HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 22, 2006 ARC Commission meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
February 22, 2006
Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 1:00 p.m., Wednesday,
February 22, the Honorable Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, Presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Holland, Smith, Colclough, Grantham, Hatney, Williams,
Beard, Bowles and Brigham, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hon. Cheek, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also Present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; Fred Russell, Administrator; and Lena
Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The invocation was given by the Reverend Victor Thomas, Pastor of Mt. Caanan
Missionary Baptist Church
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Thomas, thank you so much. That was a wonderful invocation.
We will start off with the presentations.
The Clerk:
PRESENTATION
A. Presentation from the Buffalo Soldiers to the Augusta Recreation and Parks
Department for team sponsorships in the amount of $2000 and $1000 for the Carrie
J. Mays Community Center.
The Clerk: Mr. Beck, would you please come forward, along with the members
of the Buffalo Soldiers?
Mr. Beard: Good afternoon, Mayor, Commissioners, my name is Johnny Beard.
I’m the vice president of the Augusta Chapter of the National Buffalo Soldiers
Motorcycle Club. And I’m here today to present the Richmond County Recreation and
Parks Department with a check in the amount of $2,000 for the edification and the growth
of our youth in Richmond County.
Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we humbly accept this
donation on behalf of you and behalf of the citizens of Augusta, because the Buffalo
Soldiers not only do great things for Augusta Recreation and Parks, they do great things
for this community, and they should be thanked for that.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you so much.
1
The Clerk:
PRESENTATION
B. Ms. Margaret Woodard, Executive Director Downtown Development
Authority. RE: Accomplishments in 2005/Strategic Plan for 2006.
Mr. Speaker: May I approach? I’m going to speak on behalf of the DDA board.
As the former Chair for last year, and I will address some of the accomplishments, if I
may, and then I’ll introduce Margaret Woodard, who is our new executive director.
Mr. Mayor: As long as you keep it to five minutes.
Mr. Speaker: Five minutes, we’ll do that, real quick. I’ll start by saying it’s a
great day in downtown Augusta. As you know, a lot of great things are happening here.
Just to advise the audience and the Commission, what our boundary is, the DDA is
responsible for the boundaries from the river to Laney-Walker, from East Boundary to
th
15 Street. That’s the district that we are in charge of under the state mandate. We have
a lot that happened in 2005 and I will just summarize a few of these things for you. Last
year was somewhat of a year of transition for the DDA board. And I’ll address
Margaret’s introduction. But last year we were able to secure two properties that were at
risk in downtown Augusta, the Houghton School and Widows Home. And if anyone has
driven down Broad Street in recent days you can see more than a $1 million has been
invested by Clay Boardman, who actually has secured those properties and has now
putting improvements there to make sure that those two historic properties are not at risk.
He’s taken the steps to make sure that the roof in intact, the exteriors are improved.
They’re beautiful buildings and they now have a great appearance from the road. He’s
also done a great job of replacing all the windows and securing the inside so that there are
not unwanted visitors in the buildings. We also were successful, as you may have read,
in being awarded a $450,00 grant for the lower depot on Reynolds Street, which we think
is a great win for Augusta to again improve a structure that is historic of nature and
important to our community. We also last year assisted in the purchase of the James
Brown statue and that has again been a great asset to downtown and will continue to for
years to come. We also initiated last year in association with the GMA, Georgia
Municipal Association and Georgia Cities Foundation, a loan program that is going to
enable developers downtown to take advantage of that program. We had our first
application this year in 2005 and we hope that other developers that are interested in
downtown will take that as a step into other funding for their investments downtown. We
also have the parking study. I think the greatest piece of that is that we learned that yes,
we have a parking issue downtown, but we have ample parking if it’s managed properly.
It’s going to be a great planning tool. Margaret will address the issue of that in our
strategic plan, but there is an interactive tool in that plan that you may not know about,
but you can input, if someone has an interest in developing a building, you can input the
square footage, what type of use it’s going to be, retail, so forth, and it will tell you how
many spaces are required and how it applies to the district that it’s in and so it’s a great
interactive tool. Not just a static report that’s going to sit on a shelf somewhere. So
we’re excited about that. Margaret Woodard. Margaret came to us from Brevard, North
2
Carolina, after a lengthy search and review of a number of applicants, and we’re excited
to say that she elected to come to Augusta, Georgia rather than going to Atlanta or
Charlotte and we are glad to have her background and expertise. She’s a graduate of
Auburn University with a building sciences degree, which is kind of an interdisciplinary
engineering degree. Covers all the different aspects of engineering. She’s work in the
past with different development companies across California, Tennessee, North Carolina,
across the United States. Most recently she’s been executive director of Heart of
Brevard, where she started the White Squirrel Festival that received national acclaim
through Jay Leno and some of the Tonight programs. They featured that and she did a
great job there. So we’re really pleased to have her leading our downtown efforts. She’s
going to talk to the Commission just a couple of minutes about what our strategic plan is
and hit on some highlights.
Mr. Mayor: You’ve got about one.
Mr. Speaker: One minute. Okay.
Ms. Woodward: Thank you. We’re going to try to do five things, quickly, this
year. We want to recruit business to downtown. You can look in this report and you’ll
see what we’ve been able to do so far. We need tools. We need a development tool. It’s
a $30,000 initiative for a marketing analysis. We have funded about $4,500 of that
initiative and are looking for more funds. We did see the first group of statistics today
and downtown Augusta will be a great place to relocate a business. We’re going to work
on the bid. The informational newsletter is in print and a group came last week to give us
a proposal on bid services. Sanford and I are heading to Columbia and Savannah next
week to look at their parking management studies and we’re working on fund raising for
Main Street sponsorship. So far the Saturday market program has raised about $1,000 and
Main Street Augusta $2,000. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry.
Ms. Woodward: I feel like I’m at the Academy Awards.
Mr. Mayor: I know. I’m sorry, but we do have to stick to the five minute time
limit.
Ms. Woodward: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: I know y’all are doing a great job.
The Clerk: Delegations?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
The Clerk:
3
DELEGATION
C. Mr. Nelson Curry
RE: Alternative funding for the base for the James Brown Statue.
Mr. Mayor: Please keep it to five minutes, as well. Thank you.
Mr. Curry: Good morning, Mayor, Commissioners. I represent D-firm
Productions, a local music entertainment company here in town, CSRA, and I represent
actually two generations of musicians, producers out of the area that’s had some success.
I’ve noticed the different conversations about the statue and the base as far as raising it
up, things like that. I think we can hold the community a little more accountable for
assisting in that by creating some different programs at a lot of the venues, like the clubs,
some of the things on Broad Street like First Friday. I think the community would also
like to participate in raising funds to make that happen. And I’m working with Stan
Bussey, who is a prominent businessman in the area. He owns a construction company
and he owns the D-firm Productions itself. And we have several different ideas as far as
creating the funding and raising the funds for that. I don’t know where it stands right
now as far as if the money has been donated by someone else to do that, but if we weren’t
able to do that, we’re more than willing to donate the funds ourselves. But we can get
people involved to help make this happen. And I think government is responsible for a
lot of things but I do believe the citizens and Augusta should have some accountability in
showing what they feel and the respect for the Godfather of Soul himself and that’s why
we’re here today. Sam is responsible for—he’s bringing a convention in town in June
and I wanted him to actually explain a little bit more about what he has coming in June.
Thank you.
Mr. Bussey: Good afternoon. I would just like to say thank you for having me
this morning, or this afternoon. But just a young man coming from poverty, in the
community, a high school graduate from here, as a young man I’ve had some great
success in my construction company. I now am currently building the condominiums
right across the river on the bridge here. That’s my construction company that’s doing
that. And coming from poverty and just having faith in God I became very successful
and this conference that I got coming in June, we spent $150,000 of my own money, but
basically what it’s about, it’s about teaching the youth who have a dream that it’s
something out here. And I got a package that I want to leave with you all. We would
like to do this for James Brown. We are going to give James Brown a Lifetime
Achievement Award at my conference in June. I do have celebrities—Jermain DePre,
Michael Maulding, [unintelligible] Miller from Atlanta, and a host of other celebrities
who will be here in June. I do have the Radisson Riverfront Hotel booked totally and
we’re going to have a blues and soul festival and we would like to involve the statue
raising of Mr. James Brown along with the Lifetime Achievement Award in June, if you
will. Thank you very much for having me.
Mr. Mayor: Thank y’all both for the information and for your commitment.
Amen to the fact that getting the community involved and keeping the government off the
hook on some of this stuff.
4
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I want to first thank these two young men for coming but I wanted
to say that Rick Acree has got some potential way of helping, like these two gentlemen
just explained, about helping to do some funds and I think they ought to be able to get
together. May be something we can unify and work together to help do what we can to
get not only the citizens of Augusta but anybody that want to get involved in help raising
that money. So anytime anybody walks in the door to want to help us, I think we ought
to have somebody to meet them and greet them and give them a card and let them know
where they can come and who they can approach to try and unify and work together. So,
Mr. Acree, I don’t see him [unintelligible] but if you get with Mr. Acree he can give you
his business card and y’all can start some communication and maybe that’s something
that he’s doing that maybe we can all do together, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to make sure
they understood that.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Next.
The Clerk:
DELEGATION
D. Mr. Craig, President GA/SC YES, Inc.
RE: A proposal for funding a school/community project for the youth of Augusta.
Mr. Emory Williams: Good afternoon. My name is Coach Emory Williams. I’m
speaking for Mr. Craig. I’m the educational director for Georgia-Carolina Youth
Education and Sports. We have been in operation for three years. We are a non-profit
501(c)(3) organization. We are also the local Pop Werner Scholastic Program. Pop
Werner Scholastics has been in operation for 76 years around the country and also in
other countries. Also, we are the NFL Youth Football Program that is located here in
Augusta. Our organization is involved in the community and the schools to address the
academic requirements needed to participate in extra-curricular activities. Research has
proven that students that participate in extra-curricular activities have a much higher rate
of graduation compared to the graduation of students that don’t participate in extra-
curricular activities. Our populations that we are serving are students enrolled in grades
K-6 and for all practical purposes we are serving all students involved in extra-curricular
activities or may have the desire to participate an extra-curricular activities. Students
who are involved in extra-curricular activities are required to maintain a passing grade
point average. Mandatory tutoring is required if the student does not meet eligibility
requirements. The student must enroll in after-school programs or [unintelligible] tutor
to continue participating. The students are served by teachers in after-school programs
offered in the community. In addition to the after-school teachers, we offer academic
tracking by educational specialists, volunteer mentors, and academic tutors. We are a
liaison between the school and the community. Families and community are enable to
5
enroll in our program and begin the student athletic objectives in elementary school and
middle school instead of waiting until they hit high school. Our vision is to impact the
lives of our youth in a positive manner by using extra-curricular activities. Both the
resource and the tools teach life skills. Youth education and sports implement year-long
sports of football, dance and cheers as activities to teach life skills and physical fitness.
We also participate in all other activities that are available for the kids. We ask all of you
to bear in mind that the attainment of athletic or performance skills are secondary to the
molding of outstanding citizens. The certificate of student athletic leagues and the
transition of a student athlete from elementary, middle and high school leading to college
are goals that are intended to promote individual growth. We serve as liaison between
the community and schools by connecting students with programs, facilities, agencies
and businesses in the community by offering the following services. We enroll students
in transitional scholastic training programs. The EST program assists in developing
portfolios resumes, scholarship applications and college placement. We develop
individualized scholastic and athletic programs, ISAP. Goals and objectives are
formulated by team participants. The team consists of students athletes, parents, mentor
coaches, and an ISAP coordinator. We provide mentor coaches. Students are provided
with academic mentor coach and an extra-curricular athletic mentor coach. And we
provide resources for the community. We implement leagues or teams for all extra-
curricular activities. We offer development and improvement of facilities and also we
provide student athlete certification for successful program completion. [unintelligible]
total internal support for this and other programs designed to accomplish the goals as set
forth by the Scholastic Academic Program. SAP supports [unintelligible]. A projected
number of students can be determined by [unintelligible] number of teams that can be
formed by the Richmond County Elementary Schools. There are 34 elementary schools
in Richmond County. Projecting that if each school has formed four teams, two boys and
two girls, we will be serving 2,720 children per year. If we develop 16 per school we
would serve 4,080 per year. And if we had 18 per school we would serve 5,440 children
per year. There is also needed support from the community at large. Several businesses
and community recreation programs such as the Boys and Girls Clubs have partnered and
supported our children as partners and participants in the youth education and sports, Pop
Werner Scholastic Program through donations and volunteering. We are requesting
funding for implementation of program and a five year commitment. We are requesting
$5 million to implement the program for the five year commitment. [unintelligible]
area’s youth. With the continuing increase in violence with the youth today, especially
the young ladies, we see that it is imperative that we implement programs for the young
ladies as well as the young men.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a motion to receive that as information?
Does anybody
have any comments?
Dr. Hatney: I so move.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
6
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you for your presentation.
Mr. Craig: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I’m a little bit unclear. Was that something that the presenter was
asking of this government or was that some information he was just relaying to us? I
mean I’m a little bit—
Mr. Mayor: Was it a $5 million request today? I mean I don’t think—
Mr. Williams: I think we [unintelligible] but I just don’t know what the—I mean
I heard it and I appreciate it and I understand it but I was asking what was the purpose?
Just for information and we receive that?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Craig, if you’d please?
Mr. Craig: It is a request for funds. Not all at once. We are asking for a five year
commitment in order to fund the program. Due to the fact that ever year our numbers
will be increasing we will be looking at those numbers as far as bottom line, which I
quoted to you as far as teams to implement this program in the elementary schools. So in
two parts, yes, we want to have a five year commitment in which we are able to be
committed to some funds in order to address the needs of the children in Richmond
County.
Mr. Williams: My question is have you consulted the Board? Have something on
that level been done as well?
Mr. Craig: Yes, sir. I am a teacher and a coach and [unintelligible] proper
procedures in order to advance to this point as far as working within the school system.
Mr. Williams: Okay, Mr. Mayor, I understand we receiving as information and
we look at it if there is something out there. I understand.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Now move on to the consent agenda.
The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of item 1 through 36, items 1
through 36.
For the purpose of any objectors to our planning petitions, once the
7
petitions are read, if there are any objectors would you please signify your objections by
raising your hand?
PLANNING
5. Z-06-08 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Dong Whasa, on behalf of Tong
Hellis, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a meditation
center or temple per Section 26-1 (a) of the Augusta-Richmond County Zoning
Ordinance affecting property located at 1011-A Horseshoe Road and contains 2.64
acres. (Tax Map 280 Parcel 24) DISTRICT 8
6. Z-06-10 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Southern Specialty Inc. and
Nordahl Homes Inc. requesting a change of zoning from Zones R-1A (One-family
Residential) and R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) to Zone R-1A (One-
family Residential) with a Special Exception to allow greater flexibility for a
proposed detached single family residential subdivision not to exceed 4 units per
acres in density per Section 9-2 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County affected property located 1,550 feet, more or less, west
of the southwest corner of the intersection of Windsor Spring road and Spirit Creek
Road and contains approximately 115 acres. (Part of Tax Map 153 Parcel 72)
DISTRICT 4
7. Z-06-11 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Alec Chaplin, on behalf of
Barnyard Flea Market of Augusta, requesting a rezoning from Zone LI (Light
Industry) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 1625 Doug
Barnard Parkway and contains a 0.9 acre part of Barnyard Flea Market. (Part of
Tax Map 111 Parcel 27.1) DISTRICT 1
8. Z-06-12 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Rhonda Parrish requesting a
rezoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) and Zone R-1A (One-family
Residential) to Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) affecting property located at
4309 Windsor Spring Road and contains 5.67 acres. (Tax Map 166-3 Parcel 2)
DISTRICT 4
9. Z-06-13 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Miriam Lynne Lockhart
requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General
Business) affecting property located at 1778 Tobacco Road and contains .44 acres.
