HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommission Meeting November 9, 2006
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
NOVEMBER 9, 2006
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., November 9, 2006, the
Hon. Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Holland, Smith, Stevenson, Grantham, Hatney, Williams, Beard,
Cheek, Bowles and Brigham, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also Present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; Fred Russell, Administrator; Lena Bonner, Clerk
of Commission.
The invocation was given by the Reverend Kenneth Martin, Pastor, Antioch Baptist
Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you Reverend. We have something for you. By these here present,
please know that the Reverend Kenneth Martin, Pastor of Antioch Baptist Church is Chaplain of
the day for his civic and spiritual guidance, --- community service as an example all ---, my hand
th
this 9 day of November 2006. Thank you so much. (APPLAUSE) Let’s move into the
presentations.
PRESENTATION(S)
A. Board of Trustees, Augusta-Richmond County Public Library. RE:
Presentation/Update on new headquarters with design plan.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, our presentation item, at the
request of the Board of Trustees, that item is being requested to be deleted and rescheduled for
st
our November 21 meeting. It’s on our Addendum Agenda.
Mr. Cheek: So moved.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Hatney out.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk: I call your attention to our Addendum Agenda.
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Plat for Item 42.
DELETION FROM THE AGENDA
1
Presentation by the Board of Trustees of the Augusta Richmond County Public Library.
st
(To be rescheduled for the November 21 meeting)
PUBLIC SERVICES
32. Motion to approve the denial of the renewal of the business license for Mr. Eddie
Trimble, d/b/a Trimble Construction. (Referred from October 9 Public Services)
th
Item 32 is being requested for rescheduling for the November 13 Public Services
Committee Meeting.
ADDITION TO THE AGENDA
Item 1. Ratify the sale of the city property to Silver Sheet Metal Company. (Requested by
the Administrator)
Mr. Cheek: Motion to add.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, if we could move on to the Recognitions.
RECOGNITION(S)
B. National Hospice Month. Ms. Angela Whitesell, Community Service Liaison, Alliance
Hospice.
Mr. Mayor: In recognition of National Hospice Palliative Care Month, whereas Hospice
and Palliative Care provides patients and families the highest quality care during life limiting
illness and at the end of life through pain management and symptom control, care giver training
and assistance and emotional and spiritual support allowing patients to live fully up until the
final moments surrounded and supported by the faces of loved ones, friends and committed care
givers and whereas last year more than 1.3 million Americans, living with life limiting illness
and their families received care from the 4,000 hospice and palliative care programs in
communities throughout the United States, and whereas professional and compassionate hospice
staff including physicians, nurses, social workers, therapists, counselors, health aides and clergy,
provide comprehensive care focused on the wishes of each individual patient, and whereas more
than 400,000 trained volunteers contribute 18 million hours of service to hospice programs
annually, and whereas providing high quality hospice and palliative care reaffirms our belief in
the essential dignity of every person regardless of age health or social status, and that every stage
of human life deserves to be treated with utmost respect and care, and whereas hospice and
palliative care providers encourage all people to learn more about the options of care and to share
their wishes with family, loved ones and their health care professionals. Now, therefore, I, Deke
Copenhaver, Mayor of the City of Augusta do hereby proclaim November 2006 as National
Hospice Palliative Care month in Augusta, Georgia and urge all citizens to increase their
2
understanding and awareness of care at the end of life and to observe this month with appropriate
activities and programs. In witness whereof I hereunto set my hand and cause the seal of
st
Augusta, Georgia to be affixed this 1 day of November 2006. Congratulations.
(APPLAUSE)
Ms. Whitesell: Hospice is really a calling and it’s something that we are so privileged to
do, to be with people at the end of their life and to celebrate their life and we just appreciate this
privilege to be here with you. Thank you.
(APPPLAUSE)
Mr. Mayor: On to the Delegations.
DELEGATIONS
C. Augusta Arts Alliance and Imperial Theatre. RE: Economic Impact of the Arts in
Augusta.
Mr. Mayor: And if you could state you name and address for the record and keep it to
five minutes please ma’am.
Ms. Plocha: I’ll try. Lara Plocha, 830 Fleming Avenue, Augusta, Georgia 30904. Good
Afternoon. I think most of you know me by now. I’m Lara Plocha, Executive Director of the
Imperial Theatre. The Imperial is fortunate to be the home for several of the performing arts
groups in Augusta, and often collaborates with other arts organizations such as the Morris
Museum of Art. So, I’ve been asked to speak with you today on behalf of Augusta’s arts
organizations and to announce the formation of Augusta’s arts community into one voice, The
Augusta Arts Alliance. The arts impacts Augusta in many ways by enriching the lives of our
citizens by providing vital arts education for our children and out reach to under served
community. The arts also makes money for the community with the direct impact on industry
through the demand for goods and services, on tourism as we attract more and more out of town
visitors and on the tax base through increased ad valorem taxes, income taxes, sales taxes and
SPLOST. The current proposed 2007 county budget includes $50,000.00 specifically designated
for re-granting to Augusta’s arts organizations, which we definitely appreciate. However, this is
less than 1% of our combined annual operating budget and we respectfully request the
Commission to consider increasing this line item significantly to an amount more commensurate
to the level of our economic impact because supporting the arts makes good economic sense.
Overall funding for the Arts for the public or private is good business. Every dollar invested in
the Arts has a significant multiplier effect on the local economy. Arts attendees generate
ancillary economic benefits and a true boon to commercial interests. In a recent study conducted
by the U.S. Economic Development Administration, industry cited access to the arts, music and
entertainment, as one of the most important quality of life factors they consider when looking for
new locations. The economic impact of non-profit arts organizations including the news is
significant. A quick review of just ten local arts organizations showed an estimated annual direct
impact on the local economy of 7-8 million dollars. Non-profit arts, unlike most industries,
leverage significant amounts of event related spending by their audiences. Attendance at arts
3
events generates related commerce for hotels, restaurants, parking garages and more. The
average local patron spends approximately $23.00 on event related services, and that doesn’t
include the ticket price. This spending generates an estimated revenue nationally, of $80.8
billion dollars for local merchants and their communities. And, furthermore, out-of-town patrons
spend nearly twice as much as local patrons. A study by Johns Hopkins University and the
Georgia League of Historical Theaters show, for every dollar spent by the coastal arts industry, a
$1.92 is generated in indirect spending and 67 cents is generated in wages and salaries. For
Augusta alone that equates to a 15.54 million dollar impact on an annual basis. So supporting
the arts does make good economic sense. The Augusta Arts Alliance has prepared a formal
statement for your consideration, which we have left you a copy of at your desks this morning, or
this afternoon. We the undersigned, thirteen arts organizations of Augusta Richmond County
annually provide performances, concerts, art exhibits, classes, camps, workshops and lecture
demonstrations for the citizens of our community. As the Arts Organizations of Augusta
Richmond County, we create the cultural tapestry of our community and the role we play is vital
to our community’s quality of life. Economically, Augusta arts and cultural environment is
attractive to tourists, the business sector and our residents. Augusta was recently identified as
one of the top ten places to retire and our vibrant arts community played a major role in that
distinction. Last year alone the undersigned arts organizations in Augusta Richmond County
generated 11 million in direct and indirect economic impact and provided more than 500 jobs.
We respectfully request that the Augusta Richmond County support for Augusta arts
organizations and its annual budget on a level appropriate for the economic impact of these
organizations provide the community. These arts organizations dramatically improve the quality
of life in our community, impacting Augusta economically, culturally and artistically. For fiscal
year 2006 local arts organizations were not re-granted any Augusta Richmond County funds
through the greater Augusta Arts Council or otherwise. Therefore, on behalf of our approximate
500,000 constituents, we respectfully request that August Richmond County include fundings
specifically for the arts organizations on a annual basis through an allocation to a third party such
as the Community Foundation who will then re-grant Augusta Richmond County monies to the
arts organizations annually for an administrative fee. The leadership of Augusta Richmond
County ultimately approved the guidelines for annual and equitable distribution of city funding
in support of annual operating expenses of the Augusta Richmond County arts organizations ---
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Ms. Plocha: I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor: That’s okay.
Ms. Plocha: Can I read the arts organizations that are represented?
Mr. Mayor: How much longer do you --- that’ll be fine.
Ms. Plocha: A paragraph.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
4
Ms. Plocha: Okay. The guidelines will then be developed by representatives of the
Undersigned Arts Organizations also known as the Augusta Arts Alliance and with the third
party already having the protocols and procedures in place for granting monies to 50123 non-
profit organizations. The leadership of the undersigned arts organizations is committed to
working together and identifying and securing additional funding sources for the arts in Augusta.
Representatives of the Augusta Arts Alliance request opportunities to meet with the leadership of
Augusta Richmond County in the near future to approve and adopt these positive solutions to
encourage and to insure the financial support of Augusta’s arts organizations along with the
continued growth of our community. Respectfully, the Art Factory, the Augusta Ballet, the
August Concert Band, the Augusta Mini Theater, the Augusta Opera, the Augusta Symphony,
the Augusta Players, Creative Impressions, Dance Augusta, the Gertrude Herbert Institute of Art,
the Imperial Theater, Morris Museum of Art and Story Land Theater.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Plocha: Practice that ---
Mr. Mayor: Well done. Thank you for that information. Mr. Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, I’d like a motion we receive as information then
continue to look into working with the Arts as they do produce $15M a year into this
community and is something that we need to work towards as far as assisting in the areas,
and we receive benefit from that.
Mr. Williams: I second that.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just gonna add that, that since we’ve abandoned the Main Street
program we could take those monies that have been in the past allocated to that program and
nearly double the allocation going to the Arts so, I just offer that for consideration before the
Commission.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Alrighty, Madam Clerk, let’s move on to the Consent Agenda.
The Clerk: I call your attention to our Consent Agenda which consists of Items 1-27.
Items 1-27.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have any additions to the Consent Agenda? Commissioner
Grantham.
5
Mr. Grantham: Uh, Mr. Mayor I would like uh, have the consideration of adding the uh,
subject on the uh, to the Consent Agenda in regards to the Sheet Metal, ratifying the sale of that
property ---
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I like to recommend adding Item 37 if it pleases the body to the
Consent Agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Any further additions to?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Under the Public Service Regular Agenda items,
since we did not have an opportunity to meet last week and we have determined that the request
for license in regards to the alcohol license of those who are present here today and we have,
they have met all the requirements and uh, I’m told by the department that uh, those people are
present today, and ask for Item 29, Item 30, Item 31.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Grantham: I don’t, uh, I don’t see why we can’t put Item 37 and Item 42 on the
Consent Agenda as well Mr. Mayor.
The Clerk: Item 37’s on.
Mr. Mayor: 37’s on.
The Clerk: Item 42?
Mr. Grantham: 42.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any further additions to? Are there any items to be pulled for
discussion?
Mr. Grantham: Number ten Mr. Mayor.
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, number one, please.
Mr. Mayor: Items ten and one.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
6
Mr. Williams: I need some clarification of Item number 11, uh, Item 15, Item 18, 21 and
uh, 25 and 26 Mr. Mayor.
If not, I would look for a
Mr. Mayor: Any further items to be pulled for discussion?
motion to approve the Consent Agenda.
Mr. Cheek: So moved.
Ms. Beard. Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: I’d like to take Item 38 off and reprogram it for the next Commission
meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Williams. 38.
Mr. Mayor: 38. Alrighty. Ma’am?
Ms. Beard: (Unintelligible).
Mr. Mayor: Okay, can um, can you amend your motion to include that Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Yes sir, absolutely.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
CONSENT AGENDA:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
2. Motion to approve Amendment to 2006 CDBG Contract with Georgia Legal Services.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee October 30, 2006)
3. Motion to approve the reprogramming of $10,000 from the Aragon Park Housing
Project and Award to Care Management Consultants, Inc. (Approved by Administrative
Services Committee October 30, 2006)
4. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain unsafe and
uninhabitable structures in the Bethlehem Neighborhood: 1539 Twelfth Street, 1613
Twelfth Street (District 9); South Augusta Neighborhood: 3232 Milledgeville Road,
ND
(District 5, Super District 9); AND WAIVE 2 READING. (Approved by Administrative
Services Committee October 30, 2006)
7
5. Motion to approve the use of $4,000 in R-UDAG funds for one 112-week session of
Micro Loan Business Development Training. (Approved by Administrative Services
October 30, 2006)
6. Motion to approve Retirement of Mr. Ronnie Joyner under the 1949 Pension Plan.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee October 30, 2006)
7. Motion to approve Work Related Disability Retirement of Mr. David Pugh under the
1977 Pension Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee October 30, 2006)
8. Motion to approve Resolution Authorizing Submission Year 2007 Annual Action Plan
for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG),
HOME Investment Partnerships and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Funds.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee October 30, 2006)
PUBLIC SAFETY
9. Motion to approve proposal from Working Buildings for Building Commissioning
Consulting in conjunction with the expansion of the Webster Detention Center. (Approved
by Public Safety Committee October 30, 2006)
12. Motion to approve Grant Award of $31,775.00 from Georgia Emergency Management.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee October 30, 2006)
13. Motion to approve award of Bid Item #06-168 for Firefighter Protective Clothing to
NAFECO as the best bid. (Approved by Public Safety committee October 30, 2006)
14. Motion to approve the acceptance of funding from Governor Sonny Perdue’s Wireless
Communities Georgia Program and the Memorandum of Understanding. (Approved by
Public Safety Committee October 30, 2006)
FINANCE
16. Motion to approve tasking the Administrator to develop a process for internal audits
based on separation of individuals who have responsibility of handling cash and/or other
types of financial items and significant inventory. (Approved by Finance Committee
October 30, 2006)
17. Motion to approve the execution of documents regarding the refinancing of 2002
bonds. (Approved by Finance Committee October 30, 200)
ENGINEERING SERVICES
19. Motion to approve change order to Municipal Building’s exterior renovations
consultant to include replacement of existing windows with energy efficient, insulated glass
windows. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 30, 2006)
20. Motion to authorize execution of agreement between Augusta and Standard Textile
Augusta, Inc. aka King Mill for the delivery of water from the Augusta Canal. (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee October 20, 2006)
22. Motion to approve and accept Georgia Power Company Governmental Encroachment
Agreement for Easement No. 30877. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
October 30, 2006)
23. Motion to approve an Option for Right-of-Way between the Richmond County
Hospital Authority, as owner, and Augusta, Georgia, as optionee, in connection with the St.
