HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 6, 2006 Augusta Richmond County Commissio
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
June 6, 2006
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:07 p.m., June 6, 2006, the
Honorable Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding.
Present: Hons. Deke Copenhaver, Mayor; Holland, Smith, Brown, Grantham, Hatney,
Williams, Beard, Cheek, Bowles and Brigham, members of Augusta Richmond County
Commission.
Also Present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; Fred Russell, Administrator; Lena Bonner, Clerk
of Commission.
The invocation was given by Dr. Rusty Newman, Pastor Curtis Baptist Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Dr. Newman, we have something for you.
The Clerk: This is an official welcome to Augusta. Welcome to Augusta. We look
forward to a relationship with you in our fellowship with Curtis. And in honor of your being
here with us today we would like to name you Chaplain. We know that your civic and spiritual
guidance is demonstrated in our community and serves as an example to all [unintelligible] and
we thank you for being here.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, I move we’ll move on to our special recognitions.
The Clerk:
RECOGNITION(S)
MAYOR FOR THE DAY:
A. Miss Aaliyah Williams.
The Clerk: By His Honor, Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, to Aaliyah Williams, greetings;
By virtue of the power and authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of this
State, and in pursuance of your appointment, I do hereby commission you the said Mayor for the
Day. You are therefore authorized and required to perform all and singular the duties
encumbered on you as ambassador, according to the law and the trust reposed in you. Given
unto my hand and the seal of the Office of the Mayor [unintelligible] Municipal Building, the
th
City of Augusta, on this 6 day of June in the year of our Lord 2006.
Mr. Mayor: And Aaliyah has said that she wants to be mayor of Augusta when she
grows up and I’ve said she’s already got my vote.
1
The Clerk: Aaliyah is a fifth grade study at Barton Elementary School.
Mr. Mayor: Moving on to the delegations.
The Clerk:
DELEGATIONS
B. Dr. Cecelia Butler, Founder and Executive Director of the Psychology Spirituality
Center.
RE: Center's mission, origin and services.
The Clerk: Dr. Butler?
Mr. Mayor: Can you speak into the microphone? And just please, ma’am, if we could
keep it to five minutes.
Dr. Butler: Okay. Good afternoon. Honorable Mayor, Pro Tem, Commissioners and
the audience, thanks for giving me five minutes today. Cecelia Butler worked very hard for
those five minutes. I gave a handout to the Commissioners and this was written by a young
student at the University of Georgia. And I think she did a good job. She started out with many
older citizens and ended up writing more about me. Our mission is to administer, provide and
make available quality mental health services for the under-served. The origin, it began at the
beginning, and it was only in the last five years that I realized that the perfect title would be
Psychology Spirituality Center. I gradated with a Ph.D. in psychology and I am a clinical
psychologist. And I’ve been working for those 30 years and having a wonderful time, going
from different places, looking at different issues, visiting several countries. And I realized the
spirituality was the key for me despite the fact that I would get a lot of flak. And I did from the
very beginning. People said Dr. Butler is too religious and I explained to them that spirituality
does not necessarily have anything to do with religion. It may, if you choose. But it really
means is that you believe that you are grounded in this universe and that there is every reason for
you to be. And in due time, people will understand that more. Throughout the years I
discovered that emotional IQ is the key. Your intelligence might be above any norm, but if you
have emotional problems then you’re going to have problems and you’re not going to enjoy your
experiences. So it is the emotional issues that so many of our children are experiencing. The
title of my little five minute talk is Ouch, I Hurt. I want to think that anybody who walks
through my office will realize that it’s okay to say ouch, I hurt. And you can get rid of the
defense mechanisms, denying that it never happened, rationalizing the way that it is, and on and
on and on. But be able to say ouch, I hurt, and that is your experience. A report in 2000
indicated the following statistics that I think are important. Of the nation’s 22.3 million children
between the ages of 12 to 17, 1.4 million have been victims of a serious sexual assault. Ouch, I
hurt. 3.9 million have been victims of physical assaults. Ouch, I hurt. 9 million have witnessed
serious violence. Ouch, I hurt. And this ouch and this hurt began at the beginning and it is even
more serious now. Every day in 1997 six young people under the age of 18 were murdered.
56% were killed with a firearm. And because [unintelligible] every day. And I’d like to say to
adults let’s correct the problem. Let’s spend our time and money clearing up these severe
2
emotional issues rather than covering them up. And finally, maybe we’ll hear the adults say we
will not blame the children for our irresponsibility. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Dr. Butler, thank you. And that is amazing. You time that well, right on
five minutes. Madame Clerk?
The Clerk:
DELEGATIONS
C. Ms. Jennifer Walden
RE: Update on Saturday Market on Broad
Ms. Walden: Good afternoon. I wanted to come today to let you know how the market is
doing. We are grateful for the appropriated city funding for 2005 and 2006. First I would like to
thank you for funding the market, the $50,000 in 2005 enabled us to grow the market. We began
with 12 vendors and ended with 43. With the 27,000 for this year we continued to grow. We
began this year, our fourth, with 42 vendors, which is a 300% increase from the 2005 opening.
Attendance continues to increase and now averages approximately 1500 people per market.
Many patrons have attended the market since its inception in 2003. This year’s season includes
st
two markets that are new. We have our fall produce market, October 21, and our holiday
th
market, December 9. To sustain the market we have aggressively corporate and business
sponsorships, raising $10,000 from EZ-GO, Jenkins Tractor, Bank of America, and Rex Group,
as well as others. In addition, 10,800 in-kind donations have been given by the Augusta
Chronicle, WJBF and Cross Creek Design Build. Our Friends of the Market Campaign for
individuals has raised $2,000. $75,000 in grants have been applied for next year’s operation.
We also initiated selling market merchandise here. Items are a color print by local artist Randy
Lambert, screen printed market totes, and [unintelligible] Kricket Krap that is provided by
Bricko Farms. These strategies are ongoing and will continue in 2007 and beyond. Special
event days at the market initiated in 2005 have been expanded this year to include an iron chef
competition with Augusta Tech’s culinary students; we have gardening day; storytelling with the
Augusta Library; and Native American Heritage Day with the Lucy Craft Laney Museum. In
2005 we tested a downtown merchants coupon book. All monies collected went for the printing
of the books which were given away free to market patrons. The purpose was to encourage
people coming to the market to visit downtown businesses. A thousand books were given out
and due to the positive response we continue the book this year. Also, we have brought one for
each of you. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you about the Saturday Market on
Broad. We look forward to seeing you at the market.
Mr. Mayor: Jennifer, thank you for your presentation. Madame Clerk, moving along.
The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1 through 20, items 1 through 20.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have any items to be added to the consent agenda or pulled for
discussion? Commissioner Grantham?
3
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to add agenda item number 21 to the
consent agenda. I understand that the applicant is present and all clearance has been given
through the Sheriff’s Department and the License Department.
PUBLIC SERVICES
21. New Ownership: A. N. 06 - 27: A request by Mario M. Young for an on-premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Dirty South Sports
Bar & Grill located at 1524 Gordon Hwy. District 2. Super District 9.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland?
Mr. Holland: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Under Administrative Services, Mr. Mayor, I’d
like to add item number 26 to consent, item number 27, item 28, item 30, item number 31, item
33, item number 35, item 36, and item 37, Mr. Mayor.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
26. Receive as information the 2005 Annual Report and the 1st Quarter Report for 2006
from the Augusta Convention and Visitors Bureau.
