HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-04-2005 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
January 4, 2005
Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:03 p.m., Tuesday, January
4, 2005, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Colclough, Grantham, Mays, Cheek,
Beard, Williams, Sims and Boyles, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also Present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; Fred Russell, Interim Administrator;
Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by Dr. Len Chavis.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Please be seated.
The Clerk: Dr. Chavis, on behalf of the Mayor and the Augusta Commission,
we’d like to thank you for coming in and imparting that petition on our behalf of
affirmation and encouragement for the upcoming year. We really appreciate you being
with us today, and as a token of our appreciation we would like to honor you as Chaplain
of the Day. Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk: Members of the Augusta Commission, ladies and gentlemen, at
this time we will have our State of the City Address by the Honorable Bob Young,
Mayor.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: You’re very generous, but I haven’t said anything yet.
STATE OF THE CITY ADDRESS:
Honorable Bob Young, Mayor
Mr. Mayor: Let me first off bring New Year’s greetings to you, and I hope you
enjoy the picture of the former Augusta City Hall from back in the 1800’s as a memory
of your service on this body.
To the members of the Commission, ladies – it’s nice to say that – and gentlemen,
Mr. Russell, Mr. Shepard, Miss Bonner, Department Heads, and staff, citizens of
Augusta, good afternoon. It is indeed my pleasure to come before you with an
assessment of your local government – a State of the City, if you will. 2004 has been
1
another year of transition, including the loss of our Administrator. But I can report to you
that the state of our city is good. I say that in spite of what our citizens may hear to the
contrary. My perspective was driven home in a book I read while on vacation this past
week. It’s called State of Fear. You may have heard of it, you may have even read it
yourself. Author Michael Crichton tells a fictional story that is based on scientific fact.
He shows how the Global Warming theory is marketed to the public in a way that ignores
real science to the contrary. But people have come to accept the global warming theory
as fact, even though all the credible research shows it is not a fact. A similar scheme is
being promoted in your city to make people believe that our city is headed down a
doomsday spiral. It’s an oft-repeated theory – by people in the community, by people in
the media and even by people in this chamber. But it’s hollow. The facts point in a
different direction – one that we cannot ignore. My assessment of Augusta’s good
fortune comes because the facts show economic growth, increasing improvement of city
services and the proactive manner in which this government has faced the challenge to
pay its bills. Our City continues to make progress and a number of its programs are
drawing national attention. Every citizen can take pride in our community and where this
community is heading. Let me tell you about some accomplishments of the past year in
which we all can have tremendous pride! Our city’s economy continued to grow at a
remarkable pace, given the backdrop of a recovery from recession and rising energy
costs. The 2004 U. S. Metro Economies Report ranks the Augusta metro in the top third
of the economies of all metropolitan areas in the entire country. That report placed the
value of goods and services produced by our citizens last year at 14.9 billion dollars –
that’s a half billion-dollar increase over the previous year. That growth is translating into
jobs here in Augusta. Our unemployment rate continues to improve, while the city shows
a positive rate for new job creation for the first time in years This year, 2005, we will
issue more than 9,000 business licenses. Over the past five years our sales tax collections
grew at a rate of 1.2 million dollars per year. Excise tax collections were up three per
cent last year. The migration of residents and retail to the suburbs should be something
that we are concerned about, but those challenges should not blind us to the growth we
are seeing within our city limits. The evidence is clear that people are choosing Augusta
not only as a place to work, but also as a place to live and raise their families. We are
issuing permits for new homes at the rate of more than two per day, an increase of 29 per
cent over 2003. Last year, the Planning Commission received or approved plans for new
single family developments that represent over 1700 hundred lots. Clearly, investing in
Augusta is good business. 2004 was also a good year for your local government, because
we paid our bills, we balanced our books, and we provided award-winning service. Here
are some examples: Public Works handled over 8 million dollars in infrastructure
improvements and issued bonds to expand our landfill. We opened the new service
building – and public restrooms – at the Augusta Common. We again were designated a
Tree City by the National Arbor Day Foundation, and received the Outstanding
Achievement in Public-Private Partnership Award from the US Conference of Mayors.
The White House designated our city as one of the first nine Preserve America
Communities for our commitment to preserving our historic and natural resources.
Public Utilities continued Benchmark 2010 by issuing 160 million dollars in bonds for
water and sewer system improvements and expansion for future growth. This spring we
will open the Max Hicks Surface Water Treatment Plant and begin important upgrades at
2
the Highland Avenue Plant. In 2004, the Planning Commission completed the city’s first
comprehensive plan to provide guidance for the physical development of the city through
2025. The future of affordable housing in the city was bolstered with the establishment
of the Augusta Housing Trust and the adoption of the Fair Housing Action Plan,
important elements in rebuilding and strengthening our neighborhoods. Our Greenspace
program has resulted in the purchase of 486 acres of permanently protected floodplains
and the protection of 272 additional acres with conservation easements and deed
restrictions. Through our flood buyout program, we have leveraged federal grants to
purchase 23 homes and are negotiating with 21 other property owners. In 2004, we broke
ground for the new Diamond Lakes Library and Community Center. Likewise, shortly
we will break ground for a new terminal at Augusta Regional Airport. Our Recreation
Department assumed full control of the senior nutrition program, with positive reviews
from the 500 people they are serving and greater accountability of the resources you – the
taxpayers - are providing. Our state-of-the art animal services center opened in 2004.
All across your government, 2004 was a year of accomplishment for our employees. And
I’ve asked the Administrator to share a complete list of these accomplishments on the city
website so all the citizens can see them. We can never underestimate the value of the
work these employees – the 2,600 men and women who provide essential services to our
citizens every day. And I would like to speak directly to them for a moment. I am
personally disappointed, and I know the Commissioners are, too, that we have not been
able to fund the long-delayed reclassification plan – and are not able to provide pay rises
in 2005. But believe me, the choices are difficult, but we so far we have made the choice
that protects your jobs. However, job protection is becoming even harder with mounting
pressures on a limited budget. There is a bright note, though. In our budget this year we
have included pension reforms for those in the defined contribution plan, and our new
health insurance provider – assuming we will approve the contract later in this meeting -
will allow for coverage for the first time at University Hospital. As we look ahead to the
New Year, we know budget pressures will continue to dog us and limit the growth of
services. Under the direction of the Commission and leadership of our Acting
Administrator, substantial cuts are taking shape. Employees and elected officials alike
will have to be more creative – more innovative – to find ways to provide services
without sacrificing quality. Tough times bring out the best in people. Our city
employees are no exception. Some of our budget cuts can be directly traced to reduced
income – income artificially cut because people don’t pay their bills. In a recent article,
Chronicle reporter Sylvia Cooper found more than $11.5 million dollars in past due fees,
charges and taxes. And that is not even a complete list. I believe the problem we have in
collecting these debts is institutional. That is, our government is set up to provide
services, not collect money. Some would challenge this assumption, citing high
collection rates. But the raw numbers – the lost income – the bad debts speak for
themselves. I am proposing today a number of steps this government should take to
collect the money that is owed to us, while sending a strong message that we expect
people to pay their bills. First, I would charge our Administrator, as one of his first tasks
this year, to identify all collectable accounts across the organization. Those which are
determined to be uncollectible, should be written off the books, just as any business
would do. Those which are valid should be aggressively pursued by professional
collection services. To encourage maximum voluntary participation, I suggest we
3
establish a period of amnesty, waiving penalties and late charges, prior to turning the
accounts over to collection. The large volume of money owed this City also suggests the
lack of a uniform collection policy. I encourage our staff to bring forward to the
Commission recommendations that address disparities between departments. In the
preparation of our budget, we have seen how the lack of collections directly impacts fees
charged by our enterprise funds and taxes levied to support our general fund. The
message should go out loud and clear that if you owe the City of Augusta money, you are
going to hear from us this year. Everyone must understand that these are legitimate
charges for services rendered and must be paid. However, collections should be done in
such a way that shows we are sensitive to - and willing to work with - people on fixed
income or in temporary financial hardships. Likewise, owning property in Augusta
carries with it a duty to maintain the property in a responsible manner. When we allow
lots to become overgrown and buildings to fall down, we have not done our job of
enforcing minimum community standards. Such conditions are insulting to those people
who keep their property in good repair. Perhaps, we have been too accommodating of
derelict property owners – or our ordinances are ineffective. Whatever the case, under
our government charter the buck for enforcing ordinances stops in the mayor’s office.
Today I am directing our Acting Administrator to strictly and vigorously enforce all
applicable ordinances related to care and condition of property – no exceptions.
Timelines and procedures should be tightened to maximize the effectiveness of local
laws. We should not hesitate to use appropriate courts in ensure property owners –
whether they live here or hundreds of miles away – are living up to the letter and spirit of
the code. Further, if the problem lies with an ineffective ordinance, I expect our staff to
waste no time bringing appropriate revisions before this body. Those of us in authority
have a responsibility to support a quality of life second to none. Shabby looking
properties is something we can attack - and we will attack with renewed vigor. As we
collectively look forward to 2005, the tenth anniversary of our consolidated government
is a milestone worth noting and an appropriate time for reflection. My views on what I
see as flaws in the basic structure of our government are well known. Time has proven
that the structure is designed for a government of crisis management as opposed to a
government of vision. My recommendations for change are well documented and do not
need to be repeated in this forum. I would, however, bring forward for your
consideration, and consideration of our Legislative Delegation, a change that would
strengthen public participation and not change voting patterns in any way. The current
scheme for electing Commissioners in off-year elections encourages low voter turnout,
historically 18 to 30 per cent – plus the cost of holding a special election. If we want
people to have a voice in their government, then we should make it easy for them to
participate. I propose moving the commission elections to the cycles where our Mayor,
Governor and President are elected. These elections are already scheduled, and bring
turnouts of 50 to 70 per cent. Extending each Commissioner’s term by one year can make
a seamless transition. This proposal does not dilute the voting strength of any voting
group. To the contrary, it strengthens that influence with a higher turnout. Some may
argue that the Commission elections will get lost in the dozens of other races that are also
on the ballot. To the contrary. Ask the three school trustees who lost their seats last
November if their races got overlooked! Ask the supporters of the SPLOST if it got
overlooked. Changing the election cycle is a step toward better government. This move
4
respects the views of those who do not wish to change the structure of the government.
Yet, it encourages greater voter participation in the selection of Commissioners. I urge
you to consider this fundamental change. And I’m willing to work with you to get there.
After all, as former Senator Everett Dirksen said: “I am a man of fixed and unbending
principles, the first of which is to be flexible at all times.” This year I also encourage you
to revisit the Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax. In the coming months, I will
present you with a SPLOST program that I believe meets the immediate and long-term
infrastructure needs of our city. The voters made it clear last November that their
SPLOST is not a special interest cookie jar. The original SPLOST ONE focused 100 per
cent on infrastructure. It was not until the Commission began including money for
outside agency projects in an effort to buy votes that popular support began to wane. If
we are to support everyone’s dream list, we must look for other ways to pay. And, a city
attentive to its infrastructure will be able to generate from other sources the money
needed for larger projects. I remain committed to a Performing Arts Center. We should
not allow the vision for this quality of life project to fade. Likewise, I remain committed
to an exhibition hall for our convention center, which will be a source of economic
development. And, I am committed to the need for a new civic arena. We managed to
pay our own way before SPLOST came along, and there’s no reason why we cannot do it
now. One way to have these additional financial resources is to expand our economy.
Job creation and economic growth must continue to be a prime objective of this
government. It is critical we work with our neighboring cities and counties on a strategy
to promote our entire region – on both sides of the Savannah River. The current proposal
for a regional marketing organization, in my view, falls short of what our city truly needs,
because it is too narrowly focused on industrial investment. A regional organization
should be focused on all aspects of the community, including small businesses, retail,
business retention, retirement development, and so on, in addition to seeking new
factories. The proposed Augusta Regional partnership gets us only part of the way. To
best serve the interests of Augusta and Augustans, we should look in other directions.
We should look internally. The City is currently spending over 300 thousand dollars on
economic development through various agencies and contractors. I propose to recapture
that money and create our own business services department. That department, staffed
with people who have a track record of job creation, would be charged with marketing
our city and working with existing business and industry expansions and new business
prospects. But, equally as important, the department would not operate in isolation from
our neighbors. The department would contract with the Regional Partnership and other
agencies for services and cooperative marketing strategies. Our own department gives us
more bang for the buck, plus it allows the agency that controls the infrastructure to
control the growth. Governor Perdue has laid a pretty good blueprint for such an
important office. His economic development priorities for 2005 are three fold – support
existing business, provide tools for success for small business, and invest in the strategic
growth industries of the 21st century. I believe the window of opportunity is at hand for
the City of Augusta to follow the governor’s lead. This is really nothing new – we’ve
talked about this for a long time. I encourage you to give priority consideration to
consolidating our business development programs into one department with one focus.
The Administration will have a specific plan for your consideration in the coming weeks.
Finally, I want to draw your attention to what I see as the greatest economic and
5
environmental challenge we will face in this city during this decade. That is the
development of the Augusta Canal National Heritage area in our Central Business
District between 7th and 12th Streets. The City, along with Atlanta Gas Light Company,
will together have invested about 50 million dollars in environmental cleanup and civil
works improvements by the time the project is completed this spring. We have been very
careful to work with the Canal Authority to follow their master plan in the work that is
underway. Walking trails and rewatering to provide for limited boating will give our
citizens a greenbelt linking the residences of the Laney-Walker neighborhood with the
light industrial area of our central business district. The redevelopment of this corridor
should protect the character of our neighborhoods, plus take advantage of new
opportunities for housing and supportive commercial development. We are going to have
only one chance to develop this corridor and protect our investment. We have to get it
right the first time. I have already begun discussions with Atlanta Gas Light over the
disposition of the properties they have acquired as part of the cleanup. And, two months
ago I took representatives from a billion dollar investment company to tour the project –
they described the area as a “huge” asset. I encourage you to take two important steps
early this year: First, provide funding for a development plan, looking at the public and
private properties in the blocks surrounding the canal. The study should include, among
other things, zoning, existing and potential land uses, historic considerations and design
standards, environmental protection and potential incentives for redevelopment. Second,
the Commission should join me to establish a stake holder’s task force, which will use
that study to develop a blueprint for the future of those properties. Much as the Mayor’s
Brownfield Commission has contributed to the cleanup and potential redevelopment of
blighted areas in Hyde Park, a similar task force can provide guidance to the City and the
Canal Authority in this important section of downtown. Let’s not squander the
opportunity. There are many other challenges - and accomplishments - I could talk about
today. Yes – We will have to: hire a new administrator, consider the consequences of a
Base Realignment and Closure that may not be friendly to Fort Gordon, absorb the loss of
as many as 2,000 jobs at Savannah River Site over the next two years, and work with our
Governor’s task force to protect our interests in the Savannah River, among other issues.
But as one community pulling together and working with our regional partners:
Neighborhood to Neighborhood, Commissioner to Commissioner, City to City, County to
County, we will be prepared to face whatever storms approach.. President Teddy
Roosevelt understood how to achieve greatness: "Far better is it to dare mighty things, to
win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure...than to rank with those poor
spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that
knows not victory nor defeat.” I want to win for Augusta, and I know you do, too. When
I ran for Mayor in 1998, I did so thinking that I could contribute something to the
betterment of Augusta. I understood the limitations of the office. I accepted that hoping
that at least I could use the office to provide inspiration to the Commission, showing no
favoritism to anyone. As Mayor I have no axe to grind. My interest has been what is in
the best interest of the entire community – all eight Commission districts. And, this is my
challenge to everyone in this room, Commissioners, Department Heads, employees and
citizens – let’s put the City of Augusta first and foremost! Let's move beyond personal
interest, personal ambitions, and individual and regional agendas. That doesn't mean we
don't want the best for our areas. We do. But we have to consider whether those interests
6
interfere with our common interest in the total community. You and I know that we need
to pull together! Going our separate ways will only mean further misunderstanding and
failure to move this community forward. From the very beginning my pledge has been to
put the best interest of Augusta-Richmond County first, and I challenge everyone to have
that goal in 2005. As President Lincoln said: I like to see a man proud of the place in
which he lives. I like to see a man live so his place will be proud of him.” I look forward
to serving with you another year as the mayor of this great city. Thank you for your
attention today. May God continue to richly bless the people of Augusta.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, welcome. Maybe I should give my speech again, Mr.
Mays missed it. We’ll provide the Commission with a copy of that.
Mr. Mays: I think I caught 90% of it, Mr. Mayor. I was right next door, and I
walked in.
Mr. Mayor: The next item on the agenda is the election of officers. Madame
Clerk?
The Clerk:
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
1. Election of the Mayor Pro Tempore 2005
Mr. Mayor: Ladies and gentlemen, the floor is open for nominations for Mayor
Pro Tempore for 2005. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I would like to nominate Commissioner Marion
Williams.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any other nominations? Any other nominations? Mr.
Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to place in nomination the name of Bobby
Hankerson.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any other nominations? If there are no other nominations,
we’ll proceed with the election. As the Commission traditionally does, we vote on these
nominees in the order they’re nominated.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, I’d like a roll call.
Mr. Mayor: Roll call vote has been asked for. Madame Clerk, we will have a roll
call vote first on Commissioner Williams.
7
The Clerk: Roll call vote on Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Mayor: Right.
(Roll Call Vote for Commissioner Williams)
Ms. Beard: Yes
Mr. Boyles: No
Mr. Cheek: Yes
Mr. Colclough: Yes
Mr. Grantham: No
Mr. Hankerson: Yes
Mr. Mays: Yes
Ms. Sims: No
Mr. Smith: No
Mr. Williams: Yes
Motion carries 6-4.
Mr. Mayor: Congratulations, Mayor Pro Tempore.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: I’d like to move that the election be unanimous.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Mays: Second it.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to call for a roll call on that, please.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll have a roll call on the vote to be unanimous.
(Roll Call Vote for unanimous election of Commissioner Williams as Mayor Pro
Tempore)
Ms. Beard: Yes
Mr. Boyles: Yes
Mr. Cheek: Yes
Mr. Colclough: Yes
Mr. Grantham: Yes
Mr. Hankerson: Yes
Mr. Mays: Yes
8
Ms. Sims: Yes
Mr. Smith: Yes
Mr. Williams: Yes
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, if I may?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Cheek: It’s a pleasure that we all voted yes for our Mayor Pro Tempore.
Mr. Mayor: We usually do in the end. The next item we have, Madame Clerk, is
the appointment.
The Clerk:
APPOINTMENTS:
2. Legal Counsel 2005
Mr. Mayor: Do we have any nominations for legal counsel for 2005?
Mr. Grantham: You want – go ahead, Ms. Sims.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sims?
Ms. Sims: I’d like to nominate our current Attorney, Mr. Steve Shepard.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any other nominations for our legal counsel?
Mr. Grantham: Motion nominations be closed and accept by acclamation.
Mr. Mayor: Al right, we have a motion to close the nominations and accept the
appointment by acclamation.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: That’s been seconded. All in favor of that motion, please vote with
the usual sign.
Ms. Beard and Mr. Colclough not voting.
Motion carries 8-0.
9
Ms. Beard: I’m sort of abstaining because I don’t quite understand how we’re
supposed to do this, but I did request, and the Commission requested, a review of his
contract, and I would still like to see that that is done before this is carried through. So,
Mr. Mayor, you may want to help me with this.
Mr. Mayor: All right. I’m sure Mr. Shepard will be pleased to give you a review
of his contract. We can do that at a subsequent meeting. But we’ve just had the election
and he’s got more than six votes, so he’s been reappointed. Mr. Shepard, you want to
schedule that for maybe the next Finance meeting?
Mr. Shepard: That will be fine. I brought the paperwork that I have used and be
happy to have it duplicated at this meeting and give it out. It’s right here.
Mr. Mayor: How’s that, Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: How would you –
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As Pro Tem for 2005, I think what Ms.
Beard was questioning was that she had asked for a review and to go over prior to the
election for this, for this new year. And the Commission, I thought, too, in this setting,
had asked to have that brought back so we could share some things. There was some
things that we addressed here recently and I think my partner, if he hadn’t put me out so
far as a lawyer had done a good job, but there are some things that we wanted to at least
look at to make sure how things was scheduled, Mr. Mayor, and that was her questioning.
We already took a vote. I understand what you’re saying, but how can we get that
information and have it disseminated among us so we can at least know some of the other
guidelines, I guess is a good way to say it?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard has some written material that he can pass out to the
Commission. If you prefer, he can provide that in writing and do an oral presentation at
our next meeting, if you would like to do that.
Ms. Beard: I really don’t want to make a big issue of this. Ms. Bonner, wasn’t
there something in our last meeting in reference to this?
The Clerk: Yes, ma’am, you requested from the Attorney that he –
Ms. Beard: And when I say you, that was the entire Commission; correct?
