Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 16, 2005 Augusta-Richmond County Commis REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER August 16, 2005 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, August 16, 2005, the Honorable Willie Mays, III, Interim Mayor, presiding. Present: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Grantham, Handy, Williams, Beard, Cheek, Sims and Boyles, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Absent: Hon. Colclough, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission. The Invocation was given by Rev. Nancy Ross. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. The Clerk: Rev. Ross, on behalf of the Augusta Mayor and members of the Augusta Commission, we would like to extend our gratitude to you today for filling in for [inaudible] and on behalf of the Mayor and members of the Commission we would like to acknowledge you as our Pastor of the Day, for your civic and spiritual guidance demonstrated throughout the community to serve as an example for all of the faith community. Thank you for being with us today. [A round of applause is given.] Mr. Mayor: Ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, Madame Clerk, I think you had a couple of items that we added to the agenda before we get started on [inaudible] and if you will note those [inaudible] if we have no objection to doing those [inaudible]. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: (No objections to adding these items to the agenda) The Clerk: RECOGNITION: Employee of the Month Award Harold Davenport Augusta Utilities Department The Clerk: Would you please join the Mayor, along with Mr. Hicks and other members of the Augusta Utilities who would like to participate in this recognition? Dear Mayor Mays, the Employees Recognition Committee has selected Harold Davenport as the July, 2005 Employee of the Month for the City of Augusta. Mr. Davenport has been an employee with the City of Augusta for nine years as an inspector in the Engineering & Construction Division of the Utilities Department. Mr. Davenport was nominated by 1 Douglas Cheek, Assistant Director of Engineering and Construction Division, and fellow employees Kevin Joyner, Mack Reeves, Jody Crabtree. Mr. Cheek summarized the nomination to state that Harold is a dependable and highly motivated employee. Harold goes an extra mile by organizing events outside of normal working hours to create a family environment where employees interact and support each other. His fellow employees wanted to recognize him for his efforts to boost the morale of the Division and providing opportunities for them to form closer relationships with each other. The Committee felt that based on Mr. Cheek’s recommendation, the nominations from his fellow co-workers, and Mr. Davenport’s dedicated and loyal service to the City of Augusta he should be awarded the Employee of the Month. We would appreciate you joining us in awarding Mr. Harold Davenport the Employee of the Month for the month of July. Thank you. [A round of applause is given.] Mr. Mayor: Keep up the great job and [inaudible] might win again [inaudible]. I yield to the Chairman of that Committee, Engineering Services [inaudible]. Mr. Cheek and [inaudible]. Mr. Cheek: Each month we get to, each month we get to recognize the Employee of the Month. And while we have a very fine City, I’m particularly proud of the efforts of the Utilities Department and your contributions and the leaders in the Utilities Department in making Augusta’s water system the finest in the world. And I know we’re on the road and your contributions are helping take us there. Sir, thank you so much on behalf of the citizens [inaudible]. [A round of applause is given.] Mr. Hicks: Just let me say that we’re certainly proud of Harold. He does a great job and he well deserves this. Modest as he is, he still deserves it. We appreciate it very much and appreciate Doug and those in making the recommendation and the Committee for awarding it. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners. The Clerk: PRESENTATION: Chaplain John W. Ellis, III RE: Crisis Intervention Mr. Ellis: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you. I am standing here before you because first of all of the incident that happened in Graniteville with the train, the chemical spill, the train wreck. From out of that one of the things that was said was that there was no mental health response to help the people that were involved and were displaced from their homes. From that we have started up a company called International Chaplaincy Ministries. Myself and my treasurer here, Chaplain Steven Payne, and one of our purposes is to provide crisis intervention in the event of any kind of emergency here 2 within the CSRA and Augusta specifically. And the packet that you hold has our vision and our mission statement and other pieces of information. I’ll let you read that. I just want to highlight a few slides. Number one, first of all, what is a crisis? Okay. It’s an acute response to a critical incident wherein—and here’s the key—psychological [inaudible] or balance is disrupted, the usual coping mechanisms have failed, and evidence of dysfunction or impairment are involved for the individual. These are on the first responders, first of all, policemen, firemen, and emergency medical personnel as well as the actual victims themselves that have been involved in the crisis incident. What is critical incident stress management? It is a comprehensive, integrated, multi- component system, and those elements are in your packet, that has been designed to address and help individuals who have gone through crisis situation and their normal means of coping have failed. There are twelve elements to this system. I’m not going to read all twelve, they’re there in your packet. What our company wants to do for Augusta and for the CSRA is to provide consulting, training and operation. Consulting being to make people aware of crisis intervention. Training then to provide certified training. And the operation to actually stand up a crisis intervention team for the city in the event that something would happen—the dam breaks or whatever, terrorist event or whatever, that there would be a total, comprehensive mental health response to people who are the first responders as well as to the victims. We have coordinated already with Chief Willis, Emergency Management Officer for Richmond County; Pam Tucker, the officer for Columbia County; Lynn Clark, for North Augusta. And we have coordinated with them. They have put us on their team. We will be standing up and have stood up a community crisis intervention team which is composed of a team coordinator, a mental health professional, a chaplain, peers like policemen, firemen, and these are tailored to whoever is responding to the incident and in charge, that’s how we set the team up. If it’s policemen, those peers will include policemen peers. If it’s firemen it will include firemen peers. To that particular team. And we will be available to respond. We didn’t want to go any further until we let the City know what we’re doing and to gain you all’s support for this endeavor. Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much, Chaplain Ellis, for being with us today, for being very proactive [inaudible] Chief Willis to come into the room and I think it’s a [inaudible] proactivity that [inaudible] in terms of the person that’s [inaudible] our city here, Columbia County, and North Augusta, because [inaudible] this particular person. I think they have already been doing that and have had conversations and it’s great that you’re doing it on a proactive basis [inaudible] in that group [inaudible] from that side of it, Chief Willis, on to Mr. Russell, and then to the Commission, we will get that in that order. But we’re glad you came forward today with a formal presentation to us and thank you for the services that you all are providing. Mr. Ellis: Thank you very much. The Clerk: Call your attention to our consent agenda, which consists of Items 1 through 45, Items 1 through 45. For the benefit of any objectors to our planning petitions, once the petition is read, if there are any objectors would you please signify your objection by raising your hand? 3 PLANNING: 5. Z-05-74 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the Special Exception and all development be limited to that portion of the property that is located on the west side of the Georgia and Florida railroad lines; a petition by Michael Nordman, on behalf of Virginia B. Gaines, requesting a Special Exception to establish a church including day care activities per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Peach Orchard Road, 650 feet, more or less, south of where the centerline of Pepperidge Drive extended intersects and contains approximately 24.05 acres. (Tax Map 144 Parcel 22) DISTRICT 6 6. Z-05-75 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) that the church may only utilize the existing buildings and any future building would necessitate another zoning hearing and 2) that a driveway plan must be submitted and approved that conforms to county standards for a church driveway; a petition by Randy E. Bercini, on behalf of House of Prayer Christian Church, requesting a Special Exception to establish a church including day care activities per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 3017 Meadowbrook Drive and containing 2.22 acres. (Tax Map 107 Parcel 81) DISTRICT 5 7. Z-05-76 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Ronnie & Shelia Rivers requesting a Special Exception to establish a family day care home per Section 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 2525 Hanover Street and containing .25 acres. (Tax Map 131 Parcel 171) DISTRICT 4 8. Z-05-77 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Tiffany Ellinger, on behalf of Paul G. King, requesting a Special Exception to allow residential use in a P-1 (Professional) zone per Section 20-2 (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta- Richmond County affecting property located at 416 and 418 Greene Street and containing .14 acres. (Tax Map 47-2 Parcel 301) DISTRICT 1 9. Z-05-78 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Chris Plummer, on behalf of Frontier Developers of Augusta, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) affecting property located at 3541 Mutimer Drive and containing 15.62 acres. (Tax Map 108 Parcel 11) DISTRICT 5 10. Z-05-79 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the condition that there be no net increase in the number of residential units on the property, a petition by Phinizy Hitchcock and Chris West, on behalf of Greene Street Restoration LLC, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-2 (Two-family Residential) to Zone R-3B (Multiple-family 4 Residential) affecting property located at 26, 28 & 30 Curry Street and containing .87 acres. (Tax Map 27-4 Parcel 22) DISTRICT 1 11. Z-05-80 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by McCormick Center LLC requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone R-1D (One- family Residential) affecting property located at 2809 Hackle Street and containing .32 acres. (Tax Map 25-4 Parcel 54) DISTRICT 7 12. Z-05-81 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the only use of the property shall be a car wash or all uses allowed in a B-1 zone, a petition by Dennis Trotter, on behalf of Michelle Atkins Schmitz, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Windsor Spring Road (northbound), 350 feet, more or less, south of Crosscreek Road and containing 2.54 acres. (Tax Map 142 Parcel 74.01) DISTRICT 4 13. Z-05-82 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Lee Neel III, on behalf of B. C. Patel, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located where the southeast right-of-way line of Gordon Highway intersects with the southwest right-of-way line of Milledgeville Road and containing 1.53 acres. (Tax Map 67 Parcel 6.2) DISTRICT 4 The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those planning petitions? Under our public services portion of the agenda, the alcohol petitions. If there are any objectors to these petitions, please signify your objections by raising your hand. PUBLIC SERVICES: 18. Motion to approve a request by Jan Scholer for a One Day Special Event Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Wild Wing Café located at 3035 Washington road. (There will be a band in the parking lot.) District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 8, 2005) 19. Motion to approve a request by Dhanraj Ramcharitar for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with D & M Stop & Shop located at 1959 Kissingbower Road. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 8, 2005) The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions? No objectors to the planning nor the alcohol petitions. The consent agenda consists of Items 1 through 45 as read, with the planning and alcohol petitions. Mr. Mayor: The Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Williams: So move, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Cheek: Second. 5 Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Do we have any items that the Commissioners wish to pull? I’ll start to my right. Any that need to be pulled, on my left? Mr. Hankerson: I’d like to pull 9. Mr. Mayor: Item 9. Anything any Commissioner might add? I’m all ears. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Williams: 27. I’d like to hear some discussion on 27. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, are those items being pulled? The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor? If it could be a part of the consent agenda, the request for deletion, Item 46, by the petitioner. PLANNING: 46. Z-05-84 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to deny a petition by W. Guy Quinn, on behalf of Wyman B. Simmons, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) to Zone A (Agriculture) with a Special Exception to reactivate and expand an existing dirt/sand mine per Section 7-2 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 4060 Duncan Drive and containing approximately 105 acres. (Tax Map 181 Parcel 4) DISTRICT 8 The Clerk: In concurrence with the Commissioner from District 8 that that item be added to the consent agenda for deletion, Item 46. Mr. Mayor: There being no objection, so added. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, are we adding? Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Boyles: In the Finance Committee meeting just a few minutes ago we discussed Item 54 and we’re going to bring that back to the committee meeting on the 29th. We could remove it from this agenda. Item 55 was already handled by the Attorney and the Administrator so it was deleted from the Finance Committee agenda and it could be deleted here. FINANCE: 54. Discuss Augusta Museum of History request for emergency appropriation for purchase of new air conditioning equipment. 6 55. Discuss payment of services rendered to attorney’s representing indigent defendants. Mr. Boyles: Item 56 and 57 were passed forward to this body without recommendation from the Finance Committee. Mr. Mayor: They are the very last items on the regular. If there are no objections to deleting 54 and 55 we’ll so do. They’ll be added to the deletion list. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: I’d like to delete 61, 62, and 63. I been [inaudible] every week, bringing this back to the Commission, that 61, 62 and 63 should not be on this agenda. It’s continued to be placed on here from our Attorney. That impede any Commissioner’s right to either approve or disapprove anything out of legal to be put on this agenda. So if we going to pull some items I’d like to have those three pulled as well. But if not, we’ll deal with it the way we normally been dealing with it. 61. Pending and potential litigation items added from Legal Meeting. (Requested by the Attorney) 62. Real Estate items added after Legal Meeting. (Requested by the Attorney) 63. Personnel items added after Legal Meeting. (Requested by the Attorney) Mr. Mayor: Any objection to that deletion? Mr. Grantham: Which ones was that? Mr. Mayor: 61, 62, 63. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I object to that. I think there may be something that’s coming up in legal we need to talk about after we finish. Ms. Sims: I second. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Williams: To enlighten Mr. Boyles, there may be some things that this body decide to discuss and we have that right to either deny or not deny it be placed on the floor. It can be brought back at any time. Any Commissioner can put whatever he wants or she wants on the agenda. But the Attorney has not the right to place the items that he’s 7 got listed. We’ve got personnel, real estate, pending litigation on the agenda for legal. But after that is another addition to add personnel, litigation, stuff that we [inaudible] discussed and have the right to agree or disagree. Now if we going to change the process, then the process need to be changed. But we don’t need to be picking and choosing and I brought it up several times. This is not the first incident we talked about this now. This is—I mean if you opposed—we had a conversation to say that a department head can put anything on the agenda. If the department head has anything it goes through the proper chain of committees, like everything else. No department head, if he’s a department head, can put anything on the agenda and be [inaudible] agenda. It goes through the proper channels and that’s through committee. And if goes to the committee then it can be brought on to Commission. But that’s not the ordinary manner we been doing business here in Richmond County in past six year. Now maybe prior to that may been different but the past six years has not been that way. So if we going do what is right, let’s do what’s right. Mr. Boyles: Thank you for the enlightenment. My objection stands. Mr. Mayor: The objection stands. [inaudible] the Clerk and [inaudible] we have [inaudible] unanimous consent category. What I think has brought about some discussion on it, and I [inaudible] suggest, Madame Clerk, is that it goes over to the Administrative Services Committee in reference to the position on the agenda [inaudible] come back before the Commission and then discuss it at that time as to whether it stays or whether it goes. And I think six votes up, six votes down, that will decide if that will end it and that will be the way we’ll end up deciding how this matter goes. Because I think what it is, it’s a change and Mr. Williams [inaudible] do changes with each other [inaudible] that we try and have some conversation with each other. That makes change a lot smoother if you have the conversation. And I think in this case if there is an idea that needs to be discussed, whether it preempts what we have been doing, it’s been on now for a little while, but if we’re going to either leave it or take it away then we’ll carry it over into committee, make a decision to come out of committee [inaudible] next Commission meeting or [inaudible] vote up or down in terms of how to deal with it. And I think we need to bring that to a head, to deal with it, get it over with. Quite frankly, be through with it. There’s a motion and a second, Madame Clerk. Does anybody need any numbers of deletions read? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I’d like to hear those again, please. Mr. Mayor: If you would, Madame Clerk, [inaudible] . Mr. Smith: I wanted to make a motion that on Item 46 that we refer this back to Planning & Zoning. Mr. Mayor: That can be added in, Madame Clerk, [inaudible]. Thank you for that. [inaudible] 8 The Clerk: Items that have been pulled for further discussion, Item 9 and Item 27. Items deleted from the consent agenda, there’s none deleted from the consent agenda. From the regular agenda, Item 46 deleted and referred back to the Planning Commission for further review. Item 54 and 55 from the regular agenda. Items 61, 62 and 63 has been referred back to the Administrative Services Committee at the request of the Mayor, is recommending that these items be referred back to Administrative Services. Mr. Mayor: They remain on the agenda, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: On the agenda. Mr. Mayor: What I’m saying is that those reference items go over into Administrative Services where [inaudible] discussion. They remain as they are on the agenda today. Mr. Mayor: Anyone else need a briefing on any of the numbers? CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: 1. FINAL PLAT – ARCADIA, SECTION 2 – S-697 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by James G. Swift and Associates, on behalf of Dr. Louis Battey and Bertha Toole, requesting final plat approval for Arcadia, Section 2. This residential subdivision is located off Hephzibah McBean Road and contains 38 lots. 2. FINAL PLAT – CROSSCREEK ESTATES – S-678 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by James G. Swift and Associates, on behalf of Herbert Homes Inc., requesting final plat approval for Crosscreek Estates. This residential subdivision is located on Tamarind Way, adjacent to Cypress Pointe, Section 2 and contains 56 lots. 3. FINAL PLAT – CAMBRIDGE, SECTION 11 – S-707 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Southern Partners Inc., on behalf of Nordahl & Co., requesting final plat approval for Cambridge Section 11. This residential subdivision is located on Banesbury Place adjacent to Cambridge Section 1 and 6 and contains 16 lots. 4. FINAL PLAT – PINEHURST, SECTION 1, PHASE 2 – S-585-1-B – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Southern Partners Inc., on behalf of Nordahl & Co., requesting development plan approval for Pinehurst, Section 1, Phase 2. This residential subdivision is located on Dolphin Way and Pineview Lane and contains 22 lots. 5. Z-05-74 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the Special Exception and all development be limited to that portion of the property that is located on the west side of the Georgia and Florida railroad lines; a petition by Michael Nordman, on behalf of Virginia B. Gaines, requesting a Special Exception to establish a church 9 including day care activities per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Peach Orchard Road, 650 feet, more or less, south of where the centerline of Pepperidge Drive extended intersects and contains approximately 24.05 acres. (Tax Map 144 Parcel 22) DISTRICT 6 6. Z-05-75 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) that the church may only utilize the existing buildings and any future building would necessitate another zoning hearing and 2) that a driveway plan must be submitted and approved that conforms to county standards for a church driveway; a petition by Randy E. Bercini, on behalf of House of Prayer Christian Church, requesting a Special Exception to establish a church including day care activities per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 3017 Meadowbrook Drive and containing 2.22 acres. (Tax Map 107 Parcel 81) DISTRICT 5 7. Z-05-76 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Ronnie & Shelia Rivers requesting a Special Exception to establish a family day care home per Section 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 2525 Hanover Street and containing .25 acres. (Tax Map 131 Parcel 171) DISTRICT 4 8. Z-05-77 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Tiffany Ellinger, on behalf of Paul G. King, requesting a Special Exception to allow residential use in a P-1 (Professional) zone per Section 20-2 (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta- Richmond County affecting property located at 416 and 418 Greene Street and containing .14 acres. (Tax Map 47-2 Parcel 301) DISTRICT 1 9. Deleted from the consent agenda. 