Sebastian Way Project, for 0.016 acre (5042.65 sq. ft.) of permanent construction &
maintenance easement and one temporary driveway easement for the following property
8
located at 1350 Walton Way for a purchase price of $105,200.00. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee October 30, 2006)
24. Motion to approve a resolution requested by the Augusta Fire Department to change
the name of the road known as Cambridge Road to Cambridge Court. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee October 30, 2006)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
27. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission October 17,
2006 and Special Called meeting held October 30, 2006)
PUBLIC SERVICES
29. Discussion: A request by Jan Scholer for a One Day Special Event License Beer for
November 11, 2006 to be used in connection with Wild Wings located at 3035 Washington
Road. (Outside Event in the parking lot) District 7. Super District 10.
30. New Ownership Application: A.N. 06-54: A request by Carolyn Marie Beard for an on
premise consumption Liquor & Beer license to be used in connection with the Hayloft
Sports Bar & Grill located at 3179 Gordon Highway. There will be Dance. District 3. Super
District 10.
31. New Ownership Application: A.N. 06-55: A request by Jung S. Farrar for a retail
package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with C.T. Market located at 4127
Windsor Spring Road. District 4. Super District 9.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
37. Adopt Resolution of Support of U.S. Department of Energy streamlining its R&D and
Productions Facilities, which will result in the building of a new Consolidated Plutonium
Center at the Savannah River Site.
ATTORNEY
42. Motion to approve Option for Acquisition of Easement by BellSouth. (Revised
November 1, 2006)
The Clerk: For the benefit of any objectors to our alcohol petitions, when the petitions
are read would you please signify your objections by raising your hand.
Item 29 is for a one-day special event license, beer, for Wild Wings located at 3035
Washington Road.
Item 30 is a request for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer and Wine license to be
used in connection with the Hayloft Sports Bar & Grill located at 3179 Gordon Highway.
Item 31 is for a retail package Beer & wine license to be used in connection with C.T.
Market located at 4127 Windsor Spring Road.
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions?
Mr. Russell: None noted.
9
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Hatney abstains.
Motion carries 9-1. [Items 29-31]
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 2-9, 12-14, 16-17, 19-20, 22-24, 27, 37, 42]
Mr. Mayor: Okay, let’s move on to the pulled agenda items.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1. Motion to approve Final Version of Year 2007 Annual Action Plan for Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), HOME Investment
Partnership and Housing for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Funds with the adjustment
that funding of $100,000 from the Economic Development Loan Program be moved to the
Clearance and Demolition category for a total of $200,000 and that the contingency funding
of $50,000 be earmarked for demolition and clearance at the site of the new Augusta Mini
Theatre. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee October 30, 2006)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Beard, I believe this was your item?
Ms. Beard: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I spoke with Mr. DeCamp and he felt he could adjust
things to include Bethlehem and that’s why we’re making this request.
Mr. DeCamp: Yes, uh, Mayor ---
Mr. Mayor: Mr. DeCamp.
Mr. DeCamp: --- Commissioners. In response to some concerns expressed at the last
Administrative Services Committee meeting with regard to earmarking some funding in 2007 for
uh, housing activities in the Bethlehem neighborhood, um, I do have a couple of
recommendations to, to address that issue. One is to uh, re, uh, under the uh, under our next
years CDBG program to reduce the housing rehabilitation program line item by $160,000.00
which would still leave about $585,000.00 in that line item, and earmark that $160,000.00 for
housing activities in the Bethlehem neighborhood. Those activities could include one or more of
the following activities: Acquisition, clearance and demolition, housing rehabilitation and/or new
construction by, new housing construction by a non-profit organization. The other adjustment I
would recommend under the Home Program. It’s currently $160,000.00 earmarked for
Demolition/Rebuild program and we have recommended that that be earmarked for housing
rehabilitation so that, what we we’re basically doing is providing money for targeted Bethlehem
housing, um and at the same time fully funding our Housing Rehab Program next year.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard, does that answer your question?
10
Ms. Beard: Uh, yes, it does.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: You mentioned that you were reprogramming how much for the Bethlehem
--- a hundred ---
Mr. DeCamp: $160,000.00
Mr. Hatney: You couldn’t see no way to do that to 200?
Mr. DeCamp: We could borrow some more money from our Housing Rehab Program.
Mr. Hatney: Could you do that? That’d be so kind of you. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, can we get a motion on this one?
Mr. Williams: So moved.
Mr. Holland: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
Commissioner Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, it’s incumbent upon me to ask this question of our Director. Are
we gonna meet, we got a month and a half to end of the calendar year, we gonna meet all of our
spend down goals?
Mr. DeCamp: Uh, we’re working hard toward that. Yes, yes, sir, I’m confident that we
will.
Mr. Cheek: Okay. We’d appreciate any red flags as soon as we can and reappropriation
so we don’t lose the money. Thank you.
Mr. DeCamp: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the
usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. DeCamp:
Mr. DeCamp: Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Commissioners.
The Clerk:
11
PUBLIC SAFETY
10. Motion to award the contract for Bid Item 06-149, the demolition and construction of
Fire Station #6, to the low bidder, the Vastec Group. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee October 30, 2006)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, I believe this was your item. Excuse me, Mr.
Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In reviewing this particular item on the agenda, I
find that in the back up information, that it concerns me that we are looking to approve a contract
of a $1,241,000.00 to a company that has never constructed a building or any type of facility
such as what we’re asking for. The back up information on the analysis, uh, talks about our, the
architect that’s involved in this project along with the Fire Department and neither one of them
have total confidence in this situation. I think their remarks was that that they are without, you
know reservations, I mean they are with reservations as far as approving this type of thing but, it
went through our Public Safety Committee and, it, and reading this I don’t uh, I didn’t see any
additional backup that included the uh, the other vendors that may have bidded, I mean may have
bid on this project and then so I’d be concerned, and I’d be interested to learn what the other bid
prices were and are those companies that might be involved in construction and not necessarily
uh, destruction which I understand that’s what this company is, it’s they’re, they’re ones’ that do
a lot of tearing down and that type of work. So, I’d like some questions answered along those
lines if we can get that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Do we have any? Chief Willis, can you speak to this issue or?
Chief Willis: The only information I have, Mr. Mayor, is uh, what the next group of uh,
bidders were and what their price is.
Mr. Grantham: Okay. Instead of asking Chief Willis that question, can our Procurement
Director ---
Mr. Mayor: I was looking for Geri.
Mr. Grantham: --- provide that for us?
Mr. Mayor: Is Ms. Sams here?
Ms. Sams: Hi.
Mr. Mayor: How are you?
Ms. Sams: I’m doing great, thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Good. Um, Item #10, Mr. Grantham, would you like to restate ---
12
Mr. Grantham: Yeah, I’ll restate the question. Um, Ms. Sams, in looking at this I notice
that we are approving a company for this particular project and uh, I read in the back of this
information from the architect as well as from the Fire Department that they had reservations in
regards to this company as far as constructing the type of facility that’s needed. And, my
question was it, how many bids did we have on this project and what was the bid numbers as far
as the cost involved with others and uh, have we had companies that bid on this project and then
built other fire stations for us?
Ms. Sams: I don’t have how many companies that bid on this project. I have sent staff
downstairs to get that folder. Thank you. The number of persons that bid on that project, sir,
was, five and the bid quote for each company were as follows: $1,241,822 for Vastec, Asbill
Construction Company, $1,392,500, for Stewart it was $1,536,000, for RCN is was $1,254,814,
and for WBM it was $1,692,200. Vastec in this case met all of the qualifications as the specs
were written and he is on this project as low bid.
Mr. Grantham: Okay, uh, and I’m not, I’m not raising the question about the low bid or
about the uh, qualifications, I guess I’m looking for more with experience in regards to the type
of work we’re asking for and I’m sure that it’s a good company and it’s one evidently that uh,
that can meet all the requirements but without the experience, as far as the company goes, how
do we know what type of performance they’re gonnna give us and if there was one, and I think
you said at a $1,254,000?
Ms. Sams: Yes sir.
Mr. Grantham: We’re talking about $12,000.00 difference. Has that company ever built
anything for us as far as fire stations go?
Ms. Sams: Sir, I’m getting that folder, in about two minutes I’ll be able to address that
from the proposals submitted to us.
Mr. Grantham: Okay, and I guess my reason for asking is that 1% variance that we have
in regards to that, uh, if we’re looking for experience and looking for quality and looking for that
type of work. And, if those people met all the requirements as well, I would think that some time
we look at experience and what has taken place in the past as far as satisfaction in construction
based on awarding contracts or bids and I think Reverend Hatney in the past has mentioned, as
well as several others, that in his backup information it would always be helpful for us to have
the number of bidders, number of vendors that are applying and making a bid with their amounts
so that, so that we know exactly what you’re going by as well. Not that we don’t make that
decision but at least it gives us some guidelines and to what they have done in the past for us and
what they can do for us in the future. So, uh, I’d like to have the rest of that information Mr.
Mayor, before we call the question on this particular subject.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I’d be glad to hear that information when it gets
back, Ms. Sams, but I guess my question is, is procurement got guidelines to go by. Now are we
13
going to go on who did what last and how good they did, or are we going to go on the
qualifications the guidelines sets forth for us to do bids by. And I hear Mr. Grantham and I
understand that but if we going to just use the people who done a good job before then we don’t
need to bid it we just need to go back to the people that we, cause we wasted some folks time I
think, six, seven people bid it but, if we gonna use the same folks over and over again because
they did a good job then there’s no need to have the process that we put in place for anything in
this government. And, I think everything, and Mr. Russell might need to help me now, over
$5,000.00 supposed to be bidded out, is that right? I can’t hear you Mr. Russell. I see you but I
can’t hear you. Okay. And, Mr. Mayor and if we gonna go with the RFQ, RFP’s and I think
that’s gonna help us a lot too to determine how we proceed with the company that we’re going to
deal with and Ms. Sams, if you’ve got information I would love to hear.
Ms. Sams: Well, uh ---
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sams. Go ahead.
Ms. Sams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Miss Mills did in fact bring me the bid tab sheet.
She was not in here when the other information was requested. She’s on the way downstairs.
But I need to stop you for just a minute to talk about the process and of course what you have
said, Mr. Grantham, is of course something that the City needs to always consider. But then on
the other hand, we’re not talking about an RFP in this process, we’re talking about a bid and the
laws and the regulations of Augusta Richmond County states that when there is a bid, and
everybody is being measured by the same yardstick, and in this case they were. We included the
experience and we also in this case had to look at the bottom line and in this case it was for
Vastec who was the low bid.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles, didn’t you ---
Mr. Bowles: Yeah, I just wanted to hear from Mr. Munger if he was in.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Munger back there?
Mr. Bowles: I just wanted this morning to know if you felt comfortable with uh, this
joint venture between Vastec Group and Protec Contractors.
Mr. Munger: Mr. Commissioner, I really am not in a good position because I’m really
not involved in that project.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Brigham you had your hand up?
Mr. Brigham: Yes sir. Ms. Sams, my question is, in their packet was there any
experiences building a similar size building in the package?
Ms. Sams: Well, in this package, sir, it was a strictly a construction package that was
submitted. I’m waiting for, again, my staff to bring me the information so that we can review
what was the specification required at the time at the time the bid was let.
14
Mr. Brigham: Yes, ma’am. Did we normally hire vendors that have no experience where
we are giving them a multi-million dollar, in excess of a million dollar contract if they have no
experience in to build? Is that, is that common?
Ms. Sams: That’s not the norm, sir.
Mr. Brigham: Ma’am?
Ms. Sams: No, sir, it’s not.
Mr. Brigham: It’s not the norm? From what I saw in the agenda book, our regulations
does not call into question that?
Ms. Sams: Call to question?
Mr. Brigham: The ability to construct of a contract that we are asking the experience
factor of being able to build a building of this size or anything is not in our regulations, is that?
Ms. Sams: Of course everything is, everything in the regulation does ask for experience
along with other factors. But then when we’re looking a low bid product and it goes out as a low
bid product in a bid situation, then the weight of the, we’re looking at the cost of the project and
in this case we’re looking at the cost of the project. It is not an RFP. Now, of course we will
look at experience in other areas that this particular vendor has and he brought to the table what
was required and in accordance to the specifications that were given to us.
Mr. Brigham: My concerns for, if you wanted to hire me to build a million, three
hundred thousand dollar building or two hundred thousand dollar building, I wouldn’t suggest
you do that. But I have no experience ---
Ms. Sams: Mr. Brigham, if you submitted a bid to me to be a contractor and I would
know that you were a CPA, you would not be considered.