The Clerk: Yes, ma’am. It was the consensus after you made the remark that you
wanted to review his contract, and that’s how we left it, that he was to supply that. He
said he didn’t have a problem with you reviewing it and that he would do it.
10
Ms. Beard: But normally you send me information before the next meeting, but I,
we did not receive it.
Mr. Shepard: I brought it today, Ms. Beard, and you’re welcome to look at it.
Ms. Beard: How do we change this motion to have it redone?
Mr. Mayor: The item on the agenda today is the appointment. We’ve just gone
through the vote to have the appointment, so we’ll move on with the order of the day.
Ms. Beard: Then if that is the will of the Commission, then it’s fine with me.
Mr. Mayor: If you want to reconsider the appointment of the Attorney and get
into some other things, that’s certainly – you have the right to do that, if that’s the will of
the Commission.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: If I might –
Mr. Mayor: Former Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mays: If I might ask this here, and lame duck Super Commissioner District
Commissioner, I guess with less than a year, I been saying I been counting down – I
bought that calendar for y’all, but now that I got less than that and I don’t know – in fact,
I started to put my name out in nomination for the Attorney’s job. I don’t have the other
one today so I was going to get another one. But since I’m not used to practicing
unprofessionally, I didn’t nominate myself. But on a serious note, what I think needs to
be addressed, though, at another time, but – and I think that the Commission lady wants
to move on today from where we are, but the reason why I think this was questioned at
the particular time, and I don’t think it’s anything negative towards the sitting attorney,
per se, but there are some questions in terms of the procedures that all of us have had, and
I guess when you’re kind of lame duck and you won’t be back, you can say some things
that everybody else won’t say. And so I’m going to say this: I think when you all review
contract, it’s not so much contract, but there have been questions in reference to a point
of since our budget is as tight as it is, one of the things that you all did when you passed,
and I made reference, I did say you all, cause I didn’t vote for it, on 8-1 vote. One of the
provisions, while we cut back the budgets of every department, we increased the City
Attorney close to I think, better than $100,000-some, and if we owe him, those things do
need to be paid. But I think there was some discussion amongst all of us as to
referencing how much time, whether it be staff attorneys were used, whether it was city
attorney [inaudible], and I even said jokingly recently, and as late as yesterday to one
Commissioner, that we been in legal session sometimes and when I count the number of
11
staff people in there, between the Administrator, real estate if it’s the Clerk, and the
attorneys, we got more folk in there working for us than we do Commissioners, and I
think there is probably something that needs to be cleared out. I think there is a case that
everybody may be bringing, Mr. Mayor, and I think it’s legitimate in all probability, but I
think those are the things that maybe would clear up some of it to a point that if we got a
legal meeting and we got six attorneys in there, as to a point of whether we need six or do
we need two, do we need one? All these folks on the clock at the same time, when we’re
here doing this. And those are the kind of things I think that the Commissioner has had a
question about. And that’s the only area of the budget in where we made a leak to
expand and to put more money in, while we’re asking other areas to take a sacrifice. So I
mean I’m just throwing it out there today and I agree with you, that’s not the order of the
day.
Mr. Mayor: Let me suggest this. What the Commission has done today is
appoint the legal counsel. And if we want to review his contract at the next meeting, we
could vote on a contract on with, because we may want to make some changes, he may
want to make some changes, and I think it would appropriate at the next Finance
Committee to have the Attorney’s contract, let the committee go over it, make a
recommendation back, and then this body at the next meeting, we’ll vote on the contract.
We haven’t approved the contract today. All we’ve done is appoint an Attorney. Mr.
Shepard, I’m ignorant as to exactly what your contract says. I haven’t read it in a year.
But it’s not evergreen, is it?
(Laughter)
Mr. Shepard: That’s one thing we’d all agree on, it’s an annual appointment.
Non-evergreen.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Mays: It is, Mr. Mayor, and if you notice, my dot on there is green, but I
thought that needed to maybe to something that in the context of procedural, cause I don’t
think that’s necessarily a legal question at the time that these things are to be discussed.
This is something that in terms of the procedure, whether it’s in the contract or otherwise,
that’s going to have to be discussed in an open meeting. And I didn’t think in fairness to
whether it be to the Commission or to the Attorney that it needed to be cleared up in
terms of some of the things that are being discussed. And I think at some point we are
going to have to deal with that, because we have a serious budgetary problem and at the
same time the Administrator is going to have to deal with everybody’s budget, including
that of legal. And we’ve got some pending things there that are going to have to be paid,
that are still outstanding. And if there is a better formula to work those, then we need to
discuss it. If not, one thing about legal bills, if they’re just, you just have to pay them.
But on the other side of that coin is the fact that I think they want to know what that
formula is, and I just wanted to through that out there. But I’m voting for the extension
of the contract of where it is, but I do think we need to have that discussion and we need
to have it soon, because we’re asking an interim Administrator to balance and deal with a
12
budget that’s shaky at best and does not guarantee us smooth passage through the rest of
this year fiscally unless some adjustments are possibly made. And if we’re doing that
and we got another area where we are increasing and to do it, then I think that deserves to
have some discussion at some point, that we talk about it.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to recommend that we proceed with the
nomination, but I’d also like to request that each Commissioner receives a copy of
the contract and that that be passed to Administrative Services for review.
Thank
you.
Mr. Williams: I make that in the form of a motion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. I don’t think we need a motion, but if you’d like to get it on
the record as a motion, we can certainly do that.
Mr. Williams: So we can get on, I think Commissioner Beard is right in
addressing that, and that will get it to the table where it needs to be. We are just doing –
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second to that motion/
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor – Madame Clerk, will you clear
the board?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Let me – Ms. Beard, are you going to vote for the
appointment so I can record this vote?
Ms. Beard: Present.
The Clerk: Mr. Colclough, you want to be present? Okay. The motion for the
appointment of legal counsel for 2005 carries with Mr. Colclough voting present.
(Revised vote for appointment of Mr. Shepard)
Mr. Colclough votes Present.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: And if you’ll clear the board, now we’ll vote on the motion then to
refer the contract to Administrative Services Committee and have the information
provided as requested by the Commission. All in favor of that please vote with the usual
sign.
(Vote on referral of contract to Administrative Services Committee)
Mr. Colclough votes Present.
13
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 3, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
3. Rescind the Commission appointment of Mr. David Fields to the General
Aviation Commission representing District 10 and appoint Mr. Locke McKnight.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I mentioned in our last meeting when we
approved the Legislative recommendations based on their appointments, Mr. Fields was
also included in that list, which gave him a duplication of appointment to the Daniel Field
Aviation Commission and so I asked at that time that we rescind the original appointment
of Mr. Fields and that we appoint, reappoint Mr. Locke McKnight. And I ask it be, the
body approve that.
Mr. Colclough: So move.
Mr. Mayor: There’s a motion. Is there a second?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor, please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: What we want to try to do from this point forward is build a consent
agenda, if we may. What I’m going to ask first is that the Clerk read all the alcohol
license applications, including those on the addendum agenda, Madame Clerk. I think
there is one on there. So if you would go ahead and read those. I don’t think we had any
zoning, did we?
The Clerk: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Just had alcohol petitions.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: So if you’ll read those.
The Clerk: Under the Public Services portion of the agenda, alcohol
petitions:
14
PUBLIC SERVICES:
4. New Ownership Application: A.N. 03-57: A request by Kum Cha Smith for a
retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with the Corner Store
located at 1801 Marvin Griffin Road. District 2. Super District 9.
5. New Ownership Application: A.N. 03-58: A request by Anthony D. Privat for
an on premise consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with PBJ
Foods, LLC d/b/a Tap Tap located at 1032 Broad Street. District 1. Super District 9.
9. Discussion: A request by Vanessa Song Rogers for an extension of time to
purchase the retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Savin
Haven #3 located at 4474 Mike Padgett Hwy. District 8. Super District 10.
10. New Ownership Application: A.N. 04-59: A request by Cindi Mitchell for an
on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with
Cindi’s Sports Bar located at 2023 Gordon Hwy. District 4. Super District 9.
11. New Ownership Application: A.N. 04-60: A request by Hye Suk Riggs for an
on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with
Golden Garden Lounge located at 3253 Deans Bridge Road. There will be dance.
District 5. Super District 9.
12. New Ownership Application: A.N. 04-61: A request by Narine P. Ramtahal
for a retail package Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with
Korner Package Store located at 2934 Deans Bridge Road. District 5. Super District
9.
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
2. New Ownership Application: A.N. 05-04: A request by Matthew Ricker for
an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection
with CSAG Augusta, LLC d/b/a Augusta Suites inn located at 3038 Washington
Road. There will be Sunday sales. District 7. Super District 10. (Requested by
License & Inspections Department.)
Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors here for any of these alcohol licenses?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: None are noted. What I’d like to do if we can is let’s go ahead and
vote on all these licenses as one consent agenda. If we may –
Mr. Colclough: That was going to be my motion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: The motion needs to be to approve these and then add and approve
the one from the addendum agenda. Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: That’s going to be my motion, Mr. Mayor, is take the Public
Services portion of the agenda and approve it as consent, also adding the addendum
agenda, to approve as consent.
15
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second.
Mr. Cheek: Can we have those item numbers read, please?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Under the consent – under the Public Services, Mr. Cheek, is
what you wanted?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk: Item 4, 5 – Mr. Colclough, you said all items, didn’t you?
Mr. Colclough: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk: So that’s the entire – 4 through 12.
Mr. Colclough: 4 through 12.
The Clerk: With the addition of item 2 off of the addendum agenda.
The Clerk: That’s correct.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion –
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: I’m going to recognize everybody in just a moment. So we
understand what we’re voting on, it’s all the items, 4 through 12, plus the alcohol item on
the addendum agenda. That’s the motion from Mr. Colclough that’s been seconded. All
right, now we’re in the discussion of that. Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I just, on item 11, the Golden Garden Lounge, I have a question
on that. Are the owners here or – that’s okay, you can answer that for me.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll go ahead and take your question at this time, Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: Where is that located?
Mr. Sherman: It’s on Deans Bridge Road, just south of Wal-Mart. Right hand
side going down the hall.
Mr. Hankerson: On the right-hand side. Is there already a license there?
16
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. You know why I asked, don’t you?
Mr. Sherman: Church?
Mr. Hankerson: Yeah, it’s right in the middle of two churches, and I know – and
a day care center. So that’s one that’s already been there. I just didn’t know where the
location was. Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you had a question?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. On item 4, Mr. Mayor. Larry or Rob, either one. It says
1801 Marvin Griffin Road and it says Corner Store. What’s that the corner of? I mean –
Mr. Sherman: It is at the corner. The old Corner Store, just as – going into Apple
Valley Subdivision. Just beside the day care facility, which is –
Mr. Williams: I believe that’s Winesap.
Mr. Sherman: Pardon me?
Mr. Williams: I believe that’s the corner of Winesap and Marvin Griffin, rather
than it being Marvin Griffin.
Mr. Sherman: Just a new ownership.
Mr. Williams: And that’s my concern. It is backed up against the subdivision
there and I don’t think any of the neighbors are here to, to, to speak against it, but that’s
an area we been having a lot of trouble. There’s an alcohol establishment, beer and wine
establishment on Mike Padgett and Apple Valley Drive, which is the other entrance that
comes in there. I can’t support that, and the reason I can’t support that I have not had any
conversation with any of the neighborhood association or any of the residents there. Now
I’m sure there’s a poster been put up.
Mr. Mayor: Would you like to pull that item, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: And I didn’t want to pull it, Mr. Mayor, but I guess that’s the best
thing to do. That’s the best thing to do to keep from holding up everything else and then
we can discuss it later.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s do that. Let’s pull item number 4 at the request of
Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor, there was some discussion about item 8.
Could I pull that, please?
17
Mr. Mayor: Item number 8? Okay. So we’ve pulled items 4 and 8 from the
Public Services consent agenda. Are we ready to vote then, on the remaining items? That
includes the one from the addendum agenda, from the alcohol license.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
4. Deleted from Public Services consent agenda.
5. New Ownership Application: A.N. 03-58: A request by Anthony D. Privat for
an on premise consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with PBJ
Foods, LLC d/b/a Tap Tap located at 1032 Broad Street. District 1. Super District 9.
6. Approve forfeiture of surety bond for Silver & Sons Construction. (Referred
from December 13 Public Services)
7. Motion to approve the shingle roof replacement at Warren Road Community
Center, referring to Bid Item #04-142, as approved by the Augusta Commission on
December 7, 2004, to Southern Roofing in the amount of $18,680.
8. Deleted from Public Services consent agenda.
9. Discussion: A request by Vanessa Song Rogers for an extension of time to
purchase the retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Savin
Haven #3 located at 4474 Mike Padgett Hwy. District 8. Super District 10.
10. New Ownership Application: A.N. 04-59: A request by Cindi Mitchell for an
on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with
Cindi’s Sports Bar located at 2023 Gordon Hwy. District 4. Super District 9.
11. New Ownership Application: A.N. 04-60: A request by Hye Suk Riggs for an
on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with
Golden Garden Lounge located at 3253 Deans Bridge Road. There will be dance.
District 5. Super District 9.
12. New Ownership Application: A.N. 04-61: A request by Narine P. Ramtahal
for a retail package Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with
Korner Package Store located at 2934 Deans Bridge Road. District 5. Super District
9.
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
2. New Ownership Application: A.N. 05-04: A request by Matthew Ricker for
an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection
with CSAG Augusta, LLC d/b/a Augusta Suites inn located at 3038 Washington
Road. There will be Sunday sales. District 7. Super District 10. (Requested by
License & Inspections Department.)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: It’s probably a minor question or two, Mr. Mayor, but item number
15.
Mr. Mayor: 15. We haven’t gotten that far.
The Clerk: No, we haven’t gotten that far yet. We’re just on Public Service.
18
Mr. Mayor: All right, so we have the consent agenda for Public Services minus
items 4 and 8. Any further discussion? All in favor then please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Colclough: Ms. Bonner, Mr. Mayor, I vote no on Sunday sales.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. You, too, Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Yes.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Smith vote No on Sunday sales portion.
Motion carries 10-0. [Addendum item 2]
Motion carries 10-1. [Items 5-7, 9-12]
Mr. Mayor: All right, let’s go ahead and take up item number 4, then. The one
Mr. Williams wants discussed.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
4. New Ownership Application: A.N. 03-57: A request by Kum Cha Smith for a
retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with the Corner Store
located at 1801 Marvin Griffin Road. District 2. Super District 9.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, continue.
Mr. Williams:
Okay, Mr. Mayor. And it’s on the corner of Marvin Griffin, but
it’s also on the corner of Winesap and Marvin Griffin, which is less than half a block
away from the new facility we’ve got, the Recreation Department is talking about
building a new park out there on Marvin Griffin. We went out and cleared the land and
we’re in the process, Tommy, of trying to build a center, along with some play activities
Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion that we
and other stuff to go over there.
postpone this to give me an opportunity to talk to the neighborhood association and
some of the neighbors out there.
If they don’t have any problem with it, then I certainly
don’t have any problem with it, either. But I can’t sit here and support it without having
some discussion with them about that.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Williams: I see Rob has got his hand up, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, go ahead, Mr. Sherman.
19
Mr. Sherman: If I could just make one comment. As far as the poster being
placed in the window of the establishment, because it’s an existing location, that’s not
required.
Mr. Williams: Okay, okay. And that gives me even more reason, Rob, to talk to
the neighborhood. They do have a neighborhood association out there and it’s very
active. But if we can postpone it to our next Commission meeting and give me an
opportunity to talk with them, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Is that a motion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to it?
Mr. Cheek: I had seconded it.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? All in favor of postponing item 4 to our next
meeting, please vote with the usual sign.
Ms. Beard abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: The next item we pulled was item number 8, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
8. Motion to approve an amendment to the lease with the Augusta Soccer Club
to provide for maintenance and operation of the Augusta Soccer Park.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was approached by Mr. Vic Hawk, who is
involved with the soccer operation, and he may want to address that issue.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hawk, if you’d give us your name and address for the record?
Mr. Hawk: Vic Hawk, 336 Telfair Street, Augusta, Georgia.
Mr. Mayor: Did you have a presentation or something?
Mr. Hawk: Yes, sir, I did. I was surprised to see this on the agenda. I’m on the
board of directors for the Augusta Arsenal Soccer Club. The Augusta Arsenal Club, for
those of you who are not familiar with it, is a soccer club that purchased the property that
the Augusta Soccer Park now sits on. We were able to work out an agreement with the
Richmond County, the Augusta-Richmond County Recreation Department to run their
20
soccer program from that park and we actually just turned over the park to Augusta-
Richmond County, and then it was leased back to the Augusta Arsenal Soccer Club for
the next forty years following the initiation of that lease. That lease agreement provided
that Augusta would take care of all the maintenance and operation of the soccer park, the
expenses thereto. We have operated under that lease since its inception and we have
done an excellent job of working with the City and the Recreation Department to provide
soccer to the community. An example, with the 2002 SPLOST funds we were allocated
$75,000 to build a new building. We raised money ourselves. We actually built a
building for $136,000 and it’s operating in an excellent manner. Everything is paid off
on it. We were given $50,000 to light one field out there, and through volunteer work
and through donations we were able to light two fields. Now the proposal that has been
made to us is that the Soccer Club take over the cost of the maintenance and operation of
the soccer park. In 2002, $95,000 was budgeted toward it. Again, in 2003 $95,000 was
budgeted toward that expense. We understand and we can respect the Commission’s
need to reduce costs. But what has been proposed to us to fulfill the City’s obligation to
the park and to the soccer community, the families and soccer community, is that we take
a 50%, right at a 50% budget cut, and assume the responsibility of this operation and
maintenance for the club. And we investigated it. The board met. We outsourced costs,
we tried to analyze what the needs were, how much it would cost us to provide this same
service that the City was present obligated to provide to the park, and what we found, that
it would cost more in the range of $75,000. In other words, we could take a 26% cut,
help out, to provide this park to the community, and continue our working relationship
with the Recreation Department provided for their program during the fall and any
assistance that’s needed in any way whatsoever, but we cannot agree to an amendment
without us sitting down and understanding exactly what this park is costing to be able to
maintain it properly. For that reason, we would request that you not move to amend the
contract unilaterally and that you allow us to meet and then maybe at the next
Commission meeting maybe we can work something out, so that we can help y’all and
y’all can help us.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beck?
Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, and we have had an
excellent working relationship with the Augusta Soccer Club for the past eight years at
the park. This amendment to the lease is predicated on our budget reduction package,
which I presented to you I guess two months ago when we first presented our packages to
you. A couple of clarification issues. There was a budget of $95,000 that was for the
park, although the actuals were not that. And I have provided the actuals to the Soccer
Club through printout to show them exactly what’s spent on utilities and some other
costs. What we had built in to that budget and as you well know there’s been many
things added to the department – we initially had two positions, two fulltime positions out
there in 1996. With other parks added, such as Brookfield Park and other facilities that
we did not get any maintenance employees added to the budget for, we did shift several
years ago that second employee over to our regular maintenance operations and have
been maintaining the park with one employee for probably the past four years. That
employee is still in that budget, so the actual numbers are not that. And there are also
21
some other costs in there that we did have to shift over to our central maintenance
operation just to get the job done out there in other facilities. So our actuals for the park
are what they are, which I have given to the Soccer Club when I met with the president
and their executive director about three weeks or so ago. The actuals for the park are
more in the $45,000 range. This amendment to the lease does provide for $50,000 paid
in four increments during the course of the year. What it does, it would allow in my
opinion for us to continue our association with the lease, because we would be providing
for that service. The maintenance operation for the park would be done by the soccer
club. The amount of money that’s in the lease, the $50,000 I feel like is ample funds to
operate the park. Will it have a tremendous amount of contingency in it? The answer is
no. Is there going to be any contingency in any of our budgets this year? The answer is
no. So I hope that might clarify some of the issues you may have, and if there are any
questions I’d be glad to answer them.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard:
Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, Mr. Hawk and I have
not spoken about this contract. In fact, I do remember now that you’ve been involved in
soccer and I think in order for there to be an amendment in this situation, it’s got to be
accompanied with a meeting of the minds. There is apparently not that. And I don’t –
the way I read the letter is that it was not an impossible negotiation to conduct, it was just
a matter of modifying some of the terms. Now that I know Mr. Hawk is identified as
I
counsel for the Augusta Arsenal Soccer Club, I believe we can negotiate something.
would ask the matter be postponed until the next meeting.
It could go through Public
Services or it could come straight back to us here. It doesn’t matter. But apparently there
is no meeting of the minds and I would suggest we postpone.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles, you asked that this be pulled. Did you have a
recommendation?