27. Approve the award of year 2006 HOPWA program contracts to St. Stephen’s
Ministry and Hope Health, Inc.
28. Approve award of HOME funds regarding the joint venture concerning the Dover
Street Project. (Referred from May 8 Administrative Services)
30. Discuss fund allocations for CHDOS. (Requested by Commissioner Williams)
31. Approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain unsafe and
uninhabitable structures in the Laney-Walker Neighborhood:1119 Thirteenth Street,
(District 1, Super District 9); Turpin Hill Neighborhood: 1027 Eighth Avenue, 1609 Holley
Street, 1031 Prep Street, 1039 Prep Street, 1365 Steed Street, (District 2, Super District 9);
Bethlehem Neighborhood: 3 Ash Street, 1035 Brayton Street, 1114 Maxwell Street, 1569
Picquet Avenue, 1131 Roselle Street, 10 Sherman Street, (District 2, Super District 9); AND
WAIVE 2ND READING.
33. Approve New Job Descriptions for Customer Service/Office Manager, Customer
Service/Metering Manager and Customer Service/Branch Manager Positions.
35. Approve Early Retirement of Mr. Henry Davis under the 1977 Pension Plan.
36. Consider a request from South Richmond County Community Development
regarding grant funding.
37. Update on CDBG Program Expenditures – Calendar Year 2006.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, objection.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Item 30 I’d like to have some discussion on that. I think we resolved that
but I just want to get some clarification on item 30 if Mr. Holland don’t mind.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
30. Discuss fund allocations for CHDOS. (Requested by Commissioner Williams)
4
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Williams: Instead of putting it on consent, I just want to get some clarification on
some stuff.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Brown?
Mr. Brown: Under Engineering Services, item number 15, I’d like a little discussion
about that, please.
ENGINEERING SERVICES
15. Motion to approve Agreement and Scope of Work for the second phase of the MWH
Constructors, Inc. (MWHC) Construction Manager at Risk contract to begin construction
activities for the James B. Messerly WPCP Master Plan Implementation Project with a
guaranteed maximum price (GMP) of $3,543,096.00. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee May 30, 2006)
Mr. Williams: Are we pulling now?
The Clerk: Pulling and adding.
Mr. Williams: Y’all going to get mixed up. One way, come back the other one. Y’all
pulling and adding.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have anything else to be added to the consent agenda?
Mr. Holland: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland?
Mr. Holland: On number 28, take 28 and hold, hold it until plans have been approved for
this particular project.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
28. Approve award of HOME funds regarding the joint venture concerning the Dover
Street Project. (Referred from May 8 Administrative Services)
The Clerk: You want to hold it in committee?
Mr. Holland: Hold it in committee, yes, ma’am.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk: And item 36?
5
Mr. Holland: Item 36, I want to refer it back to committee for review.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
36. Consider a request from South Richmond County Community Development
regarding grant funding.
Mr. Holland: And item 37, I want to refer it back to committee for review.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
37. Update on CDBG Program Expenditures – Calendar Year 2006.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything—Commissioner Beard?
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, under Finance, I’d like to pull items 3 and 4.
FINANCE
3. Motion to approve tasking the Attorney with developing a policy for the disposal of
city properties and to come back with the necessary paperwork regarding the sale of a
particular parcel of city property to a group. (Approved by Finance Committee May 30,
2006)
4. Motion to approve making the adjustment in the Commission budget and that a
letter be sent to department heads and elected officials asking them why the cuts were not
made and request an action plan within thirty days; Motion to correct the two errors
regarding the District Attorney's budget and the contract item funded from Contingency
Fund; Motion to approve asking the Mayor to form a committee to study where the city
can eliminate services in order to help balance the budget. (Approved by Finance
Committee May 30, 2006)
Mr. Mayor: No further additions? We’ll start—
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to add number 25 to the consent agenda.
PUBLIC SERVICES
25. Motion to accept a $5,000.00 grant for Ripken Baseball, Inc. for the promotion of
inner city youth sports in Augusta, and to amend the 2006 budget according.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further to be pulled for discussion? Commissioner Brown?
Mr. Brown: Is number 15 included?
Mr. Mayor: It’s pulled for discussion. We’ve got you covered.
6
Mr. Brown: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: 34. Pull.
The Clerk: It’s on the regular.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Administrator?
Mr. Russell: Could you pull item 16, please?
ENGINEERING SERVICES
16. Motion to deny contract with Stafford Engineers for Roof and Waterproofing
Consulting on the Augusta Richmond County Municipal Building and direct the
Administrator to have Facilities Management engage a professional to perform this work.
(Approved by Engineering Committee May 30, 2006)
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything else to be added to or pulled from for discussion?
Mr. Williams: Now are we pulling, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: People have been pushing and pulling all along. I believe we’ve got nothing
else to be added to, and so yes, Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: I didn’t know what direction we going in. If we pushing and pulling now
we going to get confused. I just want to make sure that we all [unintelligible]. I think Ms. Beard
wanted to pull three or four; is that right, Ms. Beard?
The Clerk: She did.
Mr. Mayor: Yes. Those are on the pulled list.
Mr. Williams: I’d like to pull item number 6.
FINANCE
6. Motion to approve alternative (3) for Guidelines for Dispersal of SPLOST Funds to
Outside Agencies. (Approved by Finance Committee May 30, 2006)
Mr. Williams: And number 10, Mr. Mayor. I need some clarification on item 10.
ENGINEERING SERVICES
10. Motion to approve proposal in the amount of $247,083.00 to design an upgrade to
the Morgan Rd. pump station and a twenty-inch (20") water main to service Tobacco Rd
and Fort Gordon. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 30, 2006)
7
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything further to be pulled for discussion?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if the Clerk would just reiterate those numbers so I can make
sure that we—
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, would you read back what has been added to and what has
been pulled, please?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Just those that been pulled, Ms. Bonner, is all for myself. I don’t know
about anybody else.
The Clerk: We’ll try to go with the consent agenda, as we as those items that have been
pulled.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
The Clerk: The consent agenda consists of item 1 through 20, with the addition of
items 21, 25, item 26, 27, with 28 being held in committee until approval of plans submitted,
item 31, item 33, item 35, item 36 referred back to committee, item 37 referred back to
committee. That’s our consent agenda. Items pulled for discussion, items 3, 4, 6, 10, 15, 16.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion? Can I get a motion to approve the consent
agenda?
Mr. Williams: So move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion.
Mr. Holland: Second.
Mr. Mayor: And a second.