10. Z-05-79 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the condition that there be no net increase in the number of residential units on the property, a petition by Phinizy Hitchcock and Chris West, on behalf of Greene Street Restoration LLC, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-2 (Two-family Residential) to Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residential) affecting property located at 26, 28 & 30 Curry Street and containing .87 acres. (Tax Map 27-4 Parcel 22) DISTRICT 1 11. Z-05-80 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by McCormick Center LLC requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone R-1D (One- family Residential) affecting property located at 2809 Hackle Street and containing .32 acres. (Tax Map 25-4 Parcel 54) DISTRICT 7 12. Z-05-81 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the only use of the property shall be a car wash or all uses allowed in a B-1 zone, a petition by Dennis Trotter, on behalf of Michelle Atkins Schmitz, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting 10 property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Windsor Spring Road (northbound), 350 feet, more or less, south of Crosscreek Road and containing 2.54 acres. (Tax Map 142 Parcel 74.01) DISTRICT 4 13. Z-05-82 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Lee Neel III, on behalf of B. C. Patel, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located where the southeast right-of-way line of Gordon Highway intersects with the southwest right-of-way line of Milledgeville Road and containing 1.53 acres. (Tax Map 67 Parcel 6.2) DISTRICT 4 PUBLIC SERVICES: 14. Motion to approve a budget resolution for the remainder of the 2005 budget for income and expenses related to the senior nutrition program. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 8, 2005) 15. Motion to approve directing the Recreation Department to do some preliminary design work regarding the MM Scott Park in Belair Hills Estates and making a presentation of those plans to the neighborhood. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 8, 2005) 16. Motion to approve directing the Recreation Department to address any repair or maintenance issues that can be readily rectified at the Dyess Park Community Center. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 8, 2005) 17. Motion to address the concerns presented by Loretta Hairston regarding the property at 1232 Twelfth Street. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 8, 2005) 18. Motion to approve a request by Jan Scholer for a One Day Special Event Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Wild Wing Café located at 3035 Washington Road. (There will be a band in the parking lot) District 7. Super 4 District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 8, 2005) 19. Motion to approve a request by Dhanraj Ramcharitar for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with D & M Stop & Shop located at 1959 Kissingbower Road. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 8, 2005) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 20. Motion to approve converting MACH Academy $97,000 Recaptured Urban Development Action Grant (R-UDAG) loan to a grant. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 8, 2005) 21. Motion to approve the reprogramming of $25,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from MACH Academy and award to New Savannah Road Social Services, Inc. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 8, 2005) 22. Motion to approve a request from the Augusta Youth Center to amend their CDBG agreements to include the payment of salaries for all the Center’s employees. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 8, 2005) 23. Motion to approve Main Street Augusta, Inc. First or Frequent Friday Guidelines. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 8, 2005) 11 24. Motion to approve a request for budget adjustment to reflect a $900 increase generated revenues subject to meeting grant compliance guidelines. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 8, 2005) 25. Motion to approve a request changing the funding source to Account # 101072911-5211119 (HND funded demolition projects) for the demolition of the structures listed on the attached ordinance. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 8, 2005) 26. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of a certain unsafe and uninhabitable property in the Laney-Walker Neighborhood: 920 Cedar Street (District 1, Super District 9) and waive 2nd reading. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 8, 2005) 27. Deleted from the consent agenda. 28. Motion to approve requests for funds for sustainability from August 31, 2005 through December 31, 2005 and for a salary increase for the Director of the Weed and Seed Department. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 8, 2005) 29. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend Title 1 Chapter 10 Section 46 of the Augusta Richmond County Code to provide for amended authority to contract for special services, including professional services; to provide for severability; to provide an effective date; and for other lawful purposes. (Approved by Administrative Services & Engineering Services Committees August 8, 2005) PUBLIC SAFETY: 30. Motion to amend Phase IV SPLOST allocation to provide funding for purchase of Training Facility property. (Approved by Public Safety Committee August 8, 2005) 31. Motion to endorse the concept of a proposed ordinance regarding Commercial Solicitation with further review by the attorney and Sheriff. (Approved by Public Safety Committee August 8, 2005) FINANCE: 32. Motion to approve the purchase of 23 Digital Camera Units at $5,765.00 each totaling $132,595.00 from Kustom Signals, Inc. and installation totaling $4,600.00 (sole source vendor). (Approved by Finance Committee August 8, 2005) 33. Motion to approve the transfer of $8,300 from Election expenses budget to Operations. (Approved by Finance Committee August 8, 2005) 34. Motion to approve adding additional financial services/resources to the Land Bank Authority. (Approved by Finance Committee August 8, 2005) 35. Motion to authorize Public Services Department – Facilities Management to purchase large document shredder for $20,659.00 from Progressive Business Systems, Inc., 1393 Duncan Lane, Suite 600, Auburn, Ga. 30808 to be funded from account 272-01-6430-54-2110. This is the lowest bid meeting specifications. (Approved by Finance Committee August 8, 2005) ENGINEERING SERVICES: 12 36. Motion to approve Resolution authorizing adoption of Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 130158 0020E Revised to reflect a Letter of Map Revision dated April 23, 2003 with an effective date of April 23, 2003. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 8, 2005) 37. Motion to approve and accept an Easement Deed of Dedication from the Augusta Aviation Commission and Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field to the Augusta Utilities Department and the payment for same. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 8, 2005) 38. Motion to approve and accept a Construction and Maintenance Easement swap with Georgia Department of Transportation for ingress/egress to Phinizy Swamp and the construction of said roadway. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 8, 2005) 39. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of property #200-0-003-03 4201 Mike Padgett Hwy., which is owned by Robert Willis for 8,231 sq. feet for a permanent easement and 3,641 sq. ft. of temporary easement. AUD Project: Spirit Creek Collection System Pump Station and Force Main. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 8, 2005) 40. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of adjacent to property #158- 0-06-007, Doug Barnard Parkway and International Blvd. 1862 feet north of Mile Marker TMPR 124, which is owned by Norfolk Southern for 2250 sq. ft. for a permanent easement. AUD Project: Spirit Creek Collection System and Force Main. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 8, 2005) 41. Motion to receive as information the resolution of concerns of Mr. James Rouse regarding the Carolyn Street Sewer Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 8, 2005) 42. Motion to approve and accept Easement Deeds from International Paper Company and approve payment for same. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 8, 2005) 43. Motion to approve allowing Augusta Utilities Department to renew the Utilities Administration Building Lease and increased lease space at an annual cost of $106,982. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 8, 2005) 44. Motion to approve an amendment to Gannett Fleming’s professional services contract for the design of the Highland Avenue Water Treatment Plant Improvements Project in the amount of $565,135. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 8, 2005) PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: 45. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held August 2, 2005. The Clerk: We have a request from the petitioner to delete Item 46. PLANNING: 46. Z-05-84 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to deny a petition by W. Guy Quinn, on behalf of Wyman B. Simmons, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) to 13 Zone A (Agriculture) with a Special Exception to reactivate and expand an existing dirt/sand mine per Section 7-2 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 4060 Duncan Drive and containing approximately 105 acres. (Tax Map 181 Parcel 4) DISTRICT 8 (No objections to deleting this item from the agenda) FINANCE: 54. Discuss Augusta Museum of History request for emergency appropriation for purchase of new air conditioning equipment. 55. Discuss payment of services rendered to attorney’s representing indigent defendants. (No objections to deleting these items from the agenda) 61. Pending and potential litigation items added from Legal Meeting. (Requested by the Attorney) 62. Real Estate items added after Legal Meeting. (Requested by the Attorney) 63. Personnel items added after Legal Meeting. (Requested by the Attorney) Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. All opposed, the same. (Vote on the consent agenda) Motion carries 9-0. The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, Mr. Colclough will not be in attendance in today’s meeting. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] just a moment. We had a young man last week who first suggested our Mayor of the Day program, Mr. Jayme Powell. Of course, I’ve seen Jayme since and he wanted to know when was he coming back again [inaudible]. He didn’t want to wait until after football season was over. He wanted to come back again. We’ll have to work on that. But [inaudible] different reasons now and [inaudible] way in and worked over there and evidently gets his good looks from the ladies’ side of the family. Young man there, Mr. [inaudible] Owens [inaudible] he favors Brad a little bit, thank goodness only slightly. That’s actually our second Mayor for the Day. I don’t know. I might have to back and [inaudible] has been [inaudible] take over. But [inaudible] a long—coming to work with her grandmother [inaudible] and she [inaudible] answer phone, take messages as well as any of the [inaudible] I know. She works a cell phone, too. [inaudible] to turn the speaker on one day. I carried her to lunch and [inaudible] she decided to play all my messages [inaudible] speaker on this side of me where she can’t get to it. [inaudible] do the Pledge of Allegiance. And a certain young man [inaudible] 14 and I don’t even want to know what went on in that conversation riding over here. [inaudible] glad to have both of them here today and let’s give them a good hand. [A round of applause is given.] The Clerk: 9. Z-05-78 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Chris Plummer, on behalf of Frontier Developers of Augusta, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) affecting property located at 3541 Mutimer Drive and containing 15.62 acres. (Tax Map 108 Parcel 11) DISTRICT 5 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, I had this item pulled. I know there is some developing going on on Mutimer Drive. And also I just wanted to know if the developer is here or some [inaudible] here, if you would come forward. Mr. Plummer? Been quite a bit of growth going on in District 5. You know, we had the Hampton Estate [inaudible] area and also the Augusta State University just opened up or getting ready to open up a 500-unit complex and there is also some growth, I understand, Mutimer Drive, off of Meadowbrook Drive. And Mr. Plummer, I think you already have some development on that drive. How many homes have you already built there? Mr. Baker: Actually I’m Jeff Baker representing Mr. Plummer and Frontier Developers of Augusta. We built eight homes already in that area. If you recall, that was a piece of woods that was owned by a former police officer here in town. He had been off the property for about five years. There were bottles and drug applications and syringes and everything else out there. We turned it into what we think is a very, very attractive little neighborhood. And in fact it was sold out faster than we could get the houses built. Mr. Hankerson: And those houses are sold? Mr. Baker: Those houses are all sold; correct. Mr. Hankerson: And how many are you planning on building now? Mr. Baker: Up at the top of the street there will be 58, using the same floor plans we currently have, and I think as you can see by the neighborhood when you go through there it really has improved the way that area looks. Mr. Hankerson: Very good. I support what you’re doing and that’s why I wanted to know the progress of the sales that you’ve been making for revitalization in District 5 15 in that area, the Meadowbrook area, and I’m quite sure when you finish that, if you meet with me I’ve got some other areas I’d like for you to look at, also. Mr. Baker: We’d be delighted to because I think as you can see when you go through there, we took an area that was not real great looking, a bit of an eyesore and a bit of a problem and I think we have turned it into just a vital little community. In fact, we have got some wonderful families that have moved in there and we are on a friendly, first-name basis with everybody. As you know, I live right there with the development. Mr. Hankerson:I make a motion that this be approved. Thank you so much. Mr. Grantham: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Any discussion? [inaudible] keep doing a great job. Mr. Baker: We appreciate it. Thank you, folks. Mr. Mayor: It looked good before, but it looks real good now. Mr. Baker: It does, doesn’t it? Thank you. Appreciate it. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same. Motion carries 9-0. The Clerk: 27. Motion to approve the final language for the Solid Waste Collections Contract and allow for the procurement of services based on this language. (Approved by Administrative Services & Engineering Services Committees August 8, 2005) Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I had this, I asked this to be pulled to have some dialogue with it. The wording that’s in this contract now is to cut down on the services that is being provided for the citizens of Augusta-Richmond County and I just think that’s something we need to look at very carefully before we make a decision on. We rolling back, we cutting back services, we are not going to provide as much as we have been. There are some people, such as myself, that get by with once a week pickup, but there are a lot of people, lot of families that can’t use that service for once a week. And I just want to hear a little bit more dialogue about it and talk with Mark to find out have we met with the citizens, have we talked to anybody, what has actually took place before we go ahead and pass this. 16 Mr. Johnson: Have we met with citizens and citizen groups individually? No. What we did is we talked to our haulers and we asked them some detailed questions. How many times are the cans full? How much volume are you getting? But the other thing that we really focused on was the lack of funding and what the challenges were raised by this group that said give us a more economical plan, give us something that’s going to be financially feasible, and give us options for those citizens that have the additional service. And so in what’s before you, we’ve taken the information from the haulers that say the majority of the people can get by with once a week service. But we’ve also said and identified that about 15% of the population—and these are just rough calculations, there’s no science—but about 15% of the population needs that twice a week service. So what we did is we catered the service to the 85%, we provided a second can option where the citizens can have a second, a third, a fourth can at an additional fee. So for those who need the additional can, they in turn can have the additional can, it’s just going to cost them a little extra. Mr. Williams: Well, I yield to Mr. Boyles. He had some conversation with me about it as well, but I’ve got a serious problem with that. What you saying, those who can afford to pay for the garbage will have the garbage, those who can’t afford to pay for it won’t have it. I mean that’s what it’s going to boil down to. Because if somebody needs an additional can, if they need it and they have twice a week service now and you go to once a week, but the man who can afford to pay more will get his garbage picked up. I know it’s a lot of trash we’re talking but it’s necessary. Before we do anything we need to make sure. But I yield to Mr. Boyles and get his comments. Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Mark, if I could ask you—I realize our financial situation on this matter but what, when you say a little bit more for a second can, how much is a little bit more? Mr. Johnson: I don’t know, because once we put this out to bid then they’ll give us back what those cost numbers are. So it’s—I don’t know until we get it back. But it will have to include some disposal for the second can and the operation. So if I were just going to pick a number out of the air, $5. But that’s all that is, is a number out of the air until the bids come back. Mr. Boyles: That’s $5 a year? Mr. Johnson: A month. Mr. Boyles: A month? That’s $195 a year now? Mr. Johnson: Correct. Mr. Boyles: Well, I bring it up simply because probably, as Mr. Williams has done, because I guess I’ve had more phone calls on this one issue in the last week since the news story broke than any other issue that’s pertained, even more some than the property re-valuations. But there’s a lot of young families in the District that I represent, 17 have young children. And once you give people something like we gave them in 2001, twice a week garbage pickup—they’re not so much concerned about the yard waste or the recyclables or those things—but it’s the actual—well, when you put baby diapers out there, no matter how many cans you’re got, they’re not going to smell right in June, July and August. Mr. Johnson: And sir, I guess, respectfully, I would come back and say I can offer twice a week service. I can give you exact same service level that you have today but it’s going to cost the citizens about $245. So again, I come back and say the choice is yours. Do you want to raise the rate and provide the same level of service, or do you want to look at reducing the service and holding rates at close to what we can as possible? This year alone the cost difference in the contract to revenues is about $1.2 million to $1.6 million, which is being subsidized from general fund. So again I’m at the mercy of this group and say you tell me what you want, I’ll ask for it, we’ll get prices for it, but do you want the high level of service with the high price or do you want the low level of service with the low price? It’s yours. Mr. Boyles: Well, I know that my friend from Engineering Services Committee worked hard on this. I know that’s true. But I don’t know, this $195 was established in 2001 and I think we all understand what—look at our own fleet of automobiles, how much gasoline—just simply gasoline has increased since then. So I’m just trying to find out if there is some medium that we could go to and I’m sure Engineering Services has worked this out but as Finance person I’m just trying to find some sort of middle ground there if we can because of the demand for the service. And it was always nice to say to people who wanted to move into Richmond County that we were giving them twice a week garbage service when the street right next to mine happens to be in the other county to the west of us—the only get once a week and they get no trash pickup, they get no recyclables, they get no hard bulk waste. But we give it to everyone for $195 a year. It might be time that we looked at those fees a little bit, realized what has happened to everything else. But it’s been quite a sales tool I think for Richmond County, to have that option and that benefit. And gosh knows, we need all the sales tools we can get. Mr. Williams, thank you for yielding to me. I yield back to you. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Boyles. If I can, Mr. Mayor, I just want to make one other statement, and that is we already talking about roll back the millage and we cutting back service, and when people find that the garbage service going to cost more and they going to get less and we ask them to support us with a sales tax that’s coming, I mean I know it’s tough, but it’s tough every day. It ain’t just got tough. It was tough when we walked in the door this morning. It was tough. So I think we—and I hear you, Mark, saying that we need to tell you what we want. This is what you brought to committee, that we talked about in committee, Mr. Boyles, the same way, and when you give people service and then you turn around and take that service from them, you are going to have complainers and you don’t get those calls—you get the calls from this panel. You don’t get those District calls, Mark. But Mr. Mayor, that was my reason for pulling it, to get some dialogue on it, to find out what else is there, how are we going to handle this. [inaudible] giving us. 18 Mr. Mayor: I’m going to recognize Mr. Johnson, going to recognize Commissioner Cheek and then Commissioner Handy. Is that a response? Mr. Johnson: It’s going to be some information comment. It’s not a direct response. Mr. Mayor: Let me go ahead—if you’ll hold that comment. Let me go to Commissioner Cheek and [inaudible]. Mr. Cheek: I told you, Mr. Mayor, I was going to bring the “nice Andy” today so I’m going to do my best. But may the record reflect that we began over a year ago discussing the solid waste contract. We’ve had a series of about thirteen work sessions at which no greater than myself and maybe one other Commissioner attended. We have discussed all the lessons learned for the last four years from the complaints coming into the Solid Waste Division, to Augusta Cares, from the haulers, incorporated them into this proposal that we have today. About six months ago this Commission decided that it would run solid waste collection in the red about $7 million by the end of next year because it did not want to add a $5 to $6 per month increase to the fee. That is all historically the way it has been. Thank God, Steve and Mark have put together with the haulers that has taken us back from off the wall, because this body wanted to choose, discuss, make decisions, but not attend the work sessions where that process should have occurred. Wanted to do it out here on this floor. We’re here today because this is the best we could come up with, based on the lack of attendance by Commissioners and the length of discussion and the continued waffling on covering this enterprise fund, which it is, continuing to run it in the red, how it’s billed, how many days a week, what we pick up. I can go on and on but I’m not. The bottom line is staff will and has done a wonderful job with this. We went from going out for bids to turning this around and doing a continuation of contract because the Commission could not make a decision. We have to either (a) reduce services or (b) increase cost. Wringing hands, eleventh hour questioning will have us in December with an interruption of service if we stay on the same path we’re on. We’ve covered all these bases to about three inches of documents between Teresa and Mark and Steve that they’ve come up with to cover this. They’ve covered every question. So help me, every question that’s come up in the last three years. Ladies and gentlemen, this is not the very best but it does what staff and what the direction of this Commission has been so far, is it keeps the cost about the same while allowing the haulers to make a reasonable profit and still produce a reasonable service. It’s still cheaper than you can get in other counties by several dollars per month for one day a week with no other services. Now, we can move around on this, but I guess my pleas at this point to this body—it’s going to continue to push us back with the indecision on this board on Commission day and not attend the work sessions where the decision should be hammered out amongst us in order for staff to make a determination to send out the bids. And that’s exactly what’s happened and it’s a wonder these people have the enthusiasm to keep on with their job because we keep sending them back because we don’t make the decisions in committee and work sessions where we should. This is a good package. It isn’t a great package. Yes, it reduces service, but it keeps costs in line. 19 This does not add a lot of areas of this. This is a contract continuation. We will be adding additional areas after we get beyond this in January. There’s still more work to be done, but Mark and Steve and I can’t do it by ourselves. And we sure can’t be psychic friends, and so far that’s what we’ve got right now, is having to be psychic friends. It’s a good product. We can turn it away today because we’ve gotten a few phone calls. I just wish that everybody would have taken the time a few months to come in, go out and ask their people. Maybe that’s a novel idea. What they’d like to have. Which is what I did. And then come into committee and say this is what my people want rather than waiting until after the issue is on the table and ready to go and second guessing. Mr. Mayor, I think I’ve said enough. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Handy? Mr. Handy: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My comment is that you all know that I wasn’t here when he was talking about those particular meetings, but I am one of those that just one day trash is not going to work. Every week my trash, both days pickup, is filled. Also, on the holidays that falls on Mondays, my trash is on Mondays and Thursday, they don’t use the extra day like Tuesday for Monday when the holiday comes. So my trash sits there sometime for the whole week. Sometime the hauler doesn’t even come in the day he’s supposed to. He be late or too much after a holiday, then the trash sits out in the street for a couple of days. That doesn’t look good. If we want to keep Augusta clean and clean up Augusta when you can cut back to one day, that’s going to be more garbage, more—another way for people to try to rid of their garbage. The recycling part that we have in this contract, what happened to that money, the [inaudible] and the recycling part? It’s not enough to offset your budget? Mr. Johnson: I’ll answer that directly. Today under our current system there is no revenue for recycling. Under our existing contract the haulers are required to get rid of their recycling themselves, which is currently going to North Augusta and they pay anywhere between $20.00 and $27.50 a ton to get rid of it. So that is an expense that we incur. Under this contract, a couple of things to respond. One is on holidays, if your holiday is Thanksgiving, on Thursday, Thursday’s garbage gets picked up Friday, Friday’s garbage gets picked up on Saturday. The only accommodation that the City had to make, number one, is holding the landfill open a full day open on that Saturday as opposed to a half, with a staff of four. So our cost is very minimal to ensure that the citizens get timely collection. So on the holidays I think that we’ve addressed that issue. Number two issue is currently your recycling program has an eighteen-gallon blue bin. What we’ve proposed in here is going to a sixty-five-gallon cart. So while I don’t know what your habits are individually on recycling, I can tell you that Augusta as a whole has a good opportunity to recycle. So by giving them more capacity in the recycling component, we’ll reduce the amount of garbage that goes into the garbage can itself, and so the final question is where does the recycling go? We’re in the process of drafting the RFP for that to do what’s called single stream recycling where in an ideal world that will get us to break even point, where we’re not paying the $25.00 a ton. So there would be revenues associated but by the time you back out your transportation costs to Columbia, Atlanta or wherever the [inaudible] is, it’s going to be close to break even. So while in 20 here I think we’ve addressed your holiday concern, we’ve addressed a portion of your additional volume by giving you greater recycling capabilities, and we’ve also reduced the cost of the program by bringing those markets back in-house and bidding them ourselves. Mr. Handy: Okay. Now you addressed on Thursday pickup. It just happens that my pickup is on Thursday. What about Monday, the holiday falls on Monday? Mr. Johnson: The way the contract language is drafted, wherever that holiday falls, it slides one day. Mr. Handy: They don’t do that. Mr. Johnson: They don’t do that. Mr. Handy: They’ve never done that. Mr. Johnson: You are correct. Mr. Handy: Oh, you mean the new contract will have that? Mr. Johnson: This document that you have, that language allows it to slide. Under the existing contract, if you are a Monday-Thursday customer, Monday is forgotten and they just show up on Thursday. Mr. Handy: In your figuring you said an extra $5 for a can. That’s about a $60 a year. Add that $60 to the $195, it’s $255. And you said $245 if we went up the other way on the [inaudible] approximately. That’s only $10 difference. So you’re saying that $5 a month raise will keep the level of service that we have already, without changing? Mr. Johnson: If I raised everybody $5 a month? Yes, that would cover the cost. Mr. Handy: Before we received this contract we had to go out to the neighborhoods and presented it to the neighborhoods, so you didn’t think about having it back out to the neighborhoods if you were going to raise $5 before you came up with the program you have now? Mr. Johnson: Sir, I would love for this group, for myself, to hold citizen reviews and share with them and do everything. However, if you go back to Mr. Cheek and kind of the timeline, we’re up against the wall, in all honesty. Because with the proposed timeline that gets us to September 30 for an award date based upon what processes we have to utilize internally. So by getting to September 30, that gives October, November, December for an implementation of 52,000 where they’re going to be required to buy assets, they’re going to be required to improve. Three months, 52,000 or 53,000 homes is as short a window as I am possibly comfortable with. So— 21 Mr. Handy: I don’t have any more. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Before recognizing Commissioner Boyles, I’ve got a comment and a question. Let me just ask Mr. Johnson. I’m going to say this to my Engineering Services Chairman. I think you did a very good job in terms of trying to cover all the bases with the workshops that were presented. I got a chance to attend some, but not all. Mr. Cheek: That’s right. You were there. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] but there was a question I’m going to [inaudible] contract [inaudible] question on a particular day that I was asking that [inaudible] may have come back at the very next workshop. That was in [inaudible] numbers going into old contracts and [inaudible] new one which basically covered the old county and in the suburban districts. There was a number associated with the urban services district and the old city and I asked for a comparison in those two numbers, and maybe because the urban services district [inaudible] where those monies go as a part of that tax millage and as listed there. How did that break out in one versus the other one? And I’m just putting that in there for the record, for public consumption, as to how those numbers stack up, one versus the other one? [inaudible] Administrator, on Finance, [inaudible] where it comes from, but I’ve got a question behind that question once it’s answered because I think that may resolve some of where we may need to go. Because you’re going to get probably some different questions out of two different taxing districts. Mr. Persaud: Mr. Mayor, the total revenues excluding taxes from the urban services for ’04, 2004, was $7,189,000. The shortfall was [inaudible]. The actual transfer from the urban services district, from the urban services tax is $3,127,000. That is only in ’04, generated a shortfall of just over $966,000. There was a shortfall of $608,000 from the prior year. Current status of the fund is $1.6 million rounded in red. We are projecting a shortfall as well in ’05, which can bring us close to $2 million in red. But to answer your question, the transfer from the urban services district is $3,127,000. Mr. Mayor: What I guess, David, [inaudible] forensic science, but I guess a little forensic [inaudible] on the households. I guess I’m looking at a little deeper, that [inaudible] that went into suburban area, is there like a 189 or 192 or 196 deal that’s on the urban side? And my reason for asking that is not a point of criticism, of where it goes into the department [inaudible], but I think it might be clearer to a point that in Commissioners trying to answer calls and anybody else trying to answer any, is that on one side of the coin I think you had pickup that was already in the so-called old city, and certainly services associated with it. However, there needs to be a distinction, I think understood that even though the pickup was there, that there were other new services that came about once this plan was put into effect. So you’ve got a different dynamic in there and I think would also can be asked and answered as to whether or not the millage on that existing sanitation went up or did it remain the same, once those service levels were increased. Because I think what you had, you had people that were used to an existing service level, some that in the old city even in some parts of the city to lure people in through an old annexation phase where you actually had garbage that was picked up from 22 the rear as opposed to the street. So you’ve got some different dynamics in this whole sanitation thing and this is one of the things [inaudible] putting this into one tax district and [inaudible] is that this wasn’t something you could do by changing the words. It was going to be something that we were going to have to go through with a fine tooth comb in terms of [inaudible] services [inaudible] some conversation [inaudible] might mean [inaudible] Mr. Russell [inaudible] in terms of a more definitive breakout as to what’s there, what was there, what’s new in [inaudible], and what’s old, and whether the new services outweigh, quite frankly, what may be in some minds what’s being cut back. And I think Mr. Boyles, there’s something that’s in that perception. I know you’ve gotten them, I’ve gotten them [inaudible] cutting me back. And that’s one that in some parts of the city where it was said that we won’t do that. I think explaining, bringing it out, making it clear, will help a whole lot in terms of where your final decision goes. Because it’s true, it may go back to a day in some places but then again there were some aspects of what’s now in the pickup that were not being given before. And I think you’ve got a way [inaudible] versus the numbers [inaudible] only comment [inaudible]. Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mays. You’ve pretty much alluded to the same thing I was about urban services and suburban services. I know that there’s been some discrepancy with this agreement there since we’ve been talking about this. When this rate was set back in 2001, maybe there should have been a clause built in that would allow for an inflationary cost to go in each year. But again, that’s hindsight and that wasn’t done. But I know that I attended several meetings that the Engineering Services Chairman talked about. I didn’t attend them all because I’d already made my comments clear that I wanted to see us try to at least go to twice a week pickup and then maybe back off of the other three items of pickup and see if we could balance it out that way. And I talked about that several times. But I understand the situation that Mark Johnson’s in. He needs an answer. The haulers need an answer. But I did have some questions and I appreciate the time to bring this up on the floor and just so that the folks that have called me know I do take all my telephone calls serious. I don’t receive them as just calls, and so I felt obligated to bring that up because I’d been asked to. And Mr. E-Services Chairman, that’s why I brought it up. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor and Commission, we are at a time, in a timeframe were we have to allow this contract to go or not go. We, myself and staff and all those that are willing to attend, be happy to rehash this again. But if the contract goes now, there’s administrative time required to turn it around of about thirty days. To bring it back through the Mayor and Commission and the committee process for final approval would be another 30 days. That puts us in November. If there’s any hiccups in between there, that puts us in the December with the threat of potentially disruption of service or other issues that are far, far more fearsome than having your trash cut down to one day a week. We have covered the bases in this. This is just to let the contract to get the menu of costs and services and provide some stability. Dealing with tax districts is something that has been near and dear to my heart and the consolidation of this city into one fee structure versus the two that we have now, or the many that we have now, but that is something for the Attorney to work out that is apart and separate from this issue that will take more than a year or so to resolve. I need to know from this body the direction it would like to go. 23 By that measure I’m going to ask for a vote today, up or down, and if it goes down we’ll take it back to committee and arrange another work session in that this is too detailed a topic to cover in a simple committee meeting, and we will try to hash out and I’m going to ask, Mr. accommodate the will of the people and the Commission. But Mayor, that we pass and approve this today and send it forward for Purchasing to send it out for bid. Mr. Mayor: Is that in the form of a motion? Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir, it is. Mr. Grantham: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Mr. Hankerson: Repeat the motion, please. Mr. Mayor: Moved to move forward with the contract to go out so that the—it will end up coming back by us twice, I’m sure. Mr. Smith? Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I met with a group of senior citizens this weekend and they were 180 degrees different from Commissioner Boyles’ problem. We’re old folks, they’re young folks with children, so I think we are going to have to try to find a happy medium and then go with it, vote it up or down, whichever way we can do it. Mr. Hankerson: If we vote it up—I mean I hear some good sides on both ends and I also see that [inaudible] our Engineering Services Chairman was trying to get through might possibly—I think some of those things may be able to work out. I just, I can see the one service may not be sufficient for everyone. I also have some concerns whether the one service and the two cans , how would that add up with two houses on one street? The truck still has to go in there. That’s—I mean I want to see it go but that’s something that need to be answered if just me and my next-door neighbor say we want two cans, well the same truck go in to pick up the two cans, is it sill the same expense? We talked about increasing it since he explained it more, about $5 more a month increasing it. We didn’t do—we did a rollback on taxes. I don’t know, that might be something that the whole entire Commission will consider because the service is great, what we have. I must say a clean Augusta is great. The only trash and tires that I see in my area is some that somebody’s bringing from another county. And we are going to get them, too, because we know it’s no need for anybody in the CSRA or Richmond County to bring garbage or bags or tires to put on anybody else’s property. So it has to be so good that they’re coming out of other counties, bringing it and dumping it in our areas. But it’s a very good service and I sure would like to see us maintain that and move forward, keeping this city clean and get it to the capacity that we want it. So do we have enough time for just one more little meeting before we vote it up or down, Mr. Chairman? 