Mr. Boyles: No, sir, I didn’t have a recommendation. It was just a request. I had
not talked to Tom, I had not talked to Mr. Hawk, and when he asked to do, rather than
being consented, I thought we might want to at least discuss it. I would go with the idea
or the suggestion that our attorney just made and bring it back in two weeks, the next
Commission meeting, if that’s the feeling of the body.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, too, not to be premature with this comment, but to bring
up I think a valid point, is that we will be discussing the sales tax, and since the Arsenal
Gunners do provide the number three revenue-generating event in this city, certainly any
capital improvements or needs in those areas may be addressed in that park and we’d all
talked about regional parks and supplementing the regional parks. But certainly I would
hope that we would have that wish list of capital improvements associated with this to
where we can maybe defer those costs that may be incurred by the Gunners in the
operation of that park to sales tax as part of the recreation portion of that package.
22
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, if it’s appropriate, I’d like to suggest that we bring
this back to committee next week and do it that way, as we normally would, to give
Tom and our attorney a chance to get together with their attorney and come up with
a reasonable proposal based on that.
Our proposal is based on actuals. We’ve looked
very hard at that and I think we can reach a meeting of the minds there as we go forward
with that, but I think it would be appropriate to bring it back to committee and would like
to suggest that.
Mr. Cheek: I so move.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Is there a second to that?
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: I think it would be helpful, too, if we’re going to look over the
actuals, what is the participation out there, what are the fees that are charged to
participate, when was the last time those fees were increased, and so forth. There may be
some other revenue sources that could offset that.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes. Mr. Mayor, thank you. Since this is going back to Public
Services, I’m sure I’ll be sitting in that particular meeting. I’m no longer on that
committee. Turned that matter over to our former Mayor Pro Tem and he’s the chairman
there, but I say this a little bit in defense of Recreation before you all get into that
meeting. I think that basically to a certain extent playing with the hand they’re being
dealt with and are going to have to figure out a way to make what’s in their budget work,
and I’m just saying this as an outsider on that committee looking in, and probably from a
sincere standpoint, since I chaired that committee longer than anybody else in the county
or city, that this is, this is a very good program and a very good partnership that’s there.
And I hope that something can be worked out. But I’m going to remind you of
something. One, we can, we can put in all the sales tax money that we want to in any of
these programs, but in terms of operational costs and of personnel and of people, we’re
talking about apples and airplanes, and we’re going to have to figure out how we are
going to make those things work. And I think you’ve put Recreation in a situation where,
like I say, that they’ve only been dealt the cards, they’ve got to play the hand, and if
you’re going to adjust this one you might as well get ready to adjust some of the other
smaller partnerships and to see what that impact is going to have on the cutbacks of those
budgets, because we have them in other areas of this city, not as big as that partnership is,
but you have them on the south side of Augusta, you have them in east Augusta, you
have the situation in 30901, and you’ve got cutbacks there to a point that each of them are
23
going to be affected. So if we’re going to start doing that, and I guess, Vic, you probably
are the first one in line, you’re heading up the line. You may be starting it, but I can
guarantee this Commission you may be starting it but you’re not the last one that’s going
to be in line. And so I just think if you’re going to start to deal with that, then be fair
enough with Rec to a point that you ask them not to work any gigantic miracles on how
you are going to perform this, because it boils down to M-O-N-E-Y. And that’s what
you’re talking about on operational costs. So I just wanted to throw that in there to a
point that before it even gets to the committee that regardless of what’s in the contract,
it’s a deal with that department, it’s going to be hit [inaudible]. Some folks, their
numbers will be different from other numbers, but the hits are still there. And so I just
wanted to put that in there to a point that it may be soccer club today, but it may be
another part of town that you’re going to have to deal with, that Recreation is going to
have to face, and they’ve brought us back what those numbers would entail. And I think
also when you’re bringing it back, and I’m going to say this and it may not fall in light
favor, but now that it’s less than 12 months I can say that, too. You cannot, if you’re
going to ask them and any other department to deal with one set of figures and they bring
us back to where those figures will take us, we were pretty comfortable when we asked
them for the first set of cuts that we asked. They went back, brought it in, they went back
a little bit more than what we asked them. And then we went back and we changed that
formula from the three point something to almost 7%. And we went into a budget and we
passed it. We didn’t ever ask what that impact was going to take in. So I mean that’s
been my concern of where that was going to go. So ladies and gentlemen, welcome to
January. It’s just beginning. And I think to a point that if a department has got some
livable and workable things that it’s got in place, unless you all have got some new
money under some new rocks that have not been uncovered, then you’re going to have to
let them work out to a point of what they have. But I can say this, I think what you’re
going to open up in that Pandora’s box is when you make one adjustment – and I’ve been
around this political body long enough to know that when you make it in one area, be
prepared to make it in another area. And it’s going to come to you. It’s going to come
large in some places, it’s going to come small in some places. And if the department puts
that before you [inaudible] could still make the department functionable, then that’s what
they brought to us. And they brought it with the hand we dealt them, not the one they
picked themselves.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Mays brought up a very good
point, but I do want to separate the apples from the oranges, and my comment is that the
items that I would be looking for to come back potentially for future consideration would
be things like fences, additional seating, additional parking, perhaps field improvements,
things that will not require the addition of a person but enhance the ability of the park and
enhance maintenance at the park, which I think these are the things you guys said you
needed in the past. So I think it’s a very valid point that we do not have budget to add
additional personnel or burden Recreation and Parks, but certainly we need to look at the
hard items that we can do, invest in that will improve returns on the park and make it
more useful, that don’t require those things. Those are very reasonable requests, I think.
24
Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion on this? Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I think I’d like to speak briefly on Mr. Mays’
comments. I agree with that, and I agree fully with what Mr. Mays has said. What I
would attempt to do is bring you the numbers to show that a presentation from Recreation
is realistic and well focused on what they can actually get accomplished with the dollars
there. We’re beginning a long list of discussions that are going to occur over the next
several months, and people come to you as the impact of the cuts that we pass, or you
pass, and [inaudible]. In this particular case, I think we’ve done our homework on that. I
feel very comfortable presenting that at the committee next week, and that’s why I
suggested that. In the other areas, we’ve done our homework, too, and while people
might not be happy with some of the results that they see, I think the department heads
and the staff are taking a very realistic look at the hands we dealt ourselves and we were
dealt, to get forward with this. And I appreciate the opportunity to do this in this arena
because it’s fairly easy to deal with this problem with the soccer park because it’s really
easy to look at. Some of them will be a little more complex than that and we take your
continued support as we continue to do that. It’s not – I’ve said every time I spoke on the
budget it’s not going to be easy. And it’s not going to be easy, but it can be done and
we’re going to do it.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor. All in favor of that motion, please
vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Grantham: Could you repeat the motion?
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: The motion was to refer back to the Public Services Committee for
review.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Mayor: That concludes our Public Services agenda. Mr. Cheek has
suggested to us a consent agenda for a number of items on this agenda. I think all of us
have a written copy. Mr. Cheek, I’ll let you move forward with your recommendation on
the consent agenda items.
Mr. Cheek
: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is just an attempt to put something on
the table. I certainly have no [inaudible] whether things stay or are pulled for discussion
or deferred to committee. In fact, I have a few recommendations for deferral back to
. For the purposes of a consent agenda, if it please the body, I’d like to
committee
recommend in the form of a motion items 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and
addendum item number 1, defer back to committee item 13, item 20 had been
discussed in committee and there will be a committee – this will be referred back to
25
Engineering Services for the formation of a subcommittee, and items 19, 24, 29 and
30 sent back to Engineering Services for discussion on Monday.
Mr. Mayor: I would also suggest we add to the consent agenda items 31, 32 and
35. 31 and 32 are second readings, the ordinance is already approved by the
Commission, and 35 is the minutes of the meeting.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, there’s one item that was requested for
consideration and that’s to add and approve the rescheduling of Monday’s
committee meetings from January 10 to Tuesday, January 11. Could that be added
to the consent?
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard.
Mr. Williams: I think Commissioner Cheek mentioned item 13 go back to
Administrative Services?
Mr. Mayor: Right, send that back to Admin Services.
The Clerk: Tuesday.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible] to bring to Administrative Services.
Mr. Mayor: All right, any objection to treating these items – you want to make
that a motion, Andy?
Mr. Cheek: I’ve already made it a motion.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Williams: I second it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Colclough: I have a question.
Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. We’ll get to the questions here and we’ll pull any
items y’all object to. Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, 18 and 22 were the same items; we need a little
discussion on those.
Mr. Mayor: Pull 18 and 22?
26
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. So we’ll pull those two. Mr. Hankerson and then we’ll go
around.
Mr. Hankerson: Consent, 14.
Mr. Mayor: Add 14 to the consent agenda?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes.
Mr. Cheek: I didn’t want to speak for you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor: We have a recommendation to add 14.
Mr. Colclough: Some clarification on item 20.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk: Item 20 you want pulled?
Mr. Colclough: Yes.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Item 20, the recommendation is to send it to Engineering Services.
Mr. Colclough: That’s fine.
Mr. Mayor: Is that okay?
Mr. Colclough: That’s fine. Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, why don’t you read the numbers out again in case
somebody would like to add something or pull something?
The Clerk: Okay. The consent agenda consists of items 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25,
26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 35 and 14, and addendum 1 and 3. Items to be referred back
to Engineering Services agenda, items 13, 20, 19, 24, 29 and 30.
Mr. Cheek: For clarification, 13 goes to Administrative Services.
Mr. Mayor: And then we pulled 18 and 22, which are the same item. Would
anybody like to pull any of those items that were called out or add any items to that list?
Mr. Mays?
27
Mr. Mays: 15. We went to 12, but then we started back over.
Mr. Mayor: You want to add 15?
Mr. Mays: No, I want to pull 15.
Mr. Mayor: It’s not on consent.
Mr. Mays: I know, but I’m saying that it’s in that gap period. It wasn’t
mentioned at all. We went through 12, we started back at 13, we put 14 in, and we went
to 17, and we skipped over 15.
Mr. Mayor: No, sir, if it’s in the gap we’re coming back to it.
The Clerk: Coming back to it.
Mr. Mays: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll go ahead and take a vote on the consent agenda. Mr. Boyles,
did you have a question about it?
Mr. Boyles: Yes, sir. [inaudible] was there a problem with 24?
Mr. Mayor: There is a question about 24.
Mr. Cheek: The Administrator asked that be pulled.
Mr. Boyles: You had it pulled? I didn’t hear you.
Mr. Cheek: 24 goes back – 19, 24, 29 and 30 go back to Engineering Services.
Mr. Boyles: Go back, okay. Okay, I’m fine.
Mr. Mayor: It hasn’t been there in the first place.
The Clerk: And item 13 goes back to Admin Services.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
14. Approve the award of $7,615.39 in R-UDAG funds to Year 2004
ESG agencies.
PUBLIC SAFETY:
17. Approve award of bid #04-130, Walk-in Cooler/Freezer, to Meyers
Refrigeration for $20,989.00.
28
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
21. Approve award of Bid Item #05-019 to low bidder, Waste Management of
Augusta-Aiken, at a cost of $77,630.00 a year. This is a one-year contract with an
option to renew for a second year.
23. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 120, Parcel 242
which is owned by Treva D. Brinson for a temporary easement and permanent
easement on Project 90111-NAB Sanitary Sewer Extension.
25. Approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and Road
Resolutions submitted by the Public Works and Engineering and Augusta Utilities
Departments for Breckenridge Subdivision, Section Three.
26. Approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and Road
Resolutions submitted by the Public Works and Engineering and Augusta Utilities
Departments for Sanderling Subdivision, Phase One.
27. Approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and Road
Resolutions submitted by the Public Works and Engineering and Augusta Utilities
Departments for Evergreen Subdivision, Section One.
28. Approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and Road
Resolutions submitted by the Public Works and Engineering and Augusta Utilities
Departments for Elderberry Subdivision (f/k/a Elders
Ridge).
PLANNING:
31. An Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance adopted by
the Augusta Richmond County Commission effective September 16, 1997 by
amending Section 21-1 pertaining to permitted uses in a Neighborhood Business
st
Zone. (Approved in December 21 Commission meeting – second reading)
32. An Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance adopted by
the Augusta Richmond County Commission effective September 16, 1997 by
amending Section 3-12 pertaining to Special Building Setbacks. (Approved in
December 21st Commission meeting – second reading)
35. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held December 21, 2004.
Addendum 1. Approve Resolution for the establishment of a “No Parking” zone in
front of Family Dollar Store located on State Route 28 (Sand Bar Ferry Road).
(Requested by the Attorney)
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the consent agenda as proposed and amended, please
vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 14, 17, 21, 23, 25-28, 31-32, 35, Addendum Item 1)
Mr. Williams: It’s a new year, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: You need to learn to do all this, Mr. Williams.
29
(Laughter)
Mr. Williams: What I was mentioning, it’s a new year with all the stuff that was
pulled and got through here. We didn’t have [inaudible] because it’s a new year.
[inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: The Administrator, the Administrator had asked for discussion on
items 18 and 22, which are the same items. So why don’t we go ahead? Madame Clerk,
if you’ll read the caption we’ll take those up.
The Clerk:
FINANCE:
18. Approve award of Bid Item #05-018 to best bid for each bid section as
follows:
Section I A & R Exterminating Co., Inc. $1,383.00
Section II A & R Exterminating Co., Inc. 830.00
Section III A & R Exterminating Co., Inc. 695.00
Section IV A & R Exterminating Co., Inc. 270.00
The total annual cost of $38,136.00 is funded by the departments receiving the
service under object code 52.13117.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
22. Approve award of Bid Item #05-018 to best bid for each bid section as
follows:
Section I A & R Exterminating Co., Inc. $1,383.00
Section II A & R Exterminating Co., Inc. 830.00
Section III A & R Exterminating Co., Inc. 695.00
Section IV A & R Exterminating Co., Inc. 270.00
The total annual cost of $38,136.00 is funded by the departments receiving the
service under object code 52.13117. (See background information under Item 18)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, Ms. Smith can speak to this item, please.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Smith?
Ms. Smith: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, the agenda item that you
have before you is to award a bid to A&R Exterminating Company at a total annual cost
of $38,136.00. However, A&R Exterminating was not the low bid on this particular
contract. American Exterminating was the low bid at an annual cost of $31,662.00. The
recommendation that you have before you was made to award the bid to A&R
Exterminating because we received concerns from some of the facility owners with
respect to problems that they experienced when American Exterminating had the bid
30
previously. However, those complaints were not provided to us prior to the bid going
out, nor were they provided to Purchasing in a timely enough manner that action could be
taken before the bids were awarded. Therefore, in accordance with the, our Purchasing
code, we would not be allowed – we would not be allowed to go with the A&R
Exterminating instead of American Exterminating for those reasons. We’re
recommending that consideration be given for awarding it to the low bidder, which is
American Exterminating, and I have spoken with Rick and it states in the agenda item
that we have included in our contract terms for cancellation if the vendor fails to meet the
specifications or provide satisfactory service.
Mr. Colclough: Ms. Smith?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Ms. Smith, I read some of the backup information on that other
company, American Exterminating, that was sent it by letter and email, that [inaudible].
If the information would have got to Purchasing in time to take action against [inaudible]
rebid or do we – maybe that’s a question that Jeri need to answer, rather than going back
with a company that you had problems with before [inaudible].
Ms. Smith: It would be possible to rebid, and we could submit the documentation
to Purchasing, but if I’m not mistaken those contracts expire this month, the existing
contract expires this month.
Mr. Colclough: Expires this month and [inaudible] rats and roaches [inaudible]
kill them the second time.
Ms. Smith: The current contract is with A&R Exterminating.
Mr. Colclough: I know that. But I’m saying if you give it to the low bidder and
they wasn’t killing the rats and the roaches and the vermin and the spiders before you
awarded the contract, so the vermin and spiders and stuff are going to come back,
[inaudible] if you go out for rebid. I mean the time lapse [inaudible] I don’t know. But
why give it to a company [inaudible] low bidder and you’re going to have the same
problems as before, you have to terminate [inaudible]. That’s my issue.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Colclough, the problems that have been brought forth have been
forth with another company. The issues that we were bringing forth today were problems
we had with the contractor back in ’99 when he had the contract then. There was another
issue that was out there. We have suspended that service, according to Ms. Sams, with
the issue that [inaudible] that you’re speaking to now, the contractor, that was suspended
and that’s why we’re ending up in a rebidding process at the moment, if I get that
correctly. The problem we had with this particular company occurred in 1999. And they
haven’t had the contract since then. So that’s why we thought it was appropriate not to
hold that over their head at this particular point in time, but in writing the contract the
clause is there that would allow us to suspend that contract if their service is not up to
31
par, does not meet the standards that we’ve set. So it would be our recommendation, or
my recommendation that we go ahead and issue the contract to the low bidder, but that
we monitor it closely and if they do not meet the standards we go ahead and suspend that
contract again and go with the second bidder.
Mr. Colclough: But if the company in ’99 was having some problems, have you
checked with other agencies that the company does business with current to see if its
products got better?
Mr. Russell: Let me [inaudible].
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] on the bid list, wouldn’t it be feasible to check with
organizations that they currently do business with to see how they, how this product is
brought forward now? Instead of bringing the hassle back to us in six months and saying
we need to suspend this contract because people are still finding spiders and roaches and
stuff?
Mr. Russell: I don’t disagree with that. I’m just working with what I’ve got in
front of me right at the moment. Help me with that, would you?
Ms. Sams: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. In fact, we did check with some of
the other companies that were using American and they’re not having any problems with
them currently. In the recommendation you found the comments on the emails that you
were talking about that were dated 2004. In fact, the company that the user department
were having difficulties with was in fact another company. It was not American.
Mr. Colclough: Okay.
Ms. Sams: And American has not been in our system since ’99.
Mr. Colclough: All right. I’m like the Administrator, I’m working with what’s in
front of me.
Ms. Sams: What you have, yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, I thought it’s up to – isn’t it up to the Commission to
decide? It’s not all the time that the lowest bid get the contract, but the one that provide
the quality service, to get the contract, then it’s up to the Commissioners to decide that.
If we’ve had problems before with a particular company, that’s, you know, that’s red
flags. We’re still having problems, we still have problems, and wouldn’t that still be up
to us? Is that a violation, us not accepting the lowest bid, but we are addressing the
product or service?
32
Mr. Mayor: That’s acceptable under Purchasing guidelines; is that not correct,
Ms. Sams?
Mr. Hankerson: I thought that was acceptable and we have this on the agenda to
approve these and then we’re hearing this other. I mean, you know, I move for approval.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: With a second. Mr. Smith and then Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Smith: I have used this A&R for over 20 years in [inaudible] locations I have
[inaudible] this is a first class company. I figure we’d do well to keep them.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: I guess I have a couple of questions. Who is presently doing our
work for us? Is A&R presently doing the work? You don’t know?
Mr. Speaker: We had a shake-up in the termite or pest control last month. We
had two different contractors doing it at the beginning of last year. One of them opted
not to renew. Each of these contracts was a two-year – one year with an option to renew
for a second year. The one that had it for the first portion of this opted not to continue in
– had it in 2003 and opted not to continue in 2004. We gave it to the other firm that had
the contract in 2004 and they did not perform satisfactorily so it was given to a third
party, and I believe that was A&R.
Mr. Grantham: So that’s really why we’re getting the backup information
applauding A&R for doing the type of work that they are presently doing?
Mr. Speaker: They have had the contract currently and previously.
Mr. Grantham: So we are getting quality work out of these people based on what
they charged us in the last couple of years?
Mr. Speaker: That is correct.
Mr. Grantham: And evidently they’re working for us without a contract?
Mr. Speaker: The contract ended December 31.
Mr. Grantham: Then I guess my next question is, and I been wanting to ask this
question a long time, are either one of these companies Richmond County, local people,
or are both of them Richmond County, local people?
33
Mr. Speaker: I’ll have to go get my backup. I don’t have their address in front of
me right this second.
Mr. Grantham: I think my answer – I can give it to you. A&R is and I think the
other one is not. So my point is, and we’ve all talked about doing business with our own,
own people around and trying to make things happen, and with the backup I see, I’m
going to support the motion of approving it, and if we are going to have a problem with
the company that’s the low bid, then Mr. Shepard, get ready. Cause I’m going to back
you up, too. I don’t think we need to sit back and contract with people who we have
experienced in doing insufficient work. So I hope that we can approve this contract today
for A&R and get it done. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ll be brief. [inaudible] just ride down
the street. I think some of my rodents would probably take off and run. But I’m
concerned about if we rebid it and the bid is already out [inaudible] how will the
competitor come back now and bid again? For everybody know what the bid is. Or at
least what the low bid is. They going to know at least from that point to go from there, so
it doesn’t matter to me either way, but what we do in a case like that, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Well, we’d have to have Ms. Sams [inaudible] in a case like that,
because she would control the process. Can you answer the Commissioner’s question?
Ms. Sams: And your question was what can we do now that the bids are out?