Mr. Brigham: I’m not a CPA either, but I appreciate that. I just want to make sure that
they have some expertise at building a building.
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir, that is a factor.
Mr. Brigham: And, um, from what I gathered in the backup that I saw and read this time,
that this was lacking on this vendor’s part. And that’s what my concerns are. I hope your staff
will be able to address those.
Ms. Sams: And we will be able to address this, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney.
15
Mr. Hatney: My concern is not particularly with the discussion. Is that not long ago we
approved an individual to build condos at many more millions than this and when we talked to
them, when I talked to them he could not direct me no where, where he had built that kind of
product but they authorized him to do it. We’re talking about $200M as opposed to $1.2. But I
didn’t ask him, where could I go, cause I drive or slide at my own expense. I just wanna see
something. He couldn’t show me nothing at that magnitude, but yet they gonna entrust it to
them. Even though he might be spending his own money, it don’t matter. It’s the same way.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I was thinking that we had something in place for anybody
who bid on, whether it be low bid and anything else that there would have to standards that
they’ll meet as the building was being built, not after the building was through, to make sure that
they are building the building, according to the standards that we uh, preferred. So if, if, is that a
process Ms. Sams or Mr. Mayor, is that something? I mean we ought to have some kind of
leverage to make sure either with inspection process or something when you build a building. I
don’t think we build a building and just walk in and then we say well this is your building.
That’s, that’s, Jerry Brigham can’t build you a building, I can’t either, but I think the both of us
would have enough sense to make sure that the building was inspected as it went to the next
phase and the next level. So is that something in place I guess is my question.
Ms. Sams: Mr. Mayor, of course there’s something in place and of course when someone
build a public facility there’s certain requirements, requirements not only by this government but
by the state and federal government also and, uh, in accordance with the Augusta Richmond
County rules and regulations, we look at those regulations also.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles:
Mr. Bowles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just went to the web site since this is a joint
venture between Vastec Group and Protec Contractors and Protec Contractors seems to be the
one doing the construction. They’re a licensed Georgia contractor and have built numerous
projects out at Fort Gordon and Naval Command Center in Georgia.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Did you do that on my computer?
Mr. Bowles: No, at your insistence, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you for doing that.
Mr. Grantham: You know, and that’s good information to have, there’s no backup in this
that says, you know, the Protec people would be the ones doing the construction. If that’s the
case I have no problem with it, but as I read the backup, and I’m concerned about that, that I feel
like that we should raise these questions. I feel like we should have this information –--
Mr. Mayor: In the backup.
16
Mr. Grantham: --- in order for us to make a decision of this magnitude so, that’s my
purpose for raising it. I didn’t know any of these companies until I received this list a moment
ago. But if that’s the case and we can feel comfortable with doing that um, Ms. Sams, I know
you’re not going to be out on the job inspecting it, that we’re going to have architects and
engineers doing it, but uh, I’d like to know that we gonna have the right kind of construction
done that’s gonna satisfy the Fire Department and the architect that’s involved. And that’s the
reason I raised the question.
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir, but I need a point of clarity, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am.
Ms. Sams: In the future, on all of our future bids, uh, would you expect that information,
Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: I would like to have it.
Ms. Sams: Okay. Because that information was not placed in, in some of the other
projects but that would be directed as of today.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you so much. Commissioner Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, in light of the valuable questions that have been asked in the
, I just want to go ahead and make a motion to approve the
turbo surfing by Mr. Bowles
recommendations of staff on this item.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: One other question. Would this also be included in the bid?
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hatney: Thank you.
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Chief, could I ask you a question? I know some
years ago in building a new fire station on Milledgeville Road, having it taken over by the bond
company or something that somebody built, and it wound up costing the City a lot of money and
a lot of delay in time. Are you familiar with that?
17
Chief Willis: I’m familiar with it only because of the news that was out. I was not
involved at that time with the City. That was the City and the County. But I am familiar with
that particular station and I understand that there were some issues with the contractor and it did
take several years to complete that building.
Mr. Smith: Thank you.
Mr. Williams: I have a question Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: The question was raised about the other station. I believe you’re talking
about the one on (unintelligible) across the railroad track there? Go back and check that. One of
the things happened was the persons who tested the soil and gave clearance and then discovered,
the builder started building that there was tons and tons of barrels and stuff that was buried that
had to go back and dig, to excavate it or whatever the term is and it cost --- and the city didn’t
want to pay the man the money. That’s what happened.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. The question has been called. Commissioners will now vote by the
usual sign.
Mr. Smith and Mr. Grantham vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Mayor: Next agenda item, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY
11. Motion to approve in concept the support of a public/private partnership with the Hill
Baptist Church to pursue grants for funding and provide oversight for the use of Old Fire
Stations #7 and to allow the use of the building for some community events in the
meantime. (Approved by Public Safety Committee October 30, 2006)
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, could you incorporate #33 with that because it pertains to the
same subject and I wanted to mention that earlier if you don’t mind.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We’ll address Item 33 with Item 11. Commissioner Cheek.
PUBLIC SERVICES
33. Discuss Old Fire Station #7. (Requested by Commissioner Grantham and Chief
Howard Willis)
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, we reviewed this in Public Safety and this arrangement that
we’re looking at here is very similar to what we have at East Augusta Jamestown Community
Center, and several of our other community centers where we have developed a public/private
18
partnership between neighborhoods and our Recreations and Parks Department. In this case, we
have a fire station that we as a City cannot afford to staff and maintain and uh, we’re looking at a
partnership arrangement with Hill Baptist Church that would both open the facility and make it
uh, put in a usable state and staff it in partnership, like we have with these other parks, with these
other organizations. So after hearing that, um, Public Safety approved it, sent forth to the
Commission and I encourage everyone to ask questions about it, but this indeed has the potential
to save and improve that existing and valuable historic structure and make it usable by the
community and again build another partnership to where the public is helping us take care of
facilities we can’t afford to staff or keep up with. So I just urge passage on this and at the
appropriate time I will make a motion to approve.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Commissioner Cheek. Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I pulled this item to relate it Item 33, Don, cause
it was in the back for uh, to be talked about as well. I’m not opposed to uh, the community uh,
on a joint venture but my question was, the maintenance, the upkeep, the stuff like that. I just
needed some information on that. I don’t what Chief Willis have got to mention about on Item
33 that we gonna add to this but, uh, I think it’s a good, you know, it’s a good venture, a good
idea to do. But, I want to at least hear about some of the proposals, what we’re looking at doing
before we sit here and vote and then we come back with the budget saying well you know, we
got to take care of another building that we don’t even know we, we be taken care of. And I got
no problem, we’re taking care of a lot of ‘em and, I mean, we find room for this one. There’s
always room for one more, but uh, uh, that’s why I had it pulled to just get some clarity on what
was to be done with this joint venture.
Mr. Mayor: Fair enough. Chief Willis.
Chief Willis: Yes, sir, and thank you. What we’re looking to do is do this as a
community wide, community center to bring children and all in from all ages to work in
conjunction with the Hill Baptist Church through grant funding and other funding sources that
we’re looking to identify. We would like to as the Fire Department to establish a fire museum in
this particular building to bring children into this facility and do fire safety educational training
as well to. We have a juvenile fire safety program that we also would utilize the building to have
meetings and instruction staff for those people. And too, Hill Baptist Church, they have some
initiatives too. We could utilize the building to rent it out to get funding to maintain the building
and to uh, people would uh, parties such as birthday parties for children and things like that, or
community receptions or um, just community groups coming in an utilizing the building locally.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor if I can ---
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: --- if I can continue. I think that’s great but if I remember, we’re talking
about grants to make a museum out of the building, uh, we spoke about applying for grants, uh,
somebody even asked that the East Augusta Fire Department be included in the grant when it
was written. I’m not opposed and I say again, I think it’s a great venture but I think we just need
19
to be able to know, uh, what is about to take place so we’ll be able to thoroughly support it
versus not knowing what we’re supporting so, uh, Mr. Cheeks gonna make a motion if won’t I
will, but I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland.
Mr. Holland: Yes, sir, thank you, Mr. Mayor. One of the things that concerns be about a
project of this particular nature, I mean agree with, is that when the community see a certain
name on the project, some of the people in the community have a tendency to feel that that
particular church or that particular organization has a monopoly on the building and those
persons in the community are somewhat reluctant about going there. My concern is the fact that
if you’re going to be using this particular building for the community, we want to make sure the
people in the community are aware of that and that no one is left out, because there have been
some situations where by these buildings have been used and certain people in the community
feel that they do not have an opportunity to come in and be a part of this. So if we’re going to do
this, let us make sure that everyone in the community understand and knows that this particular
building will be used by those persons in the community, and other people whom would desire to
use it also. I think it’s good project, we just want to make sure that we’re fair and that we’re
using it for everyone who want to use the building.
Mr. Mayor: Good point. Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor, and that is a good point and I think that’s why
we have the Hill Baptist people involved and they’re here today with us. Now Billy Lynn is
here, but the pastor of Hill Baptist Church and I’d like to maybe hear some comments from him
in regards as to what their intentions is and how they want to work with the Chief Willis and the
Fire Department, uh, in inviting the community to do just what Commissioner Holland just said,
so if you don’t mind, and we’re on time, but I’d to give him about two or three minutes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Please, sir, and if you could state your name and address for the
record.
Mr. Lynn: My name’s Billy Lynn, I live at 2104 Gardner Street here in Augusta. Thank
you for the opportunity to come back before you. We came several months ago, earlier this year
to present this initially. We’ve since had several meetings with some of the Commissioners and
Mr. Russell as well as Chief Willis and some other members of the Fire Department. We think
we’re on the same page at this point as far as being able to cooperate with this. We have no
intentions to establish this as a Hill Baptist Church Community Center, I can assure you of that.
We really do want this to be a community center to serve not only the Summerville community
where the building is located but also communities adjacent and um, you know our goals really
and truly as stated in our prospectus here are to serve the disadvantaged members of our
community of all ages. And um, we want to help with education, we want to help with health
screenings, we want to help with exercising, we want to address public health problems of, you
know, addiction to tobacco, alcohol, drugs, problems with obesity. And there all, there’s a
myriad of opportunities here to serve the community as a whole and we have no vision at all to
establish this as, you know, Hill Baptist Church only, I can assure you.
20
Mr. Mayor: Thank you sir. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further
discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Thank y’all.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
FINANCE
15. Motion to approve Wayne Evans Auction Company, Inc. of Columbus, Georgia as the
auction service for the sale of excess/surplus government property at a public auction (RFQ
#06-174). (Approved by Finance Committee October 30, 2006)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, I believe this is you.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. And, I asked to have this pulled to get some uh,
clarity on, the backup stated that we were going on the Internet I think and sell the remaining uh,
portion of those things that that’s not uh, that’s not sold I guess. And, and, my question was, if
that’s they case, would that be because, and I don’t see uh, our Fleet Manager here, but is that
because the bid don’t reach the bid price or we don’t get any bids on it or, uh, I mean, how would
we know?
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: When we were in Finance Committee the Fleet Manager was there at that
time, and I see him coming in now so I’m gonna let him defend himself.
Mr. Mayor: Did you hear Commissioner Williams’ question?
Mr. Crowden: No, sir.
Mr. Williams: My question was that, in the back of it states that the property or stuff that
was not sold will go on the Internet it to be sold. The first part I guess is when would that
happen. How long would it be after the sale if we don’t reach a certain dollar amount or if we
don’t get any bids on it, I guess I’m trying to determine, how we will determine how what goes
on the Internet to be sold.
Mr. Crowden: Because that’s new, we have to have it set up first and that calls, that
requires a company come with our IT. Now that’s already, there’s been a lot of discussion and
exchange of information but no commitments on anybody’s part. They would come in, set us up
on their, using their server so that would require coordination with IT. I haven’t talked with
Procurement actually because uh, with regards to the execution of it, but uh, but there’s been no
commitments, I don’t think we have a date yet, uh, we could, as I understand the set up and the
training we could probably implement the last part of January. The expectation is the items to be
21
sold would be more or less communications types equipment, which don’t have a market in
Augusta.
Mr. Williams: Okay, and I guess my question is, Mr. Mayor, if we had chairs for
instance and nobody bids on them, I’m asking the question, would that, is that the type stuff we
doing or, we got chairs and we don’t get but a ten dollar bid, uh, there’s got to be over a certain
limit. That’s all I’m trying to get clear on.
Mr. Crowden: Anything that would not be sold at, at any surplus items not sold at public
auction would be made available to Internet auction. That was my understanding of how we
were going to do this.
Mr. Williams: Okay, and I understand that. My question is if you got six chairs, and
they reach a bid of $50.00, well that’s not where we need to be with it, or if they get no bid, I’m
trying to find out how we gonna put it on, on the Internet because of, it didn’t get a bid, those
kinds of stuff going in there, or we don’t reach a bid that we think is, or the auctioneer thinks is a
good bid. I mean if that’s the case, well I mean, we can, he can, I mean everything would go to
the Internet, if somebody else is going to determine how much it’s going, I guess the worth is
going to be.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: Our instructions initially, when we talked about the Internet auction, was to
do the public auction as we’ve done in the past and whatever was left over at that particular point
in time, or it’s my opinion that it be, stuff that was not bid on at the particular point in time
would go to the Internet.
Mr. Williams: Not bid on. And I ---
Mr. Russell: Our first direction was to do the public auction to give the local citizens the
opportunity to participate.
Mr. Williams: I understand that. That clears it up, but I mean, if it’s not bid on and
nobody bids on it then it goes to the Internet. I understand.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, can we get a motion on this?