24 Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] Mr. Russell on that time frame part of it, [inaudible] steps we are taking [inaudible]. Mr. Russell: If we start, continuing this discussion much past where we’re at today, we’re starting to, in my mind, create an issue where we’ve got some big problems with getting this done. I mean it’s real simple and Mark said that as eloquently as anybody can. The service—we can do it two times a week, you pay for it two times a week and we run that up to the cost, whatever that is. We can’t do both. We can’t maintain services at the same level we have them now, maintain the cost we have now, and not continually, continue to drive the program into the red. The general fund is capturing those dollars now and we’re going, we’re using fund balance to do it. We’re $1 million the hole, we’re $2 million in the hole, and the option is to continue to go in the hole, and that hole is getting deeper and deeper, but unfortunately it’s like the landfill, it doesn’t last forever. I mean the decision we need to make is one that’s very simple. We either improve, increase the service, or leave the service where it is and increase the price, or reduce the service and maintain the same price. And I’m at this point not sure what any further discussion could get us to on that. I mean it’s where we’re at. Mr. Hankerson: Well, what I mean, some things were brought out here. Our back is against the wall but I think that Commissioners are looking at more seriously what’s going to take place because of the calls that we’re getting from the citizens. After all, we did not, the first time, we did not go out and meet with the citizens and say or take a poll of what you mean. Maybe some of us did but I think that if it’s not an issue that we have to vote on it today and call one more meeting and then come back and do it up or down, it may benefit us. Mr. Mayor: I’m going to go ahead and hear from Commissioner Grantham on this end [inaudible] Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: No, sir. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Sims, and coming down to Commissioner Cheek and then Commissioner Williams. That’s going to wrap up the discussion and we need to go ahead on and [inaudible]. Mr. Grantham: Thank you Mr. Mayor, Mayor Mays. I think that what we are looking at is something that is not going to go away. This is an issue that regardless of how we pass it today, we are going to continue to see this in the future, whether it be next year or after the contract is in place and we find that this is not the type of service that we need to provide for the taxpayers or for the citizens of this community or that we’ve provided too much for them. So I think that we’ve got to go to a starting point, and that starting point is based on what’s in front of you today that Mark has brought us. And I feel like that he has given this some very serious consideration in discussing this situation with his haulers and the people who actually perform the service for us. So I’m inclined to let’s go ahead and take the plunge and try this proposal that Mark has made to us. And 25 if we need to go back and make some adjustments or any necessary changes within the contract, hopefully they would be amenable to do that. And so I don’t see that delaying is going to help us any more today than it will two weeks from now in making this type decision. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sims? Ms. Sims: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It’s my understanding, and I’d like to be corrected if I’m wrong, that in this language we have the opportunity to (a) we may leave it as it is—I mean we may cut it back and it will be the same fee but it will be once a week, (b) we can have it twice a week but it will cost more. Is that within this language? Mr. Russell: Let me make sure that everybody understands. We have not bid this out at any point yet. Ms. Sims: Right. Mr. Russell: The maintenance of the fee at the same level based on the reduced services is based on a price that’s two years old. I can’t project what that might be at the end of the line, basically. I can predict that if we leave the service at this current level the fee is going to be substantially more than it would be if we reduced the service to once a week. We had no guarantee, and I know I’ve said that a couple of times, that we’d maintain the same service—reduce the service at the same fee—but that’s probably not accurate. That’s based on the two-year-old price because they haven’t increased it in two years. Ms. Sims: But we have that option? I think that’s my point. We have that option, or we don’t have that option? Mr. Russell: No, we’ve got to bid it out. The feeling of our professional staff is that if we reduce the service we’re going to get closer to that fee than we would if we maintain the same service. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] I think that is what [inaudible] to a point [inaudible] authorized the deal but it does not prohibit us from [inaudible] process [inaudible] so that if bid A is at a certain level, [inaudible] gives you something else [inaudible]. I think the fact that [inaudible] move on to authorize [inaudible] needs to be [inaudible] wanting to know. I think the longer you wait for putting options, putting it out there, then the more to a point our backs are going to get against the wall [inaudible] option A, B or C will cost. Now that [inaudible]. Ms. Sims: That’s correct. That’s what I’m asking for. Mr. Mayor: It just means more work for the folk who want to make the money [inaudible]. 26 Mr. Russell: Mayor Mays, at the Commission’s request we have negotiated the language of the contract. To go back to options would require some changes in that contract. That’s an option that we could do, obviously. [inaudible] the pricings. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] negotiate [inaudible] allowing [inaudible] to proceed [inaudible] but I think that [inaudible] service [inaudible] whether we have one or five options. Mr. Russell: I don’t disagree with that, sir. I think we’re on the same page. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] clarified. Mr. Russell: I understand. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] folk here who want to see [inaudible] versus [inaudible] in doing [inaudible] time where [inaudible]. I don’t think you can come back [inaudible] then you are going to be closer to a deadline doing it. I just think [inaudible] put the options out there and [inaudible]. Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, I agree fully. And the question I would have at this point, while we’ve reduced some of the options available, the major issue would be one service once a week or service twice a week, then what’s the price for those services? And if that’s the direction we’re going in, I’m real comfortable with that. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] I think the bottom line [inaudible] money [inaudible] Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Williams and then we’ll try to get a vote. Mr. Cheek: Just for clarity, Mr. Mayor, what is going to be required here is to go back to the haulers and discuss the fee structure with once a week and twice a week options. This was a proposal as we were going to bring forward and send out to bid a menu of options, once a week, twice a week, several other options for solid waste, collection, recycling and other things about seven to eights months ago. This Commission said at that time why do we need to do that, why don’t we just extend the existing contract? That is where we’re at today, is extending the existing contract with modifications by our professional staff. Again, we’re going to go back for renegotiation and it is not the staff’s fault that our back is against the wall or may be against the wall. We will have to make a decision soon. I ask for an up or down vote on my motion, Mr. Mayor, and I will happy to do the will of the Commission from that point with all due diligence. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: I just wanted to say we had a lot of discussion. Fred mentioned about being in the red, and the reason we in the red—and that’s something nobody talked about—because of the collection. We have not collected the money that’s supposed to been collected anyway. If we raise the fee, change the fee—and I see Mark shaking his 27 head, maybe that’s not in—but from what I was told and I stand to be corrected that the collection had not come in the way that we had proposed it; is that right? Mr. Russell: Mark can answer that. Mr. Johnson: That is one component of a long line. When we talked to you last there was $700,000 in uncollected fees. Subsequent the last time I look there was less than $300,000. So we’ve made milestones there. But if we go back to just contract cost, I have about $10 million in revenue, I have about $11.2 million in expense before bad debt. So I’m going under with or without collections. Mr. Williams: Okay, well, I just wanted to recognize that fact that collection was a problem. Sound like that they working on it and they always work on it after the problem comes up. Never [inaudible] but always after. Now I hear $300,000 compared to $700,000 is good, but— Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] vote. I guess [inaudible] with what’s in the motion and considering [inaudible] still intact [inaudible] in reference to [inaudible] where we are without any problem with the motion that’s on the floor and to be able to [inaudible] reinvent the wheel? Mr. Shepard: I think we’re ready to proceed, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: I just wanted to be [inaudible]. Mr. Russell: Besides [inaudible] I think we’re okay. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] Mr. Handy: Let me ask you one question, Mr. Mays. Just clarification. You’re saying if we approve this today that it still is going to have to come back to the Commission to decide which way [inaudible]? Mr. Mayor: If they look at the option alone [inaudible] and then bringing them back so we will be seeing this and have a choice [inaudible] as to what way do you go and the numbers are going to be the bottom line that I guess will dictate it to everybody. All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Those opposed, the same. Mr. Williams abstains. Motion carries 8-1. The Clerk: PUBLIC SERVICES: 28 47. Motion to amend contract with Wall Asphalt Services in the amount of $31,200.00 to seal cracks in Taxiway E. (No recommendation from Public Services Committee in meeting August 8, 2005) Mr. Boshears: Mr. Mayor, this agenda item is a request to approve the use of a company called Wall Asphalt Services to seal cracks in one of the taxiways out at Augusta Regional Airport. An RFP was done for this for a similar project at Daniel Field. Wall Asphalt was the low bidder on that project and this Commission did approve them back in June to do that project. What we’re asking to do is to use Wall Asphalt Services on a similar project at Bush Field. The question came up in committee about whether it was acceptable to do that and I think that is an issue that Mr. Shepard is prepared to address. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, it is my opinion that the contract could proceed if you rely on the special services language that we presently have. I think that’s broad enough to proceed. The other way is to proceed, send it through an RFP process. Mr. Boshears indicated that, to me, that he didn’t consider it an emergency procurement and he didn’t consider it a sole source procurement, although these contractors are not as available perhaps as some others. But if you want to make the immediate move, to characterize it as special services, otherwise I think he’s prepared to go back through bidding. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It came up in committee meeting and my question was from the Attorney and the Attorney present was not here then but I want to know whether it’s legal. I want to know that if, could we do that without bidding it, even though this company have done other work for us, would it not be proper to go through the bid process. And if it was legal then I could support it. But I could not support it, I needed a ruling. Now I’m hearing that we can go either way. I don’t want to go either way. I want to go what’s legal. Now if we going back for an RFP on it, then we need to do that. If we going bid it, then [inaudible] extend it to this company, whatever is legal. And that’s why Buster is back. He didn’t have to be here. We asked that question and did not get an answer so it came to the full Commission. So my question is, is it legal to do the way it’s been done even though I think Purchasing signed off on it. They thought it was legal, they thought it was good. When it got to the Commission I asked the question is that legal to do? The way I understand it, anything over $5,000 to be bidded out. That’s how we got here to this point. [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Boshears, you did indicate that this particular provider was probably one of the better, if not the best, source of this service, even though it’s not the only source; is that correct? 29 Mr. Boshears: According to the State Department of Transportation and I went to them back in the spring when we were doing the RFP for Daniel Field to get a list of companies to mail the bid out to, and there were six companies on the list. Typically, and this is the third or the fourth project that we’ve done in the last seven or eight years, you will only have two or three bidders that will bid on these crack seal projects. It’s sort of a special service type thing. And that’s what we got on the Daniel Field bid, is we got two bids for that project. Mr. Shepard: Do you feel that the contractor that you have is going to render probably the best possible contract for work in this area? Mr. Boshears: Of the ones that the Department of Transportation gave, he’s the best one that we’ve seen. He also has been the low bidder on all of them by a substantial amount. Mr. Shepard: And you’ve negotiated what you feel is the best price? Mr. Boshears: This is a very good price. Mr. Shepard: And you’ve consulted with the Administrator on this issue? Mr. Boshears: We’ve talked about it but I don’t think it’s something that’s been decided. Mr. Shepard: I didn’t say decided. I just said you’ve consulted with him? Mr. Boshears: I consulted with Ms. Sams, is who I consulted with mainly. Mr. Shepard: Did you find any other department heads that know about crack sealing or do you feel like you’re the only one involved in that kind of thing, Mr. Boshears? Mr. Boshears: I’m the only one that’s involved in crack sealing on airports. Mr. Shepard: I think it would be defensible under special services, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: The Chair is going to recognize [inaudible]. Any down this side? Mr. Williams and then Commissioner Boyles. [inaudible] legal ruling decision, if it’s about a change [inaudible] the Chair, which has no vote, not [inaudible] , but it would help a lot if you all are prepared to give an up or down suggestion or answer [inaudible] about what you are going to do. And that’s just a suggestion because at some point in time we’re going to have full questionnaires about issues to be brought out here—it’s been through committee, it’s been through a governing body, the Chair is going to [inaudible] and rule there has been adequate discussion and [inaudible] vote and if the Commissioners don’t understand it [inaudible] back to the committee where it comes from. Recognize Commissioner Williams and then Commissioner Boyles. 30 Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I asked for a ruling, and hearing the Attorney question Mr. Boshears, and Mr. Boshears is not the person give us a ruling. We asked the Attorney and all he had to say was it legal or not legal. The question that he gave and asked Mr. Boshears was not necessary at this point. Now had y’all talked about it earlier and you ruled yes or no up or down that would have been fine. But I really, I’m really disappointed to hear the conversation. This is not a court of law, Mr. Shepard. You was questioning Mr. Boshears as if he was on trial and you was presenting evidence to this body. All I wanted was a ruling. Was it legal or not? And I heard earlier that we could or we could not. We could send it out for RFP or we could say it special services. We’re not trying to hold this up but we want to do what’s right up here. Buster done done his due diligence out there trying to provide and bring back the best service we can. But as an elected body we are doing what the government is supposed to do and that’s to make sure that things are legal. Again, the Attorney questioned him, asked him had he talked to the Administrator, does he believe the man is best qualified? It ain’t what he believes. It’s a yes or no answer. That ain’t no hard ruling to make if you know the law. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles and then [inaudible] and Mr. Shepard. I was just simply going to make a motion Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mays. that it be approved. Mr. Handy: I’ll second it. Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second we approve. The Chair recognizes Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: As I said, I would rule that in these circumstances it is legal. Just wanted to have a record of what we were traveling under, Mr. Williams. Mr. Hankerson: I just have a comment to make, because I notice that it’s signed off by Procurement. As Commissioner I do feel that if it’s signed off by the department, that’s the department that I think [inaudible] would be legal. I would hope that we could trust that legality of that. If not, we’ve got a problem there. But that’s what [inaudible] I looked to see who signed off on it, as being done. Another thing is if we decide to send it back out for bid, well, one thing for sure, we’re not going to get anything over $32,000 because the numbers are here all ready, the same company come back and bid the same price or bid under [inaudible] be to our benefit either way. Mr. Boyles: Better tie it down while you can. Mr. Boshears: I don’t think Wall Asphalt will bid this low a price if they had to come back. Their bid is based on coming to Augusta to do two projects. I think their bid would be higher than this. 31 Mr. Hankerson: That’s what I’m saying. If we go out for bid and this person bid on it, I mean if they do it for $32,000 without bid they are going to do it for $32,000 with a bid. I’m ready to vote. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Opposed, the same. Mr. Williams abstains. Motion carries 8-1. Mr. Boshears: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: We can go to 49 and 52 and then come back to 48, 48A, move in that order. 49, 52, and 53. The Clerk: 49. Approve Resolution of Support for the Lock and Dam. (Requested by Commissioner Cheek) Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, over three years ago the Corps of Engineers did an engineering study of our New Savannah Bluffs Lock and Dam and found it to be in need of millions of dollars’ worth of repair. Mr. Mayor, every day it rains, the heavy rains we’ve been having, the more and more it deteriorates. It is currently not a line item on the federal budget. In discussions with officials from North Augusta and from Aiken County there is a strong willingness to work as a team together on this, but what is needed from this body to go forth to our Congressional Delegation in Washington, D.C., is a resolution urging our Congressional Delegations to work toward making repairs to the New Savannah Bluff a line item on the federal budget in order to get the repairs made or find a funding mechanism to repair it. The undercuts in some of the substantial concrete structures are such that they won’t last forever and each day that passes the undercuts continue, and when there is less dirt under a concrete structure to support, While I’m not sure of the exact state gravity is going to go work. And it will go down. of repairs, what is needed is a sign from this City that is supports the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, one, and two, that it actively urge through the Mayor’s office, through resolution that repairs be made to this facility and it be maintained in operational conditionI make that in the form of a motion. . Ms. Beard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same. Mr. Boyles out. 32 Motion carries 8-0. The Clerk: 52. Update on the erosion problem at 3018 and 3020 Breeze Hill Drive in the Breeze Hill Subdivision. (Requested by Commissioner Hankerson) Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Hankerson: I want to—I put this on the agenda because this has been an ongoing problem for some time about this erosion problem on Breeze Hill Drive in Breeze Hill Subdivision. The citizens have had sand in their back yard almost covering the air conditioner. It’s coming off of a property behind them. The property owner behind them says it’s the problem is the property owner before them, which is the School Board. It’s been going back and forth, back and forth for months, months, and months. And I just, you know, I want to bring this to some closure of whose responsibility it really is because the citizens are suffering. These two homes, fairly new homes on Breeze Hill Drive, having to have all the sand and so forth in their back yards. When we approve plans, and I don’t know how much involved we are in approving the Board of Education plans or do we have anything to do with that, or whoever plans, but someone ought to assume the responsibility of this problem. So I want for us to resolve this and I call for an update today to make sure that it would follow up and go on record that we would know where we are and what we need to do and also for in the future that we know how to prevent some things from happening and making sure that our engineers and inspectors, whoever go out and approve these plans, development plans will make sure that they do the right thing, that we won’t have problems like this afterwards. So this has been going on and I feel for the citizens there. The residents that live in these two properties at 3018 Breeze Hill Drive and 3020. So we have had some discussions on it last week after a long, long, long time of no one really assuming the responsibility. So if I can get an update today exactly so it will go on record of what we need to do and what is going to take place. Mr. Mayor: Let me just ask this question, and I think it’s very good information, that needs to be discussed. But I’m going to have to ask this, are you all ready, between the Attorney or the Administrator to make this report today in terms of the question that came up regarding this situation? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir? Mr. Shepard: I think that we are. I’ll be happy to make it if I could. During the Engineering Services Committee last Monday following up a request that I had made just last—the week before that, we gathered representatives from the Board of Education, 33 from its Program Manager, from an intervening property owner who has [inaudible], he is head of the Lifsey Group, his engineers, and we also had the City Engineers present. And I suggested to all present in the presence of Commissioner Hankerson that we could have a formal battle of the experts in the courtroom over the responsibility of this or we could take a novel approach and see what the engineers could creatively put together and have a solution presented engineering-wise which would relieve the water coming down from the stadium at Glenn Hills High School to the Lifsey property onto these two homes on Breeze Hill Estates. And the deadline to return to the City on that is next Monday and I have no reason to question that that will not be honored. So we took the time during that time to proceed and I don’t see that being off track at all, Mr. Hankerson. Mr. Hankerson: Okay. I just want a little, light briefing from our department that I communicate with to sort of let us know, kind of give us a short briefing on why it took us this long to get this far and what took place within the time to get us where we really are now, if we can do that. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner, with all due respect, that’s why I asked what I asked at the very beginning. I think what I’m hearing [inaudible] a report in terms of how to finalize this. I wasn’t being sarcastic. I said it on purpose because I think the report itself—and you can still ask the question and they can still answer it—but I think the report that you’re looking for from what I’m hearing is not going to be given today, that is a solution to the problem. And I’m hearing that to be forthcoming. Now, if we need to discuss something in between that, that’s different. But it gets back to my statement I made a while ago about bringing in reports. We need to—I think the Attorney [inaudible] where they are—and obviously that is the extent of where that is. [inaudible] and involving us, but I could of like would like to hear as the former representative of District 9, and that being [inaudible] is to get to a resolution of where this is to go. [inaudible] but I think [inaudible] is kind of where we need to go in terms of that [inaudible] because what I’m a little leery of [inaudible] going to still have discussion with another governmental agency that hadn’t been finalized, I kind of would like—you all can still [inaudible] basically do what you want to do [inaudible]. But I think need to get through the process of hearing what they have to say and to a point of not pre- empting anything that might happen. Because [inaudible] position of strength. I don’t want to hear our side to a point of it and then we’ve got to still go and negotiate. That’s the only thing I’m throwing out there. Mr. Russell: If I may, I agree with you, sir. I think this is moving along after we discovered and assigned some responsibility, but I think at this point it might be premature until we actually get a final response from those parties involved to proceed any further because we might have to take some other action. Mr. Mayor: Well, I know from the Commissioner’s point of mind, once you start getting [inaudible] but [inaudible] committee on Monday coming in, this would be something we would discuss and to deal with and have a finalization on it or [inaudible] finalization on whatever is going to be the bottom line? [inaudible] or to a point that [inaudible] disagreement. 34 Mr. Hankerson: Well, I think I’ll be all right it but one thing that really needed to be pointed out. I know that is not the City’s responsibility. And a lot of times we get calls. And that’s the point I wanted to say. But I was wanting to bring out because I had to hear this and hear what the ruling are and I heard our department, our engineers made a ruling, said that if what the law is, really is, when you come into a situation, where you have erosion coming off of somebody else’s property on another one and then on to our citizens’ property, then who is responsible for that? So our department from the point that I have been working with them have done a good job of getting us where we are now, so I’ll just wait. We’ve got a meeting next week but I don’t want to prolong the time on it, and to really know that we are on top of it and we’ve got some good, I’ve got some good information from our engineers that I thought would be shared with the other Commissioners so they would know when this happened again who is really responsible. Because the citizens are always going to call us and not the developers. They’re going to call us. And here we’ve got two developers that’s involved and we have been on top of it. So that will be fine. I accept that. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: The Chair will entertain a motion to receive as information. Mr. Handy: So move. Ms. Sims: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same. Motion carries 9-0. The Clerk: PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 53. Consider a request from the Richmond County Board of Health for the adoption of a smoking resolution in Richmond County. Mr. Mayor: Item 53, I’m like Garfield, this resembles [inaudible]. Ms. Wheeler: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, my name is Cheryl Wheeler and I’m representing the Richmond-Columbia County Tobacco Prevention Coalition. In the absence of Dr. Terence Cook, I would just like to ask that the Commission consider revisiting an ordinance for Richmond County, to model it after the Columbia County ordinance in that we are a contiguous community and we felt that the health benefits would far outweigh any of the negatives. In fact, Columbia County is reporting very little negatives as a result of their more stringent ordinance than the State law. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sims? 35 Ms. Sims: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It’s my understanding that Columbia County and I wonder if maybe we would be wise to is looking, relooking at their ordinance just go under the Georgia, what the State of Georgia has recommended. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Is that a motion? Ms. Sims: It is. So move. Mr. Cheek: And I second. Mr. Mayor: I’m trying to get the record straight. There is a motion and a second. Is there any Commissioner who wants to address [inaudible]. Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mays. I was at the Board of Health meeting when Dr. Cook brought this suggestion back up and of course the Board of Health sent it back over here. I think what we’ve found out is that across the state there are still some problems that are occurring with the smoking law that the State passed. One is that you can change your course of business at a certain time and not admit eighteen-year-olds and you still haven’t really changed, you’ve still got the same atmosphere. So it would be—I would certainly concur with Ms. Sims’ motion but I think we should be prudent and just wait it out and see just how the State clarifies their. You know, with the District I represent being right on the Columbia County line, I do know that there’s a lot of folks up there and it’s been publicized the last couple of weeks—Ray Wren up at the little pool room right on the line, how he’s concerned about—he’s lost 55% of his business and that Commissioner Mercer up there is trying to get the Columbia Commission to revisit their law. So I’ll kind of keep you posted from the Board of Health side when I’m over there, but I think that would be the prudent thing to do, is just to wait and let the State clarify theirs. But I think almost every place you go into now, you don’t see any smoking. I’ve been in Applebee’s three times with my wife out of town the last four or five days and you don’t see any smoking there and I think that’s pretty good. That’s just comments because I’m your representative on the Board of Health. Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am? Ms. Wheeler: Just one comment. Our Coalition has been assured by members of the Columbia County Commission that they are not considering changing their ordinance. That’s just the information that we’re dealing with at hand. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same. Motion carries 9-0. The Clerk: 36 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 48. Update/status report on salary increases for the rank and file of Augusta Utilities Department. (Requested by Commissioner Williams) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ve been very interested in what happens with that. Had a meeting on Monday, I think, at Max’s office up there and I’d just like to know from the Administrator or from anybody where we are, what we are going to do. We know what we doing with our taxes and what we have to deal with. We know what the sales tax can do and won’t do. I just need to know what about the rank and file people that’s in the Water Department and where is that now? Mr. Russell: Mr. Commissioner, there was a commission, what we were directed to do several weeks ago is to move forward with the recommendation to correct the inequities in that particular department as we discovered them. In addition to that, we’ve been looking at the salary structure in general over the last several weeks. What I thought my instructions were at that point was to include those recommendations for solving that as part of the budget process. I anticipate doing that. We’ve moving forward with that, and that’s the plan at this particular point in time to correct those issues that were addressed up there, the inequities from consolidation that have not been addressed since we consolidated, the salary structure itself, and to move forward with that as part of the budget process. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I hear our Administrator and I kind of agree with his comments but I know and he knows that when you come to the budgetary process there’s going to be other that come in, and what’s going happen and what we already is projecting that [inaudible] that’s not going to go anywhere. I don’t need to talk about this in this meeting and then budget time come up and we throw them all together, then it ends up saying well, you know, we just can’t do that. Now, being a enterprise fund situation, I’m not familiar with the details of what we can do and can’t do, but there’s some raises, there’s some increases been given, there’s some promotions been given in that department and the rank and file people have not had that as of yet. Now, this ain’t no new surprise. This ain’t something we just come up with. This is something we been talking about for quite some time. But I know—when you talk about budgetary process, gets in there, it’s going to get thrown out, I mean along with everything else cause we just done some stuff in the last meeting and we asked you not to do it. The recommendation was not to roll back, not to cut back services, we not going to give any increase, so what make this going be so different, Mr. Russell? Maybe you can help me out with that. What’s unique about this to bring it to the budgetary process, through enterprise funds or whatever, can we do something with that specifically if that’s the case? I’m willing to wait but I need to hear something besides budgetary process. Mr. Russell: And the package we’re going to give you as part of that was to separate those issues out as you directed for those funds that have potential funding 37 sources outside the general fund, and that will obviously make, give you the opportunity for the decision that those people would be treated separately or because of the funding stream available, be able to accomplish things that we might not be able to accomplish in those general fund areas. In other words, you’re going to get Option A, Option B, and Option C. Option A might be just to increase those people that have a funding stream to do that, which would include Utilities. Hopefully we’re going to be able to do that across the board. That’s my effort and that’s what my attempt is going to be. But if not, you will have—we will present to you the opportunity to make the decision that those other areas that have a funding stream that could do that, we would correct the issues in those areas. Mr. Williams: It’s been said that if the house is burning you’re going to go in and save who you can, you can’t save nobody cause you can’t save them all. We understand what has been going on with that in the beginning but if that’s the analogy you are going to use, Mr. Russell, I don’t see why we’re waiting until budgetary time. Cause what that’s going to do, it’s going to create some discuss among all the employees, other employees, and at that time not just you but all of us going to be overwhelmed with calls and visits and even coming to this chamber. If waiting will do it, I mean I’m willing to wait for the budgetary process. But I just can’t see. If the funds can be used, they ought to be able to use now. And I say now, as soon as possible, rather than waiting until budgetary time and creating a bunch of disruption from the other employees. Cause the other employees going—I mean they going cry, too. And we should have done something for them. But if money is there in Utilities we need to use it. Mr. Russell: And once again, if I may, Mr. Mayor, that’s a political decision that at some point you will have to make. It’s my general feeling, though, that if we do that as part of the budgetary process it gives me the opportunity to at least seek solutions in the general fund and those other areas. If we do a decent job with that, we might not have that discussion because we might be able to do it across the board. I’m not really optimistic, because as you say money is going to be very, very tight. But you’re absolutely right, if and when we do this at all we’re going to generate that same kind of discussion across the board from our employees. It’s might thought that if we could do it in one fell swoop, and if there is some opportunity to correct those areas in the general fund that would be the time to do that. That would be in my mind the lesser of the evils involved. But once again, we’re going to give you the options, as we should, to make those decisions based on the numbers that give you. I just think that would be the time to do it. If you want us to [inaudible] that process forward, that’s a call that six of you need to make and tell me and I’ll be more than happy to do that, too. Mr. Williams: Mr. Russell, I’ve been very adamant about staying on this, try to get what I call the front line workers, the every day workers, the people that work in the holes, the people that keep the office going, who have not been—had they been increased over a period of time, we could say, you know, we done something. We haven’t done anything. And with all of the money that we say we got in that department, I think that money ought to be shared and spent on those employees who do a good job for us. Not just to give them something but that really does a good job. Mr. Leverett was there and 38 very helpful, along with Mr. McCawley, at the meeting and I think we learned some things in that meeting that we needed to address. I think some of those things are being addressed as we speak. But I would love to see the dollar figures that we got to deal with before budget season. I’d like to know what we could do or what potentially we going to do. I don’t want to wait until budget season and come up and say well, this is what it is, then it either good or bad. I think that’s something that ought to be brought forward as soon as possible that we can take a look at to at least see what we could do, rather than waiting. I mean these people been waiting for a while. They ain’t just started waiting this year. Hadn’t nothing been done and it’s time for something to be done. Mr. Russell: If I can, let me suggest we go ahead and work on that one first as part of the package and we’ll be happy to share those numbers with you as soon as we get those available and then we can go from there. I have no problem with that, either. I mean we’re going, we’re going to do that work at some point between now and the budget process. I can schedule that to do it faster and give you those numbers as quickly as we can if you’re comfortable with that. Mr. Williams: Thank you. Mr. Mays, I make a motion we receive this as information. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Any further discussion? If none, all in favor, please vote with the usual sign. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, before we vote do I need to put it back on the agenda or will that be coming back when, Mr. Russell? We didn’t set no time. We ain’t going to sleep on this one. Mr. Russell: Sir, I don’t think you’ll be able to go to sleep on this one. I understand that. Can you give me thirty days? Mr. Williams: Thirty days. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Commissioner. Mr. Hankerson: I had my hand up before we carried the motion. Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry. I didn’t—I looked left first [inaudible]. I’m sorry. Go ahead on, Mr. Hankerson. 39 Mr. Hankerson: I was hearing the motion say bring it back. Shouldn’t this go through Administrative Services? It was just through there last week and we motioned what to do with. This is an Administrative Services issue. Shouldn’t it go back through Administrative Services? Mr. Mayor: What I was going to suggest is [inaudible] come back in thirty days. What I would suggest is [inaudible] not only come to Administrative Services but [inaudible] and that will [inaudible]. Mr. Hankerson: That’s fine. Just wanted to make sure. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] it will come back, that trail. Mr. Hankerson: All right, sir. The Clerk: 48A. Discuss projects in Housing & Economic Development that were not approved by the Committee. (Requested by Commissioner Williams) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It’s got down here not approved by committee, but it wasn’t approved by Commission and Mr. Mayor, we asked for an audit to be done in Housing & Neighborhood Development to try to get a handle on what was going on with the funds and what had been happening. I shared with the Administrator, I shared with the previous Mayor, and I shared with you, Mr. Mayor, that I had some information that we had done paid out over $100,000 to firms to do drafting and do other work that wasn’t approved. Now as late as yesterday I found out that some of that has been approved since then. But we just go through talking about doing things right, doing things in order, whether Mr. Boshears went through the proper procedure. But we talking about money that we are sworn to do what is right by. There is about four programs—I got a project in my hand here now that’s been designed and that’s been studied and even paid out and I don’t want to call the name of the firm, Mr. Shepard. I learned a little bit in legal meeting about whether or not to expose those names. The media is sitting there and I understand they would love to have those. I ain’t got no problem giving it to them, Mr. Shepard, but I want to do what is right. But if we done sent an auditor in, they have not yet brought this information back to us to show where it was, there was money spent on projects that wasn’t approved by this Commission and even money spent. Now, I see Mr. Paul [inaudible] back there and he just filled in as interim person over there. Paul, you probably came in on the tail end of this. But that’s what I was waiting on. I have not yet received that from Mr. Cosnahan who has been in that department for I don’t know how long. We talked about guidelines and what need to be done and who needs to be doing them. But we sent them in to find out about the money, where is the money? When you follow the money then you come up with the guidelines, you come up with the 40 people. So I got about four projects and I ain’t got no problem naming those projects, Mr. Mayor. It’s a downtown project, a [inaudible] project, a south Augusta project, and [inaudible] Park. All these projects have been done but wasn’t approved by this Commission. And somebody in that department need to be answering for that as to who gave the authorization to do it. Now, we get bamboozled with so much stuff, they tried to overwhelm us so we won’t have the knowledge to know what they’re doing. We asked Housing & Neighborhood Development to go back several times, at least six, maybe seven times, to not bring any new projects. Cause they try to add them all together. But somebody ought to be held accountable and responsible for these projects that was approved. Now, I know a lot of folks got a little power and they use that little power wherever it necessary to get things done. And if that the case, that ought to be exposed, too, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] personalities. Mr. Williams: This ain’t about personalities, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Go with your issues. Mr. Williams: I’m going with my issues cause I’m— Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] let the accountant do that but we will not engage in [inaudible]. Mr. Williams: I’m explaining to you the process that been taking place. Mr. Mayor: I’m explaining we will not engage in personalities. Mr. Williams: I’m not engaging in personalities. Hadn’t call no names. The power, we don’t talk about that cause I didn’t call any names. I said that there are people who think they’ve got position to do some things and it been done, and it been done illegally. This is money that shouldn’t have been spent unless it was approved by this body. There are agenda items that came and we sent back and still was approved. We done spent over $100,000 I know of—now some of that since that has been brought back through and tried to be covered up. But the—I was talking earlier about the auditor that we sent, that we paid to go in to bring us information back. And that was there job. They have not done that to this day, and no other job that I know of that they have been able to bring back to this body to show up what we sent them in there to do. It’s always been a band-aid approach, it was minor discrepancies on whatever it was, and folks are still getting away with whatever they want to get away with. So Mr. Mayor, I need some explanation from Mr. [inaudible], Mr. Russell, the Attorney, or whoever got some answers for these projects that was not approve by committee, not by committee but by Commission and been able to be paid for these funds. If you need to know these funds’ names, just raise your hand and I can give you the name of the funds that been paid for the work that done done. And should have been paid if they did any work, but they wasn’t authorized by this body or no other body. 41 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, and I still want Mr. [inaudible] at the microphone [inaudible] we are in this and let’s move on. Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: I’m going to get to you in just a minute, too, Commissioner. Mr. Hankerson: Okay. [inaudible] I was calling you before. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] Mr. Hankerson: Right. And I hear what Commissioner Williams is saying. I don’t like for false information or incorrect information to go out and I have been, as Administrative Services chairman, working with this issue in trying to get this department back in order with no finance director and no director. And we asked—he request an audit and that audit is being done in the process, as a matter of fact would have been presented today but Mr. Cosnahan is out of town so he wasn’t able to bring it back today. But I really would suggest, seriously suggest that all the answers that is being asked her, that we could do this in Administrative Services meeting, the next meeting because of the fact I think some things can be explained, that what it appear to be, that is really not. It is because of a process that have been in place that some of these contracts or whatever that my colleague says that he has has not been approved by anyone that would show that they were approved, but it’s the process that it was done under. So it’s a lot of corrections, a lot of reorganizing, I should say, that is going to be recommended for the whole department and some decisions that the Commission is going to have to make, whether or not they want the same process that was used previously on these contracts or do we want to change that? Now in changing that, too, we might, Administrative Services might be signing fifty contracts in a meeting but I think that the way it’s set up, that it could be more clarified, cleared up in an Administrative Services meeting in between that time because there are some things that we are still currently working on and getting the answers for and I think we have the answers for it. I have a list, I have a list here, too, and my list shows that they were signed off by someone, but was approved. But I just wish that this would go back to Administrative Services and give the auditor a chance to come and make his report. We asked for a report and we need the report from the audit, auditor, because I think it shows a real bad light on the departments when it goes out before the community, with the media saying that contracts were signed and all of this, and then some of it may not be proper. I saw some and I investigated on some even myself, that it was just a matter of documentation of how some things were overlooked. So we just don’t want that kind of information to really go out. I think we ought to give the due process of the auditor a chance to come back and give us the report and then answer all those questions that anybody have that something was—if it was illegal to do that. But we asked for an audit and we’re paying that money for an audit. I don’t think we’re giving a fair shake at letting them come back. 42 Mr. Mayor: Let me, let me comment on the [inaudible] process. I think I would be remiss if I didn’t do it. [inaudible] conversation in reference to just signing [inaudible] former member and serving under you, Mr. Chairman, I know it’s a lot that you’ve had to deal with in that department, to deal with vacancies and procedures. Some of it even goes back to a point even before Mr. Russell became the Administrator in reference to trying to [inaudible] what was in procedure, what was not in procedure, where language might be written in order to do certain things. And I think that that [inaudible] one suggestion. If you all are going to have this in committee I think you need to think seriously about [inaudible] deal with the audit [inaudible] justice [inaudible] they’re not going to be able to get into the regular committees’ framework of time on that day because what’s going to happen, we’re going to create a backlog on that day of ending out of here later than any Commission meeting. I think you need to probably need to deal with a morning meeting, of shifting that time, even if it’s only for that one time. That’s just a suggestion. You all can deal with Mr. Russell [inaudible] on however you set that up. That’s just a suggestion because I think a full, in-depth audit report is not going to be able to be held during the committee times and spacings without overload everything else for that day. Now, in reference to [inaudible] I can attest to some of that. The Clerk can attest to a lot of it. And I think one of the things that I’ve asked Mr. Russell to do since I’ve moved from that end of the hall to this end of the hall, some of it goes back to before Rev. Williams became Mayor Pro Tem, I brought this to the former Mayor’s attention on both things that the Clerk and I both noticed. One of them was the fact that being very correct on issues—this has nothing to do with [inaudible] procedures in place—what I had a problem with, still do, and this is one of the things I put my foot down [inaudible] very clear that I will not put a signature on it—that is, that which said the Commission approved on such and such a date an item [inaudible] not met on it, not a part of those of those minutes, then it doesn’t get signed. And will not sign it. Not even at the point of a th gun. I came from 9 Street and they’ve made more than one gun, so I’m not going to sign that. But I brought it to Mayor Young’s attention because a lot of information had been signed that quite frankly had not gone by this Commission, whether by accident or whether on purpose, but it was caught [inaudible] my signature on it on days that he was not here. Since I’ve been on that end I’ve made it very clear that which is not under contract, has not been approved, do not send it. I’ve even held up one contract on a person that had resigned, that had come before me on a new contract to pay money. Do not pay money on new contracts on folk who don’t work here any more. And I put a big X across it. Put an X across a bunch of them that day because they did not come proper. Now, that’s not just true of [inaudible]. We’ve got grant writing procedures in this city that have been reestablished, even on pass through grants. We’ve asked them [inaudible]. That’s not just one department. I’m not picking on any [inaudible] HND. That’s true of some of the departments. They are getting that message that they are to go through the th clearinghouse where they are supposed to go. If they get to the 8 floor and they’ve not passed through that procedure, if one gets missed [inaudible] accident. If it’s missed by accident, then where it was missed, otherwise I can’t use the word I [inaudible] it’s going to be [inaudible] it’s done that way. And I think that’s [inaudible], Mr. Russell? Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. 43 Mr. Mayor: And it’s moving in that direction. But some have been done to where whether folk was just used to it or whether procedures were wrong. And I think those are the [inaudible] that we need to make sure that they just don’t happen. And I think what’s most important at this point is how we function from this point on and gather information so that if [inaudible] Commissioner Williams has said, that [inaudible] done work, be paid for it. But there needs to be an accounting period that if something did not come through here—and I think the language of what was written in overall procedure being general [inaudible] too long, it got hidden not only for that department, it got hidden even during regular budget language. [inaudible] how did we get into this mess? Well, we got [inaudible] budget and little exclamation points went by it and the next thing you knew you’d done something and didn’t know how you did it. That was the reason why some personalities to a point aren’t here anymore. Also thank the Lord for that. But those are the things that we are trying to correct. [inaudible] needs to get to us, Mr. Russell, and soon, so that whatever [inaudible] good purpose and eligible [inaudible] that’s where we move. But I think we’re going to have the audit report, let’s give it enough time to get here and clear that monster out of the way. Hear it, make the corrections and decisions on it, do it, and be done with it. That’s my suggestion [inaudible] do that so that it won’t interfere with all the other [inaudible]. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? As much money as we deal with in HND, and the director have left, and the finance director have left, we put a—from this Commission body, not from committee, but from this Commission body, we put an auditor in place to go in to check everything, because we had some concerns. And that auditor have not brought it back unto this date. Now I’ve heard that he’s out of town. But what happens if he gets sick, have a stroke, or just falls dead? Do we get a audit? I guess we just have to go back and forget about it or get somebody to start over again. Mr. Hankerson said that he thinks it ought to come to committee. If he remember, last committee meeting I tried to talk about this and he said he didn’t know anything about it and he wasn’t going to discuss it. Well, then I said I’ll put it on the agenda in the committee meeting. So he knows about this issue, Mr. Mayor. He’s aware of it. And he’s been aware of it. It ain’t something that just happened. He knows about these four projects I named as well. So you can take it to committee, you can take it anywhere you want to, these are some answers that the taxpayers ought to have when you talking about the federal dollars that come down through here. And when the director leaves, the finance director leaves behind him and then we just sit here like we don’t know what happened and don’t have anybody to go in there? Something should have happened faster than [inaudible]. But no, I’m not taking it to committee. That audit is going to come back to this body cause that’s where it came from, Mr. Mayor. It came from this Commission body for an audit. I asked the Mayor to do that from this Commissioner. So committee meeting is fine. I ain’t got no problem with it. Want to have it in the morning at 8:00 o’clock or 10:00 o’clock at night, just let me know and I can make it. But my point is, we had the auditor who supposed to have brought this back, gave us the same report that HUD gave us. We paid him to go in there to look into the situation, the operation, he gave us the identical same report, just changed the letterhead. Mr. Russell, you need to nod your head, you ain’t got to say amen, you know what got the same report that we had from HUD. And I asked what was this? If an auditor goes in there at least he should have identified and 44 showed us his work. And after we didn’t accept that, he started to go to work on some things then. Now he’s out of town. Well, I hope he ain’t a single auditor by himself and don’t have a secretary. Somebody should have brought us some us some papers or he should have mailed some papers to somebody. I’m not going to sit here as an elected official, Mr. Mayor, and let this kind of stuff ride by and we don’t say nothing about it. This is real money, this is real government. You talking about real people. And that department, I think Mr. [inaudible] has done a great job as an interim person over there trying to get a handle on some things. I made some calls to him. But as much money as we [inaudible] draw [inaudible] y’all told us to go find the money. Well, if you find the money tell me where you find it at. Don’t go get some money out of the HOME fund and then give it to somebody else and say well, y’all told us. And that’s how they confuse you with all of the different factors that they can get money from and they end up and say we found the money, you told us to find it. If you find it, at least tell me where you got it from and where it went. You can’t check and balance like that. How can you run any kind of business, especially a government, and this is a business believe it or not. You ought to have some checks and balance on everything and everybody. Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: I agree with you. I agree with you totally. Mr. Handy had his hand up and then the Chairman of Administrative Services, and what I hope we will do after that is if we can get a motion on the floor to set an audit report meeting and that [inaudible] the adequate time that it needs to be discussed, and obviously that’s going to be more than an hour in its discussion, then my suggestion to when we put it on is that it be given the due justice that it should have. That’s probably going to be two, two hours and half. Mr. Handy and then Commissioner Hankerson. Mr. Handy: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I will make that motion to request through the Administrator that Mr. Cosnahan or his company, whoever doing the audit, have that audit ready for us for next week so I can be brought up to date and I can be aware of whatever Commissioner Hankerson and Commissioner Williams are talking about. I’ve heard it numerous times in meetings but I don’t know what they are talking about. And so I need to know so I can make intelligent decisions about what need to done and so I’d like to put it in the form of a motion that Mr. Cosnahan have whatever time he need to do, how long it take to have it ready for next week. When we come back, our regular thth meeting, so that should be the 29. Okay, the 29. That’s in the form of a motion/ Mr. Mayor: I hear no second. Mr. Handy: Okay. So we must don’t want no information then. Mr. Hankerson: Okay, I have some concerns about—I think the record need to be straight about I have knowledge of someone that’s been doing something that was not passed by this Commission, cause I do not have knowledge of that, [inaudible] anybody, as my colleague has said. So I was just trying to make it work smoother, get more information, because the more information that I receive the more I learn how the process 45 we had in place, or maybe some of us don’t understand. I understand what you said, Mr. Mayor, about the various contracts that came before you. It’s going to show that HED did a master plan and we approved that and they was under the impression that they didn’t have to come back for certain things that was already approved to be spent. But all of that is going to come out, so I would rather [inaudible] I’m curious, too, of the information that Mr. Williams have because as the Administrative Services Chairman, he has not shared that with me. I know he’s Public Safety Chairman and audit and now Administrative Services Chairman, so let’s go ahead and get it on, bring it out. I don’t want to even wait again because I’ve had all these workshops in Administrative Services for HED and a lot of times the individuals didn’t show up. Like my colleague Mr. Cheek said, you know, I didn’t show up to his meetings and so forth. I just want to be quiet. But anyway that we try to iron it all out so we would be on one sheet of music. So if he have the, just go ahead and announce them now so Mr. [inaudible] can explain it. When you announce saying that I knew about something, I don’t know anything. I’m trying to bring the pieces together. I don’t understand that I [inaudible] to get the information that Mr. Williams and however he got his information. So I think he need to make it clear, just go ahead and announce whatever, whoever signed something illegal, go ahead now and Mr. [inaudible] could explain those four items that he have. I’m quite sure that he have some kind of explanation. If not, then we’ll be clear on that. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, the Chair will would like to eventually get a time frame set to hear the audit report. [inaudible] set a time to do it and the Administrator can so order the firm, whether it’s Mr. Cosnahan or somebody else, to be here at an appointed time to be here. My suggestion is you allow at least two hours [inaudible]. Just a suggestion. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I can’t give you the time but the Clerk, I mean, the verbatim minutes can you we put—we asked the auditor to go out and come back within a certain date to bring the audit back to us. We are months past that date that we put on the auditor to bring back. It has not been brought back yet. But I don’t have that day but I’m sure it’s in the records, it’s in the minutes. I think Mr. Young gave them thirty days. If not, whatever the time was, we didn’t give him no week, we gave him sufficient time to do that. I had to ask for the report and still hadn’t got it. And when I got a report, I explained to you earlier, we got the same report that HUD sent down to us with a different heading on it. But I’ve got several projects, like I told you, that has been approved and since then some have come back now and been sneaked in the back door. That’s my terminology. That’s the way it was brought. It wasn’t brought like it should have been brought in the beginning. But I told you about the four projects I named, I met with Rev. Green who gave me this format to tell me that he had worked on some stuff in his project, in his area, what he wanted to do in my District, and I was surprised, and I said to him, I said Rev. Green, that looks good, I can support that, but how did you get that? He said the Mayor said that you don’t like to hear nothing, Mr. Commissioner, you want to see something, you want to see some action. Then I find out that all this— Mr. Mayor: Let me stop you right there. Which Mayor? We’ve had two in six months so let’s get the record straight. While you’re calling names— 46 Mr. Williams: Mr. Young. Mr. Bob Young had told, he said Mr. Young had told him that I didn’t want to hear, I wanted to see some stuff on. So they went ahead on and with the procedure they paid for people to do the diagrams of the homes over there. They had people to come in and Mr. Mike [inaudible] had built, had built [inaudible] stopped payment on it cause it wasn’t approved. Along with the architect who did the drawing and stuff on these things. But all that stuff was approved. Commissioner Hankerson, who said he don’t know, evidently don’t want to know, because one of these projects is his in south Augusta that he’s been pushing or chairing. In committee, when I brought it up, he said he didn’t know anything about it and he wasn’t going to discuss it. I didn’t ask him to discuss it. When I asked a question about it in committee he didn’t want to be bothered with it. Now he wants to know. If he wanted to know he could have asked me then, he could ask me last night, he could ask me last week. He did not want to hear that. But because he had been a part of that as well, Mr. Commissioner, and I think it’s time out for picking and choosing. If everybody got to go through the rules, everybody ought to go through the rules. Ought to be done fair and proper. Ought to not be picking and choosing like that. And we done spent over $100,000, paid out to people that wasn’t spent, that wasn’t certified through this government. No, sir, I’m not being quiet about it. You can shake your head, do what you want to do, it’s time to expose the stuff that been going on in this government all this time like that. And that’s not right. Mr. Hankerson: Name the project. If I, if I got a project that is out in south Augusta that I have, I’d like to know about it cause it’s working. Name the project and what happened. Go ahead. Clear it up now for the record. You said Commissioner Hankerson’s project. What project does Mr. Hankerson have in south Augusta that the city have given any money to? Go ahead and say that now. Mr. Williams: I’m telling you now that there ain’t no project then, but the south Augusta initiative that you been pushing—it may not be your project. It’s been your baby. This the ball you been carrying. That’s the project. Do I need to say anything else? Mr. Hankerson: Go ahead and say it. I don’t have anything to— Mr. Williams: I just named the project for you. You asked me for it and I gave it to you. Mr. Hankerson: I don’t have a project called South Augusta Initiative. Mr. Williams: Maybe ain’t no project then but that’s your initiative, that what you been pushing. Mr. Hankerson: You ought to make the record straight. Mr. Mayor: The Chair is going to rule [inaudible] motion [inaudible] and in fact I’m not even going to hear one. I’m going to rule that we’ve had adequate discussion on 47 this particular item. Mr. Russell, the director of the Mayor, will you have Mr. Cosnahan or a representative of his company to be here—is there any meeting schedule on committee day at 10:00 a.m.? Mr. Russell: No, sir. Mr. Mayor: We have a place for legal that we have set [inaudible] 11:00 o’clock. Mr. Shepard: That’s correct, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: We have Mr. Cosnahan here at 9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. to give audit time to have the audit report. Those who are concerned, Commissioners, general public, be here. That’s the time that I’m asking you to ask him to be here. And we don’t have to get y’all to make a motion [inaudible]. Madame Clerk, would you move to the next item? Mr. Russell, you handle that. Mr. Hankerson: 9:00 a.m. when? Mr. Mayor: 9:00 a.m. committee meeting Monday morning. 