(Tax Map 157 Parcel 23.02) DISTRICT 8
10. Z-06-14 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by ATC Development Corp. on
behalf of Edward Sikes, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to
Zone R-1E (One-family Residential) affecting property that is part of 3745 Old
Waynesboro Road and contains approximately 24 acres. (Tax Map 170 Parcel 3.01)
DISTRICT 8
11. Z-06-16 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Troy Goebelt, on behalf of Events
8
Worldwide, Inc., requesting a change of zoning from R-1A (One-family Residence)
to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located at 1062 Alexander
Drive and contains .86 acres. (Tax Map 13-3 Parcel 2) DISTRICT 7
12. Z-06-17 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE with the following conditions 1) that there be
no access to River Watch Parkway and 2) that there shall be no new driveways
providing access to Stevens Creek Road; a petition by Nicholls Land & Investment
Co., on behalf of Edna McIntosh Hill, requesting a change of zoning from R-1A
(One-family Residence) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at
844 Stevens Creek Road and contains 1.67 acres. (Tax Map 7 Parcel 3) DISTRICT 7
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those planning petitions? For the benefit of
any objectors to our alcohol petitions, under our Public Services portion, would you
please signify your objections once the petitions are read?
PUBLIC SERVICES
14. Motion to approve a request by Lewis C. Blanchard for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Washington
Square Country Club located at 2834 Washington Rd. There will be Dance. District
7. Super District 1.0 (Approved by Public Services Committee February 13, 2006)
15. Motion to approve a request by Patricia E. Sheehan for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Sheehan's
Irish Pub & Restaurant located at 1434 Monte Sano Ave. There will be Sunday
Sales. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
February 13, 2006)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions? There are no
objections, Mr. Mayor. No objectors for the zoning petitions as well.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Do we have any additions to the consent agenda or any items
that need to be pulled?
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull item number 22.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bowles?
Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull item number 29, please.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull item number 30, along with items 13
and 21. And I need some clarification on item 20.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, so we’re pulling item 20 as well?
9
Mr. Williams: Right. Pull item 20 as well. Need to get some clarification on 24,
too, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: So you want 13, 21, 20 and 24?
Mr. Williams: 27 as well, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Are there any further additions or pulls? Mr.
Parliamentarian?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, in number 35, to approve the minutes of February 8,
th
2006, I’d ask that we amend that item, that we—the minutes of January 30 that came in
after the legal meeting in reference to the [unintelligible] Road acquisition, that the price
that was stated was per acre. I did not expressly put that in the minutes and it should be.
The acreage price was not to exceed $3,000 per acre. And any Commissioner can ask for
a correction, and I’d appreciate it if you would.
Mr. Brigham: I’ll ask for that correction, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Do we need a motion and second on that?
Mr. Shepard: To add that as part of the correction of the minutes.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion from—
The Clerk: [unintelligible]
Mr. Shepard: Yes, add that portion of it and approve.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Let’s look at consenting item number 43, unless anyone has any
question.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATION
43. Motion to approve a request from Mach Academy to be a direct recipient of
grants funds from the Children and Youth Coordinating Council.
Mr. Grantham: This involves grants funds and I think it would behoove us to go
ahead and consent that.
Mr. Mayor: I agree. Does anybody have any further additions or subtractions?
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I don’t see why we couldn’t do item 38, to be added.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
10
38. Motion to approve a one year $2 increase and all city employees be charged
the same rate. (No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee
February 13, 2006)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: I have a question on 38. I think we’re going to bring that one up.
Mr. Brigham: Okay.
Mr. Mayor:Look for a motion to
Any further additions or subtractions?
approve the consent agenda.
Mr. Grantham: I so move.
Dr. Hatney: Second.
PLANNING
1. FINAL PLAT – SITAL PARK – S-669 – A request for concurrence with the
Augusta Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by H.
Lawson Graham and Associates, on behalf of Gian Singh Ghuman, requesting final
plat approval for Sital Park. This residential subdivision is located on Nellie Drive
at the terminus and contains 4 lots.
2. FINAL PLAT - WEST WHEELER TOWNHOMES, SEC. 3 – S-733 – A
request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning Commission
to APPROVE a petition by Southern Partners Inc., on behalf of ATC Development
Co., requesting final plat approval for West Wheeler Townhomes, Section 3. This
residential subdivision is located on West Wheeler Parkway adjacent to West
Wheeler Townhomes, Section 2 and contains 26 lots.
3. FINAL PLAT – WALTON HILLS, SECTION VII – S-735 – A request for
concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning Commission to
APPROVE a petition by James G. Swift and Associates, on behalf of Southern
Specialty Development Corp., requesting final plat approval for Walton Hills,
Section VII. This residential subdivision is located on Deer Chase Lane and Walton
Loop, adjacent to Walton Hills, IV, V and VI and contains 98 lots.
4. FINAL PLAT – WISTERIA HILL – S-702 – A petition by H. Lawson
Graham and Associates, on behalf of Tommy McBride, requesting final approval
for Wisteria Hill. This residential subdivision is located on Rosier Road, east of
Sutton Place and contains 26 lots.
5. Z-06-08 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Dong Whasa, on behalf of Tong
Hellis, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a meditation
center or temple per Section 26-1 (a) of the Augusta-Richmond County Zoning
Ordinance affecting property located at 1011-A Horseshoe Road and contains 2.64
acres. (Tax Map 280 Parcel 24) DISTRICT 8
11
6. Z-06-10 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Southern Specialty Inc. and
Nordahl Homes Inc. requesting a change of zoning from Zones R-1A (One-family
Residential) and R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) to Zone R-1A (One-
family Residential) with a Special Exception to allow greater flexibility for a
proposed detached single family residential subdivision not to exceed 4 units per
acres in density per Section 9-2 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County affected property located 1,550 feet, more or less, west
of the southwest corner of the intersection of Windsor Spring road and Spirit Creek
Road and contains approximately 115 acres. (Part of Tax Map 153 Parcel 72)
DISTRICT 4
7. Z-06-11 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Alec Chaplin, on behalf of
Barnyard Flea Market of Augusta, requesting a rezoning from Zone LI (Light
Industry) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 1625 Doug
Barnard Parkway and contains a 0.9 acre part of Barnyard Flea Market. (Part of
Tax Map 111 Parcel 27.1) DISTRICT 1
8. Z-06-12 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Rhonda Parrish requesting a
rezoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) and Zone R-1A (One-family
Residential) to Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) affecting property located at
4309 Windsor Spring Road and contains 5.67 acres. (Tax Map 166-3 Parcel 2)
DISTRICT 4
9. Z-06-13 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Miriam Lynne Lockhart
requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General
Business) affecting property located at 1778 Tobacco Road and contains .44 acres.
(Tax Map 157 Parcel 23.02) DISTRICT 8
10. Z-06-14 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by ATC Development Corp. on
behalf of Edward Sikes, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to
Zone R-1E (One-family Residential) affecting property that is part of 3745 Old
Waynesboro Road and contains approximately 24 acres. (Tax Map 170 Parcel 3.01)
DISTRICT 8
11. Z-06-16 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Troy Goebelt, on behalf of Events
Worldwide, Inc., requesting a change of zoning from R-1A (One-family Residence)
to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located at 1062 Alexander
Drive and contains .86 acres. (Tax Map 13-3 Parcel 2) DISTRICT 7
12. Z-06-17 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE with the following conditions 1) that there be
no access to River Watch Parkway and 2) that there shall be no new driveways
providing access to Stevens Creek Road; a petition by Nicholls Land & Investment
Co., on behalf of Edna McIntosh Hill, requesting a change of zoning from R-1A
(One-family Residence) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at
844 Stevens Creek Road and contains 1.67 acres. (Tax Map 7 Parcel 3) DISTRICT 7
12
PUBLIC SERVICES
14. Motion to approve a request by Lewis C. Blanchard for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Washington
Square Country Club located at 2834 Washington Rd. There will be Dance. District
7. Super District 1.0 (Approved by Public Services Committee February 13, 2006)
15. Motion to approve a request by Patricia E. Sheehan for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Sheehan's
Irish Pub & Restaurant located at 1434 Monte Sano Ave. There will be Sunday
Sales. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
February 13, 2006)
16. Motion to approval of Architectural Contract for new Library. (Approved
by Public Services Committee February 13, 2006)
17. Motion to Approve an A/E contract with Cranston, Robertson and
Whitehurst, P.C. for surveying, mapping and engineering design work of a new
entrance road into Diamond Lakes Regional Park from Willis Foreman Road in the
amount of $56,995.00. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 13, 2006)
18. Motion to approve the emergency replacement of boat docks at Boathouse
Community Center. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 13, 2006)
19. Motion to approve a request by Melissa J. Provenzano for a Flea Market
license to be used in connection with the White Elephant InDoor Marketplace
located at 2704 Peach Orchard Rd. (Approved by Public Services Committee
February 13, 2006)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
23. Motion to approve Retirement of Ms. Barbara Booker under the 1977
Pension Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee February 13, 2006)
25. Motion to approve a request from Mr. Van McMillan, Director of ARC
Weed & Seed Program to amend the 2005 CDBG agreement to reflect a budget
adjustment to include the salary of the computer instructor at a cost of $3,800 and
an after school tutorial instructor at the cost of $877.50. The total of the budget
adjustment is $4,677.60. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
February 13, 2006)
26. Motion to approve a request for Department Name Change for the Weed and
Seed Initiative to Department of Neighborhood Enhancement. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee February 13, 2006)
FINANCE
28. Motion to approve a request from Bethel AME Church for a waiver of taxes
for 2005 for property at 839 Ninth Street. (Map 46-4, Parcel 162) (Approved by
Finance Committee February 13, 2006)
31. Motion to approve a request from the Richmond County Neighborhood
Associations Alliance, Inc. for city sponsorship through the purchase of tickets for
the 10th Annual Banquet. (Approved by Finance Committee February 13, 2006)
ENGINEERING SERVICES
13
32. Motion to approve proposed Change Order No. 2 to Horsepen Sanitary
Sewer Project AUD 50175, and continue sanitary sewer installation in the
Fairington neighborhood. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February
13, 2006)
33. Motion to approve funding from the Landfill account for the Brownfield
Commission Economic Development Summit. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee February 13, 2006)
34. Motion to approve bid award for Corporate Communications Plan RFQ #06-
016 to Acsential Technologies. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
February 13, 2006)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
35. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held February 8, 2006.
APPOINTMENT(S)
36. Motion to approve the reappointment of Mr. Clyde Hightower as the
Mayoral appointment to the Augusta-Richmond County's Minority Business
Council.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
43. Motion to approve a request from Mach Academy to be a direct recipient of
grants funds from the Children and Youth Coordinating Council.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, that is with the corrections of the minutes?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 8-0.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, for the benefit of the Commission, Mr. Cheek called in.
He will not be in attendance today.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Ms. Bonner, I think we had a request to add a couple of
agenda items.
The Clerk: Yes, sir, our addendum agenda. Our addendum agenda has
additional information regarding item 40 and a request to add:
1. Discuss the opening of Olive Road. (Requested by Commissioner Williams)
2. Discuss the study for the drag strip. (Requested by Commissioner Williams)
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor?
14
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Could I get a copy of the addendum agenda.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, you don’t have unanimous consent on item 2.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have unanimous consent on item 1? Ms. Bonner, we have
unanimous consent on 1 but not on 2.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: To add, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes. All right, we’ll now move on to the regular agenda.
The Clerk: That’s the pulled items from the consent first?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, let’s go ahead and discuss the pulled from the consent.
The Clerk:And I think the companion item, Mr. Williams wanted to discuss, 21,
as well.
Mr. Williams: Correct. 13 and 21 should be companion items.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVICES
13. Motion to approve assignment and Contract Approval for Airport Catering
Concessionaire. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 13, 2006)
21. Motion to approve the assignment and Contract Approval for Airport
Restaurant Concessionaire. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 13,
2006)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I asked for those items to be pulled. I talked with Mr.
Boshears in committee meeting. Both of these contracts are five year agreements. We
talk about not being in a bind [unintelligible] with anything past [unintelligible] and I’m
in opposition. Two years ought to be at least a maximum amount of time. We put a five
year contract [unintelligible] item 13 does state it’s a three year with two year option.
But item 21 don’t say anything about any option. I think they both need to be addressed.
15
I’d love to make a motion to deny these and have these contractors or these people go
back and come back with a contract of a more reasonable time span. Twenty-four
months, two years ought to be the maximum. We been talking evergreens and talk about
how we get in them and we can’t get out. We do five year, we forget it, and the next
thing you know they’re up and then we are against the wall saying we got to go ahead
back with these cause we don’t have no time. And I think that one of our problems. We
got a long span in these contracts and it gets us kind of thrown off. So I’m going to make
a motion that we deny this and have them go back and come back at least a two year
agreement.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second?
Mr. Holland: I second that motion.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion? Mr.
Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. This is coming out of Public Services. We
addressed these issues at the committee meeting and I’d like for Mr. Boshears to give us
his reasoning and explanation as to why they were presented the way that they were so
that we’d have a better understanding as to whether we should approve the length of the
contracts that are submitted or look at reducing them.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boshears?
Mr. Boshears: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, it regards a restaurant. A person selected for
the restaurant asked for the five years because of the amount of money that he’s going to
have to invest in the [unintelligible] of the concession space. It is a new facility and both
he and the airport are going to be investing a considerable amount of money in making
that concession a concession, a food concession. And he asked for those terms in order to
recoup the money that he’s investing into it. As far as the catering, that’s been a yearly
contract in the past and we did that at the airport more for our convenience than his. The
company that has had it has been doing it for several years now. We did two RFPs to get
this one and they were the only people that submitted a proposal and they have been
doing a satisfactory job at the airport. So with regards to the catering it was more our
convenience than theirs.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, in that regard, I’m going to make a substitute motion
that we will approve the request of item 13 based on Mr. Boshears’ explanation and that
we ask him to go back on item 21 and present us a cost amount that this investor is
looking at putting in so that it would give us a better feel for what type of return he’s
going to need to be expecting to recoup his investment over a five year period or whether
16
a three year period or whatever time frame it may be. But I’d like to see that cost
analysis that he would have there.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion on the floor. Is there any further
discussion? Commissioners will now vote on the substitute motion by the substitute sign.
Vote on substitute motion.
Ms. Beard, Mr. Williams, Mr. Colclough and Mr. Holland vote No.
Motion fails 5-4.
Mr. Mayor: We will now vote on the original motion.
The Clerk: Yes, sir, to deny.
Mr. Mayor: Could you read back the motion, please, Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: Mr. Williams’ motion was to deny and that they be brought back with
a two year contractual period.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Vote on original motion.
Mr. Smith, Mr. Brigham, Mr. Bowles and Mr. Grantham vote No.
Motion fails 5-4.
Mr. Mayor: No action taken.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
22. Motion to approve the Reprogramming of $15,000 in Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the Economic Development
Revolving Loan Fund to the Augusta Youth Center. (Approved by Administrative
Services Committee February 13, 2006)
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I asked this to be pulled.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham?
Mr. Brigham: I asked this to be pulled. I have some concerns in that we are
taking money out of a revolving loan fund for a one time expenditure. I do not think this
is an appropriate action on this Commission’s part. And I did not agree with the
explanation that was given in committee as to why this was being done—simply because
we have funds there. That doesn’t make any sense. Now, if I can get a better
17
explanation, I might can support this. But just to take it out of a revolving loan fund
because that’s where the money is in the department makes absolutely no sense to me.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. DeCamp, would you like to speak to this issue?
Mr. DeCamp: Mr. Brigham, this is a loan fund that has not been accessed very
frequently over the last three to four years. We are allocating in this year’s action plan,
the 2006 action plan, another $100,000 for that program which will bring the balance
to—it will leave a balance even if these funds are reprogrammed of $281,000 in that
account.