CONSENT AGENDA
PUBLIC SAFETY
1. Motion to authorize transfer of funds from "Wireless Phase Fund Balance
Unreserved" to the E9-1-1 Operating Budget for 2006. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee May 30, 2006)
2. Motion to approve investigating who owns the property surrounding an old dirt
road near Goodale Landing and what would be necessary for use as evacuation route.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee May 30, 2006)
5. Motion to abate taxes for property acquired by County in 2005 for the portion of
the year such properties were owned by this County. (Approved by Finance Committee
May 30, 2006)
8
7. Motion to approve the replacement of one (1) Harley Davidson motorcycle for the
Sheriff’s Office from Augusta Harley Davidson of Augusta, Georgia, for $15,434.65 (lowest
bid offer for bid 06-117A). (Approved by Finance Committee May 30, 2006)
8. Motion to declare 15 vehicles excess and available for salvage sales. (Approved by
Finance Committee May 30, 2006)
ENGINEERING SERVICES
9. Motion to abandon a portion of Walker Street containing 0.05 acres beginning at
the intersection of Beech Street. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 30,
2006)
11. Motion to approve the submission of grant application on behalf of Augusta, Ga. by
the Mayor's Brownfield Commission. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May
30, 2006)
12. Motion to approve and accept a Deed of Easement and Dedication from St. Andrews
Augusta, LLC. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 30, 2006)
13. Motion to approve Georgia Power Company Governmental Encroachment
Agreement #30880 for Easement - Jefferson County EMC #5 (Bath) 46kv Transmission
Line Right-of-Way. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 30, 2006)
14. Motion to approve New Job Descriptions for Customer Service/Office Manager,
Customer Service/Metering Manager and Customer Service/Branch Manager Positions.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 30, 2006)
17. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget 322-04-206822651 in the amount of
$407,000 for the proposed Winchester Subdivision Drainage Improvement Project.
Funding to be used for Engineering in the amount of $6,000, $10,000 for Land Acquisition,
$338,000 for Construction, and $53,000 for Project Contingency. Funds are available in
Phase II SPLOST Contingency. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 30,
2006)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
18. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of Commission held May 16,
2006 and the Special Called meeting held May 30, 2006.
APPOINTMENT(S)
19. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Lewis N. Blackstone, III to the Human
Relations Commission representing District 7.
20. Motion to approve the following reappointments and appointments: Catherine
Thompkins Augusta Ports Authority; Lourdes Coleman, Augusta Aviation, Richard
Burkeen; Augusta Canal Authority; A.N. Lawton, General Aviation; Thelma Williams,
Historic Preservation; Ella Washington, Library Board, Colis Ivey, Personnel Board; Pat
Jefferson, Planning Commission; Bernard Johnson Riverfront Development and Leo
Jackson, Tree Commission representing District 1.
PUBLIC SERVICES
21. New Ownership: A. N. 06 - 27: A request by Mario M. Young for an on-premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Dirty South Sports
Bar & Grill located at 1524 Gordon Hwy. District 2. Super District 9.
9
25. Motion to accept a $5,000.00 grant for Ripken Baseball, Inc. for the promotion of
inner city youth sports in Augusta, and to amend the 2006 budget according.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
26. Receive as information the 2005 Annual Report and the 1st Quarter Report for 2006
from the Augusta Convention and Visitors Bureau.
27. Approve the award of year 2006 HOPWA program contracts to St. Stephen’s
Ministry and Hope Health, Inc.
31. Approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain unsafe and
uninhabitable structures in the Laney-Walker Neighborhood:1119 Thirteenth Street,
(District 1, Super District 9); Turpin Hill Neighborhood: 1027 Eighth Avenue, 1609 Holley
Street, 1031 Prep Street, 1039 Prep Street, 1365 Steed Street, (District 2, Super District 9);
Bethlehem Neighborhood: 3 Ash Street, 1035 Brayton Street, 1114 Maxwell Street, 1569
Picquet Avenue, 1131 Roselle Street, 10 Sherman Street, (District 2, Super District 9); AND
WAIVE 2ND READING.
33. Approve New Job Descriptions for Customer Service/Office Manager, Customer
Service/Metering Manager and Customer Service/Branch Manager Positions
35. Approve Early Retirement of Mr. Henry Davis under the 1977 Pension Plan.
REFERRED BACK TO COMMITTEE:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
28. Approve award of HOME funds regarding the joint venture concerning the Dover
Street Project. (Referred from May 8 Administrative Services)
36. Consider a request from South Richmond County Community Development
regarding grant funding.
37. Update on CDBG Program Expenditures – Calendar Year 2006.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, just for the purpose of acknowledging the alcohol petition, if
there are any objectors.
PUBLIC SERVICES
21. New Ownership: A. N. 06 - 27: A request by Mario M. Young for an on-premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Dirty South Sports
Bar & Grill located at 1524 Gordon Hwy. District 2. Super District 9.
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to that alcohol petition?
Mr. Russell: None noted.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Cheek called and said he would be about an hour late.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
10
Mr. Cheek out.
Mr. Hatney abstains.
Motion carries 8-1. [Item 21]
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 9-0. [Items 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 31, 33,
35, referral back to committee of items 28, 36, 37]
Mr. Mayor: All right, Madame Clerk, do we want to go into the items that were pulled
for discussion?
The Clerk:
FINANCE
3. Motion to approve tasking the Attorney with developing a policy for the disposal of
city properties and to come back with the necessary paperwork regarding the sale of a
particular parcel of city property to a group. (Approved by Finance Committee May 30,
2006)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. The particular
property that the Commission tasked me to look into for sale is what has been referred to as our
pension property. I have put together a scenario which I have consulted with the attorney for the
Downtown Development Authority. And the procedure that I would recommend on that
property, in order to develop it, would be for the Commission to enter into an inter-governmental
agreement with the downtown development authority. We have legal authority to enter into
contracts and agreements with other entities, such as the Downtown Development Authority
without the necessity of a publicly-bidded sale or sealed bid sale, the purpose being that the
DDA does have power to enter into such a contract and to sell it. The further details would be
that the transactions would occur near simultaneously, that the city would convey to the DDA,
the DDA has the power to borrow money and grant a deed to secure debt, and then in a second
transaction which would follow immediately behind that transaction the DDA would sell to the
preferred or the selected developer. The selected developer would then as part of a closing pay
off the city’s interest in the property, which is represented by a SPLOST fund appropriation from
SPLOST—I think it’s IV—and then that money would be returned to the SPLOST fund mainly
because it is done—we have not built anything with that money. We have acquired it. But the
safe harbor is to put that money back subject to the SPLOST statute, which is number IV,
SPLOST IV. And I have reviewed the—like I say I’ve reviewed the mechanics of the
transaction with Mr. Warlick and he has agreed with this scenario. Certainly we would want to
include in any direction to the DDA how we, how that contract affected our support for the
redevelopment of the depot [unintelligible]. And the Transportation Enhancement grant, you
will recall that there is money there available for the stabilization of that building, really just
enough to stabilize the exterior and to redo the roof. I think we need to state in that contract an
acknowledgement from the developer that there would be a minimum investment of $120
million. We need to set some other parameters that would be—that I’d ask that you direct me as
11
the attorney and the administrator to place in there, which is a schedule for [unintelligible]
schedule for completion. I think it’s the desire of this body to have that developed residentially
with this particular developer and that we have some form of architectural control, that the
course of the tax digest would be favorably impacted in this situation in raw numbers by fair
market value project of about a hundred and twenty million dollars, which would be translated
roughly into an assessed value of $48 million, which would then produce tax revenue in each of
the succeeding years. There are other economic benefits going from the project, such as
construction jobs. I have a copy of a fax from Augusta Tomorrow, which I can make copies for
each one of you if you so desire, but my recommendation is based on the fact that last year when
we had the opportunity to pass the Redevelopment Powers Law as a referendum we did not do
that. That has other authority similar to this, to work with the developer. The pension property
has been in the ’49 Pension Fund and it was taken out and the pension money was replaced by
SPLOST money. And we did put a covenant in the deed to remind us that if we further disposed
of the property that any appreciation for a two year period was still [unintelligible] would go to
the ’49 Pension Fund and be subject to its investments. That is an outline of that transaction.