Mr. Williams: The bids are out and people coming back to rebid, they know
where we are now or know what the bid is now, so how will we prevent somebody from
just undercutting and dropping it to –
Ms. Sams: Mr. Commissioner, with that, with that said or with the bids being out
there, you cannot prevent someone from coming and undercutting the bids that are out
there. Mr. Grantham, I understand and I’m sympathetic to your reasoning for supporting
A&R but now we have an issue here as it relates to processing. And according to the
Code of Augusta-Richmond County, in 1999 when American – well, there were
departments that alluded this company not performing to task. Nobody wrote it down.
Nobody kept records. And even today, those records cannot be provided to you. So the
stand that we’re taking and the process that has not been flawed now appeared as if it has
been flawed. It hasn’t been. The reason the suggestion was to go to American was
because, number one, there were no paperwork in my office or, according to your backup
paperwork, any other office in Augusta-Richmond County. Two, the reason why the
recommendation was made was because according to the State Code, Augusta-Richmond
County Code, we can only disbar a company or have a company not bid in our process
for a maximum of three years. We have not done any business with this company for
three years.
34
Mr. Grantham: Even if we disbar?
Ms. Sams: Even if we did that, the maximum time would be three years. And we
didn’t. And we didn’t because we did not have supporting documentation or anything to
support suspending their actions to participate in our process. So the process has been a
fair process, Mr. Williams. And I said, I’m pleading, I’m pleading for the Commission to
stand by me on this, because what is going to happen is if we go back now and rebid,
everybody would know everyone else’s bid because they have been publicized, not only
on this floor but other vendors have called and asked for that tabulation sheet. The
process to this point has not been flawed in any way.
Mr. Grantham: Ms. Sams, a follow-up question, if you don’t mind, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let me recognize you. Go ahead, Mr. Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: I thought you did.
Mr. Mayor: She was answering Mr. Williams’ question.
Mr. Grantham: Okay. From 1999 did American submit bids on our work during
that – from 1999 till now?
Ms. Sams: We pulled everything in the system on American. We have no
records of American submitting anything to us from 1999.
Mr. Grantham: So since they quit performing work for us in ’99, we didn’t know
they were in existence until we started bidding on this?
Ms. Sams: When the procurement office go back to look at the paperwork, we
had no record of that particular company in our system since consolidation, which was
actually ’96.
Mr. Grantham: So were they dismissed in ’99?
Ms. Sams: I don’t have any paperwork on that.
Mr. Grantham: I’m just asking. It seems like they quit in ’99 for some reason.
Mr. Speaker: No, sir, we rebid the contract in 1999. They were not the successful
low bidder.
Mr. Grantham: Did they bid at all?
Ms. Sams: I’d have to go back and check the file.
Mr. Grantham: Okay.
35
Mr. Speaker: Either they did not bid or were not the low bidder.
Mr. Grantham: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sams, let me ask a question as a matter of procedure, if I may.
Ms. Sams: Sure.
Mr. Mayor: The low bid on this, rounded off, is $31,000.
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: The bid before us as being recommended was $38,000.
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: If we choose to take the best bid, which in this case is not the lowest
bid, is it improper for us to give the business to A&R by not necessarily accepting their
bid but negotiating with them on the price? Because there is a low bid that shows the
work can be done cheaper. So rather than award it at their bidded price to select them as
your preferred vendor and negotiate a price with them – we might save a couple of
thousand dollars that way.
Ms. Sams: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Is that in our rule book?
Ms. Sams: Mr. Mayor, what you’re asking me to do is kind of mix apples with
oranges, in that you are asking me to treat this bid, the sealed bid process and do it with a
request for proposal. And it was not. So my recommendation would remain to award to
the lowest responsive bidder meeting the specification which in this case would be
American.
Mr. Mayor: I don’t argue with the process you want to follow.
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: I was just trying to see if we could squeeze a little money out of this
thing.
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion? We have a motion to accept. Mr.
Hankerson?
36
Mr. Hankerson: Well, I don’t want to hold the motion up because I still feel that
we should, we have the right to give it to the best – the company that providing the best
service to us. If there is a record, even though in the past, that the other company did not
provide the service that we want. So I don’t think this is the first time we’ve done this,
either. I recall that we’ve done this before, did not accept the lowest bid. So I feel that
we should move forward and hope we have the support of the motion to go ahead and
accept.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll call the question then. All in favor of that motion, please –
Mr. Williams: What was the motion, Mr. Mayor? Could we have the motion
reread, please, sir?
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, could you read the motion for the Commissioner, for
the Mayor Pro Tem, I’m sorry?
The Clerk: The motion was to approve a bid award for exterminating services to
A&R Exterminating at an annual cost of $38,136.00.
Mr. Mayor: That’s the motion. All in favor of that motion –
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: Let me just ask something of clarification.
Mr. Mayor: Clear the board, Madame Clerk.
Mr. Mays: Where – my – two questions. First, so that we don’t have to probably
[inaudible] is the motion on the floor what’s coming out of – cause I’ve had the
Purchasing Director to address it, the department Director to address it, I’m a little
unclear in terms of what is being recommended and by whom. You got a lot of letters
you’re throwing at me, you got A&R, you got American. And I don’t have a dog in this
hunt period. I don’t know anybody doing it. I had almost thought that nobody knew how
to kill roaches any more. But you know, just trying to get clarification.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s ask Mr. Russell. Is the motion that is on the floor consistent
with the recommendation of staff?
Ms. Sams: No.
Mr. Russell: Staff recommendation is to award the bid to the lowest bidder,
American.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
37
Mr. Hankerson: That’s the recommendation that I’m hearing now, but the
recommendation that was presented to the Commission –
Mr. Williams: Can I make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Hankerson: - was A&R.
Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. Mr. Mays has the floor.
Mr. Mays: I’m just trying to figure out whether or not I’m the only one that’s
unclear, because I’m, I’m – like I say, two or three folk have addressed it, you got staff
recommendation, you’ve got something coming out of Purchasing. Are Legal and staff
together on this to a point that it’s been recommended, the evidence to turn it down, if
you’re talking about the previous contract? I mean you got to, got a lot in here. I just
want to hear it once. That doesn’t stop anybody from dealing with the bid protest, but
like the Purchasing Director says, it’s not a request for proposal, it is a sealed bid. And
therefore, however frivolous or even strong, the rightful one to have and to protect on a
bid is out there, and I’d much rather get it right, done right the first time than to have to
end up 30 days from now hearing from somebody else’s attorney to a point of saying
have we done this and have we corrected it? That’s all I’m trying to get done, straight
today.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, can you respond to that?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. What has happened is that during the bid
process, we had the bid opening. We had one company give us a low bid. We had one
company that’s providing the current service. The bid was a lot higher. The initial staff
recommendation was to go with the second bid, which would be $38,000 and based on a
best bid proposal, based on the service that the individuals are having. Upon doing due
diligence, it was brought to my attention that the first company was apparently, had
initially, was stated to have some initial problems with us [inaudible] as far as being able
to perform. We, conferring with the Purchasing Director, it was brought to my attention
that those problems occurred during a period contract period that occurred in 1999 and
they have not had any additional work with us since then. We have had problems with
some of our exterminators and those problems have carried over but we thought we had
corrected that. We had no problem at all with the service A&R was presenting. It was
only, it was brought to my attention late and I thought that it should be brought to your
attention that we should relook at that, and I wanted to make you aware of the fact that
the bidding process is giving us the best bid, which is the initial recommendation of
$38,000. And second, as we looked at that deeper, the initial small bid, the initial smaller
bid of $31,000 was given us by a company that we had no real records that presented any
additional problems since their initial contact in 1999. Reviewing that prior to the
meeting, it was my thought that we should bring that to your attention and change our
recommendation to the first company, which is the low bid.
38
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: But then – and I guess my second question, that recommendation then
is not the recommendation that is in his motion there?
Mr. Russell: No, sir, the recommendation as I heard the initial motion, and help
me, Lena, was to go with the initial recommendation, which was the best bid.
The Clerk: Best bid, A&R.
Mr. Russell: Which is A&R.
Mr. Mays: That answers mine. It answers my question. It confirms my conflict
and my conflict deals with the confusion that’s in my mind. That’s why I’m probably not
going to vote for it. Because I don’t necessarily know – let me add this [inaudible]. But
I’m just trying to a point, I’m just leery when we get the recommendations and we don’t
have certain evidence to move and as much as I’d like to, if we got companies that are
performing and do, but if we’ve got rules one way, in fact I probably would have
preferred if it was a service contract and somebody was doing it well, just to extend the
services and maybe not have done anything with it. But if it’s sealed bid and you’re
moving with it, then I think when you turn it down then you’ve got to have either reasons
to deal with turning it down or then you’ve got to go back out and rebid. The thing about
people knowing each other’s numbers, sometimes that happens and sometimes that’s
[inaudible]. But we did that earlier, the first of this year, and we’ve dealt with that on a
major construction project and I think we’ve hamstrung Purchasing greatly to a point in
doing that because when we did that, now everybody who is coming forward refers to
that particular contract that we went back and then we redid. And that’s the reason why
they’re hitting us up with it. When they come back and they leave one paper out of a 40
or a 50 page document, or if it’s got 100 and they didn’t attach the gem clip on the left
side, should have been on the right side, then they are coming back and saying we want
to be treated like the people you turn around and gave the other contract to. Now I don’t
intend – we just got through talking, Ms. Beard did, about how to deal with legal money.
I’m trying to save y’all some money. I don’t think, and no offense to the attorney, but I
don’t think we ought to be defending stuff that we can offensively deal with in the very
beginning, and that’s why I said is Legal and Purchasing on the same line? It may sound
good to have the people who killing the best bugs, but are you dealing legally with the
contract and the way it ought to be done? And in my mind, I still have a conflict from the
standpoint I don’t see that being clear, is that you’re operating out of a set of procedures
that’s in there. Because if you’re moving and you don’t have the legal basis to move in
the direction you’re doing with your motion, then you’re asking for trouble [inaudible]
then somebody pops up and [inaudible] percentage of $7,000 out of $38,000 is not like a
$1.9 million, and then $1.932 million. It’s $7,000, a difference of $38,000 to $31,000.
$7,000 in that percentage is a very high percentage difference of what you’re dealing
with and going to the best one. If you’re going to the best one, then we ought to be able
to defend it that it’s the best under the guidelines and the rules you’re operating under.
And I just, I just don’t [inaudible] with our own rules. And then we have to pay for it.
39
We paid him for it, then we got to pay the attorney to defend us for it and to do it, and
then we’re running short on the budget. So I’m just trying to get it clear in here today.
And you know, I’m kind of like Richard, you know, I don’t think [inaudible] that many
more roaches to a point that if you, if you delay on how you’re doing it, but I think you
are going to get an answer from one or both of these firms of whichever way you go. But
I’m just a little scared in terms of how we moving with this. Something this small ought
to be over and done with 20 minutes ago to a point that it’s clear. If it’s that much
confusion with it, to a point [inaudible] confused.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think it said best bid. It doesn’t say
necessarily lowest price. Best bid could include a lot more than dollars. In my opinion,
this company is first class. And I know of it personally. And I would just request, as I
seconded the motion, that we go ahead and pass this.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m going to make a substitute motion,
Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Williams: Cause the Purchasing Department who’s in charge of this have
instructed us that the best thing to do was to go back to the other company. I’m going to
make a motion that we follow the direction of Purchasing and give the bid to the other
company. Not saying either one is bad or good, but because from her expertise and her
department saying this is the right thing to do. And I make that in the form of a motion,
Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion has been seconded. Okay. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, my concern with this, and after hearing this discussion
and all, is I agree, we need to get the very best services we can for this City. Do we have
technical latitude within our existing ordinances for Purchasing that allows us to select
best versus lowest bid. I mean is there a technical basis that allows us to make that
selection? And my question is, is it, is it clarified enough to where we can’t arbitrarily
pick friends versus those with I guess demonstratable performance records?
Mr. Mayor: Can you answer that?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor –
40
Mr. Mayor: See if we can answer his question first.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, if I may?
Mr. Mayor: Do you have an answer to the question?
Mr. Russell: Yes. In this specific bid, it was low bid, not best bid. But we do
have the latitude of writing the specs, if I’m correct, to get the best bid.
Mr. Cheek: I guess my point is on this particular case, if this had been part of the
initial language of the bid process, we would be okay. But since it was not, we don’t
technically have that latitude because the basis of the bid said lowest bid.
Mr. Russell: And only if we had the documentation back from prior to
consolidation to show where these people were not performing at a level that was
appropriate.
Mr. Cheek: So I guess an extension of that would be we just didn’t document
well in the good old days, did we?
Mr. Russell: And when that was discovered by Purchasing and myself, that is
what has precipitated this entire conversation. And I apologize we didn’t discover it
sooner, but when it was brought to my attention, I knew to bring it to your attention and
that’s why we’re here.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mays asked a question, was legal and purchasing
on the same page? And I think we are, but I’d ask to lay it on the table while she and I
and the Public Works director have a conversation. I think I can satisfy myself. We have
written in the Code the value engineering concept, which would give us the latitude to
deal with it, and I haven’t had a chance to talk to either of them. This is, the email that
I’m holding was sent out yesterday. It didn’t come to me. And I was certainly not aware
that they had this type of problem in the history of one vendor, so I think if Geri and I
could have two minutes off the floor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Can we get a motion to table this?
Mr. Cheek: Motion to table.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to table is non-debatable, so we’ll move ahead with the vote
on that. All in favor of tabling items 18 and 22, and the two motions attached thereto,
please vote with the usual sign.
41
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll give them a chance to get the [inaudible] out of it and then
we’ll come back to it.
Mr. Mayor: The next item – we’ll move ahead to the next item. Madame Clerk,
if I haven’t lost track I think item 15.
The Clerk:
15. Approve entering into a contractual agreement with United Health Care as
Augusta’s new Health Insurance Provider to become effective on or about February
1, 2005.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, did you want to address this? You had asked about it
earlier.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I had addressed this initially in the first committee when it
was brought to us by Ms. Pelaez and Mr. Burns. Because of my own work schedule I did
not make the second, follow-up meeting that they had. However, I was able to read a lot
of the background information, I would say probably most of all the background
information, made some particular notes which I left, but in my old can pretty much
remember in terms of the things that were there. Let me say first I think our departmental
people are to be commended when they try to do what’s best for the City and the people
that we serve, in this case primarily to our employee group family and of trying to get not
only numbers in line but also in terms of service. My comments are not directed in any
critical way but probably more of just finding maybe a little bit in terms of some of the
information that’s there. I would say the notes that I made, I saw some things that were
positive, that showed I think an advancement in terms of the proposal that they are
bringing forth today. Like any plan, I think some can have its pluses and minuses when
you try to cover that many people and you’re trying to do that many things. There were
some things that were highlighted in there and probably in particularly of trying to make
sure that the different hospital entities would be able to cover our employee workforce,
which has been a concern, and to do some other things that are in there, and I think that’s
a plus that’s there. I did want to ask, and this is probably outside more of the contractual
vein, maybe to a point and in here, Mr. Mayor, I guess in terms of the year that we are
looking at on the savings. We still are at that one year – nothing has changed from that,
Ms. Pelaez, in terms of the numbers, in terms of the [inaudible] we’re still just looking at
the year?
Ms. Pelaez: The year. The rate is guarantee is still as previously submitted.
Mr. Mays: So we’ll be back, in other words, we’re getting in but we also to a
point of where we’re, I would imagine, negotiating for the next year as soon as you all
can get your breath?
42
Ms. Pelaez: Exactly. We’ll turn around and get that again.
Mr. Mays: Okay. There was a savings that was mentioned that was in there and
at the initial meeting, and maybe this is something that you all worked out since then, that
the savings that was there, there was some confusion at that point, and like I say maybe
you all worked this out since then. There was an amount mentioned that we would save,
but that our people would be paying the same amount of money. Now is that a savings to
the City of Augusta only or is that a savings to the insured group in terms of our
employees? And there was a question as to how we, you know, how we managed that
particular savings if it was not being passed on to them but we were not paying it? And
that’s one of my questions.
Ms. Pelaez: We –
Mr. Mays: Did we decide how we were going to –
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: - going to do that?
Ms. Pelaez: We have. What you’re referencing is the difference in price between
the renewal rate that Blue Cross Blue Shield submitted, which was $15,599,404 and
United Health Care’s submission of $14,999,701. What we initially had stated, because
there was not going to be a change in the rates that the employees would be paying, we
were going to attempt to try to capture that approximately estimated $600,000. But
essentially what I’ve decided to do is simply reduce my submitted budget by that amount
so that it would be a savings to the employer and our overall funds for my health
insurance instead of trying to hold on to $600,000 and hope that it’s there at the end of
the year, just reduce it at the beginning of ’05.
Mr. Mays: Okay, but the number that our folk pay –
Ms. Pelaez: Will remain the same.
Mr. Mays: That doesn’t change?
Ms. Pelaez: No, sir.
Mr. Mays: So where we are realizing the difference in asking for the proposal
change is in the different level of the benefits and access.
Ms. Pelaez: In that and the overall budgeted amount I have to submit for my ’05
budgeted, which is a higher amount than the renewal – what United Health Care’s
submission rates are.
43
Mr. Mays: As I say, I’m just information seeking.
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: In this situation, because I realize that the lives of persons can change
drastically, regardless of age and how long they’ve been with a program, to overnight of
where the needs of our people can become in one state where they have a perfectly
healthy look appearance-wise and may even be that way, and be catastrophic, you know,
within a 24 to 48 hour period. One thing that was a little confusing to me, I guess
because I saw the different in-network/out-of-network proposals in there, and obviously
the in-networks were the better ones that were there. Is that the direction of where we are
moving in this proposal? Because I noticed the benefit levels were, were different, and
not just for, in all fairness, not just for the company we were being asked to move to, but
the current provider as well.
Ms. Pelaez: In order for me to answer that question, we need to take it in two
parts. When we’re talking about in-network and out-of-network, you are only talking
about that under our point of service. So we’ll put that on hold and go back to HMO.
HMO, that’s health maintenance organization, that’s where you have the gatekeeper,
which is what we have under the current provider, Blue Cross Blue Shield. Under the
proposed transition, we would be moving to United Health Care where you will no longer
have that gatekeeper. You will be able to choose your own, can go to your own specialist
without having to call that primary care physician and say can you call and set up an
appointment? So that is a key difference. But then under the other side, under point of
service, the differences in out-of-network, the 80/60 percentages are still the same.
However, when we did not have University Hospital in-network, they would have been in
the out-of-network cost under Blue Cross Blue Shield, whereas under the United Health
Care, they’re over here under point of service. United Health Care, University Hospital
is covered at 80% under point of service and 100% under your HMO. Of course, you
have to stay in-network under HMO. Does that answer the question?
Mr. Mays: I got that point with interest but what I was looking at, and maybe I
missed something in it, to go a little further. And I do agree, that’s a very good provision
and I think the right to have that choice is an excellent one and probably caught the
attention of you and your staff real well. But what I was also concerned about, and I
may, [inaudible] but I looked at and like I say maybe it dealt more with probably those
that might fall in the catastrophic area than those that were there, but in the specialized
physicians areas, for the coverage that we have that was continued at 100%, that on those
specialized areas, and then we dropped in the one that’s being proposed a difference of
20% on those physicians, and what I primarily had in mind or envisioned in those
catastrophic areas was not necessarily the person that would be retiring, that could co-
mingle to a point if they took the insurance with them and then maybe later qualified
from an age standpoint to deal with Medicare, but for those that might be in that 35-42
bracket that deal with that aneurism and stroke, that have to deal with those specialties
that are there and then become that invalid, I’m looking at a lot of those that are specialty
in there where they have a cutoff period, hospice which is limited, defines the number of
44
visits that’s in there, those are the types of ones that I made check marks by to a point,
and it may be where those are the pluses. And I think where the key is in terms of –
cause one has a cost factor that says okay, it may be where we pay the $10,000 or the
limit, or to deal with a max, but then another one may say, well, you know, we deal with
60 visits per year and how I broke into that to a point of saying that may be the one week,
the one day per week visit in terms of that specialized care. If you get those that fall into
it. And that’s fine if you’ve got those, I think that qualify and go to home health and can
deal with Medicare. But if it falls under that young person, who then becomes from the
standpoint for all intents and purposes limited and then needs those specialized services
to a point of where you’re saying you go to 60 days out of a 365 calendar year, then they,
you know, is there anything that we have that’s on a catastrophic level that picks up the
difference to deal with them? And I know we are only probably talking about small
percentages, but then that’s usually what you’re talking about when you’re talking about
insurance from the standpoint that, you know, that’s how they make their money, off the
people who stay healthy and not off those who get sick. So it was just a question that I
had and that I was a little confused on to a point that which was better to a point those
that were laid out and defined in those numbers, or to a point of where it had maximum
visits, maximum days, and then the specialty visits being cut back from that 100% if
something happens on those hospitalization visit, you know, on doctors to a point of
where our coverage is at 100% and then that coverage now goes down to 80%. So you
know, to save $10 on office visit, that’s a good savings in terms of those numbers, but to
drop 20% on a hospitalization visit, I think is a far greater cost that the insured has to run
the risk of taking up and paying, and I’d like to hear a little something about that. Maybe
I’m off on that basis and read it wrong, and that’s kind of where I made my notes at to a
point and – cause I seen everything else [inaudible], but those were just a few of my
concerns to a point on those specialty visits, hospitals [inaudible] there, and the drop then
in terms of what a doctor charges if you’re confined and you deal with that period and
pick up that 20% and there’s no, say, supplemental or there is no [inaudible] that picks
you up that floats you over to a Medicare status that you know [inaudible] folks out there
[inaudible] from both parents being catastrophic, and that’s why I have a particular
concern. My mom became that way at 47 and my father became that way at 46. And you
can stay in that health care dilemma long enough and it will break most Rockefellers
because you fall into the category of where you, you make too much to get assistance and
your age is wrong, and then you’re in a category to where it starts coming out of pocket.