Mr. Brigham: My question is still why are we taking money out of a revolving
loan fund when we’ve got program monies—do we not have program monies that can be
reprogrammed?
Mr. DeCamp: Additional program monies? No.
Mr. Brigham: Reprogrammed or other, is there programmed monies not being
used?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. DeCamp?
Mr. DeCamp: Well, no, all the other funds are budgeted for other projects.
Mr. Brigham: I just think it’s a mistake to take money out of a loan fund to put—
it’s like taking money out of reserve funds to spend on pay raises. That’s the wrong thing
to do.
Mr. DeCamp: I understand your concern, Mr. Brigham. And I’m going to be
short in the very near future, making some comprehensive recommendations to this full
body with regard to how the block grant program and the other programs out of Housing
and Economic Development are run.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion? Do we have a motion on this item?
Mr. Holland: Yes, sir, in view of the fact that Mr. DeCamp has given this
explanation in reference to this loan and it’s something that is needed for this
program, I would like to make a motion that we accept this and pass this.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Is there any further discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
18
Mr. Brigham votes No.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Williams: Madame Clerk, item 20?
The Clerk: Item 24. Item 20? Yes, sir, we did pull that.
Mr. Mayor: We need to go back.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVICES
20. Motion to approve additional professional services due to change in scope to
Davis Design Group in the amount of $11,000. (Approved by Public Services
Committee February 13, 2006)
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I need some clarification in this. I understand that the Department
of Recreation doing some work out in the Apple Valley area but I’m a little bit confused
as the money we spent and the design change again, Mr. Beck, will we need to add
additional money to this? Or this design going to be completed or we going to add and
add and add as we go along? I don’t understand. Hadn’t we done a design and paid for
that earlier?
Mr. Mayor: Through the Chair, please, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I’m sorry, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: That’s okay.
Mr. Williams: I look at you and I expect the answer to come from the person in
front of me. Kind of hard.
Mr. Mayor: I understand.
Mr. Williams: [unintelligible] changing.
Mr. Mayor: It doesn’t come overnight. I understand.
Mr. Williams: I’m going to work with you. I’m going to work with you. Mr.
Mayor, my question is that we spent some money in design in that area and I’m in
support of this project, very much. But I need to know if the scope of the project change
again and I don’t know how the scope got to where it is now. I don’t remember the
19
[unintelligible] but I need to know whether the project change again or whether the
design change again or is this our final design, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beck, would you like to speak to that issue?
Mr. Beck: I will, Mr. Mayor. To answer Commissioner Williams’ question, the
scope of the project has only changed because the dollars changed because of the passage
of the SPLOST V referendum. We initially had $90,000, or $95,000 in construction
funds that you the Commission approved, an initial design contract for that first $95,000.
See that that money was not going to be put to good use or to be—we needed more
money to leverage with it, we did wait until SPLOST V package came along. Once that
was approved with the monies in there, then these additional A&E dollars, consultant
dollars will be used to build out what monies have been approved now. The only change
in scope would be if additional dollars are approved for the master plan. This basically is
utilizing and having the architectural and engineering based on the construction dollars
we’ve got now for the project.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I need to still be clarified a little bit more because
when the dollars—I heard Mr. Beck say it’s increased, then the project I guess increases
and then the design going increase. As Commissioner of that district and Commissioner
of that project, I don’t want to keep adding and adding and adding and adding. I would
like to get a scope that we going use and go ahead and do something. Now, we’re behind
on this project, this particular project, about two years anyway. But when the design
change or when the dollars change I would love to be informed, Mr. Mayor, so I’ll be
able to say well, let’s go ahead and do what we got here. There are other areas that might
need some assistance, might need some money to go somewhere else with. And I’m not
trying to limit that project, but I don’t like to see it change and change and change and
then I not have no input to know what was there, Mr. Mayor. So I certainly appreciate
I want to make a motion to approve with the stipulation
that. I got no problem and
that any other changes with dollars coming in through any other way, that we at
least sit down and talk and maybe get with the community or get with the
Commissioner, whoever he or she may be, and at least inform so we won’t be
misinformed.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Dr. Hatney: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk:
20
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
24. Motion to approve Contract Extension and reimbursement for services
rendered in South Augusta by Prime Commercial Properties, Inc., in the amount of
$11,000.00 for the Economic Development Ombudsman Program subject to
clarification/supporting documents on the Weed and Seed CDBG funding.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee February 13, 2006)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We been talking about this for quite some
time and we have asked for a report to come back. And the report that I saw was very
vague. We had a lot of meetings and Ms. Peel came and showed us the status of
meetings with Commissioners and even other Departments in this government. But I’m
just wondering why this wasn’t an inclusive dollar amount. We spent some $35,000 last
time, then we come back and we want to approve some additional work. If work done
this work and we need to pay then, then I think we need to pay them. But I’m a little bit
leery about how this came in different. Then we specifying south Augusta. I say every
time this ought to be Augusta. Ought not be east, west, north or south. Ought to be
Augusta. And if you can do something, if you cross the line, whether it be Broad Street
or Washington Road you ought not have to charge a different price from one side of the
street to do it. It ought to be a uniform type situation where we working in this city to
bring economic development in whatever we part of it we can. So when we designate
south and west and east Augusta then I think we pointing fingers. I think we
[unintelligible] instead of saying Augusta and if there is more cause for working on one
side of town than there is the other side, Mr. Mayor, I think we ought to know that up
front.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. DeCamp, would you like to speak to this issue?
Mr. DeCamp: Well, you’ve been provided with some documentation prior to the
committee meeting with regard to the additional cost that Prime Properties incurred in
doing work with regard to activities targeted on the south side of the city. And these
were funds that were originally part, designated to be part of a second contract for BHBA
Group which was not, the contract was not executed for obvious reasons. We are in the
process of working with Ms. Peel to finalize the documentation [unintelligible] under this
second contract, which is the $11,000 is part of. And she is working diligently to
provide us with those final documentation. And as far as the third contract, we’re also
working closely with her to specifically identify specific, in a more specific format the
activities and specific deliverables that would be part of that third contract so that there
won’t be questions and concerns on your part on the back end about what exactly is to be
provided by her consulting firm as part of the ombudsman activities.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith?
21
Mr. Smith:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As we all know, the ombudsman program
had two participants. One was Janie Peel and one was Ms. Adams. And in May, I
believe it was, Ms. Adams resigned and Ms. Peel picked up the responsibilities for both
parts. And this is just the [unintelligible] money that has not been spent. I’d like to move
approve this because she has definitely done the job out there.
that we And I’d like to
say that mainly this was in south Augusta redevelopment [unintelligible] and that’s where
they worked so hard. Mr. Williams, that’s the reason south is in there.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion but I know Rev. Hatney wanted to—
Dr. Hatney:
I would like to offer a substitute motion. I have no problem with
juncture we should advise individuals who are
the money being paid but I think at this
under contract with Augusta not to spend money before it’s awarded. I put that in
the form of a motion.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mayor, I just need some clarification. What supporting
documents for Weed and Seed and CDBG—how did Weed and Seed and CDBG
interact?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. DeCamp?
Mr. DeCamp: I think it was in some of the deliverables that she presented to the
committee initially a couple of weeks ago. I think she’s documenting what types of
projects and economic development-related projects and activities were underway or had
been completed in the city or had been funded.
Mr. Colclough: Weed and Seed was part of that?
Mr. DeCamp: Well, that’s something that she reported on in her documentation.
That was one of many [unintelligible] activities.
Mr. Colclough: Weed and Seed is a [unintelligible] Department program.
Mr. DeCamp: Right. I understand that.
Mr. Colclough: So out of that interact with CDBG is what I’m trying to find out.
Mr. DeCamp: How did Weed and Seed interact with CDBG?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough, through the Chair, please, sir.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor.
22
Mr. DeCamp: The only direct interaction is that that was one—CDBG funds
were awarded to the Weed and Seed Program last year under the 2005 action plan. There
was $50,000 awarded to that agency.
Mr. Colclough: Thank you. We do have a substitute motion?
Mr. Mayor: We do. Commissioner Holland?
Mr. Holland: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. DeCamp, even though this is under
Administrative Services and we [unintelligible] the last time around, you mentioned a
word a few minutes ago that [unintelligible] and that’s in reference to [unintelligible] and
that’s what concerns me more than anything [unintelligible] in reference to the report that
she brought in that I was looking for. Some specifics. And we didn’t see any specifics in
reference to [unintelligible] this other $11,000. That’s really my main concern in
reference to her report, so I think that in the future she should come back with some
specifics in reference to these monies that are being [unintelligible], let’s make sure that
she knows that. That’s my main concern.
Mr. DeCamp: Right. That’s a concern of ours as well.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Holland, through the Chair, please, sir.
Mr. Holland: Sorry.
Mr. Mayor: I think we are clarifying—is it a motion or a substitute?
The Clerk: [unintelligible]
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Could you please read back
the motion, Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: The motion is to approve the contract extension subject to no funds—
with the stipulation that monies are not to be spent that have not been approved by the
Commission.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the
usual sign.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 8-1.
The Clerk:
FINANCE
23
29. Motion to approve the acquisition of 3 compact pickup trucks, 5 full-size
pickup trucks, 2 utility body trucks, and 2 cargo vans for the Utilities Department-
Customer Service Division. (Approved by Finance Committee February 13, 2006)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bowles, I believe you pulled this?
Mr. Bowles: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I would like, since Fleet Maintenance is here, to
come—I just think we our budget deficit looming for three years in a row now that it may
be time to consider to reevaluate the life expectancy of our vehicles so we could replace
them less often and try to save some capital equipment expenses for the city.
Mr. Mayor: Would you like to speak to this?
Mr. Crowden: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, life expectancy policy was approved I
believe in 2004 by the Commission. It had been augmented from the 1998 life
expectancy where we extend the life expectancy and mileages of certain vehicles. We
could certainly re-look at it as requested as part of the whole replacement policy. That
would actually be a complete review of the policy itself. We have no objection to that.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to know what the mileage for the life
expectancy that we approved in 2004, what is that now? And another question, Mr.
Mayor, are we changing a fleet? Since we got twelve on this item 29 we’re changing, are
we swapping out, are we replacing twelve units at one time? Because we have the money
appropriate in sales tax, we going to go ahead and spend it? That’s my question.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Crowden: The three compact trucks would replace older model trucks and
those trucks are listed in the agenda item. They have—one of them has—all of them are
1998 models so that puts them at eight years, which for the Ranger, the small Ranger puts
them at the life expectancy by age. The mileage on that is 150,000 miles for the Ranger.
But we did look at it and we did evaluate it in accordance with the replacement policy.
All three of these trucks meet the replacement criteria by the points evaluation. Those
were attached as part of your attachments to the agenda item. One of the F150s is a
replacement of an older model and all the rest are new to accommodate new positions
that were approved back in June, I believe, of 2005, for the reorganization of Customer
Service Division for the Utilities Department.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, first of all my thing is we said many, many times and
because the truck is ’98 and the doors are falling of it, Mr. Mayor, and it couldn’t get
down the road I could see us trading it. But we pay Fleet Management $3 million a year
to do preventive maintenance on our trucks. That’s al our vehicles, all our motorized
24
equipment. So if the average taxpayers who don’t keep it up as well as we do can get
200,000 miles, cheaper trucks that run like seem like forever—if we got 150,000 miles on
the truck and the truck is good, if we had to replace the engine [unintelligible] system we
got, through Fleet Management, if we had to replace an engine—I see Mr. Smith look up
here, he know exactly where I’m coming from, talking about replacing an engine. But
Commissioner Bowles is right, we have been spending money on automobiles. If we
look at the amount of money we have spent on just transportation for picking up
[unintelligible] and going and reading meters and different stuff, you can’t walk to do
that, but we’ve got to get a handle on that in some kind of way. So I guess, Mr. Mayor,
my question is that couldn’t we replace an engine an even a transmission for a fraction of
what we’re paying for new vehicles?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Crowden?
Mr. Crowden: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, we do that. My dilemma is this. I
don’t have the capability to run a truck until it just plumb wears out and then go buy a
new one. It takes me a year to a year-and-a-half in this process, this government process,
to purchase a new vehicle. If I order these vehicles today I won’t see them until—I will
probably see these around September time frame. So the trucks that we’re using and
replacing today will accumulate additional wear and tear on themselves. So I’m crossing
my fingers that they will make that gate. Yes, we have vehicles in the system right now
that are ranging 186,000 miles we haven’t replace and have no intention of replacing at
this time. The money won’t support it. So we’ve got to keep them going. In the case of
Utilities, they are in better shape than general fund as you well know, so they have the
capability to do a better management and replacement program than most of the other
departments. This program, this replacement program follows the recommendations and
the methodology which is recommended by the American Public Works Association,
which has decades and decades of public service fleet experience and that’s what we
follow.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: I would like to get with Mr. Bowles and
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Williams and let us review these policies and come back and recommend
something.
Mr. Mayor: You guys good with that?
Mr. Smith: That’s a motion.
Mr. Williams: I second that motion of Mr. Smith, Mr. Mayor. We talked about
this before, about in-house maintenance service. We spend $3 million. We went to
Savannah to GMA and we went by to visit that shop. All I hear around here is what we
can’t do. I mean that’s not in Fleet Management. That’s all I hear in this government is
what we can’t do. Never what we can do. We had an in-house situation, we had
problems with it, and we closed the door, and we paying $3 million a year. Savannah,
25
Georgia works on trash trucks, that we don’t have to work with, they work on everything.
Mayor Floyd Adams explained to me at a conference that they went out and went inside,
went in-house and saved $1.5 million. Now, Mr. Bowles, go back to what you’re talking
about. I’m not here to beat up on the Fleet Management person, Mr. Crowden, but the
point is this is taxpayers’ money and we need to be good stewards, the best stewards we
can of the dollars. Now, maybe [unintelligible] do something with it, but a lot of us had
to take nothing and do something with it and [unintelligible]. I don’t see us doing that in
this government. And we need to know that we ought to be trying to save the taxpayers
as much money as we can.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, Mr. Smith and Mr. Boyles, I’d offer to be on the
committee to look into that with y’all.
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: But in the meantime they have followed the policies and procedures
and this is the method that we have used and a lot of these vehicles are for additional
employees for things they will be doing. I honestly think we should go on and allow this
to take place and review because we’re purchasing cars all the time. Do you have a
problem with that?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: I’d like to amend my motion to go ahead
Mr. Mayor, thank you.
and approve this item 24 [sic] and then we can meet at a later date to consider the
future. 29.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Colclough: Item 29, not 24.
Mr. Mayor: Item 29. Rev. Hatney?
Dr. Hatney: Along with that, I don’t have any problem approving this today but
there needs to be in place a document that is designed whether we will exchange a
vehicle at 100,000 miles, 150,000, three years, whatever. There needs to be some means
by which we decide we’re going to buy the vehicles. I think that should be a policy and
that should be developed.
Mr. Mayor: That is what this group, I believe, will do. Yes, sir. We have a
motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by
the usual sign.
26
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 8-1.
The Clerk:
FINANCE
30. Motion to approve the acquisition of 1 slope mower for the Public Services –
Maintenance Division from Kut Kwick Corporation of Brunswick, Georgia for
$40,623.00 (Lowest Bid offer for bid 05-150). (Approved by Finance Committee
February 13, 2006)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Again, Mr. Mayor, here we are buying a $40,000 lawn mower that
tips to the side when you go down a hill. I don’t want to talk about what we need, Ms.
Beard. I can think of lots that we need, but I don’t see the need of buying a
[unintelligible] lawn mower for $40,000. This is not the first one. We had to have one to
cut some special grass at the golf course we spent some $40,000 for. Now, we got the
money in sales tax and cause the money been approved, but we ain’t got no money in
reserve and all, we just going to spend the money, then we ought to just open the gate up.