There are other properties that we need to consider for sale. I don’t think we’ve considered the
activities and the uses of all of the properties internally yet and I thought that that would be
something that the administrator and I needed to confer further on. So—but we are, I am
prepared to make this recommendation to [unintelligible] the DDA in a cooperative fashion to
market and sell this particular piece of property.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was really timing the attorney on the response
time and I’m glad that he [unintelligible] two minute rule that we try to hold people to.
Mr. Mayor: I apologize for that.
Mr. Williams: No, don’t need no apology, Mr. Mayor. I just want to make that point
because this is going to take a lot of discussion and I’m glad that he elaborated as much as he
did. First of all, I know this was talked about in Finance Committee, but he brought a very good
point out, that this property was bought with sales tax money. And you can’t sell it. I mean you
can circumvent the process by going through the DDA or through the Land Bank Authority.
You [unintelligible] try to circumvent but the voters voted on what this money was to be used
for. And I’m surprised that our attorney didn’t bring that to our attention before he even said a
word about any kind of configuration as far as a deal being [unintelligible] with someone else.
So that’s my first point, Mr. Mayor, that since it was bought with sales tax money and we paid
probably a million dollars more than it was on the books for. And we’re being offered now a
hundred thousand dollars more than what we paid for it. Now, we paid a million, not quite a
million. But I [unintelligible]. We paid—it was on the books for $800,000. I think we paid a
million seven for it. But somebody is going to offer us a million eight, which means a hundred
thousand dollars more than we paid about a year-and-a-half ago, if not less than that. That’s
poor management of taxpayers’ money. I’ve got a serious issue of how we are doing this and
what is being done. I would like to know from some other source rather than our attorney about
whether or not this is legal. Now we talking about ethics and codes and doing things right. I just
don’t see no way, whether we put it in the Land Bank or any other hands, going around with the
12
[unintelligible] in place, the taxpayers voted on every issue, we know. We talked about the
training, Mr. Mayor, and that’s one of the things about training, they taught us that you can move
money around in the category that it in but you can’t take it out of that category. You can’t take
sales tax dollars—I don’t care who wants to buy it, and then turn around and sell it. We can only
invest in that property with a building or doing something with it ourselves. We cannot sell that
property because of the stipulation that it was bought with sales tax money. And I’m really
surprised that we sit here and listen to the attorney’s response as to what we can do through the
DDA. There’s a lot of entities we can use to go through that but that would be illegal, against the
law as plain as you can get it. I would like to hear from the Attorney General before we make
any moves on this. I would like to get a response from the Attorney General as to say whether
we in the guidelines or not. Now, if we are in the guidelines, I know my one vote ain’t going to
count. But I would not sit here and agree to a situation that we know is not right. My biggest
problem, Mr. Mayor, and you didn’t stop the attorney, so let me finish, please, sir. My biggest
problem is that if we spent almost a million dollars more than was on the tax books for a year
ago, a year-and-a-half ago, and we only going to get on our return $100,000? Mr. Mayor, we
talking about needed money, we talking about this city in trouble, we going to really be in
trouble, man. If we make moves like that and the public knows it, that just don’t make good
sense. [unintelligible] I’m fixing to close. Maybe I’m the only one that feel that way, only one
that see it that way, but I just can’t see how we can sit here and not [unintelligible] and my
motion would be that we get Attorney General’s opinion on whether or not we can take sales tax
money that was designated for a certain entity. I don’t have it, I’m sure the Clerk got it
somewhere, what those things were. Everything that we voted on sales tax was designated in a
category to spend money in and we can only use it for that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Your motion is to get an opinion from the Attorney General with
regard to the disposal of the property?
Mr. Williams: Sales tax money. Not the property. We know the property, we can—can
we use sales tax money that was designated to do that, which we going to have to pay the
pension [unintelligible] out of the hundred thousand dollars that we going get, because we won’t
get a hundred thousand dollars because the pensioners, Mr. Shepard read that we had agreement
with them. But we sold that property within two years, whatever the proceeds was over that
amount, it would be shared with them. So we won’t get the hundred thousand dollars. So that’s
my motion.
Mr. Hatney: I second that motion.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: Let me ask a question. My concern is that if this thing has any possibilities
for being illegal, I just think it is incumbent upon us as the [unintelligible] to seek the
information from a higher authority [unintelligible].
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got a motion and second. Let me speak to a couple of issues here.
Rev. Hatney, I agree with you. It’s a situation where we need to make sure that it’s completely
legal, completely above board. But we also have to consider, you know, we’ve got a $5 million
13
budget deficit and we just can’t simply run off somebody that’s looking to invest a hundred and
twenty million dollars in our community. The price of the land is not the big picture here. It’s
the increasing our tax revenues. You know, we’ve got a five million dollar deficit and so if this
is legal I’m strongly in favor of it, we cannot turn away somebody that’s looking to invest a
hundred and twenty million dollars in our community. Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’d like for you to ask our lawyer if he believes it is legal.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I believe, in my opinion, it is legal.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Ms. Beard: I have—
Mr. Mayor: Excuse me, Ms. Beard.
Ms. Beard: I have concerns because I think this is a very important issue. And it is kind
of the first time I’m being told the process that you plan to use. And I think it’s something I
would want to know or be a part of the drawing up of this contract, if it should happen, and I’m
wondering why we didn’t consider the memorandum of understanding as we sort of talked about
it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: I think basically what we’ve got in front of us is two issues that we need to
deal with, one of which is a process on how we will attempt to sell city property. That’s what
we’re looking at globally. Specifically this particular piece of property is one that serves as a
fine example of what kinds of decisions you’re going, you as a group are going to have to be
making over the next several years as we continue to move this city forward. We’ve got a
person that has come forth with an opportunity to build in our community here on property that
we own. We have never sold our property like this before but we have other people that are
coming forth with similar kinds of opportunities, not only to buy but to lease our property. I
think what I’m looking for out of this discussion is some recommendation on how we go about
doing that process. And I think Commissioner Williams probably brought up a good point, make
sure we’re doing it right by the book and I don’t disagree with that. I think as we continue to
move forward with this particular individual, if we decide to do that, and that’s your decision to
make obviously, that the memorandum of understanding that you speak about would be included
in any contract or any kind of agreement that you would have with that builder where they would
have to agree to meet specifics, i.e., that they would use the property in an area that we would
think would be appropriate, that they would do so in a timely fashion, that they wouldn’t—and
you know, that is something you would deal with once you make the policy decision on whether
or not going forth is a good idea, and that would be something that would come back to you as a
group to determine the details of how that would possibly be. So I think what you’re looking at
is a two-fold decision, development of a policy on how to do this and then whether or not this is
14
a good opportunity for the city and whether or not we should look into this as an option, by either
checking through the legal function, the [unintelligible] legally do the sales tax dollars, or that
this is—developing a memorandum of understanding of the contract with that individual to make
sure that they do what we want with property. This is a decision you’re going to be making
several times in the future, I hope, as other people have come forth with desires to
[unintelligible] our property and build on our property and increase our tax base by using our
property for other functions that we sell to them. So I think this is the model, this is where we go
and this is how you start making those decisions on where we get to from here.