And that’s kind of what I needed to know about it.
Ms. Pelaez: I’ll start at the bottom end of the scale and work my way back.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] cause I’m through with my questions pretty much, but I
wanted to make this real clear, publicly and to you. It’s not being critical, but I am
concerned to the point that if we change and are moving, and I applaud you for seeking
something better and of getting more access for our folk, cause that’s been a major
concern, of where they’d be able to go, but I think to a point that we need to make sure
that when we make that jump that we also, in getting benefits on one side that to a point
we’re not putting some folk in peril on the other, that if something happens to them.
Because 20% can be a lot in terms of hospitalization costs [inaudible].
45
Ms. Pelaez: Okay, beginning with the home health care , where you’re
referencing that there is a difference. With the Blue Cross Blue Shield, the in-network, it
has 100% and there is, however, limit of 120 visits maximum per year. Then when you
go over to United Health Care, if you’re in-network, that’s covered at 100%, but they
limit your non-network benefits to 60 visit per year. That is an area that we definitely can
go back and say we don’t want to reduce that, because [inaudible] we don’t want to
reduce anything, so that needs to be – actually, if there is a cost, because that is non-
network, so that is a big issue right there.
Mr. Mays: And that’s what was throwing me off a little bit, because I wanted to
be fair to both groups.
Ms. Pelaez: Right.
Mr. Mays: Both groups in being critical, because of not knowing the costs that
they were getting, say per visit, and I think [inaudible] what is being charged and where
they have per visit, whether it’s out to a particular agency [inaudible], whether it’s direct
but it’s costs that are associated with it, and how you define and divide those numbers
and days up I think is very critical in terms of where we do the overall savings, but then
where the details lie within there are you getting then in terms of if you fall into long term
care, then are you falling out of a better umbrella protection? Or you may be getting
something that’s better. I couldn’t tell because I didn’t know the unit cost.
Ms. Pelaez: The long term care, as long as you stay within the network of going
to those home health care providers is 100%. But when you get to that non-network
provider, you’re limited to that 60 days per year. And that also goes with the hospice
care. That is an answer that I cannot specifically provide, whereas Blue Cross Blue
Shield specifically comes out and says $10,000 a lifetime maximum. However, the
United Health Care gives you 60 days per calendar year. The 60 days per calendar year
equates to $10,000 per year? I would have to go back and ask that question.
Mr. Mays: And in fairness to United, the $10,000 scared me a little bit because
with high costs in there I was wondering whether or not $10,000 would get eaten up in a
short period of time.
Ms. Pelaez: Well, hospice care services, it would get eaten up very quickly.
Mr. Mays: Well, that’s what was confusing to me, as to how to make that
decision, because when you lay it out and you say these are the pros and cons of it, if
there is not a unit cost to define what they pay, then it’s a little bit gray to say in that part
of it who is better and who is not, because you don’t know the unit cost. And I think to a
point – and maybe that question, that’s why I was asking, was that question was raised in
terms of dealing with them. And again, insurance is for those to a point you hope nothing
happens but it’s that 1 in 2,700 chance to a point, I want to make sure that if we make that
leap of faith that if one of our people leaves a situation and goes to another one and that
46
falls into that area, that that gray area is to their benefit and not to their detriment. That’s
what I want to make sure of.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Okay, let – we’ve got a number of hands up here.
Let’s recognize some other folks. Mr. Hankerson, and then we’ll come over to this side.
Mr. Hankerson: I think Mr. Mays asked some very good questions. I’ve got
some concerns about the process here and about how we are going about this. First of all,
as I stated in Administrative Service meeting that we do not have proper work sessions
without employees and inform them of this change and not even to allow them to give
any input on the questions. That’s one thing that I think should have been done first. The
next thing is, the question that you asked, that Mr. Mays asked about, the savings. Now
we’ve had two meetings, one with United Health and one with – the last meeting I asked
that Blue Cross Blue Shield come. And what I was informed and what I was thinking
that I heard that the savings would be used one way, and now I’m hearing that they be
utilized another way. Now my question about this is how we are making these decisions
or how these funds going to be used, the savings, rather, is going to be used. If Mr. Mays
hadn’t asked that question today and we approved this, I was thinking that what I heard
was said first that the savings would be put in some type of escrow and this sort of thing.
Now I’m hearing that it’s used a different way. And being Administrative Service
chairman, I’m not informed of this and I don’t feel comfortable of voting on something
that I really had questions [inaudible] this contract is, where it’s going. And shouldn’t
the Commission or shouldn’t it be a recommendation of how we are going to utilize
these, these savings? Mr. Mays asked about whether it be passed on to the employees or
vice versa. Now I’m hearing and I don’t understand, quite understand how you say that
you are going to utilize the savings. Now I’m hearing that it’s going to be for the
departments. How are these savings going to be utilized?
Ms. Pelaez: When we say savings, we say potential savings. If you choose to do
nothing, these is no savings, because the renewal rate is at $15,599,404, which has been
budgeted. However, if we opt to do a transition, the rate that has been proposed is
$14,999,701. Initially we were under the impression that we simply could leave our
budget at the budgeted amount of what the renewal increase was. And just leave that in
the funding and when we get to the end of the year roll that amount over. However, there
is all the talk of escrow and those things don’t occur because that’s money that would
have to accrue throughout the savings, so there is no per se escrow, because you are
paying down that amount. So instead of budgeting the $15.6 million, instead of
budgeting the $15.6, you simply budget the $15 million. So there’s your savings.
You’ve already made the savings, you captured it at the very beginning of the year,
instead of waiting to the end of the year. That’s the only difference between what I said
in Administrative Services and what I’m saying now. And that’s only if you make a
decision to go with United Health Care. If you don’t, we don’t have a savings.
Mr. Hankerson: But am I understanding, we were more convinced that by going
with this company we would accrue this savings? I think it was something like almost
$500,000 or something difference.
47
Ms. Pelaez: We would achieve savings at the outset.
Mr. Hankerson: Yes. And didn’t I hear that that was suggested that they set up
an escrow or something, when the question was asked whether we pass the savings on to
the employees?
Ms. Pelaez: I wouldn’t say that it was suggested. It was stated that if we were
going to try to make sure we had captured the $600,000 we had better make sure that the
account had been set aside to do all of that. Well, given that I have to audit this bill
already to make sure I’m paying the same amount of money, I don’t have the level of
staff or the time to set aside now another account to make sure that this account is
escrowing in the middle of trying to transition and then go back out for making sure that
we have new plan designs. So it’s better just to go ahead and capture and know what my
savings are at the outside and go forward and continue to try to improve upon the medical
plan design, rather than trying to create this new animal that nobody else in the
organization has done. Not that there is anything wrong with it. It’s just that that is not,
this is not the best time to create some type of escrow account. I will leave that to the
finance people [inaudible] this is a potential savings and to do all of that for potential
savings I don’t think in this process would have been the best recommendation to make.
Mr. Hankerson: But my point is that was what was stated to the committee the
last time I heard that.
Ms. Pelaez: I didn’t say that. It was a Commissioner said well, if you were
thinking about doing that you might want to go and do an escrow account. I’m thinking
well, we won’t be doing an escrow account, we’ll just go ahead and reduce the budget to
what the actual costs are.
Mr. Hankerson: So will there be a potential savings of that amount?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes.
Mr. Hankerson: What will the savings be?
Ms. Pelaez: Approximately $600,000.
Mr. Hankerson: And then how are we going to utilize it?
Ms. Pelaez: Reducing the budget amount that I submitted for my budget, my
health care budget, by $600,000.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. And then who would benefit from that?
Ms. Pelaez: Our overall budget would benefit would benefit from that. That
would be up to our Finance Director to decide where we need to redirect those funds.
48
Mr. Hankerson: Okay.
Ms. Pelaez: It would be a Commission decision to come back to allocated where
those specific dollars would then be applied.
Mr. Hankerson: That’s part where I was getting to. I’m hearing all these
suggestions been made but then I’m in the dark of saying well, who authorized this?
That’s my point.
Ms. Pelaez: To be [inaudible] I don’t have the $600,000 to go and spend or do
anything with. And there isn’t a $600,000 until we take an action and if there is $600,000
what essentially is done with it will come back to the Commission for their ultimate
approval, if there is $600,000. Let’s go if. That’s why I want to hold on to potential
savings.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay, it’s getting a little bit more confusing. I thought we just
said it was. Now I’m hearing –
Ms. Pelaez: I don’t want you to hold me to $600,000 if I come in here with
$480,000.
Mr. Hankerson: Well, okay. But my point is that why was the decision not made
to pass it on to the employees?
Ms. Pelaez: To reduce the overall – it’s already at 80/20. And if anything, there
is a need to transition that percentage anyway for a higher amount. But if you reduce it
this year, knowing where the health care premiums are going, and then have to turn
around next year and not only increase it by the amount that we reduced it by the
additional cost, that would only add to the decreased morale that we already have. That
was the main reason why we did not do that.
Mr. Hankerson: So are we planning on setting up some work sessions with the
employees to inform them overall?
Ms. Pelaez: [inaudible] yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: If this is approved?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: Now the drop-dead date for this is when?
Ms. Pelaez: If approved, after we finalize all of the contracts, on or after February
1, which we have to still get all of the final contracts written, sent to the Mayor and
everything, so it will be after February 1. And then after that date we will start the
49
sessions for the employees so that they can understand what these changes mean and
whether they want to stay with HMO or move to POS and the like.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Just to clarify before I recognize Commissioners, you
have had some sessions with employees, you have made available information to
employees about the doctors that are enrolled with the new plan so that they can see if
their physicians are participating? There has been some communication with the
employees with respect to potential changes?
Ms. Pelaez: That is correct.
Mr. Mayor: With the new provider, if the Commission goes with a new
provider?
Ms. Pelaez: That is correct.
Mr. Mayor: I wouldn’t want anybody to get the impression that we’re all here in
the dark. And if you look at the savings, potential savings of $600,000, and that were to
be applied back proportionally against premiums that were paid, you would be looking at
rebating to employees only 20% of that $600,000, which is not that much.
Ms. Pelaez: Yes.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, could I respond to you with a question?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. Hankerson: My concern about the work sessions, as I stated in the beginning,
and the only method that was stated to me of informing employees of these changes were,
it was on the website, and a percentage of our almost 3,000 employees, I wonder how
many of them went to the website, and the number back was like 40 persons, individuals
that visit this website to see this now. Forty employees out of 3,000, I still don’t think the
system was the method was good enough to inform all the employees before you make
the change. We going to come back and inform them after the change is made, and
maybe they going, I hope they all be fine with it, but when you’re talking about changing
physicians, sometimes it’s not the matter of the cheapest one this time. It’s the one that
some patients have that they prefer staying with, if they’re not in the network or is it
going to cost them more. So I’m just – I really, from the information that I received that
the employees were notified in a timely manner, having proper work sessions across the
city, the same way we did when I mentioned the pension plan, all of a sudden we had
workshops all over the city, that was something that 99% of the employees happily
agreed with. We had these work sessions. This is something that can be confusing,
controversial or objected to, and I’m just saying that we need to do a better job at that.
50
Mr. Mayor: We’ll start with Mr. Cheek and then go down the line for those who
would like to speak.
Mr. Cheek: I guess just to clarify a couple of things. I’m looking at the page
where it shows the specialists and hospitals and physicians and so forth. And we
included University Hospital this time, which it hasn’t been before. And we’ve increased
the number of physicians, we decreased the total number of hospitals, but we’ve got
University, which is a large, full service medical center. I have, by virtue of a new family
member, seen the service provided through HMO and they don’t get a choice of doctors.
In fact, they get a different one every time under the current plan. This plan is a better
plan, and speaking from employees, and I manage a few, and not having it go up every
year or an increase, which we’re looking at it staying the same this year, is like a pay
raise in most cases because they’re used to year after year seeing their fees, their portion
of medical coverage increase. So that’s plus number one. Two, if we can save some
money, bring University Hospital in, which is something a lot of the employees have
spoken at length about, preferring those over MCG and some of the other places they’re
required to go, that’s plus number two. If you read down through the list, in service
providers by this company that we’re seeing in comparison to Blue Cross Blue Shield is
superior in most cases, as long as you stay in-network, and having the association of
several full service hospitals, University Hospital being one of them, as part of the in-
network providers, surely those services can be provided from University and some of the
other specialists, which we’re seeing a greater number of by this new plan being
recommended today. Ms. Pelaez, we do have an annual enrollment period and education
period done every year, don’t we/
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir, we do.
Mr. Cheek: And the employees are used to this being part of the normal operating
procedure of this government, just like it is with all of corporate America.
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: I just hate to see us go to the expense of having a bunch of meetings
when it is the job of HR to do the research and provide the best services for the
employees that they can, and also the best deal for the government that it can, which y’all
have done. Mr. Mayor, I guess I have one question and then I want to go ahead and make
a motion that we support this. This is a better package and I’ve talked to lots of
employees over the last several years, and the plan that we’ve been living with under
Blue Cross Blue Shield, one of the best things of that package was it provided 100%
coverage for prescription drugs. Other than that, the plan was not that good according to
most employees. I’ve been in touch with the employees. I didn’t need a bunch of town
hall meetings to cost the city thousands of dollars and delay work and take them off of
their jobs. This is a good package, it’s a good plan, it’s as good as what I have in my
place of employment. My question is, with this, do we have – we’re going to implement
this by February 1 and not delay it, which would essentially us locked back in to Blue
Cross; is that correct?
51
Ms. Pelaez: That is correct.
Mr. Cheek: So we’d be locked in if we delay this and have no savings and further
confusion because the employees are pretty excited about this, those I’ve talked with. Do
we have a local service provider to help the enrollment services already lined up? Is that
part of this motion today or part of this proposal today?
Ms. Pelaez: Actually, no it’s not part of this proposal because that was one of the
areas that provided for us to get a lower cost. We did not go with the percentage increase
to have a local provider. So all of this is going to be done in-house.
Mr. Cheek: Can we do it?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, we can do it. We’ve had this. This is not the first transition. I
think we may have forgotten that a couple of years ago that we had to do this transition,
and it was done in-house and we have to go out and educate the employees.
Mr. Cheek: I just make a motion to implement, then.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, two items. One is – number one, I’ve been, I’m a retired
employee of this government and I’ve had this insurance and it’s been changed many
times, Ms. Pelaez. You know that.
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir.
Mr. Boyles: And I’ve had the HMO plan, which has been tremendous, what I’ve
had. And I’ve never been able to have drugs that I didn’t have to pay 20% co-pay. I
mean I don’t know which employees told you they were free, but that’s not exactly true.
But I’ve thought, and I’m jogging memory because I did not bring the papers with me,
but Mr. Russell may can help me with it or some other member of the Finance
Committee, when we put the budget together in late November, and this is dated
November 16, when we saw the savings, the potential savings there of that $448,000 I
thought we kind of agreed that we would take that money and use it to fund, to enhance
the ‘98/’77 pension plan, and I thought we addressed that in the budget discussions. So
that was – Mr. Russell, you might can help me on that because some of that information –
and I do have that paperwork but I don’t have it with me. I thought that is where we were
going to fund the additional money for the pension plan from, Mr. Hankerson. I thought
so. We had talked about it.
52
Mr. Hankerson: You’re right.
Mr. Russell: There was some conversation about that and obviously if savings
occur they’ll be able to do that. If no savings occur – once again, that final decision is
Commission action. The only thing we could do would be to recommend what we would
think would be best, and that’s obviously something we’ve looked at and considered as
we’ve looked at our savings.
Ms. Pelaez: I think that answers Commissioner Hankerson’s question.
Mr. Boyles: See, that in a way sends it right back. That may not benefit all of the
employees, it may only benefit the ones that are in the ’77 and ’98 plans, but it certainly
goes back to the employees. But it goes back in another indirect way than it would in just
giving a percentage of the savings back to them. I think it’s much better because as you
said, why give them something this year, then take it back from them next year? We saw
that happen many, many times down here. In the 90’s we saw plenty of that. So that’s
just something I thought I remembered for that savings and I’ve got that paperwork at
home where we discussed that, and that was in the motion that we approved that day on
the budget in late November.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor? David, help me with this a little bit, too, and the fact
that the cuts we made to the outside agencies, the 25%, that money was earmarked for the
pension fund, and so the additional funding would be something we could help with at
this point in time, not knowing if there was actually a savings because it obviously wasn’t
passed yet we couldn’t make that. We couldn’t make that assumption until we actually
made a motion and actually that was passed. But that was part of the discussion and there
could be some additional funding.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just thought I remembered that and I
didn’t have the paperwork with me but I mean I do have it, but I don’t have it with me.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. I told Mr. Colclough we’d go to him next.
Mr. Colclough: Ms. Pelaez, you mentioned about open enrollment every year.
Do the employees have a choice of whether they want to accept a new plan or they want
to stay with an old plan? You’re getting rid of the old plan and bringing in this new plan
if it’s passed today?
Ms. Pelaez: The employees would only have a choice under the new plan, since
we would be going with a new provider.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] in this new plan they could not choose which plan
they want to keep?
53
Ms. Pelaez: That is correct. There is no choice in the plan that you keep, but there
is a choice in whether or not you would like to remain with HMO or POS under the new
provider that we will be entering into an agreement. [inaudible] agreement.
Mr. Colclough: That’s really not giving them a choice. You’re giving them a
plan where they could choose within a plan.
Ms. Pelaez: That is correct.
Mr. Colclough: So I mean you’re not really having open enrollment, you’re just
having a choice where if you want to move around within that plan, that’s it.
Ms. Pelaez: Correct.
Mr. Colclough: But open enrollment, and I think most of us sitting here who are
government or has been or still government employees, we have open enrollment every
year, but we have a choice whether we want to go from one insurance to another
insurance or keep the same insurance. I don’t think – I know at the state level, we just
don’t throw out everything and have just one plan.
Ms. Pelaez: Well, if it’s the decision of the Commission to have –
Mr. Colclough: No, I’m asking a question. I’m not saying whether it’s efficient
or not, I’m just wanting to get clarification in my mind whether we are just having one
plan [inaudible] that’s all I’m asking.
Ms. Pelaez: There’s not a possibility to go with any provider other than the one
that –
Mr. Colclough: Other than the one we’re going to vote on?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything further?
Mr. Grantham: I have one question about the enrollment, based on us doing it in-
house and not having outside assistance, I guess. I know that’s a savings but are we
going to be able to perform and get on track and due time in order to put this in effect by
February 1?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes. Yes, we are. And I have been courted by a lot of people who
have said that they can help, but my very first month here – I’ve not had good experience,
and it’s not against anyone wanting to do that. But I can better hold my staff accountable
for making an error and dealing with that, because those are long-term effects. When the
54
people are no longer there, although they helped us in the transition and that’s wonderful
and I appreciate that, but when the proverbial mess hits the fan, I want to be able to look
at somebody that works for me and I can deal with that person. So that’s why I’m
keeping it in-house and we can do this. We have done this and we will do this.
Mr. Grantham: Okay. And my only other question was that in the event you need
to or have to get outside assistance, then can we encourage or request that United Health
pay that instead of us having to pay it?
Ms. Pelaez: Oh, most definitely.
Mr. Grantham: I mean would they pay the enrollment fee, or do we have to pay
the enrollment fee of outside people?
Ms. Pelaez: When you say the enrollment fee, you mean like if we had a
consultant or somebody to come in to assist us for those hours?
Mr. Grantham: Right.