But I can’t approve voting for a [unintelligible] law mower that tips to the side when
you’re going down the hill when a John Deere tractor would run forever. And I seen a lot
of things wear out but I never seen a bush hog wear out on the side of the road nowhere.
Every one I seen is always in operation. And rather than going sideways we ought to be
going up and down. It ain’t got nothing to do with the operation of the people who
running it but this don’t make sense, Mr. Mayor, to spend $40,000 for a [unintelligible]
lawn mower to cut grass with. I make a motion that we deny this agenda item as well.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Mr. Bowles: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I am assuming, and I guess Mr. Hicks is
here?
The Clerk: This is for maintenance.
Mr. Smith: Oh.
The Clerk: Mr. Greene.
Mr. Smith: Is this mower for the new water treatment plant?
27
The Clerk: No. This is for—
Mr. Speaker: [unintelligible]
Mr. Smith: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney?
Dr. Hatney: You say you’ve got five of these things?
Mr. Mayor: Through the Chair, please. Through the Chair.
Mr. Hicks: No, sir, we only have one.
Dr. Hatney: Is it working?
Mr. Hicks: Oh, yes.
Dr. Hatney: Can’t you share it?
Mr. Hicks: I don’t have any problem with that.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion and second. Mr. Brigham?
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to hear from Mr. Greene about this, since it’s
his department.
Mr. Greene: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, this mower, it is expensive,
Commissioner, to answer your question. This mower is used on Calhoun Expressway, on
those banks where we cannot put a tractor, as well as the Augusta canal. We cannot put a
tractor with bush hog mower on the Augusta canal and cut the Augusta canal. It just
won’t do it. They will not hold up. They’ll tip over. This Kut Kwick mower is a
specialty vehicle. It’s the only piece of equipment that we can cut the Augusta canal with
unless we use just manpower. And we do not have the manpower to just cut Augusta
canal and keep up with our other work.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hicks?
Mr. Hicks: We certainly have no objection to sharing but just like Mr. Greene
pointed out, theirs is probably an everyday use on this mower. Ours is [unintelligible]
but they definitely have almost an everyday use. I’ve watched them cut the bank on the
levee across from my office [unintelligible] day and I just shake my head any time they
do it. I can understand how they would need the mower [unintelligible] specialty mower.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
28
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham?
Mr. Brigham: I’m going to make a substitute motion we approve this item.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: That’s fine. I only wanted to say that I think it’s absolutely essential
that we have this. We want our city to look good. If we want it to look good then we
need the equipment that is necessary to keep it that way.
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion and second to approve.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. I agree with Ms. Beard about the city looking good. But
I mean you got to realize what you can afford. I mean you get lots of [unintelligible] and
whistles and bells to go off on equipment but if we talking about monies and we’re
talking about taxpayers’ money and we talk about trying to get the best [unintelligible]
we got. Now, if we had the resources to buy all these new fringes I have no problem.
But when you look at how much money we’re spending, how much money we have spent
in the last year just on equipment—I know Mr. Greene needs to get the work done. I
seen a man with a herd of goats, walking them down the bank, and they’re cleaning,
clean as your hand is, I guarantee you. And it don’t cost no $40,000. I’m just saying that
we have been in this city all these years, we been keeping the levee cut, we ain’t had
nobody talking about they can’t see the river for the levee. We just can’t buy all the new
fringes, Mr. Mayor. That’s why I made my motion.
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion and second on the floor. Any further
discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Dr. Hatney: What’s the substitute motion again?
Mr. Mayor: The substitute motion to approve.
The Clerk: To approve the purchase of the slope mower at $40,623.
Vote on substitute motion.
Mr. Bowles, Dr. Hatney, Mr. Williams and Mr. Holland vote No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion fails 4-4-1.
29
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we will now vote on the original motion. Commissioners will
now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Grantham: What’s the original?
The Clerk: The original motion is to deny the purchase.
Vote on original motion.
Mr. Smith, Ms. Beard, Mr. Brigham and Mr. Grantham vote No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion fails 4-4-1.
Mr. Mayor: No action taken. That gets us through all the pulled consent items,
doesn’t it?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We’ll now move on to the regular agenda.
The Clerk:
PLANNING
37. Z-06-09 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to APPROVE with the condition that the family personal
care home be limited to three (3) unrelated clients; a petition by Emma Bright, on
behalf of Sallie Mae Bright, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of
establishing a family personal care home per Section 26-1 (H) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at
2200 Central Avenue and contains .17 acres. (Tax Map 44-2 Parcel 252) DISTRICT
3
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty: This is a request for a family personal care home. Under the rules they
could have up to six unrelated individuals, plus an unlimited number of family members
in the home. And this applicant wants to have two—she wanted to herself, her husband,
two related family members, and three unrelated people living in a home. And there
were objectors and they cited police calls to the home and there was a neighbor that cited
problems that he’d had with them, alleged that there were people sleeping in a car in the
back. None of that at the time was substantiated by police reports. They did have some
police reports now and I’ve looked at what they sent to me and I’ve also talked to the
Sheriff’s Department. What I believe was a previous location between 2000 and 2005
they had nine calls where folks did wander away from the home. But at this location
they’ve only three calls that weren’t traffic citations in the 2200 block of Central Avenue
and those were various types of problems they had at the home. So there is something to
what the neighbors are saying. But they only want to have three unrelated people in the
30
home. Typically these requests for these personal care homes end up just like this one is.
The neighbors don’t want it, they’re afraid of the precedent it will set, they’re afraid that
once it gets established that we won’t be able to control it. On the other hand we know
that there is a need for these type facilities. Not everybody’s parents can live in the high-
end nursing homes that there are. In this community especially where we’ve got as many
health service agencies and hospitals, we’ve got a lot of demands for these types homes.
To some extent they’re protected by federal law so we need to try to allow them to be
established where we can and where they fit in the neighborhood. This particular block of
Central Avenue has—it’s zoned professional, by the way. Before about three years ago
this home could have been established in this professional zone without zoning action.
We changed the zoning ordinance about three years ago to require special exceptions for
any kind of residential development in a professional zone because we had some
situations where we were getting professional zoning and then it would end up being
multi-family and that was causing some problems. This home could have been
established a few years ago without rezoning. The block is predominantly multi-family.
The property next to it has got two duplexes on it. This house has obviously been multi-
family at one time. It’s been added on to on the back at least once. There’s another
duplex and possibly two other duplexes on the block so it’s just kind of a mixed area and
seems to be the type of place that this sort of thing might be permissible but there are
allegations of problems with the applicants. The Planning Commission and my
recommendation voted to approve it. That’s our take on it.
Mr. Mayor: It’s my understanding that the petitioner is here? If the petitioner
could come forward.
Ms. Bright: My name is Emma Jean Bright, 200 Central Avenue [unintelligible].
Mr. Mayor: Does anybody have any—would you like to say anything on your
behalf or does any Commissioners have any questions? Okay. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I had some calls and I’d like to know if people who is in
opposition that come and explain what their opposition to it is. Mr. Patty said he
recommended approval but I did have some calls from some of the neighbors and I would
like to hear from them.
Mr. Mayor: I’m going to recognize the objectors as well.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: You can be seated if there are no further questions. I believe
somebody is here to speak on behalf of the objectors. Would you please, everybody that
opposes it, could you please raise your hand?
[13 objectors noted]
31
Mr. Mayor: Sir, if you could please state your name for the record and your
address?
Mr. Speaker: My name is David [unintelligible].
Dr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor, can’t hear him.
Mr. Speaker: My name is [unintelligible]. I live at 2202 Central Avenue. It’s not
just me that’s opposing this. I have a whole petition here. Want me to pass it?
Mr. Mayor: Please.
Mr. Speaker: The guy that sleeps in the vehicle, I do have proof, I have photos
here showing that he does sleep in his vehicle. I do have a Sheriff’s Department incident
report, before the zoning board. I also have pages of violations from the Office of
Regulatory Service from Atlanta for personal care home. And I also have a letter here, as
you have been [unintelligible], from the previous land owner at 201 Broad Street stated
that this happened before in the old place. We just trying history from repeating itself in
our neighborhood. [unintelligible] evidence so here’s my evidence.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Yes, sir?
Mr. Moretz: My name is David Moretz. I’m the past president of the
Summerville Neighborhood Association. At our meeting last week they voted to have
me come up and express our support for the neighbors and opposition to this.
[unintelligible] and the other neighbors have done a lot of work to show that this home
doesn’t belong here. We may have multi-family there but at the same time given the
record of this operator in her other location, we support their opposition to this. And I
believe the neighbors have done their homework and I hope y’all will oppose this today.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Thank you both. Rev. Hatney?
Dr. Hatney: He mentioned that they have information, but we don’t have it.
Mr. Speaker: You’ve been supplied a packet last week, in all your boxes. This is
the entire record. And we have more copies.
Dr. Hatney: [unintelligible] what do you mean by that? [unintelligible] car deal?
What that got to do with the home?
Mr. Speaker: The guy in question is—I have a picture of the vehicle and the car
and you can see the house in the background. Like I said, here is the package. I had sent
to every one of your boxes. I have another copy of it with records from Office of
Regulatory Services, letter from where they used to live at 201 Broad Street,
[unintelligible] owner. She lives in Atlanta now but she did fax me that letter this
32
morning. I have the incident reports from the Sheriff’s Department showing that there
th
was calls made prior to the rezoning board hearing the 16.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am, you’d like to respond?
Ms. Bright: I would like to respond.
Mr. Mayor: Making sure to give everybody equal time.
Ms. Bright: On the report [unintelligible] sleeping in the car, he came over there
[unintelligible] the gentlemen told him he was not sleeping in the car. Then he called the
police. The police came out and it was identified was no one sleeping in the car. But on
the [unintelligible] he came by and took a picture of the [unintelligible] and I guess what
he’s saying was in the car but it was [unintelligible]. So I called the police so this would
be on the police record. They been calling ever since we been up there but we haven’t
had no problem, no accidents, no disturbance. I don’t say why they say we been creating
problems for some of the neighborhood. We have not since we first been there.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. Coach Holland?
Mr. Holland: I’d like to know whether or not, Mr. Mayor, the [unintelligible]
received a citation from the Police Department indicating that someone has been sleeping
out there in a car, has the person been sleeping in the car, has that person been arrested
and has that person received a citation or has any of this happened, do they have a record
of this?
Ms. Bright: No, sir. Have not.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Speaker: Like I said, the incident report, the photo, the people here, I can ask
them to raise their hands, eye witnesses [unintelligible].
Mr. Holland: My question, Mr. Mayor, is if the police have a record of this?
Have citations been passed out in reference to this?
Mr. Mayor: Apparently not on this specific issue.
Ms. Bright: No, sir, have not.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, Mr. [unintelligible] is it?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir.
33
Mr. Colclough: You say you had regulatory agency violations of her home?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: Of this home?
Mr. Speaker: This home and a previous home at 201 Broad Street.
Mr. Colclough: [unintelligible]
Mr. Speaker: I’m sorry?
Mr. Colclough: Can I see those?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: Okay. [unintelligible]
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to know from Mr. Patty, he recommended I
think, he recommended they approve it. But when it came through Planning and Zoning
these same scenarios was given I would imagine. The car I’m looking at, is that an
abandoned car? Is that a car with a current tag?
Ms. Bright: It is not an abandoned car and it do have a tag and a gentleman drive
this car. He only sit out there in the day time. The gentleman said he sits out there two
and three o’clock in the morning. Not so. He only be out there in the day time cause
they cannot smoke in the facility. He goes out on the back and sometimes he sit in his
car. But they do not, he do not sleep in his car whatsoever. And the car is running. This
guy drive his car.
Mr. Moretz: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Moretz?
Mr. Moretz: To answer your question, a lot of this information was not at the
prior meeting. It was requested from Mr. Patty to supply more data, like the letter that
[unintelligible] got from the prior owner of 201 Broad Street. Her outline of the situation
was when she had them as tenants. A lot of this is new based on the meeting they had
before. And I don’t know if you had time to read any of the letter that was dated
February 22 from the prior landlord, where it talks about the gentleman in the station
wagon sitting out there all day, sometimes night, drink beer all day, urinated on the street,
back of and on the side of the house. This house was on a corner. When he exposed
himself everyone could see. Where this home is located, again might have multi-family,
but we’d have families, and that’s why we’re in opposition to it.
34
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Having knowledge of this location on
Central Avenue and with the number of the residents in that area that have signed the
petition objecting to this type of business there, I’m going to make a motion that we deny
the request today for the approval of this home.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Patty, I’d like to know had he had an opportunity to look at
this information, the new information that has been brought forth? I mean cause
Planning and Zoning approved it to come. And I don’t want to create a nuisance to that
but they are elderly, George, and we had many cases come and people who try to get a
license and do it the right way, I think the rules say you can have six people that’s
related—no, 200 people related and six people unrelated without a license. I mean they
can do what they do without this, I believe, Mr. Patty.
Mr. Patty: They can have all the family members plus two unrelated without the
zoning.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Patty: What they’re asking for is three unrelated and family members. So the
rule that we’re talking about is one additional person here.
Mr. Williams: Okay, this new information, have you had a chance to look at any
of this new information?
Mr. Patty: Yes, I’ve looked at it and the police calls to the house—I was talking
to—when I saw it, it conflicted with what I’d ask the investigators before. I called and
talked to Inv. Nutter just before I came over here and there are ten calls on this list. Two
of those are actually at another location, one on Lumpkin Road and one on
[unintelligible] Street and four of them are traffic stops in the 2200 block and three of
them are actual calls to this house. One is for sleeping in a car, one a mental patient that
got out of control, and one a suspicious male. So there have been three calls here and
there were calls to the other location. I don’t know that that’s actually their responsibility
but there were calls to the other. As far as the Department of Human Resources stuff,
you know, it appears to indicate that there were some problems. I can’t determine from
35
this thing, frankly, whether they were corrected or not or how significant they were. But
I’ve got it here and I’ve tried to look at it when you got it.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: From Mr. Patty’s new information, what do he recommend?
[unintelligible]
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty?
Mr. Speaker: May I address, please?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Patty, I don’t know if you received this letter from Mrs.
[unintelligible]. May I give this to him?
Mr. Mayor: Sure.
Mr. Speaker: May I say one other thing?
Mr. Mayor: Please.
Mr. Speaker: You [unintelligible] three people, you’re saying, of course, but if
it’s just one person making the whole neighborhood oppose, I mean if you let one or two
or three, it doesn’t matter, they’ve done wrong. I’ve proved that they’ve done wrong and
I just don’t see a right for you to approve something that all of us have to live with every
day in our homes.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, do you have any recommendation on this as requested by
Mr. Williams?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, let me ask a question.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Ms. Bright, you have two homes?
Ms. Bright: No, sir.
Mr. Colclough: Just one?
Ms. Bright: Just one.
36
Mr. Colclough: On the [unintelligible] something like personal care home #2.
[unintelligible] or what?
Ms. Bright: Yes, that’s the former one. In order to get a license for the second
one you have to hold that one open until they approve the second one and then the first
one is closed down.
Mr. Colclough: This was done on 12/20/05; is that correct?
rd
Ms. Bright: 12/20/05? We got our license November 23.
Mr. Colclough: Of ’05?
Ms. Bright: ’05, yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: You’ve got your license in ’05?
Ms. Bright: Uh-huh.
Mr. Colclough: And they did an inspection in December of ’05?
Ms. Bright: Someone called in and said [unintelligible] people from Atlanta, they
did not come in. They sent us a statement they reviewed the [unintelligible] and they
found no criminal or anything wrong so they didn’t even come here, but they sent us a
paper. We didn’t even know no one have called. But it has not been no problem from
Atlanta, like when they come down.
Mr. Colclough: Have you read this? This is 12/20/05. Go ahead, read it.
Mr. Mayor: You want me to do it?