Mr. Grantham: Motion to approve.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Commissioners
will now vote by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
22
The Clerk:
FINANCE
18. Motion to approve reprogramming of SPLOST funds for procurement of a
professional assessment of HVAC problems at the Augusta Museum of History, and
professional engineering documents for competitive bidding of needed rehabilitative work.
(Approved by Finance Committee October 30, 2006)
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, that’s me again.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: I asked for this to be pulled because I needed to know, and I’m in support
of trying to do what we can to, you know, work on uh, getting the HVAC fixed. But is says
SPLOST funds but it didn’t designate how much SPLOST fund would be, uh, would be used and
I’m trying to ---
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell:
Mr. Russell: Yes sir, what we’ve done in this particular case, several months ago you
asked me to work with the library to try to put forth a program to replace the ---
Mr. Mayor: Museum.
Mr. Russell: I said library every time I meant to say, every time I say library I mean to
say museum and I apologize for that. Just let me get past that there. What you recommended me
to do is work with the museum to bring forth a program that would help replace their HVAC
program. We have been able to identify some dollars in SPLOST for, that would be appropriate
to do this. Other dollars are generated through income on interest at this particular point in time.
The, not to exceed amount is $47,000.00 and that should give us what we need to do to move
forward with that. I will be back to you with the results of that for the amount that’s necessary to
actually do the work. That would not be the work. We anticipate that to be in the realm of a
million or so to be honest with you. But, we feel that it is necessary and uh, but it’s not to
exceed $47,000.00 to get us the engineering to tell us what we really need to go beyond that.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor thank you and that’s ---
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: --- and that’s my question Fred, and I saw in the backup about the design
but not necessarily the HVAC, but we were talking about a lot more money to redo the HVAC so
that Ms. --- can keep the artifacts in place and the condition they need to be in. I don’t want to
I make a motion we approve,
vote on this thinking one thing and then it being something else.
Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
23
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Commissioners
will now vote by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
21. Motion to approve CPB #324-04-201824117 Change Number 4 in the amount of
$1,750,000.00 with funding of $450,000.00 from the GDOT State Aid Contract,
$3000,000.00 from CDBG Funds, and $1,000,000.00 from Phase II SPLOST Contingency to
be allocated for Project Construction. Also, approve award of Construction Contract to
Mabus Brothers Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $3,298,091.23 for the East
Boundary Street and Drainage Improvements Project, subject to receipt of signed
contracts and proper bonds. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 30,
2006)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Again, here’s three million two ninety-eight uh,
uh, that we’re talking about here. I need to hear from Ms. Gentry, DBE participation in this bid.
We talked about it in Committee, uh, I think that uh, someone was gonna go back to work some
of those details out to try to find out what, what we’re going to be able to do, uh, I think that,
when you award a contract for $3,298,000.00, um ---
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Gentry.
Ms. Gentry: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. The letter of intent states that the
DBE participation on this project will be 5% which equates to $165,000.00 of the total project. I
have had the opportunity to speak with the prime contractor, which is Mabus Brothers Contractor
and based on gathering a better understanding of the various trades, and necessary to accomplish
the project which consists of piping, curving gutter and concrete. All of the concrete as it relates
to this project will be awarded to a local DBE company uh, in addition to that there is a very
small piece as relates to landscaping and which he will be working with me to identify a
landscaping company. He has one already but he is willing to insure that we utilize a local
vendor. Um, now there are barriers as relates to bringing and making sure that we’re embracing
all of our small business, to include DBE and women owned. They’re capable and qualified of
performing the job given the opportunity, but there’s lack a capabilities as it relates to
strengthening bonding and financial where all. As you know, um, the department is working
diligent to insure that we break down those barriers. Last week we had a workshop to make sure
that we provide the necessary information that they need to identify their, how to increase their
bonding, or how to obtain bonding in certain cases. In addition to that we’re providing
information to insure they keep their financials together because all of that is centered together.
My recommendation will be based on my conversation, and based on the fact that there are no
24
additional subcontracting opportunities that we could bring to the table. At this particular time
we are recommending that you approve it.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Beard.
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I do believe Ms. Gentry and her department has done all
they can do in reference to this and this project is very, very important to the community,
so at this time I’d like to move for approval.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Commissioner
Holland.
Mr. Holland: Excuse me. One of the things that concerns me, we have an engineer here
that could explain this. I know the East Boundary area, of course that’s not a dominated area in
the area, in the area where Dr. Hatney’s district is. But I’m concerned about East Boundary
running into the Laney Walker Boulevard and, uh, I know that particular area, down near where
the fish market is, Galle’s Fish Market. I know that was a very, very flooded area at one time.
Does this particular project have anything to do with that particular area, where it used to flood?
Cause I remember getting caught there during the rain, a heavy rain once, and I had to climb out
of my car. So I want to know if this project has anything to do with that particular area where
it’s been so heavily flooded, you know, in the past.
Ms. Gentry: Commissioner, I’m gonna rely on my colleague to answer.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Ladson. By the way, sharp jacket.
Mr. Ladson: Oh, thank you. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. The project
extends from Laney Walker uh, to --- Broad Street. Now the, I think the section you’re talking
about is, it’s not at the intersection of Laney Walker and uh, East Boundary, that’s what I’m
thinking.
Mr. Holland: It’s right in the area, excuse me, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: You’re okay.
Mr. Holland: It’s right in the area, uh, near where those apartments, I think they used to
be called East Gate Apartments, in that particular area, right in there, then right across from East
Gate there’s a fish market, and I think it’s Galle’s Fish Market, and that whole area, just flood
out. So my concern is, is this project have anything to do with that particular area or is that
particular area been corrected?
Mr. Ladson: Okay, no, no sir, that area has not been corrected.
Mr. Holland: So another words we still gonna having flooding in that area.
25
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Ladson: If I’m thinking where you’re talking about it’s at the, it’s not, it’s not really
on East Boundary.
Mr. Holland: East Boundary runs right into this crossing, East Boundary runs right into
Laney Walker.
Mr. Ladson: Okay. No this project is gonna, it’s East Boundary. It’s not gonna, it’s not
gonna include uh, Laney Walker, the actual roadway of Laney Walker. It’s gonna extend from
the beginning, at right at where, right at the intersection as soon as you turn in. Then that’s
where the project starts, right there, and then it continues all the way down to Broad Street.
Mr. Holland: When you turn off of Laney Walker on to East Boundary, you getting the
project there ---, when you turn off of Laney Walker on East Boundary.
Mr. Ladson: That’s where the project begins.
Mr. Holland: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: In conjunction with what Mr. Holland is talking about, the area from Laney
Walker, East Boundary, once that flood gets there, that water goes down in front of Gelles. But
you’re not going to shut that spot right there? Because if it’s gonna from Laney Walker to Broad
Street, it looks like to me something’s got to be done to minimize the impact of that flooding.
That’s where, that’s where I told you before. That’s where East Boundary floods, Laney Walker
and East Boundary across East Green Street and East Boundary. It’s the only place East
Boundary floods. So that’s the concern I have, and we’re not even talking about the other stuff
so I won’t go there today.
Mr. Ladson: And, we can actually look at, actually resurfacing and where you can do
some, you can modify, um, the intersection actually, um, overlaying it and to allow the uh, uh,
street actually drain, to create, you know a steeper slope. So we can definitely look at that, um,
uh, during construction.
Mr. Holland: The problem is you got to do something to get that water off of that. You
slope all the want to, the water gonna go. If you can fix it so it goes in a different direction the
water’s still there, it’s just going in a different direction.
Mr. Ladson: But it has to, if we use, if we, if we slope the asphalt in such a way the
water would actually have to drain. It has to be sloped a certain to actually drain. So that’s,
that’s something we can look at.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Beard.
26
Ms. Beard: Uh, Mr. Mayor um, when Mr. Ladson came on board, he called me in for a
meeting and he said things were not quite as they should be, and if went according to what we
had in place, we would have problems. So he requested time to go back and redesign all of this
so that we would not have any problems. Is that correct, Mr. Ladson? And this is why we’re
just beginning at this point. So my understanding is that whatever the project calls for, those
things in reference to flooding should have be alleviated. Is that correct?
Mr. Ladson: Well at that, at that intersection right there, that wasn’t included in the ---
Ms. Beard: Well that’s Laney Walker Boulevard really.
Mr. Ladson: That’s correct.
Ms. Beard: And this project has been on the books, I don’t know how many years. It’s
really time for us to move forward with it.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I didn’t get into the drainage part I was looking at the, uh,
disadvantaged part and I want to address that once again. Ms. Gentry said that we don’t have
any other contractors that could participate. We’re talking about doing curb and sidewalks. That
in itself is more that 5% of three million some dollars of local money to be spent. But if we
gonna spend, if we gonna let, I mea, we might as well not have the uh, uh DBE participation
involved. We are trying to make sure local dollars are spent along with, you know, other dollars.
Uh, you know, on every case that can’t happen but, in every one there ought to be some
consideration. Ms. Gentry said best effort. Who’s best effort? I mean best effort could be a
phone call and, and, and, that’s somebody’s best effort, but I disagree and I really can’t support
it. The project needs to go on through. East Augusta’s been sitting there waiting for along time
for something to happen. I mean we’ve been talking about it, but we still won’t put those things
in place to make sure that all of the uh, different facets ought to be, you know, be there. So, uh,
that’s my comment Mr. Mayor, we gonna do sidewalks and curbing but we can’t find anybody
local to do sidewalks and curbing? Just because on person can do it they don’t have to do it all.
They doing the pipe, but doing anything else they can give up something. And I don’t see that
happening so I can’t support it.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor I want to just to add this, just to bring it to everyone’s
recollection. This particular portion is going to be as much cosmetic in nature as anything else.
The drainage capabilities of this pipe is designed to conduct water in a certain drain rate. If we
exceed two inches per hour for more than an hour, typically we’re going to see water standing.
The area of East Boundary and Laney Walker is about a foot and a half to two feet below the
grade of East Boundary and Laney Walker. It is a pond. The only way to fix that is to extend
the big drainage ditch down the middle of Laney Walker Boulevard to tie into that area. But the
bottom line is that this is a project that addresses cosmetic and drainage needs for a specific area.
27
It will meet certain needs under certain storm water conditions. It will not meet the needs if we
exceed that rainfall amount in a given period of time. This is part of in correcting the entire
problems as part of the 92 one hundred million dollars worth of drainage issues that plaque the
City of Augusta. East Augusta is only eight feet or so above the water table. The ditch that
drains Laney Walker Boulevard is only 6-8 feet above the water table. The area that we’re
working on is about four, it’s a few feet above that. So, we’re moving water on this large flat
spot that is primarily District 1 and 2, from one area to another without unstopping the drain,
which is Phinizy Swamp. Or improving conductivity from these drainage projects that we are
doing, um, in these different areas to Phinizy Swamp which is again going to have us moving
water in roads from one spot to another. Again, this is why I’ve been an advocate of a storm
water utility, we must take a comprehensive approach or we will be piece-mealing drainage
issues across this city and for the next hundred years and that we need to take a comprehensive
approach to this drainage basin. This addresses part of it but not all of it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: I was glad to hear Commissioner Cheek mention comprehensive approach
because I talked to Mr. Ladson about my concern about the whole project. I’m going to
cooperate with it because I live down there. But that is not to say that I am hoping to put on
wings and fly around the room, because it’s starting, anyway you staring, but my concern is still
the same. Even though you working with a lot of cosmetics, East Boundary’s gonna look good,
but the community of East Augusta itself, this particular approach ain’t gonna do nothing for us.
So you have a committee that you already sent off for RFP’s and stuff to get started in that area.
Is that correct?
Mr. Ladson: That is correct.
Mr. Hatney: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Mr. Cheek: Just one further comment.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, this project in itself, in its funded capacity, right now, let’s move
forward because of the Commission seeing the need to do this project. But I remind this
Commission that there are many areas within this City, in my district and every other district,
and to have projects leapfrog that priority list is both wrong and unfair. And, before we go
allocating more SPLOST money by getting new project which any addition to this project would
be, it needs to be put before this body, and we need to look at prioritized list and see if it meets
the same muster as this East Augusta project did.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners with now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Williams votes No.
28
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: Next agenda item.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
25. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget #324-201824371 Change Number 3 in the
amount of $145,000.00 for the Washington Road Intersection Improvement Project funded
from Special One Percent Sales Tax, Phase II Recapture. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee October 30, 2006)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Same question My Mayor, is the Change Order, I’d to know what the
original bid was uh, this Change Order #3 I think, uh, $144,000, what was the initial cost?
rd
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Ladson. The original cost. This is the 3 ---
Mr. Ladson: You mean the total cost of the, the construction costs?
Mr. Williams: No sir, the original bid that we come out. We got three change orders,
Mr. Ladson, and this one’s for a $145,000. What was the original bid on this job when we uh,
rd
before any Change Order came about? This is the 3 time so the costs allocated in that, we need
$144,000 three times ---
Mr. Ladson: In reference to the, the, it’s not really three change orders, is like basically
three changes and it’s a, there’s a difference there. Like initially, when you start a project out,
you usually have a budget for it. So when, when the uh, when we actually go a consultant for
this project, um the consultant presented a fee and a proposal. So that fee and proposal, the first
change was over the budget amount so the change in there we need additional money, uh, for the
consultant. And, the second change was actual change in scope uh, um, with the consultant and
this is the third change here which is we need additional monies in the right-of-way account.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: I think Mr. Williams’ right on target. Is this construction addition or
right-of-way ---
Mr. Ladson: This is right-of-way.