Mr. Mayor: And just to piggy-back on what Fred said, we talk all the time about growing
this city and this is a great opportunity, and I’m hearing from the body that it’s something that
we’re going to look at doing. And I agree and I want to see that we get it legally, but we just
can’t, you know, drive away when we’re in the financial position we’re in. This gentleman has
other projects, and I’m not saying we need to make the decision today but we need to make a
decision and move forward on this today. He’s looking at other communities and he can move
on. Rev. Hatney?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Excuse me, Dr. Hatney, but he recognized me and Ms. Beard
was talking and then I yield but I think you—
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Hatney, are you all right with that?
Mr. Hatney: Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: First of all, Mr. Russell, we already got a process to [unintelligible] we
already have a process [unintelligible] bidded. We can’t single source it. Now, we go through
the back door, through the DDA, or through the Land Bank Authority and put it in somebody
else’s hand and have them do any kind of thing we want to do. We done done that before. It
don’t make it right. but we’ve got a process and that process is [unintelligible]. You can’t just
find a single source and say that’s who I want to sell it to. This same investor who done talked to
three different Mayors, he talked to Bob Young about this project, he talked to Interim Mayor
Willie Mays, now he’s talking to the present Mayor, Deke Copenhaver right now. This same
developer. But this developer, who had a memorandum of understanding, MOU, who said he
would give this city a hundred thousand dollars to invest in some local charity. I think that’s
written down somewhere. That’s a deal, whether it was written on paper, whether it was said in
a back room, you can’t cut no deals no way. When we started to talk about properties,
properties, more than one, we had never discussed but one piece. Now, we said we going to look
at all this stuff, the property the city owned and we going to look at what we can sell. We have
never discussed but one piece, and that’s this piece downtown we’re looking at now. That piece
needs to be developed. We been talking about doing something with it. Who do you know, Mr.
Mayor—Mr. Russell, you hadn’t been long enough—but who do you know besides maybe your
family can spend $400,000 for a condo down on the river? I don’t know very many people.
Naturally I won’t be down there but I don’t know of anybody else that going to spend $400,000
for a condo. We need something on that property but we need to control it. We need to know
15
what’s going to be there. Once you sell property to anybody they’ve got a right to do what they
will with it, just like we’ve got the right to do what we will with it. You can’t control what
somebody else do with property once you sell it to them. And once you open the gate and the
horse is out, ain’t no catching him. Cause if you going to ride him, you’d have rode him out the
gate when he come out. That don’t make good sense. Dr. Hatney, I’m finished.
Mr. Mayor: Let me speak tot hat issue. You know, this community has needs and we
have a five million dollar budget shortfall. As the pie shrinks in this community, it’s the people
that are the least of these that are getting hurt the worst. This is not about four hundred thousand
dollar condos. This is about somebody wanting to invest a hundred and twenty million dollars in
this community, growing the tax base. We’re looking at a budget where we’re potentially have
to let go employee because we’ve got a budget shortfall. This is telling them we don’t want to
grow it if we don’t move any further on this. It is a hundred and twenty million dollar
investment.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I guess you responding to me, so I respond to you. I agree
with that a hundred percent. We had not done one thing in the seven years I been here to bring
money in except talking about selling this piece of property. Once you sell this piece of property
to build condos on and you don’t sell them, then you got a building downtown and a river you
just looking at. We need to do something. I’m not against doing some with the property. Don’t
confuse that. But we talked about all the development come in, we talked about a hotel and there
has not been one developer come in here that we brought in to talk about doing anything else
with this property except that one man. Now, I missed one meeting in seven years. Unless y’all
had a meeting on that date, I ain’t heard nothing about no other development, whether it be hotel,
retail, nothing else but that one person who we dealt with. If we going to sell this property, Mr.
Mayor, wouldn’t we look at all the proposals out there that could possibly be? We talking about
the man spend $40,000 of his own money. Either he’s a foolish man or a wise man that spend
his money without asking him to do that. If he spent that money, then that’s on his back. We
didn’t ask him to do that. And I can’t sit here and agree with taking the sales tax money, which
is against the law in the first place, and try to sell that property to do that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney:
Mr. Hatney: My concern again, and I’m arguing [unintelligible] my only concern—I
seconded the motion because I think this makes sense to ask the opinion of the Attorney General
how legal this transaction is. I don’t have no problem with us going forward but I can’t go
forward [unintelligible].
Mr. Mayor: And I think you are the voice of reason. I agree with you on that.
Commissioner Bowles?
Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor, I as a Commissioner have [unintelligible] two developers to
come look at that for a hotel project and several Commissioners were invited and on one
occasion Rev. Hatney actually went and looked at this property with the developer. A developer
looking to building 150 to 200 bedrooms at that property, one requirement is that we build our
exhibit and trade center adjacent to this property. Also, it’s going to take a fourteen to sixteen
16
million dollar contribution from the city to build a hotel. This developer will be in town
Thursday and Friday of this week if anybody wants to meet with him Thursday and Friday,
perhaps [unintelligible] to see what their requirements are to build a nationally recognized hotel,
they’re more than welcome to come. And I think it’s obvious we don’t have the money at this
time to invest $14 million to assist anyone with a hotel. As a result of that, I am in favor of the
condominium development. But if anybody doesn’t believe what I say about the developer with
the hotels, like I say he’ll be here Thursday and Friday and I’d be more than welcome to set up a
meeting for everybody to talk with him.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, for one, am amazed that we are actually having
this discussion. That property sat there since before I was born pretty much vacant. And we
hear all the time about not being against development and economic growth in this city, but
every time something comes up we have the same argument, this isn’t the way, this isn’t the one,
we need better, we need a different route, we need a different program. DDA has helped save
the Widows’ Home, the Houghton School, they’ve worked on several other properties. They are
the downtown development agency that is best suited to deal with this type of situation. To
auction this property off on the steps, which is correct, which is the [unintelligible] procedure,
it’s going to go to the highest bidder, which may be well below market value, which will give no
guarantees as to what is developed in there, and any smart city would send up a memorandum of
understanding that would have it developed in a way suitable to meet the needs of the city. The
condominium market of this nature has been shown through the [unintelligible] study to be
viable. It would add to the skyline of the city of Augusta, enhance our marina area, and the
lower Broad Street/Reynolds Street area. Quite frankly, I’m embarrassed that we do one thing
very well, and that’s manage vacant lots and tend to perpetuate vacancy on those lots better than
any place I’ve ever seen. We have an opportunity to grow, and no matter what we do today,
ladies and gentlemen, economic growth will not occur for three to four years. And so we have a
way to prepare a future Commission to be in a different position than we’re in, one of not having
to reduce the work force or cut services, but actually have enough income to cover expenses.
But we keep spinning our wheels, we keep going back and wanting to do something better.