The Clerk: [reading] The purpose of this visit was to conduct a complaint
investigation of the following allegations: 1. Physical environment. Safe environment
not provided. This allegation was not substantiated. Quality of care environment. Over
capacity. This allegation was not substantiated. The surveyor conducted an investigation
by observing the external rear of the facility. Closing comment: No rule violations were
cited as a result of this inspection. [ends reading]
Ms. Bright: They sent us a paper on that but no one never did come in or
anything.
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney, I believe you had a question.
Dr. Hatney: Ma’am, the facility, do you own that? Do you own the building?
Ms. Bright: 2200 Central Avenue?
37
Dr. Hatney: Yes, ma’am.
Ms. Bright: Yes, sir.
Dr. Hatney: And what you’re asking for is permission, one more individual that’s
a non-resident?
Ms. Bright: Yes, sir.
Dr. Hatney: [unintelligible]
Ms. Bright: Yes, sir.
Dr. Hatney: But whether you get that or not you are still going to have a personal
care home?
Ms. Bright: Yes, sir.
Dr. Hatney: [unintelligible] you’re talking about one other person and you’re
asking for that but you already got permission to have two?
Ms. Bright: Yes, sir.
Dr. Hatney: Two and six?
Ms. Bright: Uh-huh.
Dr. Hatney: Up to six. How long have you been in the neighborhood?
rd
Ms. Bright: I got in there the 23 of November. I had the house for one year
open. I went up there and did remodeling and cleaned it up and stuff like that. But I
rd
moved in the 23 of November.
Dr. Hatney: You live there?
Ms. Bright: Yes, sir, I live there.
Dr. Hatney: My question is—you basically answered my question because when
you moved in right after that, they started investigating you? I’m talking about the
community.
Ms. Bright: Yes, sir.
Dr. Hatney: Okay.
38
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles?
Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor, being as this neighborhood has experienced growing
pains over the years over the years with Augusta State in close proximity, it’s a
marvelous thing to see the homeowners and remodel houses and try to make it a family
residence for young children, and I just feel for the safety of the residents and small
children in the area and the close proximity—we’re talking about [unintelligible] houses
that are within four and five feet of each other—I’d like to call the question.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now—the
motion is to deny.
The Clerk: Deny the petition.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Williams, Dr. Hatney and Mr. Holland vote No.
Ms. Beard and Mr. Colclough abstain.
Motion fails 4-3-2.
Mr. Colclough: If you need an explanation why I abstained I’ll give that to you
[unintelligible].
Mr. Mayor: No action taken. Mr. Brigham?
Mr. Brigham: It is my understanding that since there was no action taken that the
most she can have under current zoning is only two clients that are non-family members.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, is that correct; if there is no action taken?
Mr. Patty: That’s correct. That’s correct.
Mr. Brigham: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
38. Motion to approve a one year $2 increase and all city employees be charged
the same rate. (No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee
February 13, 2006
The Clerk: For the membership at the YMCA, I believe that is.
39
Mr. Mayor: And I would like to go ahead and disclose for the record that I’m on
the board of the Family Y of Metro Augusta so I will take no part in this conversation
regarding this matter.
Mr. Colclough: Motion to approve.
Mr. Holland: Second.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: My comment is that this is all employees; is that all employees
now? Are we exempting elected officials? Is that the Fire Department, is that the—I
mean who does all employees include? I just want clarification.
Mr. Speaker: All employees who are eligible for benefits can sign up for
[unintelligible]. Fire Department, elected officials.
Mr. Williams: Elected officials. Elected officials.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: I heard that.
Mr. Holland: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Holland?
Mr. Holland: I’d like to go back to my word specific again. Is it possible that we
could get a specific list of those persons who are or would be eligible for this increase
here?
Mr. Speaker: We can provide that.
Mr. Holland: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I think I understand where Commissioner Holland is
coming from but with this, if we say all inclusive, I think that’s not going to create some
conversation like some other stuff we have, is that all inclusive [unintelligible] we can go
ahead and pass it. I’d like to see a list but I wouldn’t want to hold it up to get it out. I
would like to go ahead—if we can’t pass this—if that’s all inclusive—cause I don’t want
to leave one group of workers out, saying that they’re not in there. It’s like
[unintelligible] it ought to be in there.
40
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, please?
Mr. Speaker: I’m John [unintelligible], chief operating officer of the Family Y. I
think it was a miscommunication between what we talked with the Department of HR
with and where we’re finally at and I just want to clarify that. Originally we sent a series
of correspondence and I think you possibly received that last week; if not we’ve got extra
copies, some correspondence that started in September, November, December. Again,
staff has done a good job working with us. We requested a rate increase. We’ve had a
couple of rate increases since the original RFP for our normal members and we’re trying
to bring this corporate group up to where the other groups corporate groups in the CSRA
are. As part of the original RFP, which also included other providers in the community,
had the same rate structure, differentiating between the regular employees and the fire
and the police. What we requested was to increase the rates—I think it was $4 an
individual, $6 a family—and what we agreed to with the HR Department is we’d split
that. Instead of doing it one time we’d split it halfway for one year and then come back
and request the next year. So it’s not a $2 rate increase across the board. That was not
what was agreed upon. Also, we made some adjustments to the fire and police, $2 there
just to have a difference between the individual and family membership, give to the city
employees [unintelligible] rate, brief differential. I just wanted to clarify that and answer
any questions you might have on that before you approve it and you come back to the Y
and that’s not what we agreed upon, if that makes sense.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Crenshaw?
Mr. Crenshaw: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Williams, to address your issue, all of the
employees are—the relationship is available, any Augusta-Richmond County employee
may sign up for it by their choosing. And at the present time we have about 311 people
that are participating but it’s available to anyone who wants to sign up for it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, last time you were here I had some questions about
you were charging public safety one thing and regular employees something different.
That’s the last time you were here. Is that still on the table?
Mr. Speaker: That was my understanding, it was part of the original RFP that was
sent out not only to the Y but to other providers in the community [unintelligible]
approved back in 2002.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mayor, again you may recall that when the RFP was sent out
we were just asked to present a bid, a RFP, and as a courtesy to fire and—well, public
safety, because of 9-11, because of the hazards of their job we gave them that as a
courtesy and some of the other providers do that as well.
41
Mr. Colclough: So you’re saying that in this item here with the increase of $2
that you’re still charging Public Safety and regular employees two different prices to
attend the Y?
Mr. Speaker: That wasn’t what we asked for in our original proposal to you but
that is what your committee approved.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to withdraw my motion then. There is no
recommendation from the committee.
Mr. Speaker: The committee wanted all employees to be charged the same rate
and that is what—originally, currently regular employees are charged $32 a month,
Public Safety $16 a month, and for an additional $16 you can add your entire family.
And I think there were some concerns that Public Safety were treated better than other
employees. That’s why they wanted all employees to receive the higher rate.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, if I can continue?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: There is no recommendation from our committee saying that this
is what we wanted. I’m hearing what Mr. [unintelligible] is saying, is what my concern
was at the last meeting, that all employees should be charged the same rate, whether
they’re Public Safety or whether they are a guy out there with a backhoe. I mean we’re
talking 9-11, we’ve been using 9-11 as an escape [unintelligible]. That’s gone. That’s
history. I know our Public Safety people are on the front lines, I know they do a good
job, but I think they are still employees of Augusta-Richmond County just like the guys
down at Public Works and the landfill. And I don’t think it’s fair to charge one thing for
one group.
Mr. Speaker: The only reason we continued that is because that was part of our
original RPF and we were trying to stay consistent with where we had been.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, where are we now? We’re talking about a fitness
program that’s going to be able to help not just employees, but families, so what do we
do?
Dr. Hatney: If I’m recalling right, Mr. Mayor, when we were in Administrative
Services meeting this question came up and we agreed per se that representatives—they
had two or three increments in there. They wanted $2 this year and $2 next year so we
said [unintelligible] that $2 but that all the employees of Augusta-Richmond County
would be billed or charged the same rate. And that’s what we basically agreed on. The
reason it didn’t come forward as approved was we didn’t have enough votes to do that.
But that’s what we agreed on. We can send it back to committee and let y’all work some
42
more. But I just don’t think it’s fair to charge one employee something and because of
the job—that don’t won’t hunt.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Speaker: Originally in the letter, in the discussions we had with the staff, our
recommendation was to increase individuals $4 and increase families $6 for all general
employees, to increase Public Safety $4 and $2 to bring us back up to the level of other
corporate memberships. In discussions they felt they didn’t want to have that big an
increase. We compromised and said we could split the difference and increase it $2 and
$3 one year and come back the following year to bring it up. And we’ve had two rate
increases in memberships since the original RFP. This group has not been
[unintelligible].
Mr. Speaker: There is also a program where if employees go a certain amount of
times, we reimburse the employees an amount of money they pay. They go 15 times a
month, they go to the gym free of charge. So [unintelligible] increase the rate over Public
Safety because that would be more that we would have to reimburse the employees. We
do reimburse employees if they attend the gym.
Mr. Mayor: Is anybody ready to make a motion on this either way?
Mr. Brigham: Is there a motion on the floor, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: What is the motion on the floor? No, there is not a motion on the
floor.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I would love to make a motion but I don’t know what
to do. I’m trying to figure out where we are. And I hear we’re saying we can’t treat one
group different from the other one. What would be a satisfactory rate, Mr. Mayor, from
HR? What number?
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney?
Dr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor, I simply move that we send this back to committee
for further work.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Do we have a second?
Mr. Holland:
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Do we have any further discussion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor.
43
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: We sure do. I don’t mind sending it back but I think
[unintelligible] the money. That’s what we need to work on. Going back to committee,
are we going to come up with another figure in committee? Dr. Hatney, is that why
we’re going back?
Mr. Mayor: Dr. Hatney?
Dr. Hatney: It seems like we aren’t going to reach any conclusion today so we’re
going to—that’s why I made the motion to go back to committee. It will be ready when
it get back.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Mr. Grantham out.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Speaker: Can I, a point of clarification? There is no action, it goes back to
committee, do we currently not have a contract, a current contract?
Mr. Mayor: It goes back to committee for further review just to get it worked out.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
39. Motion to approve entering into a contractual agreement with selected
Health/Dental Insurance Provider. (No recommendation from Administrative
Services Committee February 13, 2006)
Mr. Speaker: On March of 2005 we went to a contract with our current health
insurance provider, United Health Care. We did the RFP in 2004 and they won the bid
process. What they did for us initially, they gave us great service and they added
University Hospital, which was a concern of our employees for a long period of time.
For a long period University Hospital was not an in-network provider for Augusta. And
we’ve been working with United Health Care since March 1, 2005. In December of
2005, we received the renewals from United Health Care and the rates were not an
acceptable amount. So we decided to do another RFP process. After the committee met
on two occasions we decided to bring the finalists in and we discussed their products and
we selected Blue Cross/Blue Shield to be the new provider
. Prior to I think several
months ago Blue Cross did not have University Hospital as an in-network provider but
44
now they are in-network for Blue Cross/Blue Shield as well. And if you have any
questions about the information that you have, I think Ms. Pelaez gave information to
each of you last week, I can discuss it. I also have representatives from Blue Cross/Blue
Shield here with us as well.
Mr. Williams: So move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Is there any further discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk:
FINANCE
40. Motion to approve the selection of Bond Counsel and Financial Advisor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to know exactly what are we fixing to approve
here? It says selection of bond counsel and financial advisor. We are getting—are
getting [unintelligible]? I mean this is a serious issue that we are—
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, we need to hear from our Finance director.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Persaud?
Mr. Persaud: Thank you, Commissioner Williams. The agenda item in front of
you is basically a follow-up from the [unintelligible] presented to you in December
regarding the financial team for the SPLOST [unintelligible] bonds. In consultation with
the city attorney [unintelligible] services for bond counsel and financial advisor.
[unintelligible] You have in front of you a recommendation for a financial advisor and
bond counsel to facilitate issuance of the bonds. One important note is that time of
th
essence since the bond validation process must occur before May 7. So the work that
you have in front of you [unintelligible] expedited by staff, the Finance Department and
the Procurement Department. I’ll be glad to answer any questions.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to move for approve.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion for approval. Is there a second?
Dr. Hatney: Second.
45
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bowles?
Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor, I see here the bond counsel and I brought it up a few
weeks ago, with no local firms being involved in this process and there were some
questions as to how the information was presented to the local attorneys. Generally I
know it’s advertised in the paper but one would think it would be advertised in the
Georgia state law magazine or something for the local attorneys to look for, rather than a
Sunday paper that comes once a week obviously. And it’s discouraging to me to know
that we have capable people here in our city and we’re going to send this money to
another city for bond counsel. I’d like to make a substitute motion to deny this item and
to send it back and open up the bids again and start the process over and we’ll just call
special meetings if we need to.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay we have a substitute motion and second. Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I do believe we’re up against the deadline and I think the
procedure was absolutely proper. I’d like for them to let us know where they advertised
for these positions.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Persaud?
Mr. Persaud: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Question is basically for Procurement so I
defer to Ms. Sams.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sams?
Ms. Sams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The advertisement for those two proposals
was in accordance with Augusta-Richmond County Code, of which I have given you that
information already at your last meeting. If anyone would like to receive an additional
copy I have them here. We advertised in accordance to Augusta-Richmond County
Code, which requires that we advertise for thirty days in The Augusta Chronicle, which
thththth
we did so on December 29, January 5, the 12 and the 19. The bids for that particular
thth
bid was opened on the 13. The committee met to evaluate the proposals on the 20 of
February. A pre-bid conference which was also in the Code, the Augusta-Richmond
County Code, item number 110-43d requires a pre-bid conference. That conference took
place on 1/20/06 at 10:00 o’clock. We addressed all issues as it relates to that. We also
advertised in Demand Star. On the Demand Star we received for bond counsel through
Demand Star which the Commission approved for the Procurement office to advertise,
we received thirteen plan holders. And of course through Demand Star they were not
local. Again, we advertised for thirty days through The Augusta Chronicle in the legal
part of the paper as required by law.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
46
Mr. Williams: So Mr. Mayor, I personally think we done those necessary things
for local, and we are in support of local participation. But what I’m hearing is we have
done those things that are necessary.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a substitute motion on the floor to deny and a
second. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Brigham: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham?
Mr. Brigham: I need—everybody said we’re on a deadline. What is the deadline
and why is this the deadline?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Persaud?
Mr. Brigham: That deadline was established obviously when we got here.
Mr. Persaud: The resolution that provide for the passage of the last SPLOST in
November, 2005 was to provide for issuance of $44 million SPLOST funds. There are
special stipulations [unintelligible] bonds that the bond validation process, the legal
process must be accomplished by May 7, 2006 and the city attorney can [unintelligible].
The bond validation process has to take place before May 7, 2006. Essentially from
[unintelligible] you have less than twelve months to develop your financing documents,
the preliminary and official statement, the advertisement of those bonds, the grading and
rating of those bonds, the selling of those bonds, and the closing of those bonds. In a
special correspondence to the Chairman of the Finance Committee, I brought to your
attention those [unintelligible] be in place. If you don’t then you can be in conflict with
the bond resolution and will unable to issue those bonds.
Mr. Brigham: When is our deadline to have it accomplished?
Mr. Mayor: Through the Chair, please, sir.
Mr. Brigham: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, when is our deadline to be able to have it
accomplished by May?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Persaud?
Mr. Persaud: Essentially in bond issue process to really expedite an issuance it
takes about twelve weeks.
Mr. Brigham: Twelve weeks?
Mr. Persaud: Twelve weeks. Yes.
47
Mr. Brigham: So what are we talking? March?
Mr. Persaud: [unintelligible] as of today you do not have—
Mr. Brigham: If it’s twelve weeks—
Mr. Persaud: You don’t have bond counsel, you do not have a time line or
[unintelligible]. In my professional opinion you’re running behind.
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion and second on the floor to deny the
request. Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign,
the substitute sign.