Ms. Pelaez: In the unlikely event that we would do that, I would be most
charming and ask them to pay for it. Pretty much usually don’t have a problem getting
what I’m requesting.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me, let me make a couple of comments here. One, I
hope and I’m still applauding our folk for trying to find something, but if we might divert
back to health care for just a moment, because I think that is what the [inaudible] in terms
of changing insurance, staying the same or whatever. It’s the level of care that’s given to
the people that are insured. I’m hearing a lot, and [inaudible] first brought that out
[inaudible] but I hope that for God’s sake we are not diverting and balancing budgets
based on what we are providing within a service to deal with on health care with
insurance. That’s good if you’ve got that left over, but I think the first order of business
ought to be that the level goes up. Now I’ve heard those that are promoting the plan and I
think that if all those things are good, then I think those are good ideas, good promotions,
I can support that. But I’m just putting that asterisk in here today for the official record
to a point that I’m hoping that that’s not a reason to deal with any of that. Second thing
is, and I’ve got one more. My second question is in here, and I need to know this for the
record. Are all these hospitals, since now we’re getting into this big one family tent deal,
and that sounds real good, are we, are we, is everybody being paid out of the same
percentages or are we using any of the savings of proposed percentage differences in here
to get any hospital into this plan that’s different from what we’ve got now? Are they
being paid anything over and above, whether it be percentage or be it dollars to put them
in? And I raise that question because I think that all of us [inaudible] employees, all of us
55
have been dealing with parts of this health plan. And in fairness, this really should not be
an argument so much in this case about with the hospital, about Blue Cross Blue Shield
or United Health Care or any other insurance company. [inaudible] to decide whether
they want to participate. It’s not as though the carrier you’ve got is not already
participating with every hospital that’s in this city. If [inaudible] agency, some of them
governmental, already participate with every hospital. It’s not like you are under some
hybrid company that does not go everywhere. It’s within this particular plan. And I’m
just hoping that there are no numbers that we are getting into that’s driving us into that.
Can I be, can I be guaranteed unequivocally that nobody in this plan is being subsidized
indirectly by what we deal with with the differences in these percentages? Anybody that
put this together can answer that for me.
Ms. Pelaez: There’s apparently a gentleman in the audience that can do that. Go
ahead.
Mr. Mayor: Would you give us your name and address for the record, please?
Mr. Head: Yes. Russell Head. I work with Group Benefits Consultants here in
Augusta. We’re a benefits consulting firm who bid on the business with United Health
Care. To answer your question –
Mr. Mayor: Would you pull the mike up and speak into it so Mr. Smith can hear
you better?
Mr. Head: To answer your question, no, there’s not any kind of collusion or
anything. There has been a contract with University Hospital with United Health Care
for the past four years. I will tell you this, that that contract does come up for renewal
this spring. But there is a very, very good working relationship between University
Hospital, University Health Link, which is the managed care firm of the hospital and the
physicians. This is a very, very good move for the City, specifically because the
physicians that you’re going to be adding to the plan, there should not be any kind of
taking away of physicians. I can only think of maybe two physicians that are located in
and around St. Joe’s that are not going to be inside the network. What you will be
picking up as a network with United Health Care are the two largest OB-GYN practices,
the largest orthopedic group, Brown Radiology, which is the largest radiology group,
Digestive and Liver Consultants, colorectal surgery, and there’s many other practices that
practice in and around University that are currently not inside the network that you will
be picking up, and many of them have had contracts with United Health Care for the past
four years. So as far as contracts with the hospital, or I should say the managed care
portion of Health Link, it should not be a problem at all. There’s been a contract with St.
Joe’s for four years. Doctors Hospital just renewed their contract in November. And
MCG has had a contract since July of ’02. So as far as the network, you’re – the
employees of the City of Augusta will have a wonderful, wonderful network to choose
from, as well as if you have any employees that are over in Aiken, the Aiken Regional
Hospital and their 200+ physicians will be added on. So essentially, from network
standpoint locally you’re adding two hospitals and over 300 physicians to your network.
56
Mr. Mays: Okay. And I agree to a point that the bigger that umbrella the better it
is for the people that we serve and that work for us. And I’m merely asking the
questions, let me clarify two things. I didn’t mention collusion and didn’t mention any
hospital.
Mr. Head: Right.
Mr. Mays: Not out of my mouth. But while you’re at the mike, it gets me to
where [inaudible] our staff can answer this and maybe you may wish to. When this
occurs in terms of us getting under this plan, one of the most disappointed people in not
having University in that group was the person you’re looking at. I probably have spent
enough nights and days sleeping in University and of peering out of there, more so
probably that everybody in this room combined. It was my hospital by choice and in
terms of going there. However, there were certain penalties that other employees were
going to have to suffer to a point if we did not recognize the fact that we were in different
places, and sometimes agreements just aren’t made. I want to see everybody in it. And
that was why I had a problem to a point I thought at first just of not having the knowledge
of that particular industry and searched later on to find out because I was thinking it was
just with this particular company and could not get in, and had we joined some hybrid
situation in order to arrive at that. But then when I found out that other groups with the
same company we had, that that – that was what led me to ask the question I previously
asked about the percentages. Now I’ll wrap up with the question in here that I started off
with, that I think Ms. Pelaez done a great job of answering what I’ve asked, but I’ve still
got a sticker that’s down here to the bottom and this is what led me to ask this question.
Now when you get down in here, and it may not be much to a lot of folk unless you sick.
Hospital inpatient service or outpatient hospital service, that’s still the unanswered part in
there, and this is why I asked was there a difference in where that 20% was going in order
to make this deal work. Because if you’ve got out of a physicians network, and I agree
with you it makes it better, but is there a price we are paying in order to make that bigger
to a point that if I’m still looking at the numbers, and I’m just reading the numbers, it’s
kind of like I mentioned before – I’m playing with the hand I’m dealt. 100% physician
services under both of these groups. That dropped to 80% under the plan we’re going to.
Ms. Pelaez: No. Are you looking at HMO or are you looking at POS?
Mr. Mays: I’m looking at POS.
Ms. Pelaez: Okay. POS, hospital inpatient service is 80/60 in-network/out-of-
network for Blue Cross Blue Shield and it’s 80/60 for United Health Care.
Mr. Mays: But when you go down, it’s 100% under physician services in both
categories.
Ms. Pelaez: Right. What was not written out –
57
Mr. Mays: Physician services, and I assume that being – I stand to be corrected –
I assume that’s the doctor’s portion of what you’re charged? Now if that’s 100% under
the plan of where you are, and it drops to 80% when you moved, of what you pay the
physician, on one hand I do think you benefit from the standpoint that you pick up the
bigger network, but that’s my question previously. Is there a price that we’re paying in
this plan for the 20% difference? And I wasn’t, like I say I wasn’t trying to allege
anything but I thought I needed to ask the question. Cause I’m reading, I’m reading
numbers and I’m reading letters. And I always go by the old adage that numbers don’t
lie.
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: Or do. [inaudible] but when I look here this is one thing that’s real
big. It’s 100% physician services on outpatient hospital services. It says hospital
inpatient services 100%. It’s down in here. And I mean that can cover – we got a lot of
folk in here who are healthy in this group, but we got a lot of folk who are in and out of
hospitals. And this stuff about whether you pay $5 to $10 difference on a generic brand
or brand name drug, is that a better benefit than what you pay into the unknown? You
mentioned about the different, the larger groups that that takes in. OB-GYN, Brown
Radiology, all those folks, I’ve known them [inaudible]. But to the point of 100% and
80% difference, I’m a little torn because I want to see us be able to get to the bigger plan.
I like that. But what I’m asking is to a point is if the provider we’ve got is already in
every hospital except within our plan, I have to ask the question, and I guess cause I’ve
been here long enough and me and Ms. Bonner probably came with the building. I’ll be
leaving her with the building. But I remember long enough that – I’m not going to go
into that today. But in this same plan, with the same folks, where you’re talking about,
we were not given all the truth or documentation of where it goes, and I feel it incumbent
to ask the question as to whether or not I’m getting the best plan out of this today, and I
think I deserve the right to ask whether or not we are paying for something in here
indirectly when I see those numbers drop. [inaudible] if it costs more to get that, you
know, then fine. You know, you get the bigger group, and maybe you pay the bigger
bucks in order to do that. But if we do, you know then somebody – if the answer is no,
then I got to accept the fact that it’s no. But 20% is still 20%. And it drops. And if you
get sick and you got there, then you still going to pay that difference out of this particular
plan. I understand black and white, that’s not no if. And I’m not going to even get into
the point about – I won’t say the small parts about mental health. I was discussing that –
Richard is my mental health advisor. [inaudible] follow him to work every day. But I’m
looking in here to a point of the long statements about folk qualifying and having to be
designated first in terms of where they go, well, it’s covered in the plan you’ve got. What
happens if somebody needs [inaudible] treatment to a point [inaudible] and somebody
else controls the decision as to whether or not they are qualified to receive that treatment.
That’s written into this plan. Now one of y’all, you know, you volunteered [inaudible]
but I mean I need to know that before I vote. This is going to pass. There’s enough
numbers up here to make this pass. But it ain’t enough numbers in this whole room to
make me be clear enough to a point of losing 20% on inpatient hospital and outpatient.
That’s clear. That’s real clear. And that can get into thousands of dollars per trip. And
58
that’s [inaudible] whether or not you are going pay $5 to $10 difference on what you are
going to get out of that medicine. Some of our people having to look forward to
portability clauses, to take this with them. They have gaps between their age limits as to
where Medicare kicks in. And to what they’re going to continue to pay. They have a
right to know to a point if they’ve been hospitalized with high blood pressure, heart
attack, or whatever they’ve suffered, still in the work force. They come out, they got this
insurance, and then to a point where they go from paying 100% when they go in the
hospital to the difference of 80%? [inaudible] since y’all got a lot of contacts with your
folk and all the employees, you ought to tell them that, too, now. That’s why I’m saying
it ought to be like truth in lending. [inaudible] be willing to discuss about what’s not so
good. And this is not so good. And that’s all I’m throwing out. But it’s going to pass.
[inaudible] Mr. Mayor, it’s enough out here to get it done, and if that’s, the price of the
unknown is what we pay, to get one set of folks back into the group, then hey, that’s what
we pay. But I remind you, the documentation [inaudible] same set of folks were the same
set of folks who took their employees and put them on indigent care and had this county
to pay for it. So remember that, too, while you’re remembering all the documentation.
Mr. Head: If I could address that, just for a quick second.
Mr. Mays: I’m all ears.
Mr. Head: Okay. And Brenda, you tell me if I’m wrong on this. In the RFP
process, the identical plans as far as what you currently have today with Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Georgia, I should say Blue Choice, an HMO and a point of service plan. What
you’ve had for the past eight years. The same plan design. The same type of product. Is
no different. Please just understand that you have a 100% HMO plan, and then you have
also a choice of a point of service plan, and I think the main reason why a point of service
plan was put into play was because eight years go when my partner and I were here in
this room, and you made the correct decision at that point in time to go with Blue Cross
Blue Shield of Georgia, and my partner and I were both working for University Health
Link, the managed care arm. You made the right decision. That produce, the HMO and
the point of service product that you have before you, should be virtually the same. If
there is an error, there is an error on United’s part or a type. I should say that. Because
the RFP was very explicit to say it is the same benefit as far the co-pay or the co-
insurance or the max out of pocket. There should not be a reduction in benefit period, as
far as what they would be for your employees. None whatsoever. The only big
difference that I would have seen, outside of having open access which I think was
already addressed, meaning there’s no referral process from a primary care physician to a
specialist, was that United reduced the specialist co-pay from $30 to $20.
Ms. Pelaez: That’s correct.
Mr. Head: So there is a natural $10 savings. What that physician services is
[inaudible] but I would deem that that is typically for hospitalizations or surgeries. It has
nothing to do with office visits, co-pays, or things that are done [inaudible]. I will tell
you this as well, because this is a fully-insured plan that is filed with the State of Georgia.
59
And in talking about referrals, and I’m not sure if we’re talking about mental health
referrals or not, but every company out there – when we’re talking about mental health
and substance abuse, there is always a referral process that’s built in. And actually, from
United’s standpoint, and this is another upgrade with the United Health Care plan, is that
on your typical surgeries and authorizations and pre-authorizations, United Health Care
back in 2001 took the stance that said we’re paying millions of dollars to approve 99.5%
of the surgeries and hospitalizations that we [inaudible] do, why are we spending this
kind of money? We don’t need to. So what they decided to do at that point in time was
say Doctors Hospital, we’re putting you in control of health care, to say we want you to
make that decision. You don’t have to call us for typical surgeries and hospitalizations.
The only reason why you have to call United Health Care are for durable medical
equipment and then secondly, for mental health and substance abuse. Everything else,
there’s not a pre-authorization, there’s not a pre-certification like you currently have with
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia. And the only other two things that I would say is,
you know, eight years ago when we were in this room, and there was, there were
questions about wanting to have University Hospital as a part of the plan, and I can
assure you my partner Chris and I wanted to see that happen, as well. I will tell you at
the same time, Commissioner Mays, that there was an ego problem that I would contend
that was going on with University Hospital and its physicians. Okay. They were of the
mindset, because all of their contracts were at that point in time is it is our hospital and
our physicians or nobody else. Their mentality, their philosophy has thus changed, and
they are in virtually every contract out there today except Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Georgia. And the reason that is is because Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia wants to
reimburse University Hospital about 38 cents on the dollar. They cannot operate at 38
cents on the dollar and they will not. Most hospitals cannot operate at that type of
reimbursement. Thus, Blue Cross at that meeting that I was at at the last time said, as Mr.
Eckert said, that they were in close negotiations. They are no closer today than they were
eight years ago. It’s been on and off negotiations and if they’re going to continue to want
to reimburse that, they don’t want to. It would be more detrimental to St. Joseph’s and to
Doctors Hospital for University to be in. They’re willing to take deeper cuts to not have
University in, because they know and they realize that if University comes in, they’re
going to lose market share. That’s plain and simple. In relationship to your question –
Mr. Mays: Well, I’m glad we were on the same side eight years ago, even if you
couldn’t admit it then. I’m glad you’re on it up to now, so maybe you know the reason
why I’m driving at the point I’m driving at now. I’m not trying to be the jackass in the
middle of the road, but to a point you know it’s kind of like the old folks said, the horse
throw you the first time, it may be the horse’s fault. Throw you the second time, it’s
definitely your fault. So I’m making sure, I’m trying to be solid where we’re going. But
I’m a little confused – are you saying that they do not work with Blue Cross Blue Shield
of Georgia under circumstances? Because I mean I’ve talk with folk who go there that
are under different plans, who work for different agencies. I mean I got a state retired
employee sitting down at the dais there in Rev. Hankerson, and to a point where we were
laughing about it and say well, wonder what makes it different to a point with Blue Cross
Blue Shield and dealing with the city of Augusta? As does mine and the plan I’m in. I
60
say it’s the politics of it. And I’m glad you mentioned the part about them being
bullheaded and egotistical eight years ago.
Mr. Head: Right.
Mr. Mays: So I mean I’m not trying to hit them now with anything that’s wrong
in there. Don’t have a problem with either one of the insurance companies. If United
Health Care is the best plan on the table that’s in there, then I think the Commission
ought to vote for it. But I feel compelled to ask those questions that I’ve asked because I
mean, let me get back to that. You mentioned a minute ago that they were like 38 cents
on the dollar.
Mr. Head: That’s right.
Mr. Mays: What do they do with a plan like [inaudible] are they 38 cents on the
dollar with that one? Cause they’re not turning them out in the street.
Mr. Head: There are different contracts negotiated with each hospital. And
depending upon what they negotiate is what their reimbursement is. When you mention
Blue Cross plan, remember this: that there are, there are an association of Blue Cross
plans. Blue Cross of South Carolina, of which University is the only and sole provider
of. University Health Link is. That managed care contract. There’s Blue Cross of
Alabama, Blue Cross of Illinois. And not to go into a lesson of managed care, but know
this about the federal government, as well as about the state government as well. The
federal government, if there is a physician that does not contract with Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Georgia, they have the ability to contract with Blue Cross Blue Shield of South
Carolina, if they’re a University Health Link physician. So what that means is when that
person goes into the physician’s office, they see, as you will probably see on the Blue
Cross card, a little suitcase. And that suitcase means that they can travel. They can travel
and that provider can file the claim and access their contract underneath Blue Cross Blue
Shield of South Carolina, not Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia. Second to that, the
State contract, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia is an HMO vendor. They are one of
four vendors that are part of the HMO contract. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia as
well is the administrator for the state government for the state health benefits. They are
the administrator, not the network. The network is First Health and MRN. And because
of that, there are all four hospitals and virtually every physician in town that’s in-
network. It’s not the Blue Cross Blue Shield network of Georgia network. They are just
the administrator, which means they just pay the claims, but they do not actually provide
the network access. And I know it’s very confusing.
Mr. Mays: Yeah, and you get to losing a little boy from James Brown Boulevard
when you show all them different lettered agencies in there [inaudible] this group here,
and – but I’m just trying to make sure that when we make that move, just as I argued
eight years go, for those who are not going to be able to get treatment, for those who are
going to be punished, for those who are going to have to pay a penalty of 20% because
that’s what it would have done. It would have done that to a large female portion of this
61
employee work force if we had not gone the way that we went. They would have been
penalized for the fact that, as you said, University wanted it all, and if we didn’t go that
way then those who were not in that grouping, they were either going to have to change
their physicians, and I didn’t think it was fair and I thought they had the opportunity that
if everybody else was extending that olive branch to be in it, they should do it. And so I
mean if those votes are there in order to go on and do that, but I’m still – one other
question, Brenda. What percentage of our folk are on POS, approximately, versus HOM?
Ms. Pelaez: Approximately 85% of our - no, 15% of our employees are on POS.
Mr. Mays: So the larger percentage on POS?
Ms. Pelaez: No, the larger percentage is on HMO.
Mr. Mays: On HMO?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: 15% is on –
Ms. Pelaez: The other side. On POS.
Mr. Mays: Okay. All right. So we’ve got about 15% where you’ve got that
difference that’s in there. And that’s part of where I was looking at on those
hospitalizations, those surgeries, and those that have that [inaudible] in there. And I
imagine that’s different mixed-age groups of people?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir, it is.
Mr. Head: And I would think after enrollment goes through, when they see the
access of more physicians, more hospitals, you’ll have even fewer people on the point of
service plan and more on the HMO because you get lower co-pays –
Ms. Pelaez: You have open access.
Mr. Head: - you have open access, you get 100% coverage versus 80%.
Mr. Mays: Well, I don’t think, the only thing I’d in a friendly way I disagree with
you, I agree with you but I disagree with you for [inaudible]. I think you’re right, they
are going to move on POS. But they are going to move because they are going to lose
20% of their doctor’s care, reimbursement that they are going to have to pay. It’s down
in here. POS folk, it’s in here in black and white, they are going to lose it on outpatient,
they are going to lose it hospital in-patient services, on the POS, they will lose it. So
therefore, you’ve – I think you’re right. They will move back and will go to HMO’s and
that my point, to a point of those who wanted POS choice, are you forcing them that way
62
to get into your HMO, because then they’re going to be penalized because they’re going
to lose those 20% services? And that’s still a point of argument of numbers.
Mr. Head: The 20% co-insurance or the 20% - and there is a capitation as well – I
mean it’s not like that employees owe 20% on – I mean just continuing. There’s a cap
and a max out of pocket. And Brenda, you’ll have that in front of you. But I assume
that’s it’s either like $1,000 or $2,000 or something like that as far as a cap on the max
out of pocket for the POS plan.
Ms. Pelaez: I think it’s $1,500.
Mr. Head: Is it $1,500? So that’s the worst case scenario. If an employee is
going inside the network underneath the point of service plan, and they have – let me
give you an example. If they went to University Hospital and they stayed 21 days and
had a pancreatic attack and they ran up $100,000 bill, if they are on the point of service
plan and they’re going in-network for covered medical charges, their worst case scenario,
max out of pocket per person per calendar year, is $1,500. That is it. They cannot spend
more than that other than co-pays. Like at the doctor’s office or the drugs part. $1,500 is
the worst case scenario.
Mr. Mays: But the only thing I’m asking you to realize, young man, is what I’m
reading.
Mr. Head: Okay.
Mr. Mays: I am reading here where it says 80% over here. To me, 80% is 80%.
When I look a physician services and it says 100%, as a policy maker I have to read what
is given to me. What’s on this page is a difference of 20%. Now if that scenario, it may
not be a lot of money, but it’s worst on my lowest paid employees to a point of where that
person spends 96%, 97% of everything that they make. There is no savings. They use up
everything that they’ve got. There no difference lying around the house to take care of
that. There’s no check written and there’s no difference [inaudible] to take care of that,
there’s no [inaudible] and there’s no platinum or gold card to hand over to the hospital
when you leave. And that’s the point I was looking at for that 20% [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Brenda, if the motion passes today I think it’s very important that
you review the payment schedule to make sure that it compares to – apples to apples.
Ms. Pelaez: That’s exactly what I was just saying to [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: So that there’s no difference in the coverage.