9:00 a.m. [inaudible] will respond. Go to the next item, please. The Clerk: 50. Discussion of Gentleman’s Agreement. (Requested by Commissioner Cheek) The Clerk: Mr. Cheek. Mr. Cheek: I’ll be brief, very brief, Mr. Mayor. Can I have the floor, sir? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Mr. Cheek: I’d like just to say, Mr. Mayor, I’ve served on this Commission for going on five years now. I have had the opportunity to vote for Lee Beard, for Richard Colclough, for you, and for Marion Williams, not based on the fact that the Mayor was white, but because I thought you were the best candidates for the job. I have watched the situation over the last few months and been appreciative of the job you’ve done, the job the Mayor Pro Tem has done. We have had hanging over us since consolidation the spectrum of basically a quota, preestablished, prerequisite that you had to be a certain color to get a certain job. I say that today that I have no problem having a Mayor that looks a little darker than me or a Mayor Pro Tem that’s a little darker than me. Our Mayor Pro Tem, who I call my twin brother, who just happens to have hair. I’d just like to say that I believe it’s time to move beyond that gentleman’s agreement, if you will, to a point that we as Commissioners appoint the Mayor Pro Tem based upon the quality of their character and their leadership, not the color of their skin. There’s not a gentleman that I’ve mentioned in that crowd before I wouldn’t have vote for then and wouldn’t vote for again. But it’s time to put that vestige of mistrust in the past and to move forward 48 with us allowing all ten Commissioners to have an opportunity serve in that position regardless of the racial background of the mayor. I think that would be a tremendous to this community towards trust and I hope that this Commission will consider that and [inaudible] so-called gentleman’s agreement. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. To my twin brother [inaudible] I thank you for putting this on and I think it’s a good time to add this, as well. Before I got here this was an agreement, a non-verbal agreement, non-written, that the Mayor Pro Tem has always been the opposite race, the opposite color from the Mayor. Whether that’s good or bad doesn’t really matter to me. I want to say, he mentioned the people he voted for, including myself, when other Commissioners on this panel that wouldn’t vote for me for Mayor Pro Tem. And whether it was right or not, it was, it was, it was passed around to each Commissioner [inaudible] opportunity. Commissioner Colclough served for two years, Commissioner Beard served for two years, Commissioner Mays served for three years, because this body who said they wouldn’t vote for Marion Williams, wouldn’t vote. The only person that did vote, Mr. Cheek, was you. They didn’t vote for me last year, they didn’t vote for me this year. Now, after Mr. Hankerson decided to vote this year, didn’t vote last year, he decided to vote so that gave me six votes to hold this position. I work hard at this job. Like me or not, I try to do what is right and what is fair. I try to bring issues to the table that the rest of them wish they would bring to the table. But regardless of that, the Mayor Pro Tem is an assistant position and if the Mayor’s out somebody ought to be able to fill in. I think anybody on this panel could fill in the job. But if you talking about a gentleman’s agreement, it had not been a gentleman’s agreement because the last two years the rest of the gentlemen have not voted for me. And when I heard this gentleman’s agreement I wanted to hear some more about it cause there ain’t many gentlemen up here. Excuse me, ladies, I’m not talking about you right now. But the gentlemen that’s up here who said they wouldn’t vote for Willie Mays nor Marion Williams and they didn’t do it. So if you want to talk about it, I mean I got no problem. Let’s talk about it. Let’s lay it on the table. And I agree with you, Andy, it shouldn’t be a race. It shouldn’t be a color. But we are black and white in this community. We are diverse and we ought to show we are diverse. And people need to understand that. The black won’t rub off. Believe it or not, I take a shower every day, sometimes twice a day, and it ain’t come off yet. It won’t come off. And just like you don’t have any hair, Mr. Cheek, I have some, that’s the way God made us, and that’s what I’m going to deal with. Mr. Handy: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Handy? Mr. Handy: I’d like to make a motion to receive this as information. Mr. Cheek: I’ll second that. 49 Yes and no, really. It’s nothing that we can do as a body. We’re going to have to end up doing it the same way, decide who we want, no matter what color they are. I mean there’s no action that we could do. Mr. Cheek: There is a motion that we can put on the floor. Mr. Handy: To do what? Mr. Cheek: We can affirm as a body that race will not be an issue in the selection of the Mayor Pro Tem’s job and that can come in the form of a resolution. I’ll put that forth, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Got one already. Either amend that one or either you can make a substitute motion. Mr. Cheek: That is an action we can take. Mr. Handy: Do we have to do this today? I can pull my motion and we can— Mr. Cheek: I can make that in a substitute motion. Mr. Mayor: You’re going to make that as a substitute motion? Is there a second to the substitute motion? Ms. Beard: I’ll second it. Mr. Mayor: There being a second to the substitute motion, the Chair recognizes Ms. Beard [inaudible]. Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I recall when we started this at the beginning of consolidation. And it was very important at that time. And very effective at that time. However, I do feel we have moved to a point where we can eliminate this and work together and come up with the best, very best on this podium for that position. So I do support removing that at this time. Mr. Mayor: Any other comments on either motion? The substitute motion by Mr. Cheek, seconded by Ms. Beard, will be voted on first. Any comments on this end? On this end? All in favor of the substitute motion will do so by the usual sign. (Vote on the substitute motion) Mr. Williams and Mr. Hankerson abstain. Motion carries 7-0. 50 Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, if I could make one comment. This City has a $775 million budget. This is something to really talk about today, isn’t it? Mr. Mayor: That’s why I’m moving to the next item, Madame Clerk. Ms. Beard: But it’s been cleared and we’re ready to move forward. The Clerk: 51. Discussion of City Engineering Department. (Requested by Commissioner Cheek) Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, the only, the thing I wanted to put this on for is to ask of our staff that we do have the tools and the personnel and the other issues, people in place, to make this department successful. I know that there’s been staffing issues that we are putting through our approval for site plans and so forth that we’re able to make this department successful. And I guess I need assurances or information from Fred or from Teresa on what is necessary, what is missing, what is there, what do we as a body need to do to make this department successful? Mr. Handy: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to second that for discussion if it’s in order. Mr. Mayor: I don’t think he made a motion. Mr. Cheek: No motion yet. Mr. Handy: Oh, okay. I’m sorry. Mr. Cheek: Just a report. Ms. Smith: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. In January of this year we came before the body, the then Public Works and Engineering Department and the Human Resources Department and requested assistance in filling vacant positions in the department by utilizing a head hunter. That request was denied by the Commission. Since then the Public Works and Engineering Department has been reorganized and we have within, as a result of that reorganization, the current Engineering Department where we continue to have vacancies with respect to those professional positions, same positions in fact that we had issue with filling when it was indeed the Public Works Department. We have been working with the Human Resources Department to get those positions filled. Many of them have been advertised. If you will recall, however, in May of this year a new organizational structure with a new organization chart was approved for the current Engineering Department. This requires that the job descriptions be rewritten, that they approved by the Administrator, that they be approved by the Human Resources Director, and we are in the process of rewriting the job descriptions, most all of the job descriptions, for the entire department. We have advertised for the Assistant Director positions, for which there are two approved for Engineering. We have the 51 Traffic Engineer position, that the job descriptions I have rewritten those and those have been forwarded to Human Resources requesting that those be filled. We have received some administrative support because we have some administrative positions that are vacant. The administrative assistant under the Public Works director was actually transferred to a different department so I am in the process of working with the staff that I have to take on the administrative duties to fill those positions. I think that in an effort to get them done in a timely manner, and one of the things that was brought to your attention when the head hunter was requested was the issue of salaries for these professional positions. Many of these were addressed with the reorganization. I think request that the that there was some minor discussion at that time and would Administrator be given the authority to approve bringing on some of these professional folks at a salary grade that would be between the 10 and 20 percent authorization level that he currently has. We also have an issue where as we are asking for seasoned people to come aboard that there is I believe six days of vacation that is offered during your first year which you are not allowed to take. In some instances there may or may not be moving expenses that are allowed to be given to people that are relocating, and we would request that the Administrator be given some authority level that would allow us to negotiate with these professionals that we are attempting to bring aboard, these seasoned professionals if you will, to fill the vacant positions in the newly formed Engineering Department. Mr. Cheek: I make that in the form of a motion. Mr. Handy: I still second it. Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Before the Chair recognizes Mr. Williams, just one question I have for Ms. Smith. [inaudible] Let me just ask [inaudible] to the [inaudible] situation that you all are trying to work on in the interim basis, how close are we to bringing that to Engineering Services, or Engineering Services/Finance per se to do a vote on that? Because I know you are moving fast on that one but I know we also have to keep in mind that if we’re going to ask [inaudible] to look at filling those positions in that place [inaudible]. We’re going to have to hire the people that we have out there; we’re also going to have do some immediate [inaudible]. That’s where the private side comes into that in reference to doing some of that and then fast tracking the hiring on a parallel basis [inaudible] at least at some point overlap and get a training period in and then you’d be able to have [inaudible] but then the private side of it would not miss [inaudible]. How close are we to bringing that private side on with [inaudible]. Somebody? Ms. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. With respect to the request that the department look into some type of staff augmentation or some assistance with fulfilling those duties while we are in the process of filling those vacancies, we have a meeting scheduled for next week to try and finalize a scope of work for a firm to come in and provide assistance. So I’d say we’re probably within maybe thirty—to be safe, maybe 45 days, but within that time frame of having something to bring to the Commission for approval. 52 Mr. Mayor: Let me make a suggestion. As an old member of Engineering Services Committee, Mr. Russell [inaudible] with maybe [inaudible] or some discussion, what I’m looking for is y’all could possibly cut that time frame in half. I know you can’t [inaudible] right then but I think Engineering Services needs to get its body, this Commission, over the course of the next two to three weeks [inaudible] name named, get it in place. My reason for saying that, we’re trying to finalize the [inaudible] on sales tax. I think that a firm or whatever help you’re going to be able to do privately needs to be somewhat in place and I know that’s pushing that clock. But I think you all need to fast track that a little bit more in terms of bringing it back to us, getting it done. I think if you do that, we can kind of hold in place to work in those in-house staffers to do, but I think [inaudible] in place we need to make some demands on some folk even if you have to broaden the scope of who you’re looking for and go ahead on and get some demands over to Commissioner Cheek’s committee. And then I think this Commission is going to be receptive in helping you get that approved. But I think 30 to 45 days, quite frankly, is too long. I think that needs to be cut in half. That’s my suggestion. I always make a suggestion before I make a demand. th Ms. Smith: Mr. Mayor, the next committee meeting would be the 29 and the following committee meeting, which would be the first one in Augusta, excuse me, in September, we would be able to have that. Mr. Mayor: Okay [inaudible]. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess my question to Ms. Smith is how long have these vacancies been in that department that you need? How long? How many years? Ms. Smith: Some of the positions have been vacant for as long as two to three years. Some of them have had interim people that have come in and filled them for short periods of time. And then some of the positions are actually new positions that were formed as of May 17. Mr. Williams: I was worried about and concerned about the long term position. There’s a position that I know that had not been filled to this date in that department that you been trying to get filled. This Commission, this body need to be aggressive, as the Mayor said, and get on the bandwagon and do whatever it takes. That was my first question. My next question is, you talking about a firm that doing some work. Have we been out for an RFP? I mean what process? How do you come up with a firm to assist you in doing some work? Ms. Smith: There were unsolicited proposals provided to the Administrator and from those we reviewed the documents that were provided for professional service support. 53 Mr. Williams: But have y’all been out for bid? Now, we just got through talking about doing things right. We just got through talking about what was approved and what wasn’t approved. I need to know if you got a situation with anybody, and the Mayor just said fast track it, but if you got a situation with somebody that you fixing to negotiate with and there is other firms—maybe this is private money we’re talking about. Maybe they are going to donate services or something. But if we going to pay somebody, I need to know as an elected official who we going pay and we approves this to pay them. So who is this firm? Ms. Smith: We have not gone out for bids. Mr. Williams: Well, how can you negotiate with a firm, and I guess I need to talk with the Administrator. If you negotiating—I need to talk to the person who can answer the question. That’s all. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] under the guise of professional services [inaudible] operate under, they can negotiate and bring back. We’ve approved [inaudible] agree with you [inaudible] here to deal with services. I do think and agree they have to [inaudible] services, but one direction we gave them was to the fact of going out to do this. [inaudible] bid basis to bring back items of professional service then we need to redo the direction we’ve given them. They are in the process of doing that. I’m [inaudible] bring that on to us with somebody very soon. Mr. Williams: Well, Mr. Mayor, I understand and I agree but the conversation Ms. Smith gave was that they was negotiating now. Well, if they’re negotiating with a firm and I guess to get a price to bring it back, that’s going to throw us in a frenzy when they bring it back and we’re not satisfied or even if we’re satisfied. Somebody else could have bidded on it. I mean you was still using other folks’ money. And if you careful, you really got to be careful. You can gamble with yours. In fact you can throw yours away. But when you’re dealing with other folks’ money you got to handle it just like that. And that’s what I expect to be, to happen. At least we ought to know. I think we been surprised too many times and we’re still being surprised every day. Mr. Mayor: What I’m trying to get to the point, you asked the question [inaudible] and I gave it to you under Georgia law. You have a separation of professional services versus what you have on a sealed bid item. Both of them are legal under Georgia law depending upon which [inaudible] and they [inaudible] which is totally legal in terms of what they’re doing. And I would not be pushing it if I didn’t think they were legal in terms of going after that aspect. We can take it back and the flip side of not being able to do that, to just [inaudible] is that it can get like some resumes we put out. Get something on paper and bring it back and you bid on it by dollars, that doesn’t mean you’re getting the best [inaudible] in order to do it. And the only thing I suggested is that they [inaudible] solicit and negotiate in more than one place, that they get the scope of services that they have, and that it fall under the guidelines of the law. I think [inaudible] Administrator [inaudible] worked with [inaudible], I’m just trying to [inaudible] time frame so that we’ve got somebody in place to assist this department in a legal way and in 54 a professional way that it can be done [inaudible] professional folk, business folk, and residents saying why should we approve the sales tax [inaudible] nobody [inaudible] that’s why I’m [inaudible]. They have followed the steps from the [inaudible]. Mr. Williams: That’s all, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second, Madame Clerk, to receive as information. The Chair will so— Mr. Cheek: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Didn’t we have a motion to authorize the Administrator to—that was the first— The Clerk: [inaudible] Mr. Handy was— Mr. Cheek: To authorize the Administrator to negotiate with some of these candidates in the interim. That was the motion. For the positions. To fill those positions should candidates become available. It’s been so long, Ms. Bonner. The Clerk: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: The day is getting long. Let’s just repeat whatever it was [inaudible]. Mr. Cheek: The motion was, the request was made by the department head to allow the Administrator to negotiate, I think it was 10% salary and some other HR issues with the candidates for the position. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] but I think [inaudible] long time ago. Mr. Grantham: He got that anyway. He’s got that authority. Mr. Cheek: And that’s kind of the other thing I wanted to mention, Mr. Mayor, too, is that we have in the interim, should we have gaps appear in this, we have Heery already on board. They are a professional service provider for some of their projects. Surely them or someone else can serve in that capacity should we have the need to fill certain positions in the interim until we can get another firm in here to help or full-time employees. My main concern today was to make sure that we as a body were doing everything in support of staff to make sure we don’t have holes in the dam and problems occur. Mr. Handy: Mr. Mayor, if I may? My second was to give her the tools and the people she need to help her department. Mr. Williams: I second your motion, Mr. Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Okay. Which was what she asked for, was some negotiating power. 55 Mr. Williams: Right. Mr. Cheek: Okay. Mr. Williams: Got a motion and second, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Handy: What are we doing? Ms. Sims: Are we voting? Mr. Boyles: Let’s clear it up a little bit. Mr. Mayor: Let’s get a clarification on whatever motion that you’re fixing to vote on. Mr. Handy: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] go on and vote. The Clerk: The motion was to accept the recommendation of the department director regarding vacant positions and negotiation power to the Administrator for said positions. Mr. Mayor: There’s a motion and a second and adequate discussion. All in favor of the motion do so by the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. The Clerk: Item 56? Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am. The Clerk: FINANCE: 56. Discuss contract with Attorney Harry James for services to be rendered in the Magistrate Court of Richmond County as prosecutor in said Court. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the Commission, as discussed earlier today with Finance Committee, as you know Mr. James resigned as a staff attorney and then he offered to continue as prosecutor in the Magistrate Court for a weekly contract amount of $300 per session. There’s time that is involved on Wednesday usually in preparation for those cases, and that’s up to half a day, and there’s a time on Thursday when the Court meets, up to half or a little bit more than half a day. 56 This could be on a week-to-week basis, it could be on a monthly basis. It just struck me that during the time that we were working on a plan for the Law Department and the county attorney that we may want to just have this Court to be serviced on an interim basis by this individual. The judges expressed their satisfaction with his work and so I commend that to you. Whenever I’m associating anybody out of my firm I always come before this body and that is the spirit in which it’s brought. I’ll go ahead and tell you that if it’s $300 a month and there may be as many as twenty Court sessions left, this means a $6,000 item which I would suggest being handled by a reduction from the salary amounts that were previously budgeted in the Law Department, transfer them over to a contract, and the county attorney. That would be my recommendation. Mr. Mayor: $300 a week? Mr. Shepard: It’s $300 a session. That would include two days’ worth. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham? Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I made a motion in Finance meeting and it was my motion that we approve the request by the attorney but we do it on a monthly schedule and get a report back on a monthly basis as to how that’s proceeding since we are under a regrouping of our in-house Law Department and of our attorney’s position. So I think we should just do this kind of on a temporary basis as we move through the rest of this year, and that we complete it on a monthly schedule with that recommendation. I put that in the form of a motion. Ms. Sims: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: In Finance we talked about it, like Mr. Grantham said. I was of the opinion that we need to dialogue a little bit more about it. Mr. James not the first person who worked for this government and then come back and contract with the government and make more money working as a part-time or a contract employee, not necessarily part-time, than a person who been working here. We looking at the Law Department. We looking at changing some things. We got vacancy now since he’s gone. Are we not going to seek, looking to try to hire? There are folks out there walking up and down the streets now looking for a job as an attorney. I mean people been cut off from all kind of areas. And I’m just thinking that we ought to at least try to find, fulfill it. Don made a motion that we do it on a temporary basis, on a month-to-month basis. That mean every month we have to come back and approve it; is that what that mean? Are we going to continue to do it? And if we get comfortable with that we are not going to fulfill the seat. We’re not going to put nobody else in office. We’ll leave it like that from now on. But we need to have—we talking about staff, we talking about people that we ought to have on this, in our own Law Department that’s sitting down there to handle that kind of situation. So no knock on Mr. James. I think he’s a fine guy. But this is not about whether he’s a fine guy or not. I just think that we need to look at doing it the best way 57 possible. And if we already looking at the Law Department and what we need to do with that, this ought to be something that come under consideration. I just want to have that on the record, Mr. Mayor, to let those know. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Handy? Mr. Handy: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I’d like to ask the question, Attorney James, he was doing this particular job before he accepted the Law Department job? Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, Commissioner, he was. Mr. Handy: And then what qualify him to have this position or how—he get appointed, he get elected or what? Mr. Shepard: He was appointed by this body as part of his duties as staff attorney. Mr. Handy: No, I mean the original job as the prosecutor. Before he became a staff attorney. How did he get that? What are we sending him back to? I know how he go there but I want you to tell me how he got there. Mr. Shepard: I don’t know that I know really. I really don’t know how he got that appointment, Mr. Handy. It was a given when I arrived and it’s been—I never have looked at that. Mr. Handy: Exactly right. And then you didn’t ask that question when everything was turned over to you, how everybody got appointed and how they got their responsibilities? Mr. Shepard: Well, not everybody, because I would have had— Mr. Handy: No, I mean the attorney. That’s what I’m referring to. Mr. Shepard: The only one that [inaudible] part of his duties as staff attorney at the Law Department. Period. And he has other duties at the Law Department. Had. Mr. Handy: Well, when I was on the Commission before, I was always led to believe that the attorney for the county picks the prosecutor. That’s true or anybody else know anything about that or am I wrong? Mr. Shepard: Well, I can’t say you’re wrong, Mr. Handy, because I can’t say that I know all the law about that position. So when that vacancy, when that position was filled I didn’t have any reason to consider it. It just came in and I didn’t—in fact, I accepted all the appointments that were made before I arrived in the Law Department. Mr. Handy: Right. 58 Mr. Shepard: And the reason I did that, they were staff attorneys and so therefore they didn’t serve at my pleasure. I didn’t have that option. Mr. Handy: Well, I asked you wrong cause I didn’t know that he was appointed staff attorney prior to you taking over. I thought he was still just a prosecutor. Mr. Shepard: No, sir. Mr. Handy: And not a staff attorney. Mr. Shepard: No, sir. Mr. Handy: Okay. Mr. Shepard: His responsibilities were more than staff attorney, I mean more than prosecutor. Staff attorney was a broader definition of duties. Mr. Handy: Okay. But could anyone answer my question? Mr. Shepard: I can very shortly but I can’t from the top of my head. I just don’t know the answer. Maybe that’s incomprehensible that I wouldn’t know all the answers but I think I’d rather tell you that I don’t know some things than try to tell you something wrong. Mr. Handy: I mean the reason why I’m asking is that we’ve taken him away from being the prosecutor and gave him, offered him the job as staff attorney, would he accept it; now he leaving staff attorney, so should he go back the way he were before then? That’s what I’m asking. Mr. Shepard: It’s not a matter of should. It came up in the context of us transitioning from him serving the Court every week as a staff attorney to there being someone who was not assigned to that responsibility. Therefore, I asked Ms. Flournoy would she accept it and she covered last week just like she’s done when he’s been on vacation. So there’s been no big thing. All I wanted to do was have a transition that did not affect the court’s functioning and he seemed to have come forward with a solution which seemed to be acceptable to everybody, but I said Mr. James, I’ll have to go before the Commission to see if they will go along with it. So consequently there’s just now being a substitute prosecutor in the form of Ms. Flournoy. Mr. Handy: Okay, the reason why I’m asking, and in closing, Mr. Mayor, is that—let me see how I’m going to put this. Why are, why is Attorney James leaving the Law Department and his duties as a part of the Law Department, as well as the prosecutor, and he willing to keep the prosecuting but let the attorney slot go? That’s what bother me, if that’s a problem, why he chose not to? He’s in your Law Department. When I say your, you being the head of it, not your personal. 59 Mr. Shepard: No, sir. Mr. Handy: That’s what I’m asking. Mr. Shepard: I think that he wanted to retain something, that he enjoyed being in court and he indicated a desire to return to private practice where he could, he could work. I think he wanted to be, he told me he wanted to be back in private practice and he said I’ll make an offer to continue on as the lead prosecutor in that Court, Magistrate Court, so I don’t see it as, I don’t see it as anything other than he wants to make a career move. Mr. Handy: Okay. Okay. I am closing at this time, Mr. Mayor. The reason why I said this is because I’ve heard, what little time I’ve been back here, that the Law Department makes one fee, you as the Attorney makes a different fee, when the attorneys are here. My understanding is that an attorney is an attorney, whether he in the Law Department or whether he’s like you are. If he’s working under you then the fee should be structured the same, not separated. That’s why I asked you that. I thought maybe he felt that he needed to go back into private practice because he’s losing money by being in the Law Department. He’s not getting enough work to suffice his needs. That’s all I asked. That’s the reason I asked. Okay, I’m finished. That’s all. But I accept your answer but I’m finished asking the question. Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Commissioner brought up a good point and we talked about that. We asked that same question here. When Ms. Flournoy or Mr. James sitting in that chair we pay one price and when Mr. Shepard we pay another price. But have Ms. Flournoy been offered that position to do like Mr. James was doing, to work here and do that as well, with the same compensation, to be able to go down there? I’m not against, I think Mr. James a good guy. I said that earlier. But had it been even considered to do it with Ms. Flournoy? She sat in for him when he’s out sick or sat in for him on vacation, so I’m sure she’s familiar. Is that something, is that an option? Mr. Shepard: Well, Ms. Flournoy and I and Mr. James were all together when we talked this thing through as professionals. She’s here and I’m sure she can be heard. I asked her if she had a burning desire to be the prosecutor in that Court and she indicated not but that she would be there as necessary and she was there as necessary last week, so I think she was interested in seeing Mr. James have this relationship. But if the Commission doesn’t want it then I can’t authorize it. I told them that I would have to come back before this body. He was a staff attorney, these are part of the responsibilities. She’s a staff attorney and has covered when he needed coverage, Mr. Williams. That’s, it’s very simple. 60 Mr. Williams: I don’t think we can talk about salary raises in here, can we, Mr. Mayor? We can’t talk about [inaudible] and stuff in here. But I think that’s a good issue, something we need to discuss I think before we make a decision on this. We need to see what’s what with salaries, too. Has Ms. Flournoy got a deal with the same salary in addition it [inaudible] I don’t blame her, I think I would have said I [inaudible] deal with that. And that’s why we looking at the Law Department now, Mr. Shepard, to see what changes we need to make and see what’s going to be feasible and going to be an economic impact for the city as well. I don’t have a motion, I’m not going to make a motion cause I said in the committee and I say it now that I think we ought to look at trying to fulfill the position along with somebody. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Flournoy? Ms. Flournoy: Mr. Mays, members of the Commission, prior to Mr. James leaving Mr. Shepard, Mr. James, myself and his partner, Mr. Plunkett, had a meeting discussing the transition period, and in that discussion I was asked whether I wanted to do the Magistrate Court. While it is not something that I was jumping to do I did indicate my willingness to do whatever was necessary and I take my direction, at the direction of Mr. Shepard. The judges of that Court have indicated that they would like for Mr. James to continue in that position. And I, in deference to what the judges desired, I said I didn’t have any objection to Mr. Harry James remaining as the prosecutor. But if it is the requirement that I do the prosecution in Magistrate Court as the staff attorney then I am willing to do it. Mr. Williams: That’s all I need to know. I make a substitute motion, then, Mr. Mayor, that we let Ms. Flournoy fill that position as staff attorney and work in the Magistrate Court as well. Ms. Sims: That’s not what she said. Mr. Mayor: It went to the funeral home. Dies for a lack of a second. Revert back to the original motion that’s on the floor. All in favor of the original motion— Mr. Williams: What’s the motion, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: The original motion was [inaudible] The Clerk: Enter a contract with Mr. Harry James for services rendered at Magistrate Court in an amount of $300 per session. Mr. Grantham: Per week. The Clerk: He said session. 61 Mr. Shepard: There is only one session for week, so that will clarify that. The session consists of a preparation time and it consists of being in court. Mr. Williams: Hold on now, I hear you, but if you don’t stipulate the week or a session, there could be two, there could be six. Now let’s get clarified, now. Mr. Shepard: I just stipulated— Mr. Mayor: Session. Session is what is in that motion. Am I correct, Madame Clerk? The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Session is what is in there. That’s the language [inaudible] session. So if the judges call a special one or they call three of them in a week, then he gets paid for three session, regardless if they’re in the same week. Mr. Williams: All right. Mr. Mayor: Any opposed the same. (Vote on the original motion) Mr. Williams abstains. Motion carries 8-1. The Clerk: 57. Discuss budget adjustment for County Attorney. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, if I could. This adjustment that I suggest was discussed in the previous motion. It would simply allow the Administrator to remove the salary and wages portion of the Law Department the amount equal to fund that contract at the session rate and then we’d set it up as a contract payment under the County Attorney budget. So it should be just a way to fund that from existing funds within the budget. The positions, when they are vacated, automatically otherwise go into the manpower management plan so I’d like to save some of that money to fund this contract. I estimate it to be about $6,000 for the balance of the year. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, a comment to that? Mr. Russell: I have talked to David and [inaudible] . Mr. Grantham: So move. Ms. Sims: Second. 62 Mr. Mayor: And not having to deal with an increase adjustment? Mr. Russell: No, sir. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]. The Clerk: Did we get a second? Ms. Sims: I did. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Mr. Williams abstains. Motion carries 8-1. 58. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, let me, let me, let me do, let me do one thing before we [inaudible] but we did want to give them their certificates for being here today. [inaudible] if you can come down here for me. The Clerk: By His Honor, Willie H. Mays, III, Interim Mayor, to Markia Ashman and Adam Owens: [reading] Greetings, by virtue of power and authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the State, and in pursuance of your appointment I do hereby commission you said Mayors of the Day. You are therefore authorized and required to perform all and singular the duties encumbered on you as said officer according to the law and the trust reposed in you. Given unto my hand and the sale of the Office of the th Mayor at the Municipal Building in Augusta, Georgia, on the 16 day of August in the year of our Lord, 2005. Willie H. Mays, III, Interim Mayor. [A round of applause is given.] Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] we’re going to make a veteran [inaudible]. Let me say this to my [inaudible] and the gentleman at the bank, y’all see him in here some times and he’s come down when we’ve done special occasions for kids, a disabled veteran, Mr. Bill [inaudible], who started the [inaudible] to want to do something for veterans [inaudible] and particularly for their families and you see him a lot in meetings. [inaudible] comes all the time [inaudible] but he does a great job, whenever you ask him to do things [inaudible] spur of the moment. I didn’t intend to keep him here all day. [inaudible] original shots of the World Trade Center [inaudible] lot of money [inaudible] but he’s chosen to make those personal items, [inaudible] so let’s give him a hand. [A round of applause is given.] 63 Mr. Mayor: That way your wife will know where you’ve been all day. [Laughter] Mr. Mayor: Thank you so much. [inaudible] Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Mayor, it’s not an emergency but Mr. Wall had asked if he could come before the body this evening and I had two other short matters that I thought I could quickly dispose of. He’s been informed that we’re changing our procedures to a legal meeting before the committees and I may have been remiss in not telling him that when he called and asked could he come before the body this afternoon. He is here and if he could be heard very briefly, that would be my request. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] [Laughter] Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] I’m just kidding. [inaudible] we have a new rule around here. If the sun’s still in the sky when we leave, we don’t [inaudible] six o’clock [inaudible]. th Mr. Shepard: We’re not going to meet again until the 29, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Grantham: That’s committee. Mr. Shepard: That’s when we’re doing the legal. th Mr. Wall: What I’ve got, I had, I would like to have done prior to the 29 and I’ll tell you why [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: I know you didn’t know [inaudible] don’t have to take that long. Mr. Wall: It’s going to take fifteen to twenty minutes. I promise you I’ll be through by 6:00. I’ll be through by 5:45. Mr. Mayor: Because the presiding officer is going to be [inaudible]. I’ve missed a doctor’s appointment [inaudible] but because you didn’t know that format we’ll accept that [inaudible] but from this day forward [inaudible] legal item [inaudible] . What would a good day be without me and you arguing every now and then? Mr. Wall: Well, last Monday I wouldn’t have known about this because the President didn’t sign the Act until last Monday. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] 64 Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, I’ve got two quick real estate matters, one of which presented itself yesterday and one of which is moving forward that I need some advice on, too. It shouldn’t take more than a couple of minutes if we do go into legal. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] real estate [inaudible] 59. LEGAL MEETING: A. Pending and potential litigation. B. Real Estate. C. Personnel. Mr. Handy: I so move. Ms. Beard: Second. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion, please indicate by the usual sign. Motion carries 9-0. [LEGAL MEETING] Mr. Mayor: Back in session. Mr. Shepard: 60. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with the Georgia’s Open Meeting Act. Mr. Cheek: So move. Mr. Handy: Second. Motion carries 9-0. [MEETING ADJOURNED] Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission 65 CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, do 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 August 16, 2005. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission 66