Ms. Beard, Dr. Hatney, Mr. Williams and Mr. Holland vote No.
Motion fails 5-4.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard, your agenda item was to approve both; correct?
Ms. Beard: It was to approve both, yes, because we had the information. Yes.
Mr. Mayor: We just voted on the substitute motion to deny and now we vote on
the motion to approve.
Ms. Beard: May I ask--
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: --Mr. Persaud to explain again the rationale for trying to get this
through? What has been done has been absolutely accurate. I understand that we may
want to use local individuals. But if local individuals are interested they have to keep up
with what is going on here. We have a process and we have a deadline and it’s just
essential that we move forward on items and if there’s a problem, we’re going to have
many, many more bonds coming about and let’s be sure our citizens are the first to know.
Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Do you need any further comment, Ms. Beard, or are we ready to
vote on your motion to approve?
Ms. Beard: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: The motion to approve.
The Clerk: The motion to approve failed 5-4.
Mr. Mayor: The substitute motion.
48
The Clerk: I’m sorry. Okay. The substitute.
Mr. Mayor: We haven’t vote on the motion yet. The motion to approve,
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Bowles, Mr. Smith, Mr. Brigham, Mr. Grantham and Mr. Colclough vote No.
Motion fails 4-5.
Mr. Mayor: No action taken.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham?
Mr. Brigham: I want to make a motion that we approve A.G. Edwards as bond
advisor. That was the recommendation, I do believe, was it not?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham, through the Chair, please.
Mr. Brigham: I’m asking the Chair. Is that the recommendation?
Mr. Mayor: The agenda item that came out of Finance was to approve both and
we acted on that agenda item and there was no action taken. There was—
Mr. Brigham: Yes, sir. And I’m separating the two items. I would like to make a
motion to approve the bond advisor. I don’t think we have a dispute over advisor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Parliamentarian, is that appropriate once we’ve voted on the
agenda item to then—
Mr. Persaud: Mr. Mayor, if I may clarify. The subject matter is financial advisor
and not bond advisor.
Mr. Brigham: Excuse me.
Mr. Persaud: As well as bond counsel. I don’t want to sound repetitive but I
think it’s important to hear from your city attorney. If you do not issue these bonds and
th
validate them by May 7 you may be in non-compliance with the SPLOST resolution.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I’ll be happy to address the Commission. On this matter, the—the
express preference of my office was to remain outside of the selection of the bond
counsel process to eliminate any allegation that I might have favored one counsel over
the other. And so when you wanted to go down that route I voiced no objection. I do not
49
think you’re out of time at this time. I would like to be expressly included in this process
and I think that you could, Mr. Brigham, split the question on a second motion that
you’ve made if the dispute does not center around the advisor. I have done the issuer’s
counsel portion of this in less time than remains. I do think you need to make a decision
certainly by next week but I have expressly stayed out of this process because of
allegations—well, actually it was done by the Procurement Department and the Finance
Director and I let it go to that end. I can certainly work with anybody and I can do the
validation in a very rapid time. That is not near due. And I’d be happy to show you
some examples from other validations that we did in previous years. A.G. Edwards is
fine. Really, I’ll work with anybody the Commission sees fit to appoint.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, but the question being is it appropriate for us as a body to act
on the motion to approve, by Mr. Brigham, to approve A.G. Edwards as financial
advisor?
Mr. Shepard: I said it was.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: It is.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Since we have voted on the issue of
accepting counsel and financial advisor, I think that we can now not omit but be able to
go out on professional services as far as requesting the type of bidding so that we can
th
pretty well get that on board as quick as we can in order to meet this May 7 deadline.
And it’s obvious that it’s not satisfactory as to where it was done to begin with and so I
would like to see that we do that and we bring that back as quick as we can and get the
proper figures in front of us so that we can make that decision based on financial advisory
and bond counsel, and I’ll put that in the form of a motion.
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, you know when you make a [unintelligible] attempt to do
things properly and then you’re faced with what we’re faced here now, we know we have
a deadline. We have gone out. You know, I’m really sorry the friends did not get this,
but they can get it next time. Now, what I am going to say. We [unintelligible] process,
even last week when you said it could not be presented, at 3:30 the bids came in. You
had two qualified companies as bond counsel. In other words, they met every
requirement that was needed. You have had a selection committee. And I am amazed
that we never listen to recommendations from our committees. Now to this, I’m voting
for this but I still don’t know of the two recommendations the one that’s going to—and
should be recommended today. I mean I am sorry this was missed by some people. I can
50
understand what Mr. Persaud is saying. He’s saying we’re up against the wall, this needs
to be done. Ms. Sams, you’re in charge of Purchasing.
Mr. Mayor: Through the Chair, please.
Mr. Shepard: Is there one reason—I would like to ask Ms. Sams is there one
reason—first of all, I think we have been given a much better price to do this. And
nobody has questioned that. And have you not followed all the necessary rules and
regulations in order to move this forward?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sams?
Ms. Sams: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, as it relates to the process and procedure
of going out for bond counsel, we followed every, every, every step to the letter of the
law, which is the reason why I have given you a copy of the law from Augusta-Richmond
County Code. As it relates to going out for professional services, that means that this
body can select whomever they would like to be for bond counsel. As it relates to local
participation, although I’m hearing that there are local attorneys that are concerned about
the matter and did not receive a RPF, nor did the Procurement Department receive their
concern.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham?
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, seeing how I receive backup of this agenda item at
11:00 o’clock this morning, 11:00 o’clock this morning, I was asked to make a decision
on it at 1:00 o’clock this afternoon, I do not think we’re acting inappropriately. If there
was information available it was not made available to the Commissioners. And
therefore I think we have every right to question this process.
Ms. Sams: Mr. Brigham—I’m sorry, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am?
th
Ms. Sams: The information was given on the 13, it was passed out during
committee meeting in this Chamber. At that time we said when the bids were going to be
opened and that we would give you the follow-up information. And that is what has
happened here. The process has not been in violation. We did exactly what we were
directed to do.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Ms. Beard: And Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
51
Ms. Beard: I’d like to say that no, I didn’t see any backup in the information but
at the last meeting before I left Ms. Sams said we have had two responses for bond
counsel and these are the names. Now, Mr. Brigham, she was about to let us know at that
meeting where you said you felt it could not be opened at that time. Now, I’m fairly new
in this position so I didn’t know the necessity to call and check with the information that
we received but I, as Chairman of the Finance Committee, did know everything was in
place.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Well, we have discussed this issue. We have attempted to act
on the agenda item once and were unable to consensus and no action was taken. There’s
a motion on the floor. I’d like to go ahead and—
Ms. Beard: Which motion was that?
Mr. Mayor: Was there a second to the motion? I didn’t hear a second. Excuse
me. There has not been a second on that motion to appoint. Excuse me, there was not a
second for Mr. Brigham’s motion. Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, and I did not receive a second. I just wanted to
reiterate that my motion and I think Ms. Sams confirm what I was saying, that we can
seek the professional services and we can do that based on this body agreeing that we
would go out and do that under your office. And my understanding is that Mr. Russell
and yourself and Mr. Persaud did talk that particular item out about a week ago as to
whether we could or should seek professional services without having to go on an RFP.
Ms. Sams: What we were clarifying at that meeting was whether or not we had
followed the process and we determined that we had. And we also determined that we
were in a limited window as relates to the time, making it impossible for us to go to the
second option.
Mr. Grantham: And then, Mr. Mayor, based on that, since it’s been denied today
or there has no action taken, why could we not go out for professional services based on
that idea?
Ms. Sams: I work for the Commission. Whatever you all decide.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: And I guess the process have been put in place and everybody’s
done the right thing to do, and I know it didn’t pass now but can’t we just reconsider and
go ahead and get this? I think our Finance Director have told us that we need to fast track
this. Our Finance Chairperson, she have told us that she was in compliance and know
52
that everything is in order. Why are we going out for another service to come back and
do it another way when we had a process? We done paid folks to participate and to work.
Now we going to do another RFP, RFQ or IOU. Whichever. But if the process had
already been done why we reinventing the wheel? I mean I think we ought to be men and
women up here and vote on what [unintelligible] approved or what we got the
recommendation to do. Now, if you go out, we are going to come back with something
else. And I certainly am not going to be satisfied if something come in different. This is
too much money, this is too important, this is too valuable. We need to do what the
process have been put in place to do. We done that process, we got the recommendation,
then why are we not doing it? Something wrong with that picture, Mr. Mayor. I’m not
for going out for any other.
Ms. Sams: Mr. Mayor, may I ask you a question, please?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sams?
Ms. Sams: May I direct it to Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am.
Mr. Shepard: Yes?
Ms. Sams: Mr. Shepard, in light of the fact that we’ve gone out for RFP
according to the Augusta-Richmond County Code, would it appear that we are
circumventing policy now that we have two qualified companies that’s gone through the
process and now the decision has been made to go out for professional services?
Mr. Shepard: I think you do not have a Commission consensus to go with either
of these firms and I also understood that there was a malpractice E&O with one of the
firms. Has that been taken care of?
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir, it has been.
Mr. Shepard: So they are both [unintelligible]?
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir, they are.
Mr. Shepard: Well, in my opinion you could, since there is no consensus
developed from your RPF process, you could do [unintelligible]. Here again, I have tried
to express no opinion because I thought the Commission wanted to handle it through the
RFP process.
Ms. Sams: RFP process. Our direction.
53
Mr. Shepard: I am willing to work with it on a service basis. I’m basically ready
when whoever else is put on the team. But I don’t think you have the full confidence of
all the Commissioners today.
Ms. Sams: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: And I think—excuse me, let me make one other suggestion. I
suggested to some of them if there was some unreadiness that we simply use a recessed
meeting until Monday with the committees if there had to be any comfort level further
achieved. That’s another option, Mr. Mayor.
Ms. Sams: Thank you.
Dr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney?
Dr. Hatney: Did he answer your question because I didn’t hear no answer to your
question?
Mr. Mayor: Through the Chair, please, sir.
Dr. Hatney: He didn’t answer the question. Would you reiterate that question
one more time?
Ms. Sams: The question was since we were directed by Commission to go out for
an RFP, we followed that directive, we went out for an RFP, we followed the guidelines
and procedures according to the law of the Augusta-Richmond County Code. That Code
is 110-43, and we followed the Code as it relates to 110-44, request for proposals. We
received all the proposals, which were two. They both met the criteria as set up by this
government. A bid recommendation was being given. How is it—should we allow or
would it be misconstrued that since someone has gone through the process, the legal
process of Augusta-Richmond County, would it be misconstrued for those companies to
think that they were disqualified for the sake of going out for a professional service when
you had two qualified companies and now it would appear that we are circumventing the
policies and procedures as outlined by the Code? Is that—would that be legal; what
would be your directive to me?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, my answer is that it would not now be illegal to go the
services route. I am, I don’t think—didn’t you have in there, Ms. Sams, you could reject
any and all bids?
Ms. Sams: If there was just cause, yes, sir.
54
Mr. Shepard: I’m of the opinion if this Commission wants to go out not using the
procedures that you have used--
Mr. Mayor: For clarification on that, Mr. Shepard, we would have to have a vote
to direct Ms. Sams to do that; would that be correct?
Mr. Shepard: Well, it would be and that would be a proper direction.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to ask for reconsideration of the
Commission and go ahead and accept the recommendation of the Finance
Department and Procurement for bond counsel.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second.
Mr. Brigham: What is the motion, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: to reconsider the recommendation of the Finance Committee.
Mr. Colclough: For bond counsel.
Mr. Mayor: For bond counsel.
Mr. Colclough: Not tying the two together.
Mr. Brigham: There was no Finance Committee recommendation.
Mr. Colclough: Just for bond counsel.
Mr. Mayor: There was—Mr. Brigham, you’re stating that there was no Finance
Committee recommendation with regard to bond counsel?
Mr. Brigham: Either one.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: What there was, was a request to go out for the RFPs or Qs. RFPs.
And they came back in time and we are ready to move. What is your recommendation?
Ms. Sams: The recommendation [unintelligible]?
Ms. Beard: In other words, the two qualified?
55
Ms. Sams: Yes, ma’am.
Ms. Beard: I believe you were going to let us know today the one of the two that
you recommend for both counsel; is that correct?
Ms. Sams: Yes, ma’am. Yes, ma’am.
Ms. Beard: [unintelligible]
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Persaud?
Mr. Persaud: Commissioner Beard, you repeat the question?
Ms. Beard: I’d like to know which of the two did you recommend for bond
counsel?
Mr. Persaud: Basically recommendation of the committee to select a bond
counsel, it was the recommendation of the committee to recommend to this body the firm
of Oliver Maner & Gray as bond counsel. That came from the selection committee.
Ms. Beard: Thank you.
Mr. Persaud: The names are listed in the report.
Ms. Beard: And what about financial advisor?
Mr. Persaud: For financial advisor there were three responses. The committee’s
recommendation is for A.G. Edwards as the financial advisor.
Ms. Beard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Colclough, I guess your motion is to open
back up discussion on agenda item number 40?
Mr. Colclough: No, Mr. Mayor. My recommendation is to accept the
recommendation of the Finance Department for bond counsel [unintelligible].
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion—Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I think the first matter is to vote to reconsider this item.
Mr. Colclough: I’m sorry, Mr. Shepard, I didn’t hear you.
Mr. Shepard: I said the first motion is to reconsider this item if that’s what your
desire is.
56
Mr. Colclough: To consider it? I asked for—
Mr. Shepard: To reconsider it so it can be back on the floor for consideration.
The first vote is to reconsider.
Mr. Colclough: That’s fine.
Mr. Shepard: Reconsider.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough, is that your motion?
Mr. Colclough: My motion is to accept—I did ask for reconsideration of the
Commission to accept the recommendation of the Finance Department for bond
counsel.
Dr. Hatney: I second that.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second on that. Mr. Bowles?
Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor, I really have reservations. I would first like to know
what the deadline for these bids to be submitted, the date for the deadline for
submissions.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sams?
th
Ms. Sams: Mr. Bowles, the deadline for submission was the 13 of February.
Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor, I am in receipt of some information from a legal firm
rd
here in Augusta that they had called the office on February 3 and inquired about this and
they were told it was too late to bid on the item. And so I have serious concerns that a
local vendor who has phone logs on when he called our office and made that request was
told that, and just a side note that I think we need to check our policies that when you
submit RFPs or Qs for legal services or accounting services, anything anybody locally
offers, it needs to be sent to each legal firm or each accounting firm here locally. That’s
how I run the operation that I run. I send one out, professional courtesy to every firm in
the local area that offers those services. That’s just a comment. But I am concerned
rd
about the phone call from a law firm on February 3 and he was told it was too late to put
in to the RFP.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Ms. Sams?
Ms. Sams: Mr. Mayor, the Procurement Department—okay, the bids were
thth
received on the 13. And the reason they were received on the 13, Mr. Mayor, was
because there was a date extension and that date extension was because at our pre-bid
conference there were questions that had to be addressed for those persons who attended
57
the mandatory pre-bid. So therefore that extension would have only applied to the
persons who attended that mandatory pre-bid. Am I right, Mr. Attorney?
Mr. Shepard: That is one of the material conditions of our bidding. That is
correct.
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second on the floor.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham?
Mr. Brigham: As to procedure, are we voting to reconsider or are we splitting
items up here?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Bonner, if you could please re-read the motion?
The Clerk: Mr. Colclough’s motion was to reconsider and approve bond counsel
as recommended by the selection committee.
Mr. Brigham: Okay, so we’re not going to deal with the financial advisor at all in
this motion?
Mr. Colclough: That wasn’t part of my motion.
Mr. Mayor: That was not part of Mr. Colclough’s motion.
Mr. Brigham: Okay. I just wanted to make sure.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Is there any further discussion? Mr.
Bowles?