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: If there is something that’s different in the chart that’s before us
today, whatever goes in the contract needs to be consistent.
63
Ms. Pelaez: Correct.
Mr. Mayor: That’s transparent.
Ms. Pelaez: Correct.
Mr. Mayor: A seamless transition from benefits from the current plan to the new
plan.
Ms. Pelaez: Which would answer Commissioner Mays’ question. Where it’s not
spelled out on one side, I have to make sure that it is spelled out on the other side so that
that 80% [inaudible] 100% of physician services is over here on United Health Care.
Mr. Mays: Okay. But then that gets me back, Mr. Mayor, a little bit if we
interpret something after we vote and get into a contract and we make sure that it’s right
and fine tuned afterward, then are we then playing the game by the same set of rules?
We just went through that in Purchasing. Are we going to fine tune every contract to a
point of something that didn’t match?
Ms. Pelaez: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: I heard [inaudible] nothing was to have changed. Now if y’all are
going to go back and adjust the 20% afterward, then does the other company have the
right to go back and adjust what they need to adjust in their plan to make it more
equitable? If you’re playing by the same set of rules of coverage of seeking proposals. If
you’re talking about dollars. And-
Ms. Pelaez: I would not qualify it as an adjustment when it has been represented
that the same services that are currently provided by Blue Cross Blue Shield and what we
are being offered right now on the table will remain the same, would have to remain the
same under the contract, would have to be so. That is not an adjustment. If this is 100%
physician services under Blue Cross Blue Shield, it will be 100% physician services
under United Healthcare. That’s not an adjustment. That’s what it is.
Mr. Mays: Well, I mean is that, is that under HMO or is that under POS?
Ms. Pelaez: That’s under HOM and POS. Across the plan. It’s a typo. Literally
it should [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Ms. Pelaez: [inaudible] everything should mirror across the plan the same thing.
Mr. Mays: Well, it ain’t [inaudible] even though it was [inaudible]. I’m just
looking at what you done gave me up here that I’m reading off of and when I see 100%
64
on one plan, under one plan that’s there, and I see 80% on another one, the last time I
took 80 from 100 it came out to 20. And to a point when you pay a doctor for being
hospitalized or when they send you there for day surgery and you come out, 20% can be a
lot more than a lot of our employees can afford to pay, and that’s a heck of a sight more
than what they are going to walk into a drug store and deal with some charge about $5 to
$10 or $3 on a bottle of medicine [inaudible]. You start paying percentage on there, that
can get into four figures of money [inaudible] and that’s a big difference. And that was
my only [inaudible]. I was reading it, Mr. Mayor, off of what’s been given to us.
Mr. Mayor: Absolutely. All right, is there anything further before we vote? Mr.
Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just quickly, are we talking 80% of reasonable and customary, which
is traditional with Blue Cross Blue Shield? Is it the same with –
Mr. Head: It will be 80% of the contract agreement.
Mr. Cheek: Of the contract agreement.
Mr. Head: As long as you’re going in-network. If you go out of network, then
yes, you do run into reasonable and customary.
Mr. Cheek: I know Blue Cross was renowned for having OB doctors look at back
trouble and determine what was reasonable and customary based on 20-year-old rates.
I’m happy to have you guys on board.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further?
Mr. Mays: Well, does 100 still mean 100? [inaudible] Mr. Cheek brought up 80
means 80 in the contract, does 100 still mean 100? Well, Andy, any time you want to
look at it on this page here, under POS, physician services, and that’s without my 250
reading glasses, it’s 100%. Go straight across the line, it’s 80%. That’s [inaudible].
Now you can spend that any way you want to spend it, but it’s still a difference of 20%.
Mr. Cheek: Reasonable and customary, which [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We have a motion on the floor. All in favor of
that motion, please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Williams vote No.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 7-2-1.
65
Mr. Mayor: We will take a five minute recess and then we’ll continue with the
agenda.
[RECESS]
Mr. Mayor:with respect, Madame Clerk,
We’ll go ahead and continue. The –
to item number 16, Mr. Grantham has requested we take that to legal agenda so
we’ll hold that.
16. Discuss the development of a new process for the hiring of the Administrator.
(Requested by Commissioner Don Grantham)
Mr. Mayor: We have a report from the Attorney. Is he here? On 18 and 22.
We’ll get back to him. Let’s go ahead and take up item number 17, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: Item 17 was on consent.
Mr. Mayor: Was that on consent?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All right. I’m sorry, I forgot to mark it off. All right, so that takes us
down to item –
The Clerk: 33.
Mr. Mayor: 33.
The Clerk:
ATTORNEY:
33. Consider approval of Ordinance regarding penalties for alcoholic beverage
license holders for serving alcoholic beverages to minors. (Deferred from December
st
21 Commission meeting.)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, is there anything you want to add to this before you
make a motion and we vote again?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir, I’d like to make the same motion that we amend
the Ordinance for the penalties on the first offense would pay $500 fine and placed
on probation for the first offense, $500 to be deposited in our general fund.
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry, I couldn’t hear you. Was that a motion?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes.
66
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: There is a second to that motion. Discussion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Is that probation or suspension of license for 30 days?
Mr. Hankerson: Probation.
Mr. Cheek: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Any other questions? All in favor of the
motion then please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Smith out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: We will go back to items number 18 and 22.
FINANCE:
18. Approve award of Bid Item #05-018 to best bid for each bid section as
follows:
Section I A & R Exterminating Co., Inc. $1,383.00
Section II A & R Exterminating Co., Inc. 830.00
Section III A & R Exterminating Co., Inc. 695.00
Section IV A & R Exterminating Co., Inc. 270.00
The total annual cost of $38,136.00 is funded by the departments receiving the
service under object code 52.13117.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
22. Approve award of Bid Item #05-018 to best bid for each bid section as
follows:
Section I A & R Exterminating Co., Inc. $1,383.00
Section II A & R Exterminating Co., Inc. 830.00
Section III A & R Exterminating Co., Inc. 695.00
Section IV A & R Exterminating Co., Inc. 270.00
The total annual cost of $38,136.00 is funded by the departments receiving the
service under object code 52.13117. (See background information under Item 18)
Mr. Mayor: The Attorney has a report on that?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, I do. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, a joint
recommendation of Public Works, Purchasing and Legal is that the low bid of
American be chosen and that the contract be awarded to them.
67
Mr. Colclough: I’m sorry, I can’t hear you.
Mr. ShepardThe low bid,American, be accepted and that
: Mr. Colclough,
the – the reason that that is done is that there is no documentation of this problem
and if there were a problem the statute for debarring them from bidding is a three year
statute. So everybody is on the same page on that motion.
Mr. Mayor: And that would be the substitute motion.
Mr. Shepard: That would be the substitute. Our recommendation is to follow the
substitute motion made by the Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we need – I got ahead of myself. We need a motion to take
this off the table first.
Mr. Cheek: A motion to take this off the table.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to taking it off the table? None heard. We’ll take it
off the table that way.
(No objection to taking off table)
Mr. Mayor: You’ve heard the report from the Attorney. Any discussion? We
have a substitute motion that would embody the report of the Attorney and the we had the
original motion to go to the higher bidder. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek:
Mr. Mayor, I’m going to use a term we use in inspection by walking
around by management. We need to perform – if there’s questions about performance on
this or any other service provider to this City, monthly audits by facilities people, walk
through, making notes, document, send up the chain of command, and we can based on
this contract terminate it for lack of performance. It’s a simple thing to do. It can be
And I just ask the maker of the motion
done in-house, we don’t have to hire anybody.
or the substitute to include, if there is a question about performance of this
contractor, that staff conduct weekly walk-around audits to check or monthly walk-
around audits to check the performance.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sims, did you have your hand up?
Ms. Sims: I wanted to find out if there was a performance clause in the contract,
and if they don’t stand to the performance then we can terminate.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, just a point of clarification. I noticed as I just skimmed
through the agenda book the items in here that are Purchasing related either have the
initials or the signature of the Purchasing Director on them. This item does not have the
68
signature or initials of the Purchasing department head. Is there some reason or is there
some procedure or policy for these agenda items that are supposed to be screened by
Purchasing before they are forwarded through your office to the Clerk and the
Commission, or is it customary that all of these are screened by Purchasing when they
involve Purchasing? Is there some reason this one wasn’t signed off?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, if you look under Ms. Smith’s –
Mr. Mayor: Oh, is that what that is? Okay. I’m sorry, then, cause on these others
that I was skimming, they looked different.
Mr. Russell: And the reason we do that is hopefully avoid that situation.
Obviously this is one that obviously got by us.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Russell: Try to do better.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll go ahead and call the question then, if there is no
other discussion on the substitute motion as amended. All in favor, please vote with the
usual sign. The substitute motion. The substitute motion.
Ms. Beard: Is that using American?
Mr. Mayor: That’s using American, that’s correct.
(Vote on substitute motion with amendment)
Mr. Grantham, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Smith and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mr. Mayor: And that takes us – the next item we have would be item number 34.
The Clerk:
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
34. Communication from the Augusta NAACP Branch requesting City
st
sponsorship through the purchase of tickets for the 31 Annual Martin Luther
King, Jr. “Freedom Fund Banquet.”
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek:
Mr. Mayor, there’s kind of a well-established tradition that we
so I make a motion that
purchase according to those elected officials wanting to attend,
we follow that same policy with this event.
Mr. Williams: Second.
69
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? All in favor then please vote with
the usual sign.
Mr. Colclough: That’s item 34?
Mr. Mayor: Item 34.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Smith and Mr. Grantham vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Mayor: I think that takes us now to item number 36.
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS:
36. Discuss agenda departmental process and procedures. (Requested by
Commissioner Mays)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, you asked for this discussion.
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. And some of this may possibly entail legal, but it’s
just something that I put on to hopefully – and it kind of coincides a little bit with Mr.
Grantham’s item number. What’s that, Don, 13?
Mr. Grantham: 16.
Mr. Mays: 16? That goes to legal. But one of the things that I have witnessed
some lately, and I know, Mr. Mayor, in terms of the communication and particularly with
the four of us – Mr. Russell, Mr. Shepard, you and myself – and of checking back and
forth with the Clerk on various items and particularly on agenda day, this is something
that I guess is one of those things coming into a new year but looking back, and just as a
little observance. I would hope that we soon on the day-to-day side make a decision as it
relates to the permanency of an Administrator. I stated publicly what my feelings are
about that. But how this relates a little bit to 36 is that I think our folk are not
complaining, but we do have rules and we have times set that are there in the Clerk’s
office in terms of establishing getting information in, getting it ready so the materials can
get out. It was kind of a set rule that when we established government that – and if we
need to change that, maybe we need to change that – but the Thursday and the cutoff
times that we have that are there, and sometimes we have emergencies. That’s why we
have addendums. Sometimes we have to have things that are added on. But one of the
reasons that that day was asked for was that many times Commissioners might find it
necessary if they’re going out of town on a Friday for a weekend or something, materials
could get out of the Clerk’s office by a certain time. And therefore it would get out on
70
that date and those things were there and if somebody’s leaving for the weekend they
could take those items with them. But I just think we need to adhere a little bit better in
terms of the way some of the things are flowing through if we’re going to stay on that
same time frame. Now if we are going to move that to say that Friday the information
goes out and cut it off on Thursday, then do that. But if we’re going to have a time for –
be it the general public bring it in [inaudible] delegation or something to come on or if we
have time that it has to come through that we get through to that office – the Clerk didn’t
ask me to do this – but I’ve seen this observance this year very plainly, to the point and
particularly when that office was understaffed – that these ladies were there till very late
on a lot of those cutoff dates and information that would not be in there and that they
would get to waiting on. And I’m not [inaudible] name calling business [inaudible] any
place, any particular persons. Those that aren’t in the room, if you see it on 66, then you
know [inaudible] hear about it then. But the point being, it is not necessary to even do
that. But it is something that is going on and I think we need to start adhering to
schedules that are there. Because when we rush to get stuff done, it creates a domino
effect that we bring stuff into a committee or here on this floor, then we’re not ready and
we have to answer important questions, make important decisions and then we’re trying
to make them based on the fact that information has been gotten in and it’s not met that
deadline or it’s gotten over by people trying to make the deadline and then they make the
deadline but then they may not make the content of what they’re bringing in, and I just
think that with this being a new year, that I’m hoping that in terms of the day-to-day we
get that situation settled soon because I think that will give the Administrator, whoever
that person is, and y’all know how I’m going to already vote, but I think it would give the
person that’s there some degree of you won’t have folk testing the waters to see whether
or not they can go from 12:00 o’clock over into 3:00 o’clock or later in the day. And it
throws everything off. And it just should be respected if those are going to be rules. If
we want to change the rules, it can take a simple motion to say okay, fine, we going
change the deadline, we’re going to put them on at a different time and let’s go. There
are emergencies. The folk there have not complained. They made it past those deadlines.
They’ve allowed to do it. But I just think when you start getting where you have to call
and make sure that folk getting stuff there, why is it not here, do this, then I think that’s a
little bit far reaching. And it needs to be a little bit of tightening up in that area to a point
that that information can get out, and if it’s important and it’s going to be that way, then
folk need to be able to explain as to why certain things are there. Now I’ve watched
some of the committee chairpersons and I think you all have done a very good job this
year. Y’all have been very, very firm about making sure when something is coming in to
be added on. Y’all have stood your ground on that. And if it’s been stuff that we’ve
needed to get in and folk can make their point, I think it’s been allowed during those
committees. But I’m just worried about it. I think you’re starting in and I figured that I
would leave that particular amount of baggage on the new Mayor Pro Tem coming in, but
I just wanted to say that going out. That’s just a little observance I’ve looked at and in
the beginning it was, it was, it was where one or two places it would happen, but then it
tended to be a little bit more and more and more to a point it was not meeting those time
frames. And like I said, if we’re going to change the date, change the date, but if you’re
going to keep the date, then abide by the rules. And I hope that’s as gentlemanly as I can
make that in that fashion. But it’s just a suggestion and I think that if we are going to
71
keep them, then when those items are turned down, then committee chairpersons, since
they’re going to be the same for at least this year, then I think when they come on this
floor or when they come to other places, they can be very firm about why some of those
things are there. [inaudible] folk have not been ready, if it’s something that’s popped up
that’s catastrophic, then let’s deal with it. But if it’s just a matter to a point that stuff has
been addressed and voted on by the Commission two to three weeks before and it’s just
arriving to get where it’s going or doesn’t make it, then it should not be tolerated. And I
just wanted to make that observance with it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, you wanted to respond?
Mr. Russell: Commissioner Mays, I hear you loud and clear. Thank you.
Mr. Mays: And you weren’t the one I was aiming it at, either.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I echo the sentiments of Mr. Mays,
and I’d like to add, also, that you know, if we look at previous agendas that we have had
and we come in here and there are 70 to 80 items listed on that agenda, and it’s taking –
it’s numerous hours to get through that, and I feel like that people are pretty tired after
about four or five hours of deliberating issues and there’s a lot of time that we either vote
for or we vote against things that we haven’t had the opportunity to really review and
look at during that long day and that period of time. I don’t know the magic number, but
I’d like for us to consider, and maybe get our Administrator to come back with some
form of recommendation, or our Clerk, that we limit these agenda items to a certain
number and that they roll into the next meeting. There’s nothing that says you have got
to take everything on the day that it’s brought in and have it done in your next meeting.
If it’s not that important of an issue, why can’t it roll over? Why can’t we have time to
deal with certain items when we do have time, when we have a clear head and not sit here
at 8:00, 9:00 o’clock at night, after getting here at 2:00 in the day to start. So I’d just like
to put that under consideration, along with Mr. Mays’ request, and just ask the
Administrator and Clerk to look at that, see if we can’t control our number of items on
our agenda so that we would all be better off for it. I think the media, the public and
everyone else would appreciate that. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, Mr. Pro Tem?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir, Mr. Mayor. I’ve got a similar problem with the
same issues that Don and Commissioner Mays has just talked about, but what I got more
problem with is the agenda items come in to be voted on that was supposed to be an
emergency, didn’t go through the proper channels, don’t have the proper back-up, then
we end up coming out here voting on the monies for situations that we had no knowledge
of and was told it was an emergency. And like Don said about limiting what’s on the
agenda, I just think we need to be very mindful of what goes on the agenda, and if we
[inaudible] money [inaudible] emergency there at least ought to be some back-up unless
72
that was something that happened in the last thirty minutes that come in here that we had
to react to. But there have been several times that we been told that, well, this has got to
be done. The old phrase, backs up against the wall, Fred, I think that’s kind of died down
a little bit. You always talk about getting everything up against the wall. So if we not
against the wall any more we ought to be able to bring those items and bring the back-up
material with them. Some of this stuff come from committee meetings. Nobody wants to
take the time to sit and go through the stuff we was elected to go through. It ain’t easy.
It ain’t something you walk in and just walk out of here. We been known to have two
committees going at the same time. Sometimes that’s good, sometimes that’s bad. I still
contend that we need to talk about those issue either in committee or in this setting, so
somewhere along the line we going to have to discuss some of those things. But we at
least ought to have the proper material. It ought to go through the Clerk’s office and not
brought to us, whether it brought in legal, whether it brought through add-on, it should
not be done if it’s going to consider some money that we got to sit here and vote for, then
those kind of things to give us time to look them over and study those issues and make a
conscious effort, Mr. Mayor. So I think you got three votes right there if you wanted to
take a vote on this, that we need to look at changing or getting some perspective a little
bit better than what we been having. But I agree 100% with that.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard, we haven’t heard from you today. Go ahead.
Ms. Beard: Thank you so much. Because they are speaking on this issue, I think
I might do the same. It seems we have coming before us the same item about five times.
The Clerk does a great job of feeding the information to us before our committee
meetings and the Commission meetings. So we have a chance to read the information. It
just doesn’t seem to me that it’s necessary that it should go before committee, then be
redone at the Commission meeting, when we are receiving this information. And also
again by different people coming to explain it, when it’s self-explanatory. I think if we
could review that and cut down on some of that, that it could shorten our meetings and
I’d like to see us do that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Two of the things that I see as process
improvements that we could utilize is (1) adhere to the two minute rule. That would
shorten our meetings significantly. Secondly, if that is something we’re not willing to do
as a body, we can do as Congress does, and have special session for debate on a given
issue, allocating ten minutes per side that can be parceled out among the Commissioners
that want to speak to a given issue. Can be ten minutes per side, twenty minutes, just like
Congress does. And they have sessions to debate issues in the evening after normal
sessions when things are contentions. Then it comes back through committee and to the
floor. Bottom line, though, on the length of our meetings. It’s directly proportional to
the length of time we extend beyond our two minutes on a given issue. Those are the
things that we are going to have to address in house amongst ourselves. There are tools
that [inaudible] by other bodies that work. I just hope that you would all consider that. I
think all of us recognize that the days that we have the thinnest agenda books typically
73
are our longest meetings. So a correlation between the number of items to the amount of
time we spend is not valid. is not valid. I just urge you to consider that. So much debate
time on a given issue, if we have a contentious issue, to be parceled out by leaders on
each side of the issue. Could be ten minutes or twenty minutes, like Congress does. Or
schedule special sessions on the hotter topics and not our meetings. It’s one or two items
that drag us out usually. Bottom line, it takes six votes, and if you hadn’t got those to the
floor debating all day on a losing issue, it’s not going to help and that’s where we end up
talking longer than two minutes. So just some food for thought.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, let me ask this. Maybe [inaudible] Mr. Colclough told
me on the break that I had picked up a little weight since Christmas so I’m just going to
weigh in on this issue, too, and he’s right, I have.
(Laughter)
Mr. Boyles: Number one, when I came down here, I think I was told that for a
Commissioner to get something on the agenda, that Thursday at 12:00 was our deadline?
Ms. Sims: Wednesday.
Mr. Mayor: Wednesday.
Mr. Boyles: Wednesday? Okay. Cause you know, I’ve never had much anyway.
I mean you know. So it’s Wednesday at 5:00 is the deadline for the Commission?
The Clerk: Our rule book says that the item has to be in the Clerk’s office by 5:00
p.m., no later than 9:00 a.m. that Thursday morning.
Mr. Boyles: Okay, so it’s Wednesday. Okay.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Boyles: I mean I don’t think I violated that. I don’t believe I’ve ever –
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Boyles: So I mean that – so when do the departments, when they have to
send something through the Administrator, when do they have – when is their deadline
for being on the – the same time? I’ve had department heads call me sometimes and say
listen, I can’t get this on, can you get this on for me? And if we’ve got the same
deadline?
Mr. Colclough: You’ve got more leverage.
74
Mr. Boyles: I don’t know – I might be one of ten with a little bit more clout
maybe.
The Clerk: Let me just say this now. The Administrator has set his own deadline
as to when the department directors are to get those items in to him. And they may have
failed to meet those deadlines.
Mr. Boyles: Okay.