Mr. Grantham: --- addition for what we’re having to pay for the property?
Mr. Ladson: We’re currently ---
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
29
Mr. Williams: So, what you’re saying Don is that, we didn’t make a change but the right-
of-way issues changed to be able to continue?
Mr. Ladson: Exactly, when they’re actually negotiating.
Mr. Williams: I understand a little bit better now but ---
Mr. Ladson: I got my right-of-way guy here. He can go into even more detail.
Mr. Williams: For a long time we come in and we bid a job, than we come back with
three of four change orders and we might as well pay the first man, the first time and got it over
with. You gonna bid on a wall that wall ought to be a wall and, and, we know what we’re doing.
So I’m gonna make a motion we approve, Don I’m trying to ---
Mr. Holland: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Mr. Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Ladson, I’m glad to see we’re approving the right-of-way cause I
know the traffic situation at this intersection. All I’m wanting to know is when we’re gonna start
the project?
Mr. Ladson: Once we’re done with our ---
Mr. Brigham: (Unintelligible)
Mr. Ladson: We need negotiating with the citizens that’s kind of hard to put an actual
date on it so ---
Mr. Brigham: We’re looking for traffic release.
Mr. Ladson: But we’re looking, I mean we’re looking at probably being done, hopefully,
with the right-of-way negotiations hopefully by the end of January.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
26. Motion to approve Supplemental Agreement Number Two (2) with Jordan, Jones &
Goulding (JJG) in the amount of $543,851 to realign Travis Road with Spirit Creek Road,
signal warrant study & traffic update, revisions based upon revised traffic study,
30
additional design beyond the original scope of the project, update survey, database &
property information, additional erosion control plan requirements, revisions to the
environmental approval guidelines, project management and escalation due to schedule
delays (see attachment for detailed information concerning each of these tasks) for the
Windsor Spring Road improvement projects, phase IV & V (CPB #323-04-202824766 &
323-04-203824768) as requested by the Engineering Department. Funds are available in
SPLOST Phase IV in the Windsor Spring Road Phase IV project right of way account.
Funds from the Phase IV project in the amount of S271.925.50 to each project engineering
account. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 30, 2006)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, supplemental agreement #2. And, it’s the same question. Did
we start off, did we make any changes or is this a change order that come from the firm to
change?
Mr. Ladson: This uh, we made a change and also this had started, started and um, I think
it was October 2000, and the project was scheduled to be completed in 2003. So, there have
been some changes and, with that period of time, there, you know, there’s been some changes in
standards and specifications uh, there are new laws that are out there, environmental laws and,
uh, it’s pretty much um, all compiled together and that’s, that’s the amount right there that’s uh,
presented there. It’s combination of at least about eight or nine items, and um, that maybe I can
kind of touch on these a little.
Mr. Williams: So moved, Mr. Mayor ---
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Mr. Stevenson: Yes, I have a question.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Stevenson.
Mr. Stevenson: Mr. Ladson, my only discussion is, most of the improvements or
environment studies that had to be conducted are from Highway 88 down to Willis Foreman. Is
that correct or am I incorrect in that statement?
Mr. Ladson: No, it’s the whole entire corridor ---
Mr. Stevenson: It’s the whole entire corridor.
Mr. Ladson: --- where we have to do some ---
Mr. Stevenson: I understand we’re going to do the whole thing but I’m just saying most
of the studies for the environmental ---
31
Mr. Ladson: Where you have a creek, there’s a new law where you have to do a stream
buffer variance and I mean, EPA’s requiring some additional testing and, and, so that’s ---
Mr. Stevenson: And the thing, and, I truly wanted it to be done as well even before the
time it states it’s gonna take place. But, I want to know, can it be, if we came from Tobacco
Road down to Willis Foreman, will that speed the process up or would that start construction
earlier. Cause the way I keep reading this is from 88 back towards ---
Mr. Ladson: That’s, that’s not correct. Windsor Spring Road is split up into two
different phases. Uh, it’s Phase IV, which is from uh, which is from Tobacco Road to Willis
Foreman Road. Phase V is from Willis Foreman Road to Hephzibah McBean Road. Um, as far
as funding, we got all the funding, um, currently for um, for Phase IV. We just received $17.4M
from GDOT uh, on, for the right-of-way, it’s not the right-of-way, on uh, Phase IV. We still
need about $14.2M for right-of-way of Phase V but, it’s, we want to, basically do the
construction at the same time. But, if for some reason we don’t get the funding for Phase V,
we’re still going with both of them a the same, um, I guess speed, but if for reason we can’t get
the right-of-way money for um, Phase IV, we will do um, Phase IV.
Mr. Stevenson: And when will you make a decision? And I’m not, you know, trying to
be hard or difficult. I just want to know something kind of quickly.
Mr. Ladson: We’re currently trying to work on trying to get the right-of-way funds for
Phase V, $14.4M. We’re not slowing anything down right now. But if we don’t get the money
this, uh well next year then we definitely have to ---
Mr. Stevenson: So I’m saying, can we see construction underway by middle or end of
2007?
Mr. Ladson: No. No, sir. And one of the reasons is that we haven’t started um, um, the
right-of-way, um process hasn’t begun yet. So with that many parcels out there it’s gonna
probably take, and that, take about two years, I mean a year to two years.
Mr. Stevenson: All right, thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Commissioner Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor I’m just gonna say this was, this was promised when I first got
elected around 2000 and uh, then in ’02, ’03 ’04, ’05, it’s ’06 now I believe. I had hoped to have
it completed in my term of office but I’m now hoping to have it completed in the term of my
lifetime, so, God speed to you, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the
usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
32
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVICES
th
28. Discuss burn-out properties on 12 Street from MLK Boulevard to Wrightsboro Road
and the abandoned structure at 1961 Barnes Road (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem
Williams)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I got some photographs that I had the Risk Management go
th
out and take some photographs of the 1500 block of 12 Street and I would like to pass this
around to just show (Unintelligible) to show you what the resident’s have called me about and
what the did, compared to homes, next to those homes. Mr. Sherman had been out and looked at
some of that, but these structures to be at least down. These property owners have invest a lot of
money in their properties and if these other properties had been burnt, sitting on the street, in fact
you can’t even tell on of them was a, a, piece of property what somebody lived in, it’s just like
uh, uh, a storage shed or something. And it wouldn’t take a whole lot to get that down, Rob, but
um, that, that’s just deplorable.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Sherman.
th
Mr. Sherman: Both of those houses on 12 Street, who just approved a demolition
ordinance Item #4 on the Agenda. They have been through the courts as well as one other house
on Milledgeville Road. Those are in the process the last process of getting them down which is
for you to approve the ordinance and we’ve got them out to get the asbestos survey which we’re
required to do and then we’ll bid them out.
Mr. Williams: Rob, so I guess, since they, one of these structures is not even a full
structure. There’s nothing we can do on this until we ---
Mr. Sherman: Um, it’s probably best to follow the State regulations um, if it were on the
ground we could, if it were, if it was entirely on the ground we could say it was a pile of debris
and we ask the Public Works Department to clean it up. Since it’s still standing, uh, it is
recognized as a structure and even though there is, uh, I would think that there’s no asbestos in it
because it’s practically 100% burned. We’re still required to do the survey.
Mr. Williams: Well, what I’m worried about Mr. Mayor is the fact that children, and that
in those picture’s Mr. --- you passing down. I don’t think they’ve seen them on this end, but
children that live in that neighborhood which you stated is not even a full structure that’s there.
They’re curious, they get into the field they go into these properties and when something
happens to someone, and it’s been there for quite some time and it ain’t like we hadn’t had time
to do something with it.
Mr. Sherman: Well, it, that’s correct. It has been that way for a while. I have to say,
we’ve got probably a couple hundred in similar conditions, but we will get it down as quickly as
possible.
33
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, the question I have, is there no mechanism that identifies a
building once it’s burned um, from the Fire Department, do they notify you Rob as far as if the
structure’s burned, and does that trigger clock to a repair day or path forward on the property? It
seems to me that might help us begin the process of either clean it up or rebuild it.
Mr. Sherman: Well, we do, we are notified that it’s burned, but what we’re finding and
have been, have found this to be the case over the past several years is that, in most of the cases
the structures are abandoned. Um, and during the cold weather, of course the vagrants and
homeless get in there to stay warm, they start the fires, you in a can on the floor or what have
you. So every winter we have burned structures, and a good many of these, and these have
already been through the court with the Judge ordering the demolition and a lot of the others that
are not burned at this point have been through the court, we’ve got the demolition order from the
court, we don’t have the funding to tear them down, so it’s possible we’ll have those, some of
those burned during the colder months. It’s just what we’ve found to be the case.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Beard.
Ms. Beard. Mr. Mayor, I want to bring something to your attention in reference to the
inner City. Now as I look at these I see some structures that really need to come down. And
then I see other structures that really aren’t bad at all and that could be saved. I’m wondering if
you are aware of the fact that in that in particular area of the City, if someone, let’s say, an owner
had had someone living uh, in the house fifteen or twenty years as many of them did, and some
still do. When the people pass or move out of the house, that house is stripped. First of all you’ll
look and you will see the windows taken. Then you will look and see doors taken. Then you
will look and see all of the copper pipes taken. You will see all of the bathrooms, just
everything, the house becomes a shell, and I’m saying that today it’s a very bad situation. Very,
very bad, and the only thing that is going to help is total revitalization for the area. And, I hope
to take our Administrator into that area, which is not all my area, part of his area, tomorrow
because we really, it’s such an unfortunate thing that good houses are going because I know we
have we have a wonderful Police Department and maybe they simply, he tells me they get about
3,000 calls a today so they can’t handle all of these things. But this is exactly what has happened
and would you agree with that Mr. Sherman. Haven’t you received many calls to this effect?
Mr. Sherman: Yes. You’re talking about how the houses are vandalized?
Ms. Beard: How the, even if it’s a nice house, if they leave then it’s gone in two weeks.
Mr. Sherman: That’s correct and that’s exactly what’s going on. They will steal
whatever it is of value first um, the windows, the doors, the mantel um, and then we try to get the
owners to secure them as best they can, then it’ll be a matter if it’s a source of fire wood some
them ---
34
Mr. Mayor: You know, Ms. Beard, I would say, to shine a light on that problem, we’ve
got some reporters in the room, that sounds like a good news story to me.
Ms. Beard: Yes, because that’s wrong. This house is next to this one. And I guarantee
you, when the people move out, this is going to become a shell and it will be down in a few
years.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. I’m talking to Rob and what we
do with each individual one of these houses if it’s bid out to demolition at that particular point in
time, uh, what I’d like to do is come back to you at the beginning of the year with a contract for
demolition, do a one year contract with a demolition company, that would facilitate a little bit
quicker move so we didn’t end up hiring somebody, we could call to tear these places down
instead of having to go through each individual um, house that we’re doing and then doing an
informal bid process when we collect bids. You’re talking a couple weeks of activity there.
Whether than if we could do that, maybe get one or two companies to bid on that and split that
up or whatever, somehow or another, it’ll be the matter of once we go through the process, which
is lengthy, to get into the point where we can tear it down, we’re going to have to continue that
process for another couple weeks, we could make a phone call and get that done and I will be
more than happy to bring that back to you as a proposal.
Mr. Mayor I make a motion ---
Mr. Williams:
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams.
that we allow the Administrator to orchestrate something and
Mr. Williams: ---
bring it back to us that we can look at to see how we can do that, to get them, I mean people
are suffering
---
Mr. Mayor: Absolutely.
Mr. Williams: --- with this kind of stuff.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion.
Mr. Holland: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor I’m gonna add just, just add this, just for the record is uh, we
took a trip to North Aiken with the uh, City Administrator over there and they used existing staff,
existing tractors um, and I’m sure they worked out some way to waive the landfill fees, but they
follow the same federal regulations that we do. They tear down their houses for about 350-450
dollars apiece. They’re cleaning up North Aiken. It’s a very similarly situated to the Bethlehem
community or some of the other place that used to be. But they’ve been able to take a much
35
faster tract because they don’t mess around and it cost a whole lot less and don’t, cost a whole lot
more and I, we talked about this about a year ago and while we’re no further along in being able
to do what the metropolis of Aiken, South Carolina does, is beyond me.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Beard.
Ms. Beard: And Mr. Mayor, it’s not going to be enough just to tear down. We’re now
going to have to rebuild.
Mr. Mayor: Absolutely.
Ms. Beard: And, uh, I’m wondering if we’re looking at things like, if we decide to move
the people in Bethlehem, than why wouldn’t we look at rebuilding that entire area ---
Mr. Mayor: I agree.
Ms. Beard: --- so that they will have somewhere to move?
Mr. Mayor: Absolutely. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got a right many people here for, I think Item #43. Can we take that
one next Madame Clerk?
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS
43. Ratify letter of authorization of bid award to J & B Construction & Services for the
demolition of the Candy Factory.
So moved.
Mr. Williams:
Mr. Holland: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Yes, Mr. Mayor. If the Commission desires we could discuss the matter in
Legal prior to uh, further discussion the matter is the subject of a pending lawsuit. Opposing
council is here and it would be appropriate if the body wishes to discuss the matter in Legal prior
to us going ahead. However you want to do it.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
36
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I think they’re trying to say that uh, that we have the
discretion to either go into Legal, but I think but what we’re voting now is to ratify the letter that
we, where we already awarded the bid. If there’s a legal ramification to come, than it’s coming.