Mr. Bowles: I would just like to ask the parliamentarian that if professional
service would end up costing the city more than if we would just go with the low bidder
here with what was submitted today?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: There has been no effort to go out through professional services so
I couldn’t tell you whether it would cost us or not.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the
usual sign.
58
Mr. Brigham, Mr. Grantham and Mr. Smith vote No.
Motion carries 6-3.
Mr. Mayor: Next agenda item?
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, before we leave that can I make a motion that we
approve A.G. Edwards as the financial advisor now?
Mr. Mayor: You certainly can.
The Clerk: To reconsider and approve?
Mr. Brigham: I don’t think we have to reconsider it, because we just approved
the bond counsel. We hadn’t approved the financial advisor.
Mr. Grantham: Just put it in there and go on.
Mr. Brigham: Maybe I missed something.
Mr. Williams: [unintelligible]
The Clerk: There was no action.
Mr. Brigham: Okay, that’s fine.
Mr. Mayor: Are you going to make [unintelligible] motion?
Mr. Brigham: I’m finished.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: [unintelligible]
Mr. Brigham: I’ll make the motion, you second it. Or you make it and I’ll second
it.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I suggest that it be the same motion, to reconsider and
approve as financial advisor A.G. Edwards.
Mr. Williams: I make a motion that we reconsider and approve.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
59
Mr. Brigham: I’ll second that motion.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Is there any further discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Colclough votes No.
Mr. Holland out.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor: So much for record time on my meeting today. Let’s go to 42.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
42. Approve Award of the contract for RFP 06-803, “Parking Management –
Radisson Riverfront Hotel” to Republic Parking System. The total annual contract
cost is $208,550. This contract is for a 36 month period, from February 1, 2006
through January 31, 2009, with an option to renew for two additional two year
terms upon approval by the Augusta Commission. (Approved by Finance
Committee and no recommendation from Engineering Services Committee
February 13, 2006)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles?
Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor, I really have a grave concern on this one. If we’re
going to award a 36 month contract when we are expected to possibly break ground on
this parking center in 12 months with the convention center, I’d like to know what that
would do to the contract if there is no parking available?
Dr. Hatney: You’d have to pay.
Mr. Acree: I’ve just spoken with the firm that I have recommended and they have
no problem going with a 24 month. I know that was one of the Commissioners’ concerns
last week. As far as the contract, if you’ll note, the estimated cost that you see is the cost
of operations. The management fee for this contract is $25,000 for the year. Everything
else is the personnel, electrical equipment, and everything else it takes to run the parking
facility. I can’t see them, even with the proposed exhibition hall, eliminating all the
parking there because the Radisson has still got to function. So there will be a contract in
place to run parking at that location unless you’re going to shut the Radisson down.
Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor, I’m on the CVB board and the projections I have seen is
that the convention center is going right on top of the parking deck and on top of the
parking lot and there will be no parking, or limited parking at that area.
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney?
60
Dr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor, I would like to offer that we go off of the three year,
but ratify every year, once every 12 months until the [unintelligible].
That way we
One year at a time, yes.
won’t get in a snag if it builds up on that property.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough? We have a motion and second. Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: You’re saying that the management fee is $25,000?
Mr. Acree: That’s correct, sir.
Mr. Colclough: On the attachment [unintelligible] annual budget they have the
management fee at $33,000 per year.
Mr. Acree: [unintelligible] $25,000, sir.
Mr. Colclough: What I’ve got here, on the first line it says manager, it says
$33,000.
Mr. Acree: That is the personnel cost. The management fee that goes to the
firm—
Mr. Colclough: It doesn’t say management, it says manager.
Mr. Acree: I understand. The management fee—
Mr. Mayor: Through the Chair, gentlemen.
Mr. Acree: I’m sorry. If you’ll look at the bottom line, just before the bottom of
the sheet, a management fee. It’s just above the line that says total other expenses.
Mr. Colclough: So the manager gets $33,000? The management fee—
Mr. Acree: The management fee is the fee that goes to the firm, Republic
Parking. The manager is a local employee.
Mr. Colclough: So who pays the manager?
Mr. Acree: Indirectly we are. We pay—
Mr. Colclough: Is that an employee of the county?
Mr. Acree: No, it’s an employee of Republic Parking.
61
Mr. Colclough: So we are paying Republic employees?
Mr. Acree: No, sir.
Dr. Hatney: [unintelligible] question.
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney?
Dr. Hatney: This the only bid we got back?
Mr. Acree: That’s correct, sir.
Dr. Hatney: Nobody locally wanted to do this?
Mr. Acree: We advertised in The Chronicle and in the Augusta Focus.
Dr. Hatney: [unintelligible] Chronicle.
Mr. Acree: Pardon me, sir?
Dr. Hatney: I was just messing with you.
Mr. Acree: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I got all the history on this parking deck
here. We went through 200 meetings look like to try to get something resolved. Local
people came down and was qualified to carry a gun and they wouldn’t able to do it
because of the [unintelligible] or parking or whatever. The clean-up process. Local
people. Mr. Bowles talked about that earlier. But I’ve got a problem when we do 36
months with 280—I’m sorry, let me get the figure right now. What’s the total, 227?
$227,000 to park cars. We are not doing, we’re not getting local participation. We went
outside when Mr. Kolb was here, Mr. Shepard, and that’s how we end up with this group.
And I think they do a good job. It’s no knock on them. But I don’t think we need to
extend no three year contract to—
Mr. Mayor: Through the Chair, please, sir.
Mr. Williams: I don’t think we need to extend a contract like this and not have
local people to participate and I remember the group from Davison Auto came in front of
this group and said that they could handle it. None of the outside source—there’s a
license and bond, security company that came in and was qualified to carry guns, to be on
the job. They wasn’t at liberty to do it. And I got a serious problem with this. I can’t
support it. I think the company is doing a good job. It’s no knock on them. But I just
62
think we need to be mindful of what we got. We even thought about in-house people
going over there and we wasn’t able to do that at all. So I can’t support it, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and a second. We have a motion and
second. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Williams: Do we have a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: We don’t have a substitute.
Mr. Williams: I’d make a substitute motion that we go back and re-bid this
process and do something other than The Augusta Chronicle for our source of getting
information out to people.
Mr. Mayor: The Augusta Focus was in there.
Mr. Williams: Augusta anything. I think we need to—
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Acree: A point of clarification. We did advertise in The Chronicle, we did
advertise in the Focus, we did go on Demand Star and we did make personal contacts
including a gentleman who was authorized to carry a gun and operate a security service.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I got to go through the Chair, because I talked to the
same gentleman and he didn’t know nothing about it. Now if you talked to a different
man carrying a gun it might have been the police. I’m talking about the man that came
down from the security company here on Bay Street who came in this same Chamber and
applied for it but did not receive it.
Mr. Acree: You’re speaking of the process three years ago.
Mr. Williams: That’s right.
Mr. Acree: He did not respond to the RFP. He responded after proposals were
received.
Mr. Williams: Okay, well, that same gentleman that I spoke with carried a gun,
Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All this talk of guns in here.
Mr. Williams: [unintelligible]
63
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams has made a substitute motion. No second? So we have
a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion on the first motion?
Commissioners will now vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Acree: Is this a 12 month contract, for a five year period of time? Or what?
Mr. Grantham: No. Renew every year.
Dr. Hatney: Renew every year.
Mr. Brigham: No final date or no end to renewal?
Dr. Hatney: Renewal every year.
Mr. Brigham: No end to renewals?
Dr. Hatney: [unintelligible]
Mr. Mayor: Through the Chair, everybody.
Dr. Hatney: The parking lot is subject to being occupied and [unintelligible] one
year at a time.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Williams: What is the motion, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Can you please read back the motion, Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: The motion was to award the contract to Parking Management –
Radisson Hotel. This contract will be a yearly contract.
Mr. Grantham: With renewal.
The Clerk: With the renewal option.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: The renewal option lying with the city.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Bowles vote No.
Motion carries 7-2.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir?
64
Mr. Mayor: Considering that items number 41 and 44 deal with personnel issues,
would it be appropriate to deal with those in legal meeting?
Mr. Shepard: It would, Your Honor. It would, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: You’re too used to being in court. Can I get a motion to move into
legal session?
Mr. Williams: So move.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Shepard: For the purposes in the agenda book.
LEGAL MEETING
A. Pending and potential litigation.
B. Real estate.
C. Personnel.
Mr. Mayor: For the purposes stated in the agenda.
The Clerk: And to include those items.
Mr. Mayor: And to include agenda items number 41 and 44.
Mr. Williams: [unintelligible] before we go into legal?
Mr. Mayor: Oh, excuse me.
Mr. Williams: One addendum [unintelligible] next week.
Mr. Mayor: Apologize.
The Clerk: You want to address that item?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, let’s go ahead and address that and then we’ll move into legal.
The Clerk:
ADDENDUM
45. Discuss the opening of Olive Road. (Requested by Commissioner Williams)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
65
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I asked this to be put on the agenda to talk about the
opening of Olive Road. The train is still going over Olive Road overpass in that case.
And the underpass is being closed. The constituents have been put at as disadvantage to
drive around, to go around. That bridge belongs to the railroad. It’s their responsibility.
Their obligation to do something about it. We have discussed putting up a barrier or
some kind of defense that would hit that before it hits the bridge. But that’s not our
responsibility, Mr. Mayor. That belongs entirely to the railroad. Now, the community
has been at a disadvantage for quite some time. Had the bridge or the overpass been in
bad shape and we was afraid of something falling in on somebody, that’s one thing. And
if it does, I go again and say that’s the railroad’s responsibility. And as Commissioner
for that district, I met with homeowners, I got a lot of calls, people saying people driving
through that neighborhood at high rates of speed, trying to go around, when the train is
coming, Kissingbower Road is overwhelming. It’s just almost impassible to get across
Kissingbower Road at the railroad tracks there. We have got to open this back up and
give the freedom back to the community. Now, we got signs up. We talk about notifying
the U-Haul rental trucks in Augusta to let them know to put a sticker or something in
their trucks to let people know that they can’t drive through that underpass. But that’s a
part the railroad need to fix, the railroad needs to do. If they need to build something,
whether it be on to the bridge, over it, however they want to do it, but I don’t think the
taxpayers of Augusta-Richmond County need to suffer because of the bridge being down
there. If it’s our bridge we ought to raise it up. If we can’t raise it up, then it must belong
to somebody else and they need to be responsible for it. But we don’t need to let the
taxpayers sit here, and the train still going. Every day. While the people are being
inconvenienced. And I’d like to make a motion that we get the Engineering Department
or Public Works Department to get somebody out there this afternoon to lift those stones
and move those barricades so people can continue to use that bridge and contact the
railroad and set up a meeting with them and let them understand that that is their
responsibility and they need to do what is necessary. I’m sure they got the revenue, the
funds to do it. But I think we need to go ahead and get something done right away.
That’s my motion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Mr. Holland: I second it.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to hear from the Engineering Director.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Ladson?
Mr. Ladson: I don’t know if everybody has—well, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, I
think I sent out a recommendation, a memorandum to all the Commissioners, the
administrator, attorney and the Mayor. In that document I have two options. The first
option is to actually close the road and to do a conceptual study and to find out what can
be done out there on Olive Road, I mean what alternatives, geometric alternatives can be
66
done out there. The problem with opening up the road, you’re still going to have the
10’6” clearance. That’s the option that we recommend. Now, there is another option,
option 2, which states that looking at the two outer beams on the bridge, they are not
load-bearing beams. Those, if I’m not mistaken, those beams were put in there, in place
to be an obstruction or a buffer from actually hitting the bridge. And so those are the
beams that I’m actually worried about because I don’t—from a professional standpoint I
don’t feel that they are properly secured. I would hate for another—open the road back
up and those beams are not properly secured and another beam falls down and someone
else gets killed. If you were to open the road back up, I definitely would like for a
representative from the railroad, a professional engineer, a structural engineer, to actually
sign off and say that these beams are secure and would be okay, and we can open up
traffic on Olive Road. But I don’t feel comfortable actually saying that those beams are
secure. Because looking at them and [unintelligible] they don’t look secure.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I understand what the engineer is saying,
the Public Works director is saying, but I’m not going to sit here and not address this
issue when that’s the railroad’s problem. I certainly don’t want to have another fatality
but I think that we need to contact and not just contact but let them understand that we as
a city don’t have the funds to protect them from what they ought to be protecting
themselves from and other people from. Now, railroad crossings and all those other gates
and stuff related to railroads, that’s something they do. If those beams not secure—the
railroad owns some of the, probably the largest torches and welding machines in the
world. They can weld a locomotive together if they wanted to. That’s up to them. I
think they need to have the responsibility of making sure that that is put there. And I
don’t know anything about how [unintelligible] do it but I’m sure there could be
something welded together where that wouldn’t move. But to sit here and wait and wait
and causing problems—now if a child get hit in the street where they [unintelligible]
running around [unintelligible] people running—I got people who say they can’t get out
of their driveway. The news media been on the news talking about people who have to
take extra time to get out of their drive because of this traffic that’s there now. We don’t
have that bridge to come in contact with a truck often but it has happened. Over a period
of years this is the first time I ever know about a facility, and I certainly don’t want to see
another one anywhere. But I think we need to put that ball in their court because it
belongs to them. They need to be responsible and they need to handle it. we need to get
it opened up so people can start using that again and let them know that if anything
happen it’s going still be on them, cause I think this first one is on them.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, I would ask Mr. Ladson to speak to that. You have
contacted CSX?
Mr. Ladson: I have spoken to them about a week, a week-and-a-half ago. And
then I also tried calling them today but I was not able to get in touch with them today.
67
Mr. Williams: [unintelligible] I’d like to know has he called Jacksonville? If he
called locally he ain’t calling nowhere.
Mr. Ladson: Okay, I hadn’t called Jacksonville.
Mr. Williams: You got to call the home office if you want some attention.
Mr. Mayor: And I have offered to Mr. Ladson my help in that regard. But would
it be—Mr. Ladson, I hear what you’re saying with regards to—looking at the pictures,
I’m no engineer but it looks like a hazard. Do you think it’s appropriate, Mr. Williams,
to open the road or pursue it with CSX and say look, it is your responsibility, you’ve got
to make this safe because you’re costing our taxpayers valuable time in getting to work?
I mean I understand where you’re coming from.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I think that if we open the road up and if it’s as bad as
Mr. Ladson is saying it is, that the railroad is going to [unintelligible] right away. I think
they’re smart enough to understand that—and they had people to go out there. They
didn’t just [unintelligible] to have people go out there and do some work. That bridge
has been like that for quite a few years and been hit quite a few times. This time it was a
fatality. But if they knowed that what happened, we can’t keep standing waiting and
waiting and waiting. I don’t know how many trucks come down, have been down, but I
know they hadn’t been but one fatality after that bridge been hit, all these year. So they
ought to be able to build something up against it, just before you get to it. I don’t care
how they do it, but we need to open the road back up so the people can go on with their
daily life. And if you don’t live in that area you don’t understand the inconvenience of
going around, trying to get to one side of a railroad in a car versus to going right on
through to the other side of town. And people use that all the time.
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney?
Dr. Hatney: What’s your last name, sir?
Mr. Ladson: Ladson.
Mr. Mayor: Through the Chair.
Dr. Hatney: As far as you know [unintelligible] piece of steel fell, they put that
back up?
Mr. Ladson: They put it back up and in the handouts you have we had some
pictures of it and basically they had pretty much like—
Dr. Hatney: But they just hadn’t secured it?
Mr. Ladson: It’s secured to—no, not to me, no.
68
Dr. Hatney: I make a motion then that you, the Mayor, the Mayor Pro
Tem
—you want to serve on this?
Mr. Grantham: No, no.
Dr. Hatney: --get with the railroad expeditiously and leave that road closed
until we know it is secure.
Mr. Grantham: I’ll second that motion.
Mr. Mayor: Is that a substitute motion? Cause we had a motion and a second.