Well, I’m waiting for a concrete plan rather than a deferral, delay or a deny. Mr. Mayor, in light
of that I agree that we want to be legal but there is precedent set forth in this city and in other
cities where DDA and other groups to manage this type of transaction. It has been done. There
is precedent in this city that it’s being done. Whether I get a second or not, I’m going to make a
substitute motion No action taken on this motion due to the passage of the substitute motion that
we move forward with an agreement on this property.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think in regards to the type of clientele that we
would be looking at it may not be a local citizen who would buy the $400,000 condominium but
the term is used out there nowadays of half-way back. And what’s happening, if you talk to
some of these lawyers and realtors in this community, as well as Savannah or Charleston or in
the areas that are in the Sun Belt is that most of your retirees that have moved to Florida, a lot of
those people [unintelligible] they are getting tired of these hurricanes coming through
17
[unintelligible] live down there. And the term of halfway back means that they are moving
halfway back to the North. And we are finding through these large realtors here in Augusta that
a lot of people are looking at buying homes and buying condominiums halfway back and they’re
coming in and settling in these areas. So I see us having an opportunity, and not one that is bad
for this community but one that is good. Not only would we be gaining citizens in this
community, but we’d be gaining the type of dollars that we need for the city of Augusta in order
to continue to grow and work in the areas that we should. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brown?
Mr. Brown: I’d just like to say that I think the discussions that we’re having at this time
are a bit premature, based on the fact that we do not have the legal ability to sell the property.
We don’t have the proper information at this time to make a decision and for that reason I
believe we need to wait until we get that information.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland?
Mr. Holland: Yes. To piggy-back on what Commissioner Brown said, we do need the
legal information before we move forward. But besides that, Mr. Mayor, we need to look around
Augusta and look at the condominiums that we already have here that are unoccupied. What are
we going to do? We going to try to approve another plan to bring some condominiums in here
and when they’re not occupied they’re going to just sit there. And nobody in this particular area,
I don’t care who you’re talking about, nobody in this particular area will be able to afford
$400,000 condominiums. I don’t care if they are halfway back, if they’re going halfway back
and they get halfway back here to Augusta, they’re going to be here for a certain length of time
and then the next thing you know we’re going to have empty condominiums just like we already
have in Augusta. What we need, what we need [unintelligible] have in Augusta, we need
buildings, we need buildings that’s going to bring revenue to Augusta. When you look around
different cities—we just came back from Savannah, and they have hotels all up and down the
riverwalk and they’re bringing in monies by the millions every year. But we’re moving at horse
and buggy pace and these other cities are moving with jet-like speed, progressing, and we’re
sitting here trying to bring condominiums into this city when we should be bringing in hotels.
We are in the process of trying to build and bring forth a convention center and a visitors bureau.
Now, if we put a convention center and a visitors bureau into this city and condominiums are
sitting up there, we aren’t going to be having anyone to come in to the convention center. We
won’t have any spaces for those people. So what we need to really do as Commissioners and
Mayor, we need to sit back and take a another long look at what we are going to be doing with
these properties so that we can bring some funds into these properties so that we can help with
our tax base and stop trying to sell these properties to individual developers who are going to
make a commitment of a hundred thousand dollars to various organizations around the city and
not going to do anything to help the city. We need to take a long look at this, Mr. Mayor. I’m
not going to agree with selling any properties for any condominiums at all.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. And Rev. Hatney, I’m going to recognize you, but it is a hundred and
twenty million dollar investment in Augusta. The rising tide helps everybody. I just—those
cities that have so much economic development that have people coming in looking to invest,
18
these investors, you know, this guy is going to go tell people I came to them with this deal and
they [unintelligible] business friendly. Let me just say that. Rev. Hatney?
Mr. Hatney:
Mr. Mayor, for the sake of time we’ve been—I think we’ve discussed this
I’d make a substitute motion that we send this item back to committee
long enough today.
while we wait an answer from the Attorney General and then bring it back at our next
Commission meeting.
Mr. Grantham: I second that.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I just—and the reason we don’t have hotels and more people
coming into this town is because if you follow the same line of logic that has been espoused on
this Commission today, we have empty houses in Augusta so let’s not build any more houses, we
have empty stores, let’s don’t build any more stores. Certainly there are a few empty streets and
unused sewer and water lines, let’s not build anything new in this city. The bottom line is if you
go to Savannah or Charleston or Atlanta or anywhere, Charlotte, they’re building condominiums
and they’re attracting people with new income to the city to build a tax base. The reason we
don’t make progress and don’t grow economically, which has been projected at 1% to 3% for the
next few years, which is something I’m not proud of, we seem determined not to do anything
about, is we say we’re for economic development but we’re against building anything new, any
life style centers or condominium complexes and there is always a bigger, better in the bush
somewhere. Well, for the people of Augusta who need the jobs, for the tax base of this city who
needs the income, we need to do something sooner rather than later. And I keep hearing the
delay, defer and deny plan, which seems to be the policy of this Commission, which is a terrible
shame, not only for me, but my children and everybody else’s children in this city who are going
to need a job one day, or we can continue to run them to other cities where they can find jobs,
where they’re building and doing things exactly like we’re talking about doing over here instead
of proudly thumping our chests and saying we’re doing something for this city by leaving the
property vacant.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second on the floor. Substitute motion, excuse me.
Mr. Williams: What’s the motion?
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, can you please read back the substitute motion?
The Clerk: The substitute motion by Mr. Hatney, seconded by Mr. Grantham, was to
refer back to committee as we wait for an opinion from the Attorney General.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign.
Mr. Brigham, Mr. Bowles and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Motion carries 7-3.
19
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: You know, I—you know what’s in my heart? I really think this is an
excellent project. I really think we are going to have to start moving in Augusta at some point. I
think I was thrown off because Fred said we had two issues here. How, the process to go about
doing this, and actually working with this project. And maybe had I been presented with that
earlier I would have been able to make a better decision. I think about the arena, when the group
wanted the arena and they came with their memorandum of understanding. And maybe
[unintelligible] but it was a contract and we were able to look at that contract and make a
decision. And that’s how I based my decision. And in here you’re telling me that I will pass
everything over to someone else and I have not—I just don’t think I know enough about what
[unintelligible] is doing. So I have a problem there. Now, we are going to have to do something
because the city needs to move forward. We cannot stop every project. I have another project
that I’m going to bring forth in a couple of weeks. Augusta third level canal. Laney Walker
Development neighborhood. Are we not going to move on anything? I’m not sure this needs to
go to the Attorney; of course, it has been voted. But I do need some clear steps to get from point
A to point B and I think when I receive them I’m going to move.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Ms. Beard. All right, we’ve discussed that one. Let’s move on
to the next issue and item.
The Clerk:
FINANCE
4. Motion to approve making the adjustment in the Commission budget and that a
letter be sent to department heads and elected officials asking them why the cuts were not
made and request an action plan within thirty days; Motion to correct the two errors
regarding the District Attorney's budget and the contract item funded from Contingency
Fund; Motion to approve asking the Mayor to form a committee to study where the city
can eliminate services in order to help balance the budget. (Approved by Finance
Committee May 30, 2006)
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: We are on number 4; is that correct?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am.
Ms. Beard: I have questions in reference to that because our Clerk of Commission called
to state that she felt our portion of the budget was incorrect and I’m wondering if she could bring
that forth now.
20
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, ma’am, Ms. Beard. After having discussed this with the administrator,
who referred me to the Finance Director, who then referred me to the budget analysis that was
assigned to our budget, in talking with her, and she agreed with me, that the deduction we’re
realizing our 2005 budget. However, the fact that we did not itemize what [unintelligible] the
money was coming from, we were then penalized again in 2006 with that cut. So I have copies
of our budget that actually show where the deductions were realized. So I’d like to just give that
to the Commission. However, in the wage and salary on the Commission there is $8,000.