But to not do what, to not ratify this letter, to hold up, what we’ve been held up for how long Mr.
Russell now --- months, not dollars cause that will scare you.
Mr. Russell: I don’t remember when the initial process was served ---
Mr. Williams: Okay, then give me the dollar figure then.
Mr. Russell: I’d really rather give you a date than a dollar. It served in September so
we’re about a month or so ---
Mr. Williams: Okay well, and this was initially held up from that point? And I got not
problem, we talked about this issue several times Mr. Mayor, the motion is to go ahead and to
ratify this letter that the Commission signed to go ahead and approve it with the six votes and I
think, that’s, that’s what we need do now. There’s some other things we need to discuss, some
legal, I got no problem with doing that in Legal or outside of Legal. It doesn’t matter. But that’s
the motion Mr. Mayor and I think we got a second on it.
Mr. Holland: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and you know, I feel like that when the letter was
circulated, course I was here but never received the letter to have consideration of signing or not
signing, although I would not have signed it. But still, the point I’m gonna make is that uh, there
seems to have been people dismissed or rejected from this particular bid based on what we call a
error made by submitting certain items and I find that the courts, once the injunction was
presented, the court did indicate that it was certainly a technical matter and it could be reviewed
by this Commission. In reviewing that particular item, I find out that based on information
presented to the court, that there were items and there were other companies other bidders that
were involved that also had technical infractions against this, on this particular bid. And those
particular companies were not rejected based on their technical matters but the company that’s in
question was rejected for their technical matter. The point I’m making is that if we’re going to
use our procurement process, and if we’re going to do, and go by what is written in our
procurement laws and in our way of bids in, then let’s do it and let’s do it fairly. Everyone, and
equally everyone. If not then, uh, let’s just make our selections such as Commissioner Williams
said earlier and we won’t have to worry about getting bids. The point also I’m making is that
this being the case, and if there were technicalities in other vendors and other bidders that were
involved in this, then I think uh, we should re-bid this entire project, not award it anyone on that
particular list right now, but to re-bid the entire project and then let’s the service come back and
let everything be put in the proper perspective it should be put in.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Williams.
37
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I see Purchasing is here, I think we need to get this thing
washed out and throwed out the window once and for all. While she’s here we can clarify all of
this. If we don’t award the bid, I think we probably going to end up in court, some kind of way
anyway. So, uh, that’s, that’s something I think we need to, and iron out right now Mr. Mayor,
and go on a get about the city’s business and ---
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sams.
Mr. Williams: --- let purchasing clear it up while she’s here.
Ms. Sams: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Um, Mr. Grantham, uh, I hear your concerns and
according to the statutes of Augusta Richmond County there has not been any violations of
policy. And according to the findings that were presented to the court, all of the information that
was submitted was indeed relevant, fair and we reviewed all of the court documents yet again on
uh, last night, as late as last night. And, respectfully I have to disagree with what you just said.
And, respectfully I disagree because, under the Augusta Richmond County code, it states that all,
all RFP’s or all bid packages for $40,000.00 or more be submitted with a bid. That bid in this
case was 5%. Unfortunately that bid and on the admission of the Thompson Company was not a
part of those specifications. Also we talk about the misunderstanding that has taken place. I
want to assure the Commission and the Mayor that the misunderstanding was not on the part of
your Procurement Department. This misunderstanding was on the part of the insurer of the
bond. If you review, and we’ve shared the information with each of you, if you review the letter
as such you will find that the letter never indicated or referenced a bid bond as not being a part of
the process. Now what happens when a bid bond is not submitted to the City of Augusta? And
I, you know, today as we were talking about a bid earlier. It was referenced about Fire Station
#6. What would’ve happened to Augusta had there not been a bid bond in place? Here we have
a situation where the procurement office opened seven bids, Lady and Gentlemen. Six vendors
submitted the bid bond. One vendor either failed to understand or misinterpreted the rules as
they were written in those specifications. According to your code, according to the laws of
Augusta Richmond County, the only alternative that the procurement office had was to being
that bid as non-responsive. I did that. I did it in accordance to the laws as written in Augusta
Richmond County, and the laws that support Augusta Richmond County, of the state and the
federal government. And both, in all three cases it states, that if an entity requires a bid bond,
that bid bond must be presented at the bid opening. And it makes no exceptions. I did that.
Now today, we’re here talking about bid bond and fairness and if he was treated fairly. I respect
Mr. Thompson. Not because of who he is, or what he is or how he looks, I respect him because
he has been a businessman in this city, and the city has awarded almost $600,000.00. I pulled
those records. And when he submitted his bids on all of those projects, he was measured by the
same yardstick as everybody else, and I had no problem awarding him the bid. 2006, here I am
standing before you to justify awarding a bid to a contractor who also met all of the
qualifications for this City. Fortunate or unfortunate, according to some of the awful things that
I’ve read in the papers about our process and the attacking on my integrity, I stand before you,
my name is Geri Sams, Mr. Mayor. I’m your Procurement Director. I stand before you today
going public as to say, for as long as I’ve held that position, never has a bid bond been not
submitted when it was asked for. And when it was, be he black, white, Chinese, whatever, I
38
deemed them non-responsive. And it seems kind of strange that we’re standing here talking
about non-compliance. Last night when the Attorney and I were meeting, we found out that, not
only had I submitted non-compliance on other vendors as it relates to bid bonds, the person that
owns J&B Construction Company, I deemed him non-compliant on two other bids before this
third one. One was because he was late in submitting his proposal and the other one was because
his paper work wasn’t intact. And both times I deemed him non-responsive.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, can we ---
Ms. Sams: So, Mr. Mayor, let me stand before you today and tell you that Augusta
Richmond County has not violated any rules, any regulations, and everybody is treated fair in
this process. And, I want to also, as it relates to my integrity, and the things that I have been
reading about in the paper, let me stand before each of you and the Augusta citizens and say, as
long as I’m the Procurement Director, the rules will be enforced. And any time you as
Commissioners change it then I will enforce the new ones.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Commissioner Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m just going to ask a question. The thing uh, Geri, the thing
that’s been laid before us today is that, I guess there’s been a somewhat of an allegation that
there was other flaws within other peoples submission. Is that accurate or inaccurate?
Ms. Sams: No, sir, it is not accurate. The ones that made the short list are the ones that
submitted all of the documentation. The Attorney and I went through that last night and we
found that not be accurate.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, call for the question please.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, there’s a motion and a second. The question has been called for.
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Brigham, Mr. Smith, Mr. Bowles, and Mr. Grantham vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mr. Mayor: Next agenda item, please, ma’am.
The Clerk:
FINANCE
34. Motion to approve Flex Repo contracts.
Mr. Mayor: Was it, did we hit 32?
th
The Clerk: That was rescheduled to the November 13 meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard.
39
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, um, Ms. McNabb
has forwarded to me a series of documents which were actually authorized in the SPLOST GO
bond resolution which are known as overnight Repo contracts. This is the instrument in which
we invest the bond proceeds from the SPLOST GO which was approved, um and was, uh, this
has several documents that are with it. I think you have the authority based on the bond
resolution Mr. Mayor to execute them. However, I wanted to spread them on the minutes with
the other Commissioners which uh, been alleged that those, they we didn’t even the contracts in
the room. They are in the room, uh, we need to execute them so that this money is retained in a
fund that would be accessible to our Project Managers and would be accessible to draw down as
we move ahead with the construction of the bonded projects which are the Webster Detention
Center and the Library and I’d be happy to share any of those documents with any of your who
would like to ---
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham:
Mr. Grantham: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Along these same lines, to follow up, this gives
us an opportunity to put those monies that are earmarked for that Webster Detention Center
improvement and the Exhibition Hall to increase and to gain interest. If we leave it where it
presently is, it would be bearing a lower interest rate. Therefore, it’s to our advantage to do this
.
and to make sure that is, that it will be continued to be earmarked for those particular projects
I’ll make a motion that it be approved.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
Commissioner will now vote by ---
Ms. Beard: If he has information pertaining to all of this I’d like copies.
Mr. Shepard: I have it yes.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Yes, for the record it’s the Exhibition Center, not the Library, excuse me.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Williams: I don’t know what we’re voting on.
Mr. Cheek: Go for it!
Mr. Mayor: Approving the Flex Repo contract.
Mr. Williams: I’m trusting y’all!
40
Mr. Cheek: Well, that’s good, I trust you too!
Mr. Bowles out.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
35. Motion to approve award of construction contract for the Augusta Utilities
Department “Roadway Improvements for Benson Road” to the lowest responsive bidder in
the amount of $2,339,655.45. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 9,
2006) (Referred from October 17 Commission meeting)
Mr. Holland: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland.
Mr. Holland: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I believe this particular item was on and of course
th
this stayed here, was on from October 17. And I spoke with Miss Gentry and the gentleman
here in reference to some percentages that they were supposed to go an meet and come back with
uh, and so uh, we delayed this and, until this particular time and I would like to know from Ms.
Gentry if they had an opportunity to meet and if so can they share this information at this time.
Mr. Mayor: Miss Gentry, are you --- she in the back?
Ms. Gentry: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. I requested an opportunity to
work with the prime in hopes of increasing DBE participation. He provided me with a bidders
qualification statement that included all of the proposed subcontractors as well as suppliers. Of
the subcontracting opportunities, excluding what they’re going to do, they have eight vendor.
Four of them are DBE’s, the amount is still 4.3%, which equates to $99,800.00. The bulk, and I
must, after sitting down meeting with them and basically trying to understand where the bulk of
the money going to, the bulk of the project consists of purchasing costly items, such as the vault,
iron pipes and concrete. Of the supplier list, I looked at it. There was nothing that we have
within Augusta Richmond County in terms of subcontracting opportunities that we could
switched/swapped someone out. In addition to that, the prime contractor that met, he met with,
he got, did receive a pricing for this particular project and the pricing was more than what he had
originally received from one of the vendors. And the question came to, it was posed to me was
whether or not we were willing to increase the price in order for him to do business with another
subcontractor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I don’t think we want to increase the price to get someone to
do business with folks. I think that’s crazy, but I do think that these people understand how
serious we are about keeping as much money in this community as we possibly can with those
businesses. You talking about $2,339,000.00, someone’s going to make $99,000.00 out of that
41
for disadvantaged businesses. It just, it don’t make good sense. It’s like trying catch a train on a
bicycle. Ain’t no way you’re gonna do it. It’s just, it just, there’s just no feasible way and I
can’t support this neither. We talked about it before, depending on how easily we need to re-bid
it or we need to do something Mr. Mayor to make sure that we are inclusive on uh, doing this,
uh, business with the City of Augusta. I’m going to make a motion that we deny this and send it
back for bid, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Holland: I second the motion.
Mr. Cheek: I’m gonna make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor, to approve.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m gonna say this that, that, while I agree in principal with what
has been said, this will not happen over night and we have to move in dedicated steps towards
um, DBE participation, that we have to grow a local base. I’ve long been a advocate of breaking
these projects up into sub-projects if necessary to help some of our smaller businesses compete
for those bids and so forth. This is an important roadway that will open up over a thousand acres
of property along Bobby Jones between Highway 1 and Richmond Hill Road. This will be a step
towards creating in South Augusta potentially something similar to what we have at Target
Center, with areas for development for homes and shopping and so forth as some of the nicest
frontage along Bobby Jones on untapped frontage available. We don’t need to deny this or delay
this. The thing we have to consider is are we doing the best we can and it sounds like we are in
the current market. Are we working towards growing that market to where we have better
competition and more available DBE businesses in the area, and in the meantime, and another
consideration, are we growing that market locally or are we willing to send our money to Atlanta
or Charlotte or somewhere else. I for one am not. But is this project worthwhile and necessary
at this time, and I say that it is, and I just urge passage to see us move forward on this.
Mr. Grantham: Second that motion.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to ask Ms. Gentry a question. Uh, in sending
out bids, and I know you’re not the procurement lady, but is there a percentage when you, when
they send them out as to how much minority participation has to be? Or is this something we
added to it, uh, after the bids have been sent out.
Ms. Gentry: Commission approved back in 8 of 05 the DBE language along with the
procedures that department must adhere to in order increase DBE participation. Currently there
are no percentages added to the bid documents. I think that’s something you all charged me with
at our last Commission meeting. To get with the city Attorney and develop language along with
a formula that could be placed in the bid document to insure that we’re getting a percentage on
the front end versus trying to do it on the back end. Since our last meeting I have met with Miss
Flournoy, uh, we have done extensive research on competitive, I think one of the Commissioners
indicated that we should look at comparable cities based on our size and within the State of
42
Georgia and which we have done that, so we’re together now carving that language to bring
back. It’s my understanding her recommendation will be to have this meeting in Legal due to the
ramification, legal ramification that we could be infringing upon.
Mr. Smith: But that’s in the future you’re talking about.
Ms. Gentry: Right, within the next, we’re hoping within our next Commission meeting.
Ms. Smith: My question was, are we changing the rules in the middle of the game?
That’s what I want to know Mr. Mayor.
Ms. Gentry: Are we changing the rules in the middle of the game?
Mr. Smith: About participation, yeah. They have the low bid but now we don’t accept it
because of this and I’m assured if it was not in the contract that, how would they know?
Ms. Gentry: Right. It was not in the bid specifications. However I do attend the pre-
mandatory meetings and I highly urged them to solicit our local DBE’s as well as our local small
business. I do urge them to do that. I make myself available, our telephone, our directory and
everything is there for them.
Mr. Smith: I understand that. There’s no problem with you. I just want to know if it was
in the contract.
