everybody that we got going on with, but gives an opportunity to do something. And I
think to a point quite frankly they would like to have some concrete dates on where some
stuff goes, rather than to a point of what’s guessing in the wind about renewals. You
know it’s [inaudible] ending, you know it’s going to be out there, you know then what
you got to do. And at least that, that keeps them where their staff is not rocking with
what they got to deal with. Tommy?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mays. I’m glad I kind of had my motion written
out because the more we talk, I just go right back to it. You know, when I said that we
extend the option for 2006 and end it, and during 2005-06 establish an appropriate
committee – I still think that one of the problems that we had, and we keep alluding to
Commissioner Hankerson and Mrs. Hankerson, I think that the problem that we had may
have been in the dispatch. That’s why I asked that we come back and do a management
study over there. I don’t think that’s being considered a touch now.
Mr. Cheek : [inaudible] motion to add it [inaudible] discussion of what you just
said and then have it approved, a motion and a vote to approve it [inaudible].
136
Mr. Williams: That’s not what the agenda item –
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, what may make it easier, to a point, since we know
it’s got to be discussed, and obviously it cannot be discussed tonight, and it won’t be
settled tonight, that it can be addressed to the Clerk that it be done on the [inaudible] deal
with 911 and extension of the subcommittee, that can be done on another day, at another
time.
Mr. Grantham: Amen.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And put that on the deal with that. Cause it will not reflect
totally into their contract basis by itself. You got to deal with another entity. But I think
it’s good, Tommy, that it’s got to get to that. It’s going to have to happen. And
[inaudible] we talked about. But I think with some of the parties that’s not here that
you’re going to need to deal with, it’s no need of [inaudible] cause the motion to
reconsider has already been withdrawn, unless we want to back and deal with that. I just
don’t think we are going to get a lot of progress on that, dealing with it. I just wanted, I
just wanted our providers and us to be able to leave on a happy median this evening and
to a point that the door is open where they can still talk. And I think that’s most
important that that gets done.
Mr. Boyles: Before [inaudible], could you tell us what we passed?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The action that was done earlier still stands. The 2005
situation, it means they’re put on notice, but it does not preclude the administrator and the
attorney from further talks, and which I’m almost certain you’re going end up with
something else back here, to a point in January with that contract where they’ve been put
on notice with that one. They may be receptive to something that’s closed end in lieu of
the fact that the year may be something that they get on their side of the fence, the
locked-in costs may be what we get on our side of the fence. And that’s something I
think we can leave open. We ought to be open minded about it. I don’t know a whole lot
you get [inaudible].
The Clerk: That’s true.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, do we have any –
The Clerk: Legal meeting.
Mr. Shepard: Legal meeting.
The Clerk: And to discuss item 65.
Mr. Shepard: Which is the matter of the administrator.
137
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The Chair will entertain a motion for the so stated reasons
to go into legal.
69. LEGAL MEETING
A. Pending and potential litigation.
B. Real Estate.
C. Personnel.
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. All in favor of the motion will do so
by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
Mr. Shepard: You ready to go now, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: I’d ask for the authority to have the Mayor Pro Tem to sign
the closed meeting affidavit, having departed for executive session at 9:05 p.m. and
returning at 10:45, thank you very much. To add and approve the execution of the
closed meeting affidavit.
70. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with the Georgia’s Open Meeting Act.
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? If
not, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Williams, Ms. Beard and Mr. Boyles out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Shepard: I would ask that the following be added and approved. I’m
going to read it as one motion, but I would ask the Clerk to record it as having been
138
voted on separately. The motion is to add and approve all of the following. First of
all would be the settlement of the case of James E. Johnson as recommended by Risk
Management in the amount of $68,000 for all claims and that the payment of said
monies, subject to there being no liens on the cause of action and that they all be
cleared and that there be no recourse against the city for any hospitalization or
other medical treatment. Then secondly, I’d ask that you add and approve the use
of SPLOST IV funding as designated in the SPLOST resolution for the Downtown
Development Authority so that the option currently held by Historic Augusta on the
property known as the Houghton Elementary School can be exercised in favor of the
Downtown Development Authority in a not to exceed amount of $270,000. That the
funding through the DDA be subject to the return at closing of $70,000 and an
extension of the remaining obligation of $200,000 for a period of two years and that
would be without interest. And then that those monies be returned to the DDA for
their future use, that title to that money would be in the DDA. We further ask to
add and approve the use of SPLOST funds to acquire through the use of the same
mechanism the funding through the DDA of SPLOST money for the Widows Home
in a not to exceed amount of $220,000 so we can also exercise the option currently
held on said property by Historic Augusta and that it be subject to the return of
capital at closing of up to $50,000 which would be equal to the equity injection in
that property, that the remaining $170,000 be interest free for two years and
returned to the DDA. That all these arrangements be approved by the counsel for
the DDA who is Mr. Warlick and will draw the necessary documents for the
transaction and then I would ask that we have an add and approve of a portion of
the Phase I SPLOST program, a portion of the fund balance in a not to exceed
amount of $750,000 be appropriated from that fund balance and that it be used
toward the project which has been identified here as an emergency repair to the 84”
corrugated iron pipe running across the property of Milton Martin and that would
be subject to receipt of those engineering plans that we had authorized previously
with Baldwin and Cranston.
Mr. Cheek: Corrugated steel pipe.
Mr. Shepard: Corrugated steel pipe, I stand corrected. Thank you, Mr.
Engineering Services Chairman. Thirdly, I’d ask that we add and approve a
further reprogramming of a portion of the Phase I SPLOST program money which
is shown as part of the fund balance of that program for the purchase of the
property of Hugh Simons at Pineview Drive in a not to exceed amount of $135,000
subject to obtaining of an appraisal on that purchase price.
Mr. Colclough: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
139
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second on the above-mentioned items. Is
there any discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any
opposed, the same.
(Vote on last item)
Mr. Mays abstains.
Mr. Williams, Ms. Beard and Mr. Boyles out.
Motion carries 6-1.
(Vote or remaining items)
Mr. Williams, Ms. Beard and Mr. Boyles out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let the record show I abstained on the last item. That still
give you enough votes?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If not, I better vote.
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] that is what it was. Thank you, Lena. [inaudible]
Could we have one more motion to add and approve?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Sure can. We haven’t adjourned.
Mr. Shepard:Also we’d ask that we have the authority to
Thank you.
purchase the Library property by exercising the contract that’s been negotiated for
purchase of that property which I’ll file with the Clerk tonight, that appropriate
resolutions be drawn and approved by my office for the purchase of that property
and also I’d ask that you add and approve the resolution to approve the dedication
of the utilities and the roadway in the project known as FedEx Drive to accept the
dedication of those improvements in order to facilitate a closing of that property
before the end of the year.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Any discussion? None being, all in
favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Mr. Williams, Ms. Beard and Mr. Boyles out.
Motion carries 7-0.
140
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The Chair will entertain a motion – wait one second. Did
we get a motion on the affidavit, Steve?
Mr. Shepard: Yes.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We did get one?
Mr. Shepard: Yes.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. I’m sorry, okay. The Chair will entertain a motion
we adjourn.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on December 21, 2004.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
141