However, those funds are budgeted by Human Resources and beyond our control. I spoke with
Ms. Robbie Burns who said that there were some COLA increases [unintelligible]
Commissioners that were not budgeted for. But she told me she was on the opinion that—and
you will see on the page where the 2005 deduction of 25,304 was deducted. And she said she
voiced that opinion; however, the previous Finance Director said that that’s not how he wanted it
done. Now, if we’re guilty of anything it’s because we didn’t submit an itemized list on where
we wanted it. But the balance of the budget did sustain the cut.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: I make a motion that we approve this with the exemption of the
Commission budget that the Clerk has already—if that’s been realized and it’s already out
we need to approve whatever is there but exempt the Commission.
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was the one that raised that question, because I
felt it very difficult for me to sit up here and ask other departments to cut their budget when the
Commission was not. But I’m glad to see that we did and thank you, Madame Clerk. I think
that is something we needed to note and I’d like the records to reflect that that was done and
once we vote this in it will reflect back to that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m just going to add to that, thank you, Madame Clerk. And
also thank you for setting a fine example that I would like to see all the other people who are
similarly situated come before this Commission and answer to why they didn’t make the cuts, or
if they did, or at least an action plan as to resolving the deficits.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Administrator?
21
Mr. Russell: As directed by that issue, you need to also add to Mr. Williams’
motion that the balance of that contingency to cover that cost.
Mr. Williams: Yes, so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
FINANCE
6. Motion to approve alternative (3) for Guidelines for Dispersal of SPLOST Funds to
Outside Agencies. (Approved by Finance Committee May 30, 2006)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I just wanted some clarification on exactly what is—I
guess the attorney can explain it to us, what is item 6.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Administrator?
Mr. Russell: As you and I and the Major talked—
Mr. Mayor: The Major?
Mr. Russell: As you and I and the Mayor talked in the past, we’ve never really had a
specific policy on how to disperse the funds in SPLOST. They were either given as a grant with
no real follow-up or—and I had raised some concerns about that. What this would do is give
us—you suggested that we go ahead and actually do that and [unintelligible] policy. What this
does is provide a combination of two things that we do, to do the follow-up on the SPLOST
allocations, i.e., a group that we’ve designated SPLOST dollars for comes back with a project we
basically do that as a pay out for that project and have documentation that we can go back and
trace where those dollars actually went. So it’s basically a mechanisms to determine the actual
spending of those particular dollars and giving us paperwork that will give us an audit trail for
those dollars that are designated for specific [unintelligible] groups.
Mr. Williams: I make a motion that we approve, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Mr. Holland: Second.
22
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Commissioners will not vote by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
10. Motion to approve proposal in the amount of $247,083.00 to design an upgrade to
the Morgan Rd. pump station and a twenty-inch (20") water main to service Tobacco Rd
and Fort Gordon. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 30, 2006)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, that came through Engineering Services and I think—I don’t
think we have any problem with that. My question was, this was just for design and upgrade,
there is no construction involved, the DBE person has no reason to—is all that clear, I guess, is a
better way to put it, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. [unintelligible]?
Mr. Byne: There is no construction involved in this project.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Byne: This is a design only.
Mr. Williams: And we got a firm that’s going to do this for us; is that—
Mr. Byne: Yes. ZEL. Zimmerman, Evans, Leopold, a local engineering firm. It’s three
projects in one. It’s actually water lines, two 20” water lines, and an upgrade to the Morgan
Road pump station.
Mr. Williams: But we still got [unintelligible] portion somewhere in there, is that right?
Mr. Byne: Yes, it is. It’s 100% locally owned. There is no DBE or no known
[unintelligible] business enterprise in this particular firm.
Mr. Williams: Is that because we don’t have any women in business to do that? The
women don’t have to do the work but they [unintelligible]? Some people get confused
[unintelligible] but they can own those businesses, there is none that—
Mr. Byne: All these were picked from RFQ [unintelligible] firms. This is the just the
first one you’ve seen of the 2004 bond series. In particular, this firm was one of the ones that
was selected based on their qualifications and they responded to the RFQ. It just so happens that
they don’t have any women or minority owned business enterprise as part of their ownership.
23
Mr. Williams:I’m
We spending 247,000 I think. We ought to try to find somebody.
going to make a motion to approve, Mr. Mayor,
and hopefully we will look into this to try to
make sure that they find somebody somewhere that could participate in these monies that we’re
spending.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brown?
Mr. Brown: I’d like to say that I’ve seen a lot of things that are coming before us that
there is no seeming opposition, I’m sorry, opportunity for DBE, for local, for women owned.
We might need to consider putting together some type of plan or program using some of the
money that we’re awarding to set up something to help out businesses to be able to be included
in some of these things.
Mr. Byne: It’s my understanding there were some programs being prepared. I’m not
[unintelligible] the details about those.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles?
Mr. Bowles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to hear from Ms. Gentry. She’s in charge
of the DBE and I know that she’s working diligently on a disparity study and a lot is contingent
upon the completion of that study. Could we hear from her on where we stand and what we can
expect in the upcoming months?
Ms. Gentry: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I did work with the Utilities
Department and we solicited every architectural engineering firm between Augusta and the state
of Georgia. We got very few to respond. As a matter of fact, we received two. Later on in the
year they will come forth in terms of [unintelligible] being awarded projects. Commissioner
Brown, I understand what you’re saying. However, the way the packets are designed it does not
warrant opportunities for smaller companies sometimes to come in. That’s just my opinion.
Again, what I am charged with is actually going out there, doing [unintelligible] solicitations and
making sure that they receive an opportunity to come to the table.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brown?
Mr. Brown: If the packages are not designed to include small businesses maybe they
need to be redesigned.
Ms. Gentry: Point well taken, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: Is there a minimum amount that we have that we can allow [unintelligible]
offer proposals without the DBE being, actively participating; is there a minimum amount? I’m
like Mr. Brown, I’ve heard—and look like they fix it so it be right at a quarter million dollars so
there definitely won’t be [unintelligible] peculiar about the way this is done [unintelligible].
24
Folk who want to circumvent stuff can do it. And folk who want to make it available for others
can also do it. So [unintelligible] insist upon it being done.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Gentry?
Ms. Gentry: I think that question needs to be addressed to the departments. They’re the
ones to put together the specifications and the bid information in terms of what they are trying to
achieve.
Mr. Hatney: I’m talking to whoever is necessary. It’s time to do better than what we’re
doing.
Mr. Byne: [unintelligible] we did receive a return of information from WRJ and
[unintelligible] and we are working with them to get an engineering contract go. We are
negotiating costs with them.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham?
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, we always talk about wanting to create jobs locally, and now
we’re going to argue about whether or not a local firm ought to get a contract. That don’t make a
lot of sense to me. I thought that was part of—it was local, minority and small, if I remember.