Mr. Mayor: And, I would like to applaud the DBE Department and Ms. Gentry as well as
um, Ms. Sams and Procurement. Over the past month both have had extremely well attended
meetings focusing on how to do business with the City and so I applaud both of y’all for doing
that and I do feel like the will of the body is definitely there to do a better job. Commissioner
Stevenson.
Mr. Stevenson: And I just want to inject that as well. Where we failed the DBE is that
we didn’t have something in place already stipulating that this is what we would accept. But
when we leave it open like that people can come and come with a less bid and win it as it was the
case a couple issues, Agenda items previously. So, what we have to do now is go forward from
here and insure that we have, in writing, on the contract through Attorney, view it and have it
accredited that this correct. And then, then it’ll cut out people doing what they want to do and,
and, shunning the little man or whatever, you know, per se, but uh, I agree something major that
needs to be uh, considered and brought to Augusta. We need to move forward. There’s nothing
you can do about it. It’ll just be the same issue over again if we get another bid and they may
give a couple of dollars more but that, how much time would that deny what we need. Augusta
needs growth. Augusta needs economic development and I see this as that.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Commissioner Stevenson. Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Just want to clear up one point. This is not about minority bids this is
about local, disadvantaged business. Women owned. This is about people who live in Augusta
43
Richmond County to be able to come to the table. We, when Ms. Gentry was hired her specific
job is what she’s addressing now and there were some things put in place. Maybe they’re not
enough that’s put in place but there were some things. We didn’t just sent out in the dark and
say just bring me whatever you can. There were some guidelines, there were some instructions
that she, she had, and I don’t, I know Commissioner Stevenson, you want to see it grow. I
understand that, and, and, I think we all want to see it, but I want to clarify, it’s not about
minorities it’s about disadvantaged business, people, local people in Augusta.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a substitute and a second. Madame Clerk, could you read
back the substitute motion?
The Clerk: Substitute motion was to approve the award of the construction contract for
the roadway improvement for Benson Road to the lowest responsive bidder.
Mr. Mayor: If there’s no further discussion, Commissioners will now vote by the
substitute sign.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Holland vote No.
Mr. Bowles out.
Motion carries 7-2.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
36. Motion to approve request from JM Wilkinson Neighborhood for closure of Wilkinson
Circle. Also, approve funding from the Traffic Engineering Capital Outlay funds in the
amount of $500.00 or less. (No recommendation from the Engineering Services Committee
October 30, 2006)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In our committee there was a group from Wilkinson
Circle and uh, had problems with people coming through the uh, they had a little small
community there. It’s open on the Gordon Highway side and the Milledgeville Road side so
they’re petition was to close one of them to slow down the traffic through there. They was afraid
it was gonna hurt somebody and most of them they are senior citizens. So I asked our
Engineering Services Committee uh, the Legal Department to check it out and see if it was legal
to close it off. So I’d like for one of them to speak to that, uh, our Traffic Engineer if you will.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Commissioner Smith, I can speak to that. The county, the consolidated
government does have full authority over its county roads system and um, I think that the road
can be closed but I don’t find a procedure and um, I recommend this. We talked, Mr. Cassell
actually talked with GDOT to determine if there was some traffic easement which was required
in this situation from Gordon Highway and the answer is no, that it’s not. And, I think there’s an
44
interest in the traveling public that probably needs to be accommodated in some due process
form. I talked to him, and Mr. Cassell he said that he would be bringing forth a traffic calming
ordinance in the next session or so of this body and I would suggest that we attach to that the
provision for having a notice of the closure of the hearing, of the road so that there’s due process
served and so, and my recommendation is that you approve the closure subject to approving a
procedure for doing that when the traffic calming ordinance comes before you.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Smith: Move to approve.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Smith Shepard, are you suggesting that we have a public hearing and
make the general public notified that we are in the process of closing this road?
Mr. Shepard: Yes sir.
Mr. Brigham: Is that part of this motion?
Mr. Shepard: Yes sir.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: And it’s my understanding that we’re going to attempt to codify the process
by perhaps by a percentage of residents on that road signing a petition to approving X number of
public hearings and so forth?
Mr. Shepard: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Cheek: It’s just my concern, if this has no impact and we can, and we’re going to do
this for the remainder of the city, this is not a very long street that we perhaps could go ahead
and approve this with the uh, if we have a recommendation from our Traffic Engineer as to
which end to close, perhaps provide this community with some relief than move forward with a
comprehensive methodology for the remainder of the city.
Mr. Cassell: Yeah, this is a common problem through the city as far as people speeding
through the neighborhoods. Wilkinson Circle is sort of a special case given that it’s a connector
between two arterial roads and it’s become a huge cut-through, uh a lot of people speeding up
through there, so I felt that it was sort of a priority to bring this one before the Commission prior
to the ordinance. I have developed a traffic-calming ordinance that I submitted to the
subdivision committee for impending comments. I do want to bring that before the Commission
45
for approval over the next, hopefully by, not the next meeting but the following meeting and it
will be a petition process. I think right now I’m required, 75% of the uh, the residents approve or
agree with the ordinance, whether it be speed humps, closure, you know traffic circles, et cetera -
-- public hearings.
Mr. Cheek: Will this, I guess in this particular case, and it’s your recommendation to
wait or should we proceed with maybe your recommendations on end to A or B, or just wait.
Mr. Cassell: My recommendation would be to close it down by Milledgeville Road. On
that end, it’s a circle. There’s a circle there. You can turn around and as Mr. Shepard said, once
these procedures get in place and we can hold the public hearings. So yes, my recommendation
would be to close.
I’m gonna make a substitute motion that we follow the
Mr. Cheek:
recommendations of our Traffic Engineer as well as direct our Attorney to follow through
with the contents of the previous motion.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland.
Mr. Holland: Uh, yes sir Mr. Mayor, thank you. Uh, uh, I’m in favor of this because I
remember receiving several phone calls from someone from that community in reference to what
was happening. And so I share this information with the Traffic Department and of course with
Planning and Zoning and I still need to go out and take a look at this area to make sure that we
would not be breaking any laws and to make sure that it’s an area that can be, can be closed off
and of course they had the opportunity to go out there and do that. So, I’m hoping that this can
go and take place so these people in this area can have some peace and quiet because of these
cars speeding up in that area can cause some serious problems.
Mr. Cheek: I think I need a second on this.
Mr. Mayor: I was gonna say that sounds like --- is that a second to the substitute motion?
Mr. Holland: Yes, ma’am, yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Just one comment. Prior to this ordinance being closed, I mean being
brought to us, are we suggesting this be a temporary closure until that ordinance is passed and
then we vote to make it permanent? I mean is that, should we follow that ---
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Grantham: --- or should we make it a permanent closure now and then go by the
ordinance later, I don’t, I mean I’m just asking the question.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard.
46
Mr. Grantham: Either one suits me.
Mr. Shepard: I think um, to make it uh, withstand any due process objection make this
the first one through the hearing process. I think that’s what Mr. Cassell wants to do and um, I
think you won’t have any comebacks if you do it that way. And, uh, you know um, you know,
it’s not delay, it’s just to protect the procedure.
Mr. Cheek: Clarification Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you sir. So what I’m hearing is we temporarily close it in an
expedited fashion and go through the process, call the closure a temporary closure to provide
relief for the community, go through the process and then permanently close it if there’s no
adverse community outcry.
Mr. Shepard: I would ---
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: I would just do the permanent closure after notice. That’s what I, I mean
you have your hearing; you have people to come in to object, you have your standards
established before hand, and do it one time sir.
Mr. Cheek: I ---
Mr. Mayor: Continue.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m trying to be good. Um, my concern is, now this
isn’t saying we’re going to go through some process, and I know processes work around here,
I’m not willing to wait until after Christmas or the first of the year if we can provide some relief
an expedited fashion next week for this community. I’ll go back and remind the Commission of
a measure or indicator of the quality of an organization is its ability to bring change and
improvements to it’s processes in a timely fashion, and that’s one of the things I hoped that we
could in this case.
Mr. Mayor: I believe your motion was the temporary closure than working through, was
it not?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, here we are, we’re planning for people again and not planning
with people. Now, I would like to make a lot of the traffic problems just go away. We have a lot
47
of hazards but we don’t need to what, sitting up here in a public meeting and not give the public
an opportunity to participate in this. We always allow the public an opportunity to participate.
That’s what we’re here for. And, I think we ought to do it the right way. We’ve had a way
recommended to us, I think we ought to have a public hearing. We don’t just abandon roads
without public hearings and I don’t thing we ought to start closing roads and putting speed
bumps on without public hearings. I think these are the public’s roads. These are not our roads.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Stevenson.
Mr. Stevenson: Uh, Mr. Mayor, yes in the Committee meetings we had, I thought, the
bulk of the public that live on that street come and present their proposal. And, with those that
came, that was the majority that live on this street, and they had letters stating signatures that
everyone was in agreement, so that’s why I thought, when we came here today it was just to go
ahead and okay that proposal.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a substitute motion. Madame Clerk, can you read back the
substitute motion?
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to hear from the Attorney.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. The public I was referring to was not only the
people that live on the street but the people who happen to travel the street. So, it would be, the
best, it’s the traveling public, you, I, you don’t live there so, that way their rights could be heard
and basically their rights to travel down Wilkinson Circle would be uh, if I understand the
Commission correctly, cut off. But, I think when you take something like that away you should
do it by a process.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Mr. Cheek’s motion was to follow the recommendation of the Traffic
Engineer and the City Attorney regarding the temporary closure of the road.
Mr. Cheek: And to follow up with the process of the ---
Mr. Mayor: Yes. Okay, Reverend Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: I just, I don’t want no one to take this out of context but, I’m sitting here
listening and talking about all you need to do and I’m reminded of a street in Augusta named
Telfair that they closed between East Boundary and Cedar street without public hearing. They
closed the street down piled it up with breakers in there and everything and they ain’t asked us a
thing. I just wanted to sort that out.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a substitute motion and a second. Commissioners will now
vote by the substitute sign.
48
Mr. Brigham votes No.
Mr. Bowles out.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: Next agenda item, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATOR
39. Receive update from the Administrator on the racetrack.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. At the Commission meeting
several weeks ago y’all tasked me to put together the necessary steps to bring forth completion of
a racetrack project for Augusta. We’ve had preliminary, or I’ve had preliminary discussions
with those people that are involved in those processes and have identified four steps that I would
feel that would be appropriate to continue to move this project forward if it’s the will of the
Commission. First of which would be to authorize me to negotiate with the initial Development
Authority of Richmond County for either a purchase or swap of that particular land that’s
necessary for the racetrack. The second would be authorization to discuss and proceed with
bond council, not bond council, bond advisor to develop a bond package that would pay for the
City portion of the funding of this particular track, uh this particular project, based on the
proceeds of the track that would be, that would be presented. I do not anticipate any obligating
tax dollars even though the potential exists and we would have to obligate the good faith of our
government at some point in time, which is fairly standard in these projects. Because of the cost
involved in doing that we’ve got some preliminary numbers but nothing specific yet. I was
afraid to move forward without your authorization. Secondly is to develop an RFP for
engineering, construction and other sources that would be necessary to build the track itself, to
do the proper engineering the soil testing, outlay of design. And the fourth item would be to
authorize me to begin negotiation with a third party as we’ve talked about this all along it’s been
in the format of a public/private partnership with uh, another individual providing both support
fiscally and operationally for the project itself. That partnership would involve the development
of an MOU that would discuss both their participation from a financial standpoint, management
opportunities and the city’s share of the profits that would be developed above and beyond the
cost of the bonds at that particular point in time. It’s my feeling that the first issue there would
obviously the land acquisition and the trade. That would be the first thing that we would do. In
addition to that the other three parcels of that particular project I think it would be a good
parallel, it be a good parallel pass so that we would not wait for A, B, C or D. Once we get the
land tied up we would be able to move forward with all three of those. In similar fashion to
make sure that they all come to the end, when we start building something that would be
approved by this body. As part of that I would recommend that you require a 30 day written
explanation of progress in each of these areas so that we can keep you abreast of, of the process
and where we’re at. As we look at our ability to come back and tell you that we need, in my
mind, give you a written evaluation each 30 days as to where we are in the particular process, to
49
keep you each abreast in that. Because of the scope of the project, and what would be done, the
time frame I think would be something that would be given back to you in the first report or two
as we get a little bit deeper in the conversation both with the industrial Development Authority
and the bond advisor. And I would suggest that we go ahead and use Ms. McNabb who has
served us well in the past as we continue to do that. We, I’ve had primary, preliminary
conversations with her and she’s awaiting authorization to go ahead and help put together that
project.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek:
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, having heard the report from the Administrator, I’m hoping that
Being as an aggressive target I’m
we can conclude this and say in 120 days, four months or so.
going to make a motion to authorize the Administrator to proceed with the development
plans as outlined in his presentation and to provide monthly written updates to the
Commission as to it’s progress with and early closure date of 120 days as a target, not
necessarily an absolute.
Mr. Hatney: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor. Can we issue development bonds, we as a Commission? Is
that, I think that’s a Legal question, I don’t know that we can is that ---
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Brigham, we have uh, just passed in this community the
Redevelopment Powers Act and it is to be certified tomorrow, I think by the Board of Elections -
--
Mr. Brigham: Monday.
Mr. Shepard: And uh, well that’s right Monday, thank you. And with the new powers
that we have to work on some of the problems that we have had experienced over time and so,
pending that I would say that if we designate it ourselves as a redevelopment agency, the answer
to that would be yes.