The Clerk: And then would not allow them to be sent to my office. But that’s an
Administrator’s prerogative. Am I correct, Fred? Okay.
Mr. Boyles: Well, I don’t think I’ve ever done this since I’ve been down here
anyway, when they call. I just tell them I need to talk to the Administrator or to the
Clerk. And the other thing, as long as I’m talking about length, and the reason I brought
that up is because I think there as not a real clarification as what time we’re supposed to
have something down, so I’m glad we got that. But the other, I think, is sometimes on
committee days when we have a constituent with a problem such as maybe on
Engineering Services and they’re told to be here at 2:30 or 3:00 o’clock, whatever that
time is, and at 5:00, 5:30 they’re still waiting out in the hall. That’s – I don’t know how
we handle something like that because unless we’re enforcing too many rules or
something. But I mean it’s just kind of embarrassing to all of us, in my opinion, that to
bring a citizen down here that has a legitimate complaint and is waiting to be heard and
they sit and sit and sit. And I think that – to me, it’s hard to walk out in the hall and you
see people that are going to be here for a 2:30 Finance meeting and it’s 4:00 o’clock and
they’re still sitting out there. I mean it’s just – I think if we could all agree, and I’m just
asking if we could find some way to – our new Pro Tem, maybe he can be the whip now,
maybe he can – he can be a whip and whip them in shape, I hope.
Mr. Williams: You must think I’m going to stop talking cause I’m Pro Tem.
(Laughter)
Mr. Boyles: We know you’re not going to stop talking. We looking forward to
hearing from. As a matter of fact, Barbara and I are going to miss you when you move
down to the other end.
Mr. Williams: It might be more than I can handle.
Mr. Boyles: But those are just some thoughts I had, Mr. Mayor. What I wanted
to be clear of the time that we are supposed to finish, I mean have information to the
Clerk, and then the other is just an appeal maybe that we do make some of our committee
meetings a little bit shorter so that the people we serve can get in and get out.
Mr. Grantham: Two minutes is up.
75
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: If I may, in an effort to kind of tighten up some of these items that
come before you, issues such as contracts that need review of the Attorney, Mr. Russell
and I had talked about this, that don’t need to come to y’all to be considered and then go
to the Attorney. They need to go to the Attorney, be cleaned up and then sent to you so
you get a final document. So we, we’re trying to do that so if there is an Attorney issue,
Ms. Beard, you only deal with it one time and you don’t have to approve it, send it to the
Attorney and then it comes back again two weeks later. So we’ve tried to tighten that up
a little bit, too. I know all of you had some wonderful reading to do over the holidays,
but I would refer you to the rules and procedure for the Commission, rule 2.02, which
limits the amount of discussion during debate, and certainly the Mayor can enforce the
rule, but if the individual Commissioner is not willing to abide by the rule, that’s
certainly at their discretion and I would encourage you to review those and that would be
another way to move the agenda items along at the meeting. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, a lot of times the department heads and
Administrator or whatever process there is, when we ask for material to be brought in and
the department head comes in and passes out in this Chamber, I mean that throws a crank
in everything when we got to go through it. We asked for that material and there have
been several times we have asked for it and they come in and pass it out, either at
committee or at this Chamber. Well, you know, I don’t know how many brain surgeons
up here, but I mean most of us can’t conceive the material then sit here and deliberate on
it, when it just passed out to us, from whatever department. We need to have those things
or either it be postponed until the next meeting. I got no problem with that. But we have
asked several times for material to be sent to us or brought to us, and it don’t get to us.
And that’s another way of wearing you down, saying well, they don’t want to meet all
day. They going to let this go on through. But if we stop that I think we’ll probably
speed up the process as well, too. So that’s something we really need to consider.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sims?
Ms. Sims: I wonder, is there a way that we could have the citizens that come to
present problems to us, our constituents, come at an hour that just is for them, that we
have – I hate to say another “department” but another arena for them to be presented to
us? Any problems could come maybe before a meeting per se [inaudible] committees
and have a problem solving hour, two hours, however long it takes, but to have the
people that have to sit outside and wait, have them come first and then we’re left here to
do the business. And they come first, really, they come before we do. So I would like to
see maybe a possibility, Mr. Administrator, figure out a way that we could have the
people with problems come in earlier and not have to wait all day.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Russell, what is the possibility of you
taking these agendas and go over them with department heads and making
76
recommendations? I believe that would save us a lot of time up here. We wouldn’t
necessarily have to go by it, but at least it would be a good indication that you have
looked at it and y’all think well of it. If there’s time in a day to do that, I think it would
really help us out here.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Smith, we normally make recommendations on individual
items. We can probably prepare a summary document of some nature that might be a
little bit easier to look at for you on our recommendations, give you some time to think
about that. That might be something that would give you the information in a little bit
more concise format that would allow a quicker review and with the backup [inaudible]
review that you like. That might be helpful. If you let me think about that, I will be
happy [inaudible] take any of these and all these considerations into consideration and
come back and try to present something that would be a way to help move forward with
the business of the government. I mean obviously some things are going to take a while,
some of the discussions we have are going to be there, but if we could provide you with
as concise information as we can, I think we can limit some discussion or limit questions
that might not need to be asked, if we can provide the information in a better format.
And that’s our goal. Obviously today we’ve had a couple that in my mind we messed up,
we didn’t do as good a job as we could have in providing you the information in the
format that it needed to be. Given the fact we didn’t have committee meetings where we
sometimes catch this, I think, I don’t want to make excuses, but that’s the best one I can
think of off the top of my head at the moment. But obviously we need to do a better job
of providing the information. We need to make sure it’s right and correct, and then we
need to make sure we communicate that way in a way that’s possible. The deliberation
and the communications you have amongst each other is something I think is necessary
and sometimes that takes a short time and sometimes it takes a long time. The Clerk and
I would be more than willing to sit down and look at these recommendations and come
back with something we think is appropriate.
Mr. Mayor: Does our marriage counselor down at the end have his hand up?
Mr. Hankerson:I just make a motion that we accept 36 for information and
adhere to the comments.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m just going to throw this in there, too. I know that
Finance is in the same position. We’re scheduled to start at 2:30 and 3:00 on committee
days. We generally in Engineering Services always have citizens here on one issue or
another. If we wait for the normal time to start due to the other committees’ running
long, we’ll usually start about 5:00 to 5:30, maybe 6:00 o’clock. That’s one of the
reasons we’ve gone to running concurrent meetings. It’s not convenient because a lot of
us like to attend all the meetings. But I’d hope that our new Mayor Pro Tem and all of us
maybe would put our heads together soon and look at some way to address the
77
committees that most frequently have citizens in, maybe shuffle the deck and allow,
certainly allow us that have been at the end of the train and patiently waiting for so very
long, who typically have three to five times the number of items to discuss and vote on as
some of the other committees, an opportunity to meet earlier and perhaps close our
business before it’s dark outside, winter or summer, which is usually the case.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything further? There is a motion to receive as
information. Thank you for bringing this forward.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’m glad, I’m glad everybody got a chance to throw
something in on it. I didn’t know it was going to get that widespread. I was just dealing
with one area, but –
Mr. Mayor: We’re going to keep your eleven months interesting.
Mr. Mays: Everybody got it, and I’m going to keep them interesting for y’all,
too. I don’t have that many that y’all will have to worry about me dealing with them two
minutes over, but I’m going to say this. If anybody got a problem with it, there’s more
than one way to skin that cat and I think y’all would rather for me to debate issue that are
out there, and I’m not going to apologize when people bring things in that are inadequate,
that are incomplete, that I think have to address and debate to save this City money or to
keep up from being sued. We dealt with stuff today that was supposed to been routine,
and it wasn’t routine. And had I not dealt with part of it or raised the question on some of
it, we might have been going around dealing with something that we would have had to
address further down the road and to pay money for it. So your listening to me was less
costly. It was free. And you didn’t have to pay me in order to have to do it. So I’m still
going to deal with it in that manner. But now, you know, if it gets to a point where
discussing the issues of this City get to be a problem, then I think out of the four Districts
I represent, I know how to bring delegations in and I know how to get people to come in
and to address what I need them to say. So now you can play that game any way you
want to, those of you making an indirect hit at where I’m coming from with it. But I’m
going to address those things which I deem that need to be addressed that are for the
betterment of this City and if I can keep them brief, I will. If it goes over into what we
deal with, we’ve spent a long time on health care, we should have spent a long time on
health care. And I think it was a good example today when you had a man who
[inaudible] here today that was dealing with a plan that by his own admittance admitted
eight years ago the real truth when he couldn’t admit it. So that should have been a good
history lesson for a lot of you there to deal with cause you all are going to have to deal
with insurance next year because the plan you just did is going to run out. So some
things are going to have to be debated, some are going to have to be discussed. Those
days, to a point, of where you think you are going to come in and you are going to rubber
stamp something on an agenda and it’s going to flow through on everything that’s going
to be on consent, those days are long and over, so I got a full list of delegation folk, that if
you want to get this Commissioner down to two minutes, you are welcome to do it, but I
can pack this sucker [inaudible] and I know how to get them to Ms. Bonner, I know
where the rules are and know how to [inaudible] them. And I can bring them over there
78
to her and I can bring you enough delegation folk over here to express what I need to
express. So I get my point of view discussed one way or another.
Mr. Mayor: All right, all in favor of the motion to receive as information, please
vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us down to legal meeting. We’ve deferred item number
16 to that session, preliminary discussion. Mr. Shepard, you have requests?
37. LEGAL MEETING:
A. Pending and potential litigation.
B. Real estate.
C. Personnel.
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, I’d ask for a legal meeting for the purposes of
personnel and pending and potential litigation.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We need a motion.
Mr. Colclough: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard.
Motion carries 10-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
38. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with the Georgia’s Open Meeting Act.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will ask the body for a motion to authorize the Mayor to
sign the affidavit.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard.
Mr. Smith out.
Motion carries 9-0.
79
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, we’ll recognize you.
Mr. Shepard: For several matters.
Mr. Mayor: Well, let’s go to item 16, which is on the agenda. Madame Clerk,
you want to read the caption on item 16, and then Mr. Shepard has language to apply to
that. Did I get the number right, 16?
The Clerk:
16. Discuss the development of a new process for the hiring of the Administrator.
(Requested by Commissioner Don Grantham)
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will recognize Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, members of the
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Commission, I would ask for a motion in this agenda item to add and approve an
ordinance which would be an ordinance authorizing an expedited recruitment
process for the position of appointing an Administration. And that ordinance, and
that the caption, it will read as follows: Whereas, the Augusta Commission has
appointed an Interim Administrator; and whereas, the Augusta Commission desires
to make a permanent appointment of Administrator, and whereas, to do that on this
occasion tonight, it is appropriate to repeal a section of the Augusta Code, namely
Section 1-2-30(b), and that section, if repealed, will free this body to act on this
night, provided that there is a waiver of both a second reading of this ordinance and
that there is a unanimous consent to the adding of this ordinance. And the final
reduction of the ordinance to writing will be done as soon as possible from the notes
I have made on this ordinance.
Mr. Boyles: I so move.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Shepard: And I’d finally ask that the last clause of the ordinance, that
the ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption in accordance with
applicable law and that all ordinance or parts of ordinances in conflict with what
you’re passing tonight in this ordinance are hereby repealed. It will be duly
th
adopted this 4 day of January, 2005 and the second reading of the ordinance is
waived.
And it will have the usual formality of execution by the Mayor and the Clerk. I
have all on this draft which I have sketched together.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and we have a second. Is there – anybody want it
repeated?
Mr. Mays: Got that on tape, Madame Clerk?
80
(Laughter)
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: I imagine the [inaudible] will go to the tape.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor then of the ordinance as read, please
vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Smith out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, would it be appropriate to make any release of any
additional information?
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] talking to Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Shepard: All right.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, if you’ll clear the board, please. The Chair will
recognize Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m gong to make a motion that it is the intention of
the government of Augusta to hire Fred Russell as our Administrator following the
fourteen day required legal period of waiting as our Administrator.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Discussion? Somebody better say
something. Mr. Russell, congratulations. I don’t think there’s any question among the
people sitting on this side of this table that we have been impressed by your willingness
to undertake a very difficult position at a very difficult time in this life of this
organization. You’ve done a very job. You’ve [inaudible] yourself well. The times are
not going to be any easier for you in 2005 than they were in 2004 and we look forward to
coming back into this Chamber and confirming your election as the Administration.
Anybody else like to say anything? Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Of course I was pleased to be able to put
this subject matter on the agenda and I feel that with the job that Mr. Russell will have
ahead of him that everyone on this Commission will cooperate and work very hard with
him. We know this is going to be a tough year in our budget process, but Fred, I think
you’ll find the support. We know you are going to stumble and fall a little bit, but we’ll
be there hopefully to pick you up and we want you to know that you have our support and
you’ve had it for the six months that you’ve been the Interim Administrator. Thank you,
Mr. Mayor.
81
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Russell, as well as the other
Commissioners, I, too, feel like you have done a great job up to this point and we look for
even greater things from you. We have watched you diligently do some things, make
some tough decisions. I think we have not lost a step since we placed you in that interim
position and I’m more than proud to be on this board to be able to select you as our
Administrator instead of our Interim. But we say again that we support you, we want you
to continue doing what you been doing. Some folks you going make happy, some you
make sad, but that’s part of doing a job. We thank you so much for being here to take the
helm and just lead us the way you been leading us so far. Thank you again.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mayor Young. I just wanted to say that working
personally with Fred, I think the biggest challenge we faced was the 2005 budget and we
all know that that 6.9% cut is going to be extremely, extremely difficult. But I think that
by us going ahead and taking this action, we’re not going to lose 1/12 of a year by not
having a person in place to do it. And your guidance, to work through that budget
process, Fred, I think made it so much easier, and I sometimes wish, I know I wish that
earlier on in the year in 2004, earlier, if we had had your total guidance putting together
the SPLOST issue, I don’t think we would have had the same outcome that we did. And
I hope that by the end of January we’ll be ready to start another process that’s going to be
successful in getting that SPLOST issue through because we realized just how valuable
that is to the overall climate of Augusta, Georgia. And I for one person, and I think I can
th
safely say for the residents of the 7 Commission District we’re certainly glad that you’re
available and I’m glad that you can be here and I’m glad, I’m proud I can vote for you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In my tenure as a Commissioner, I’ve never
seen a more cohesive team assembled, more cooperation or team work than I have under
your leadership. And I look forward to working with you this coming year and of taking
this City to the next level. And as my twin brother said, we didn’t lose a step. No, we
didn’t lose a step. We gained several steps when you got the seat and we’re looking
forward to taking it on down the road, Fred.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, you had your hand up?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I’d like to thank you for
the opportunity to continue to serve the citizens of Augusta and you. Being not from
here, I can recognize the potential this place has. And over the past three years that I’ve
been here it’s amazing the kinds of things that are in front of us and the kinds of things
we can actually get accomplished when we work together and focus on the future. When
I say focus on the future, I mean have a vision, have a vision that requires us to work
every day to move towards it. Sometimes you can look too far ahead, but we need to
82
move continually forward. A lot of challenges ahead of us in the next year, a lot of
decisions that you’ve going to have to make. We’re going to have our agreements and
probably disagreements, but let me assure you that you will get the benefit of whatever
skills I can bring to the table, [inaudible] the skills of the people that with us, our
department heads and the staff, to give you the best advice we can possibly give you to
help you make those hard decisions. While we understand we want to agree, I think we
could agree to disagree on occasions when necessary. But the bottom line and what we
need to do is continue [inaudible] serve the citizens of Augusta and I greatly appreciate
the honor and the privilege and the support and the feeling and trust that you have given
me tonight, and I greatly appreciate that. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As Administrative Service
Chairman, Mr. Russell, I also think you’ve done a great job. You did a great job as being
a Deputy Administrator and also stepping up to the plate and leading us in a crucial time
of the year. I also hope that in the next two weeks when we work out your employment
package on your salary and your benefits and all of that, that that will work out, that we
will be able to have a smooth sailing from this time on. So we are looking forward of the
vision and working the vision. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sims, then Ms. Beard.
Ms. Sims: Yes, I certainly don’t want to be left behind. I, too, am so happy that
you’re going to be our Administrator. You have an open door policy and you have the
kind of rapport that I think is necessary to work both Commissioners and with department
heads and with the people and the citizens of Augusta. Welcome, Virginia boy, to
Georgia. We’re glad you’re here.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: Fred, I’d just like to say congratulations. I have been here ill all
afternoon, but I wanted to be here for this. And I’m looking forward to working with you
in 2005.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Fred, we’ve worked together for the last three years you’ve been
here, and it’s been a pleasure. You’re the kind of person you can always come to and get
an answer. It may not be the answer you want but you’ll give me an answer. It’s been a
pleasure and I look forward to working with you and I hope you stay here longer than just
one year, because I think you have the vision that we can go forward in this City and
make our City grow. Welcome to the team and congratulations.
Mr. Mayor: I’m reminded of when we first hired Mr. Russell three years ago,
what he went through to get the job then.
83
(Laughter)
Mr. Mays: Were you looking into my mind, Mr. Mayor, right before you made
that statement?
(Laughter)
Mr. Mays: You know, Fred, when you hit this town I didn’t know what to expect
and we’ve developed not only a good working relationship but a friendship. I want to say
to the Mayor, even though the Mayor does not get to vote in this matter, thank you, Mr.
Mayor, for being very cooperative in terms of working with this Commission. Not so
much in terms of what we had to do with what the ordinance says and the strictness of its
words and how it was, but of looking at the fact that we had a person that I think all of us
wanted to see on board and of making that happen by working with this Commission in
terms of getting to an easy path of how this will be done and that the process would still
be respected. To thank the Attorney for putting this together and of being able to do this
so that we can move in a path forward. The conversation that I’ve had with my Super
District colleague, Don, I think you in terms of where we were moving with this. And for
those of you that were here at that last late-hour meeting in legal, thank you probably as
individuals for following through in terms of that conversation that we had in terms of
personnel that now I can talk about, that we needed to go ahead on and secure the person
that we had and to move in a way that we could make this happen. I will not get a
chance, Fred, to work with you officially, but less than one year, but I look for you to be
here for a very, very long time, and it’s been great working with you and I think the
progress that you have in store for this City lies ahead, and so I know this will be a
unanimous vote when we do it, and I hope the negotiations will do well. If you need
somebody [inaudible] be negotiating with, call me. Need a good undertaker for both of
them, let me know.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Call the question – yes, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: We’ll call the question on the motion then. All in favor, please vote
with the usual sign.
Mr. Smith out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: And let me just state for the record the Mayor doesn’t have a vote in
this issue, but if he did, he would vote with the majority of the Commission.
Mr. Boyles: Maybe you can vote for Mr. Smith.
84
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: I’m not [inaudible] to vote for Mr. Smith. Congratulations, Fred.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: The Chair – we still have a few items of business, so please let’s
keep the quorum together. Mr. Shepard, I’ll recognize you.
Mr. Shepard: I would ask for a motion adding and
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
approving authority for the County Attorney to institute an imminent domain
action against the [inaudible] Trust and K-Mart Corporation, which is the lessee in
order to supplement the authority I previously had to negotiate for the placement of
a business stop and transit stop on property of the Trust and K-Mart.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? All in favor then please vote with
the usual sign.
Mr. Hankerson votes No.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Mr. Smith out.
Motion carries 7-1-1.
Mr. Mayor: Again, the Chair recognizes the Attorney.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, members of the
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Commission, I ask for authority to add and approve a settlement in the matter of
Campbell Recycling versus Augusta, Georgia in a not to exceed amount of $5,000.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: And I’m going to vote for the motion, but I do think the work that
you’ve done with the Brownfields Committee over in that area is not to be unnoticed, and
85
I think the City tried to work as much as it could in this case to respect the neighborhood
and its integrity and to try through its best means of the Court proceedings in order to get
something done in a positive way. And I think it’s at the point now that you have to
bring some measure of closure to it.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion, please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Smith out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: And –
Mr. Shepard: One more.
Mr. Mayor: One more. The Chair will recognize the Attorney.
Mr. Shepard:Mr. Mayor, members of the
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Commission, I request a motion adding and approving the settlement of Augusta’s
cross claim against Mabus Construction Company in the lawsuit captioned Walton
Rehabilitation Hospital versus Augusta, Georgia and Mabus Construction
Company by accepting from Mabus the sum of $70,000.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Discussion?
Mr. Boyles: One question, Mr. Mayor. Just for clarification. That’s Mabus
Construction and not Mabus Brothers; right?
Mr. Mayor: Correct.
Mr. Boyles: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Any other questions or comments? All in favor then of that motion,
Madame Clerk – if you’ll clear the board? All in favor please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Smith out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: All right, if there’s no other business to come before the
Commission, the Chair will entertain a motion to adjourn.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
86
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on January 4, 2005.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
87