The Clerk: Substitute.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I understand the substitute motion, I understand the
intent of the motion. But we done waiting too dog gone long already to address a issue
that a train—I don’t know how many tons that the engine weighs itself—will pull
hundreds of cars over every day. Now, we talking like that’s something that somebody
just stuck up there with a piece of bubble gum. If it’s secured enough to take a
locomotive and sometimes eight or ten locomotives go across pulling hundreds of care,
and then we going to close the road up to keep people from going up under? Now, if it’s
that flimsy, I don’t think they be pulling locomotives and freight cars and piggyback cars
over it if that was the case. Now, I understand how it may look, but that’s their baby and
they need to rock the baby.
Mr. Mayor: And I’ll say, Mr. Williams, I think what Mr. Ladson is saying is that
basically what the railroad did was they put those beams in there to keep the structural
integrity of the bridge intact so that they could still run their trains over it but they wanted
to make sure if any U-Hauls hit it [unintelligible] mess up their part of the bridge.
Mr. Williams: I understand that. I certainly understand that. But they’re not only
worried about messing up their part of the bridge, but they’re not worried about messing
up this community who sits in the middle and been sitting there and suffer with the trains
enough as it is. Now, I said [unintelligible] every railroad in the city of Augusta goes
through District 2. Now, it’s bad enough that we got blocked with the train, but you ain’t
going to put a barricade up there and block the people as well. Now, it’s time
[unintelligible]. What we need to be doing, or somebody needs to be doing, is contacting
Jacksonville, home office of the railroad, and let them know that we are taking it down
and that’s their responsibility and they ought to have somebody tonight. You can derail a
whole train, no chemical waste but a whole train can derail and tomorrow evening they’ll
have it up there and rolling, going by. Now, you can’t tell me they can’t fix this in 30
minutes. I done seen it too many times. So if you can do that we certainly ought to get
somebody up here to be able to do something with that and do it right away. But because
69
we are the government we will wait and go through all this process but the people are
suffering and I don’t think it’s right.
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion.
Mr. Holland: Mr. Mayor, let me mention something, please.
Mr. Mayor: Coach Holland?
Mr. Holland: Do you, Mr. Ladson—Mr. Mayor, I think Mr. Ladson mentioned
something in his explanation in reference to I think two steel abutments under the bridge
that were somewhat loose, that were not tied together strong enough and he was
somewhat leery about them falling?
Mr. Ladson: That’s correct. The two outer side beams, and as I said before those
beams are not—there are no loads on those beams. Those beams were—just observing—
those beams were put in there in place basically to keep—if someone hits those beams it
would pretty much damage the vehicles and not damage the bridge. And the problem is
that the vehicles that hit the bridge, the lateral load that’s knocking the beams out. My
concern is not really with the actual axle loads from the train, it’s with the lateral load
that is coming in and shearing the beams off. And look at those connections, it’s not
properly connected.
Mr. Holland: Now, even though, Mr. Mayor, I seconded that motion with Mr.
Williams, correct me again, Mr. Ladson, if I’m wrong. I’m of the impression also that if
the road is open and if those cars travel under the bridge would the weight and the
traveling of those cars traveling under the bridge have an effect on those beams that are
barely standing under the bridge?
Mr. Ladson: It would if you have like a U-Haul.
Mr. Holland: Like was done the first [unintelligible].
Mr. Ladson: Yes, if you had a vehicle that’s 10’6”, more than 10’6” and hit those
outside beams, the same thing could possibly happen again.
Mr. Holland: so safety is still—is prevalent?
Mr. Ladson: Safety was my concern on that.
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign.
Ms. Beard: What is the substitute motion?
70
The Clerk: The substitute motion was for the Mayor and the Mayor pro Tem and
Mr. Ladson to get together with the railroad to work out a solution for the beam problem
and that the road remain closed until such time.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I’d again ask we go into legal for the purposes we stated previously
in our agenda book.
Mr. Brigham: So move.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to go into legal session and there is a second.
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
[LEGAL SESSION]
47. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia’s Open Meeting Act.
Mr. Mayor: Call it back to order. I would look for a motion to approve
authorization for the Mayor to execute the affidavit of compliance with Georgia’s
Open Meeting law.
Mr. Grantham: So move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I would put on there that we discussed pending and potential
litigation and personnel. We did not discuss real estate in the interest of time.
Mr. Mayor: Please add that. Any further discussion? Commissioners will now
vote by the usual sign.
71
Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: We will go on to item 41.
Mr. Williams: 27, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: We’ll go to 27 and then—
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY
27. Motion to approve allowing Mr. Harold Rhodes forty-five (45) days for the
implementation of an action plan for the South Augusta Flea Market. (Approved
by the public Safety Committee February 13, 2006)
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, all I wanted clarification, for the fire chief and the
other agencies to know that we been trying to work with Mr. Rhodes and when them 45
days is up, if he’s not in compliance, that he needs to be shut down immediately. Now,
this is not the first time, and I’ve talked to him about coming, but I wanted to make sure
that the Fire Chief and the other agency under the bureau know that if he is not in
compliance—and I think that’s not just moving those heaters, but have his plan in place,
because what I’m suspecting [unintelligible] take the heaters out, then we got the same
problem next year. But if he’s not in compliance then he needs to be shut down.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Chief Willis, are you good with that?
Mr. Willis: That is right, sir. We will certainly enforce that, the 45 day time
frame.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. I would like for a motion on that.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Smith:
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign.
Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Moving on to 41.
The Clerk:
72
FINANCE
41. Consider pay raises for elected officials. (No recommendation from Finance
Committee February 13, 2006)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: I would like to make a motion that we
Mr. Mayor, thank you.
rescind the pay raises of 8% that a certain group of people received and I think our
counsel can name those individuals, and I’d like that to be included in the motion so
that we can identify those and the funds that they received under the 8% be
recovered by the Commission in a rate that is acceptable over a period of ninety
days.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any—Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams:In that same motion I think that something need to
Yes, sir.
be in there for the creator of this pay raise thing with our administrator. I think we
need to have a letter put in his file for such action
, not that we just let him know, let
everybody else know you made a mistake and don’t do that again. But I think in the
motion, Mr. Grantham, ought to be something in that effect to go in the administrator’s
file and anybody else that falls up under him that didn’t carry out the right procedure, so
we’ll have that—
[End of tape 1, beginning of tape 2]
Mr. Grantham: I’ll accept that amendment.
The Clerk: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion?
Mr. Brigham: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham?
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I think it’s unwise and unfair for this Commission to
reprimand the Administrator for following the orders of the Commission that we, the
Commission, did make clear. And I do not think that’s right.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. William?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I hear my colleague Mr. Brigham, but the unclarity
came in with the fact that said all, but all didn’t get it, so somebody certainly wasn’t
clear. But if they wasn’t clear they should have came back to this body. Now, we deal
73
with the truck drivers, the people on the street, people that cleaning the yards, the
cemetery. And if we can’t correct those at the top by letting them know that we on our
jobs, we’re not firing anybody, all we doing is putting a letter in the file to let them know
that not to do it again. So if it was a directive we gave to everybody then they still need
the letter cause everybody didn’t get it. It was wrong and I think that’s why we ought to
put something in the file to let him know that we are fair. I mean we appreciate what he
does, if he make a mistake we are going to bring it to his attention.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bowles?
Mr. Bowles: I’d like to call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
The Clerk: Mr. Shepard had his—
Mr. Shepard:the officials that are the affected would
Mr. Shepard is here and
be Sheriff Strength, Clerk of Superior Court Elaine Johnson, Marshal Steve Smith,
Solicitor Harold Jones, and Coroner Grover Tuten.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called for. Commissioners will now vote by
the usual sign.
Ms. Beard out.
Mr. Brigham and Mr. Colclough vote No.
Motion carries 6-2.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor/
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham?
Mr. Brigham: We didn’t even have a gut to say it was elected officials we were
talking about in that motion. We called them employees.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I think I corrected the reference.
Mr. Brigham: I know, but I meant in the original one.
Mr. Shepard: Well, I stated for the record the names.
Mr. Brigham: Thank you, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Agenda item 44, I believe.
The Clerk:
74
ATTORNEY
44. Discuss/approve severance package for Teresa Smith.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles?
Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a recommendation that the
Commission approve the severance package that the Administrator had recommended so
that we can move on with this situation and try to resolve this situation.
Mr. Mayor: Is that a motion? You said recommendation.
Mr. Bowles: Yes, it is. Yes.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a substitute motion that we deny any
package for Ms. Smith. I contend and I been saying all the time if we dismissed her,
fired her, let her go for whatever reason and we was in our rights, then why would we
want to give her any kind of package? I’m not in support of that. I think if we let her go,
we let her go because she wasn’t doing her job. And I don’t think we ought to reward
people that we let go if that’s the case [unintelligible]. That’s my substitute motion.
Mr. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bowles?
Mr. Bowles: I’m just requesting a point of information, Mr. Mayor, that if this is
not approved that effective immediately she will be rolled off of administrative leave?
Mr. Mayor: Correct?
Mr. Shepard: That’s my understanding, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a substitute motion.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I hear the Attorney say his understanding, but
something need to be on the record out here. Something need to be said in this setting so
we’ll know what Mr. Bowles said is correct. So the maker of the motion need to put it in
his motion. I don’t need no understanding. I need clarification. I need it stated in this
meeting so we won’t be confused again like we go out half cocked and don’t know what
we doing. So somebody need to make that in a motion. My motion was to deny period.
Mr. Shepard: That’s the substitute motion.
75
Mr. Williams: That’s my substitute motion, but the other motion they talked
about the thirty days ending or ending the administrative leave, ought to be brought in by
somebody.
Mr. Shepard: If that’s the will of the body.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: I make that motion that it be cut off.
The Clerk: We have two motions.
Mr. Mayor: We already have—Mr. Brigham?
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, it’s my understanding that the previous motion had a
deadline date for the administrative leave and it is not necessary to be included in any
motion out here today; unless that previous motion is extended it will die at that time. Is
that a correct ruling from the Chair or not?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Correct?
Mr. Shepard: I don’t think that it had a date. I think you need to set the date.
And what we talked about was the end of February; is that correct?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, there was no date that was given. Now, the motion
that was given, and I can’t give it verbatim but I do recollect pretty good most times and
it was that the Administrator go out and get a severance package or something agreed and
bring back to us and she would be on administrative leave until that time. Now if there is
a date put on it I’d like the Clerk to get somebody out of her office to bring it here so we
can clarify that so we won’t be at odds and go off again not be informed, but
misinformed. I don’t want that to happen. I need to know what the motion said, Mr.
Mayor.
The Clerk: [unintelligible]
Mr. Mayor: Please. All right, everybody. Back to order.
The Clerk: What you are talking about is when you directed the Administrator to
go negotiate a severance package and then when he came back he said that she had not
received it and he needed thirty days for her to review it with her attorney and then they
would come back.
Mr. Grantham: And that’s when we extended the pay for that period of time, and
then when they got it worked out then that’s when the pay would stop.
76
The Clerk: [unintelligible]
Dr. Hatney: The idea of sending the Administrator to review with her happened
after I got on here because I made that motion. And that motion did not have no specific
time in it. No, it did not. Because we said—the first motion was made by Mr. Jimmy to
have something ready when the next Commission meeting [unintelligible] year opened
up this year. And he didn’t have it done.
The Clerk: At the last meeting when it was on the Commission agenda, the
Attorney advised the Commission that Ms. Smith had just received the packet and that he
recommended that she be allowed to review it with her attorney for thirty days.
Mr. Grantham: She requested that. That’s right.
The Clerk: And then the Commission approved that but it had nothing to do with
the time limit of the pay on leave. Administrative leave. He asked that she remain on
administrative leave.
Mr. Williams: Exactly right.
Mr. Mayor: So are you—clarity?
Mr. Williams: Unless something is cut off now—but the motion was to—Ms.
Bonner just read that she be placed on administrative leave until. When Mr. Russell had
not done that, we gave him directive to go out again and give thirty days for her and her
lawyer to look at it, not take her off or stop it. That’s that that directive was. Now, y’all
taught me to listen, to keep my ears open, even if I got my eyes closed.
The Clerk: We’ve got two motions on the floor.
Mr. Brigham: Call the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got a substitute motion on the floor
The Clerk: The substitute motion is to deny the severance package. That’s the
motion on the floor now.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign.
Vote on substitute motion.
Ms. Beard out.
Mr. Smith, Mr. Bowles and Mr. Grantham vote No.
Motion fails 5-3.
Mr. Mayor: We will now vote on the original motion.
77
The Clerk: The original motion is approve the severance package.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Ms. Beard out.
Mr. Brigham, Dr. Hatney, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Williams and Mr. Holland vote No.
Motion fails 3-5.
Mr. Mayor: No action taken.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we stop the administrative salary
to Ms. Smith.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Mr. Smith: I’ll second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Mr. Bowles?
Mr. Bowles: I’d like some information from the parliamentarian on whether or
not we are violating gratuity laws for the State of Georgia.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I think that we are not violating gratuity laws. There could be some
business purpose to this, therefore we would not be violating the gratuity laws. But there
could be a change over time, Mr. Bowles, if there can’t be some demonstrated business
purpose to giving this former employee some money, and I would caution that the sooner
that you take action on this the better you would be in terms of defending against an
alleged gratuity.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, one attorney just advised us that you can’t put
anybody in a position and force them to create a lawsuit or force them to make a decision
or we’ll be setting ourselves up. Now, we already done set this government up. We
already got this government in a pickle already. We done that. Now we getting it further
into another situation that going to cost us even more money be trying to force somebody
to do something. Now, we should have had our ducks in a row, they shouldn’t have been
all over the yard, they ought to been where we needed them had, had them in the proper
place. But you can’t do that no more. It’s 2006. You can’t. The old system ain’t
working no more. And you can’t force somebody in a situation to have to do something
that we done created for them. So we been advised by the Attorney. Now if that
Attorney gives some bad advice, not that one, but the other one, if that other one gave
78
some bad advice then we don’t need him. But we just been told that in our legal session.
Ain’t been five minutes ago. And I hope we ain’t forgot it that short a time.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles?
Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor, I’d also like to point out in legal session the other
attorney did state that we could be violating gratuity laws with what we were doing. It’s
not to put pressure on somebody to make a decision. It’s to relieve the taxpayers from
supporting someone with no contract out there. What are we negotiating, Mr. Mayor?
I’m trying to figure that out. If we aren’t going to offer a severance package, why would
we continue to pay for the third additional month somebody who has not shown up for
work?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Flournoy?
Ms. Flournoy: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, as I indicated in the
legal session, the longer we stay in this situation with administrative leave, I begin to
question whether it is a gratuity. If we are in negotiation we may arguably say that there
is a benefit of [unintelligible] for it but when the negotiations come to a stalemate and
there is no progress being made, I think we are borderline and it would be my opinion
that it is not in the best interest of this government to continue Ms. Smith in
administrative leave with pay because we are potentially in violation of the gratuity
clause, because the State Constitution says that we will not provide funds to a person that
has not provided services to the government entity. So it is my opinion that we are
borderline, possibly in violation of the gratuity clause as we continue this process and
make no progress towards a settlement.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I was going to say, we may yet bargain for a release which would
be valuable consideration for the payment of these monies, so I don’t want to preclude
that later happening by saying we’re in violation of the gratuity clause. But I think Ms.
Flournoy’s analysis is correct, that over time that argument becomes more tenuous.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and as second. Is there any further discussion?
Dr. Hatney: What was the motion?
The Clerk: The motion is to stop the severance package. Administrative leave.
I’m sorry. To stop the administrative leave pay.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Dr. Hatney, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Williams and Mr. Holland vote No.
Ms. Beard out.
Motion fails 4-4.
79
Mr. Brigham: Move we adjourn, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: With no further business to come before the body, we are adjourned.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on February 22, 2006.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
80