Mr. Brigham: And we will pledge the good faith and credit of this government to a
redevelopment bond? I don’t think so. We’d have a public vote.
Mr. Shepard: We could do it through revenue bonds, I think, Mr. Brigham. But here
again, we have just passed this power.
Mr. Brigham: I understand that but I don’t think we, I don’t think that’s within our
authority to issue revenue bonds to do an enterprise or development. There is a difference when
we the City own something. But this is, we’re doing revenue bonds for water works, I
50
understand that, but to do a revenue for something that we don’t even know whether it’s
economically feasible, it’s not a necessity, I would question whether we even have the authority
without the consent of the public to do that. And without a public vote on a bond, I vote never
vote for a bond to do something like that.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor: I appreciate this opportunity, but uh we, you know
we’ve been talking about this for quite some time. I respect the wishes of those who don’t
understand it. We did do a study, Mr. Brigham say we don’t know whether it’s gonna be
feasible or not. We spent $25,000.00 for a study that came back to reflect the same study that the
man walked in here and told us for nothing. It’s gonna bring over $30M to this economy for a
one week event, not just for one week, but all that was brought back through the study that was
brought Mr. Mayor, uh, and uh, I know that whether it be revenue bonds through the uh, uh, that
we regenerate Mr. Shepard, whatever bonds I’m sure we can, and it’s been proven that we can do
it through the bond. Now with this Empowerment Act that’s just been passed really sets us in
the driver’s seat and I understand Mr. Brigham, you know he ought to have his questions, and I
applaud that but, uh, I’m gonna call for the question, Mr. Mayor, we go ahead and vote to get
this process, if this process stops along the way because it derails with a bond, that’s one thing.
But to sit here and talk about what we can’t do and won’t do is something else. So I call for the
question.
Mr. Mayor. Okay, the question has been called for. Madame Clerk could you ---
Mr. Brigham: Point of personal privilege, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: I understand that the question’s been called for but I don’t think it’s right
if procedurally to have one person say something, the next person turn around and call the
question. I think we ought to at least have a public hearing of what’s taken place. Now I might
be wrong that, but I don’t think everybody’s had an opportunity to speak to this and I think some
other people were wanting to speak to it. And I challenge the Chair in allowing the question to
be called.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, can we get a legal clarification on this with regards to the
question being called?
Mr. Shepard: Well, do you wish to discuss it further?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, I believe ---
Mr. Cheek: The Chair has to rule whether there’s been adequate discussion or debate on
the issues.
Mr. Shepard: That’s correct.
51
Mr. Mayor: Okay, there are several other Commissioners that would like to speak to the
issue. I believe Mr. Smith said the Chair would rule that debate would stay open until these
Commissioners have the opportunity to speak. Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, Fred, how much money are you talking about
spending on what these four or five things you brought out?
Mr. Russell: At this point the estimate of cost would be approximately $6M.
Mr. Smith: I’m sorry, how much?
Mr. Russell: At this point the estimated cost would be approximately $6M.
Mr. Smith: Um, and I was gonna ask the same question that Mr. Brigham did about, does
in fact the citizens have to vote on something like this, and I don’t guess you can answer that?
Mr. Shepard: Well we have, we have very little experience with the Redevelopment
Powers Act but I think that it is within the powers of that act. Um, the uh, the Administrator’s
path forward is to first to acquire the land and then to go to the Financial Advisor, the RFP, and
then to begin the authorization. I think he said that the first step had to proceed before the other
steps. Um, as the first steps proceeds, we would determine the authority for the other steps. If
Mr. Brigham has a question I’d be happy to render a written opinion on it. Um, but the uh, of
course any project that’s going to be financed has got to have some sort of coverage and you
ordinarily have a um, engineering report on what you’re gonna do, and you also have a uh,
financial um, proforma, as you know in your profession Mr. Brigham, as to whether this would
sustain the issue. And, um, I, those would all be uh, checks on the process to determine whether
or not we go forward. Um, that would be um, that would be how I would see it.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor:
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Smith: I uh, I strongly feel that this government don’t need to be in the racetrack
business. And, to take somebody’s hobby and put citizens money into it, I think is wrong. It’s
wrong for the business people in this country to even think about even doing something like that.
And two, this property I’m assuming they’re talking about is the 1700 acres on um, Georgia
Highway 56. It belongs to the Development Authority. And it doesn’t belong to Richmond
County it belongs to the Development Authority. In speaking to them this week, nobody has
been to them with any kind of proposition. In fact this, that they can, there’s something legal
that can be done there. They’re saying that uh, this uh, property is the second piece in Georgia
for a large development of some kind and it will bring some jobs in here. And uh, I just feel very
strongly that we ought to consider a lot of other things, but mainly this property, unless there’s
some other property you’re talking about.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard.
52
Mr. Shepard: Certainly a swap would have to be a consensual arrangement between the
Development Authority and this body if we went forward with this.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. One of the questions I had in this regards is to
ask our Administrator in his research and looking into this particular project, is it, have we
discovered or do you know of any other government entities in the U.S. that is involved in this
type of operation, this type of business. And if so, I’d like to see what type of financial position
they have in that business and see who invested in it. If it’s that good than, you know, I want to
invest in it as a private citizen. And so, I’d like to know about that prior to me voting to put
government money into it. I’d rather put my own into it if it’s that good. So, uh, I’d like to have
those questions answered along the lines. And to further the question about the property, uh,
when this property was given to Richmond County, to the Development Authority, it was given
to them, course by Columbia uh, I mean Kimberly Clarke as every one is aware of. And,
personally I received a letter here because I was on the Commission at that time when it was
done. But I received a letter within the last, well excuse me an email, within the last week or so
from the executive vice-president who is involved in that transaction indicating that they didn’t
feel like that was the intent when that land was given. However, they have no strings attached it,
he was only saying that as a personal individual, one that had been involved in the transaction to
begin with. So, I think that there’s a lot to be investigated on this. I’m not opposed to the
racetrack business, I’m, as I said at the very early stages of this, I’m opposed to the location.
Find me a spot where we could put it to make it beneficial to the people who would own it and to
the people who live in the area, then, I’m all for it and I’ll be the first to write you a check and
get involved in the, in the investment of it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, we have found several other locations that are government
identities that are involved in the racetrack business there basically. We do have some money
prospectus, we have some prospectus, that worked for them on their financial income and
financial input into those areas and I’ll be more than happy to share that with Commissioner
Grantham. In addition um, I was trying to answer his questions in order and I’m totally lost in
the order of his questions there but, um, obviously we have not made formal contact with the
Industrial Development Authority yet, which you will be doing today, will be giving me the
authority to do that and move forward with that. In a manner of the swap would be I believe
what would be appropriate. I think that if I read the email correctly and the intent of the
Kimberley donation was to improve the economic development of our community and this
seems to be one route to do that at this particular point in time. As we looked at the property,
that property has been vacant. It is zoned industrial. Some of the other options that could be on
that property are paper mills, tire factories, those kinds of things which have not come to any
fruition what so ever through our marketing efforts and um, it would seem to be that in the best
interests of our community that we would move forward with something, um, be that the wish of
this group basically. And I’m attempting to follow the wishes of this group as best I can given
the uh, direction that I’ve been getting here basically.
53
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, I’m just, question of clarification because I know that with the
Trade and Convention Center, that when we employed somebody to do a feasibility study on that
they also did site selections and came back with three sites. Would it not be appropriate to do the
same thing here? I’m ---
Mr. Russell: Alternately we looked at several additional sites that meet the space
requirement but unfortunately because of the cost involved it was my feeling they were not
feasible because of the private nature of the, of the ownership that would involve increased costs
to us at this particular point in time. I think it’s amazing how hard it is to find a mile street land
that one person owns in this community. But there are some opportunities out there but because
the Industrial Development Authority does own that land, it’s designated in the proper zoning
and the other options are heavy industry out there. There would seem to me that that would be
the first place we would go to look.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Stevenson.
Mr. Stevenson: Uh, yes. When I first came to sit on the Commission Board, and this was
one of the Agenda items, and I thought that after it was discussed that the $35 or $25,000.00 that
was spent on this study and it was approved that it wasn’t, uh, some of the issues that were
brought forth then when I first sat on the board was whether there was gonna be a noise and
pollution problem and the study was done that, found that it wouldn’t be those issues. And now
it seems to be something totally different as trying to stop it but, you know, growth is gonna
come to Augusta. I’m from North Carolina, that’s irrelevant to this, but I’m from Winston-
Salem, North Carolina, and uh, I came to Augusta, I couldn’t believe how backwards it is here. I
just couldn’t believe it.
Mr. Cheek: Amen brother!
Mr. Stevenson: It really is, though, so undeveloped. And growth is gonna come whether
it takes people to die off for the growth to come, but growth is gonna come and we need to stop
just uh, bringing up minor, minute issues when it’s not relevant to growing Augusta. Not only
will that bring so much more economy, businesses into the area, that’s gonna really, probably
advance the people that’s probably rejecting it. It’s gonna benefit them as well, but you know,
it’s time to move on, it truly is. Um, it’s 25 years behind the times here, and uh, uh, and I’m
from Winston-Salem, not a real big city. But um, it’s time to move on and uh, when I came here,
it was about the noise, pollution and the traffic. There’s always engineering designs that will
come as the industry grow and we’re gonna redesign and reengineer uh, streets, but to just say
that uh, we need to try and find other areas, if it’s property that we own than why are we looking
for other? If it’s still the Downtown Development, that’s part of the County, right?
Mr. Mayor: No, it’s the Industrial Development Authority of Richmond County, which
is a separate entity from the City Government. Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: Can I call for the question now?
54
Mr. Mayor: I think it’s been adequately debated ---
Mr. Cheek: Oh!
Mr. Mayor: --- at this point, yes. Okay, we have a motion and a second. The question
has been called for. This has been adequately debated. Commissioners will now vote by the
usual sign.
Mr. Cheek: I feel picked on, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Brigham, Mr. Smith, Mr. Grantham vote No.
Mr. Bowles out.
Motion carries 6-3.
Mr. Cheek: Point of personal privilege, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes sir.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, may the record reflect that this City holds nearly half a billion
dollars worth of revenue anticipation bonds for its utilities department and I could go on, on the
facts but how we, I’m concerned that we don’t put additional road blocks up to success. If we
had maintained Augusta International Raceway uh, in its former state and carried it through we
would be competing with Charlotte and several other cities for the motor sports industry. It’s
time to quit stepping back in time and step forward with this. The Industrial Development
Authority ---- in my talking with Mr. Sprouse that he fully is aware of the project so are the
members and we as a board appoint the members to that board. If there’s a problem with them
carrying it through, we can reappoint or replace other members on there to see this project
through.
Mr. Mayor: Next agenda item.
The Clerk: Yes, sir, I was conferring with the Attorney. I think Item 40 is the same Item
as we approved under our Finance Agenda Item 17. So its, is the Commission okay with that?
Mr. Mayor: Yeah, it looks better that way than ---
The Clerk:
ATTORNEY
41. Attorney’s statements for period ending September 25, 2006 and October 25, 2006,
submitted as required by Commission. (Deferred from the Special Called meeting October
30, 2006)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard.
55
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. You directed me to submit my
th
statements monthly to this body and I closed the month on the 25 of the month each month and
th
uh, through the date of September 25 my statement was $64,572.25. And then for the
subsequent period through October, is was $62,328.30. These have been broken down as they
always are. Part of them are chargeable to uh, Enterprise funds and partly charged to the General
fund and I would ask that the uh, Administrator, I have had him look them over as he always
does and approve them, and I reflect my original rates which I quoted back in uh, 2003 which
became effective January 2004 and I would ask that these matters be approved as you directed
me to bring them to you.
Motion to approve.
Mr. Grantham:
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: I don’t have any problem with the invoice. My concern is it was for, I
thought it was presented to this body. I was under the impression that we would receive the
information.
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hatney: But it be after the fact.
Mr. Shepard: I gave it to the Administrator as I always do sir, and uh, it’s here and
presented right to you, right now.
Mr. Hatney: But, I’m gonna vote for it but for now on I’d like to see it in advance.
Mr. Russell: You want copies in advance?
Mr. Hatney: Yes sir. How we, otherwise we don’t even know what we’re talking about.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Even though I’m voting for it now, but I still need a copy to, I mean I
can’t go back and get the horse once they get out the gate, but at least I know what color he was
when he went across the field. I don’t wanna be chasing the wrong horse so I need to see a copy
of that.
Mr. Mayor. Okay.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor if I can ---
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell.
56
Mr. Russell: --- they’re fairly extensive documents, if you’d like ---
Mr. Hatney: (Unintelligible).
Mr. Russell: --- I understand. What I’m trying to do is get a head count of those people
that would like to see the specific documents so I don’t, I don’t do ten of them. If can get by
with one or two and put the balance in the Clerk’s office, I would be happy ---
Mr. Mayor: Yeah, I’ll review it in your office.
Mr. Russell: So I get four then. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk I believe that was our final agenda item?
The Clerk: Yes sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard ---
ADDENDUM
44. Motion to go into a Legal Meeting.
Mr. Shepard: I would like a short legal meeting for purposes of litigation and real estate.
Mr. Mayor: Can I get a motion to that effect?
Mr. Cheek: So moved.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Do we have a second?
Mr. Stevenson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign.
Mr. Hatney not voting.
Motion carries 9-0.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena Bonner
Clerk of Commission
57
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy
of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on
November 9, 2006.
________________________
Clerk of Commission
58