And this is a local firm. Let’s not forget that in this argument.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just the very nature of projects—and I agree with everything
that’s been said up here about creating opportunity—but I from an engineering standpoint would
prefer to see projects, single projects designed by a single firm where we can allow
opportunities—for instance, when someone designs a $7 million sewer project to code then we
can parcel those sections of that project out to smaller companies to allow local participation
more readily. One of the things we try to do is design and then build using single firms to save
money or time or whatever. But I have heard the complaint from many small businesses
throughout the city that these projects are just too big for them to bond on and that if we were to
split sewer projects, for instance, into three or whatever main projects to where they could work
from a single specific design—because with every design firm you have design logic. And a lot
of time interpretations of codes and everything. While it all appears to be the same can be done
very differently, which could be costly and inconsistent throughout the design of the project, like
a water system. So I’d just like to see us do as has been mentioned, work towards designing
these packages with small businesses in mind locally, where we can see them grow to become
large engineering firms and construction companies like you have in other cities.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Gentry?
Ms. Gentry: Mr. Mayor, Commissioner Cheek is correct. My research shows that with
these large projects what companies normally do is partner, joint ventures, embrace mentor
protégé so that they’re embracing the local, as well as the minority. He’s absolutely correct.
25
Firms cannot and do not have the capacity for bonding large projects such as this one. However,
when you have a true program in place, one of the things you want to ensure that you’re doing is
focusing on mentor protégé, joint venturing, mentoring, and partnering. And most important, we
need to embrace our unemployment role and that will help with everything instead of bringing
folks outside of Augusta Richmond County.
Mr. Mayor: Absolutely. We have a motion.
The Clerk: The motion was to approve the proposal with ZEL Engineers for this project.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Is there any further discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
15. Motion to approve Agreement and Scope of Work for the second phase of the MWH
Constructors, Inc. (MWHC) Construction Manager at Risk contract to begin construction
activities for the James B. Messerly WPCP Master Plan Implementation Project with a
guaranteed maximum price (GMP) of $3,543,096.00. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee May 30, 2006)
Mr. Cheek: Move to approve.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Williams: Same scenario on the last one, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Gentry, her DBE
participation?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Gentry?
Ms. Gentry: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, this particular company has
worked with me for the last six months to ensure including minority, woman-owned, as well as
our local business and I am proud to indicate currently going into this project if you approve it,
we have 30 percent plus going to local DBEs as well as our small business. That equates to over
$2 million of the 3.5 they are requesting.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I’m just going to say, that’s well above the national average for participation.
Ms. Gentry: Their goal is 35%. Now, do understand, this is task 1. This is the first task.
We have another one. We several weeks ago had a meeting where they invited everyone that we
could think of under the sun that owned a business to make sure that they could capitalize on
26
what they’re doing. So the effort, good faith effort is there. The goal was 35% and they
surpassed that.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brown?
Mr. Brown: I’d just like to say that I certainly applaud your efforts, the company that
we’re talking about now, including our local and DBE. I think we need to look for more
companies like this to do business with this city, them being 30% and above the national average
I think is fantastic. I think if we want our city to look the way we want it to look as far as
including everybody we have to continue to do business with companies like this.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If there have not been a motion I’m making a
motion to approve. But there have been some concerns with this, with this company, and we
want to make sure it stays on track. The proof is in the pudding. It’s easy to talk. It’s easy to
say what we are going to do. I want to see what we’ve done and not just put it out there as
[unintelligible]. I’ve got no problems. I think we’ve got somebody that is watching the hen
house, Mr. Mayor.
Ms. Gentry: May I respond to that, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Ms. Gentry.
Ms. Gentry: One of the things that I have put in place, Commissioner, and I appreciate
you bringing that point up, is a plan of action. MWH has provided me with a plan of action.
They meet with me monthly to identify any deficiencies that they have going forward. In
addition to that they are providing me with a utilization report that clearly identifies not only the
DBEs that they’ve committed to, suppliers, locals, so throughout the entire project we will be
monitoring this. And again, I do have support. They are working with me to identify any
deficiencies that I address with them. Just wanted you to know that.
Mr. Mayor: I believe Mr. Cheek made the original motion.
The Clerk: Yes, sir, seconded by Mr. Grantham. We have a motion.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor, I was going to call for the question.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
27
ENGINEERING SERVICES
16. Motion to deny contract with Stafford Engineers for Roof and Waterproofing
Consulting on the Augusta Richmond County Municipal Building and direct the
Administrator to have Facilities Management engage a professional to perform this work.
(Approved by Engineering Committee May 30, 2006)
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, I asked that we pull this.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: In Engineering Services Committee last week there was some discussion
about this item. As we discussed there, Heery, our SPLOST manager basically, had done the
RFP/RFQ to bring in a consultant to work on the water issues in this particular building. We
have some leakage, we have some roof repairs, we need to seal that. What we’ve done is
actually requested and done a proposal to bring in a consultant to do that work and to help write
the specs to do that. The cost for that has been established here. Engineering Services
Committee directed that we not take this, that we deny this contract, and that we go forth and
have facilities management write that, write the specs for those particular contracts. It would be
my recommendation that we not do that, that we allow this to go forth. We have got the
consultants on board. Well, not on board. We’ve got them ready to come on board to write
those specs. But of the nature of this building and the [unintelligible] the fact that we are
planning to use this building in the future, as we revamp it we need to seal the outside to
eliminate or to mitigate what damage we do have and to continue to move forward, and it would
be my recommendation that we do let the consultants move forward in writing those specs to go
ahead and get the building fixed.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Russell is right. We did talk about this in committee.
My, I guess my question to Mr. Russell is how much money did it cost the city for the firm to
recommend to do this? I mean I just need to know what we was paying the firm to come to
committee or to put this together. How much money did we spend for that? I mean the 48,000 is
what the consultants—the fee, right?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, that’s the fee that you heard. I thought we provided that
information to you. I do not have it in front of me at the moment but it’s my understanding that
that was distributed last week. And I will be happy to get that if you’d like for me to do that.
I’m sorry.
Mr. Williams: I asked for that. I want to know what it was costing us to have a firm to
come to committee meeting and present to us that he’s going to find somebody to come in and do
work for us, that we’ve had people in place that ought to be able to do. And those fees was, I
mean I thought sure would be here today but I don’t remember getting those, Mr. Russell. You
don’t have any idea?
Mr. Russell: I would be—[unintelligible].
28
Mr. Williams: It’s going to come up in the back of this agenda item. It’s another item
that deal with that. If we can get somebody to get that for me I’d like to have it then.
Mr. Brown: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brown?
Mr. Brown: I have an hourly rate sheet from Heery International, if this will help. The
rate sheet is right here.
Mr. Williams: What’s the hourly rate, Mr. Brown?
Mr. Mayor: Through the Chair, Mr. Williams, please.
Mr. Brown: Project director, $140.46. No, no, no. I’m sorry. 2006. Hourly rate $158
for the project director. Principal in charge, $182.41 per hour. Project executive, $182.41 per
hour. Program project manager—
Mr. Williams: Mr. Brown, thank you, sir. I can’t take no more.
Mr. Mayor: Through the Chair, please. Commissioner Brigham?
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we approve the administrator’s
request.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Brigham’s motion is to approve or deny like Mr. Russell is the
[unintelligible] what was that motion, to approve?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham, could you clarify your motion?
Mr. Brigham: I made a motion to approve the Administrator’s request to hire an
outside consultant.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion? Commissioners
will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Brown votes No.
29
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk? Before we get into the regular agenda, can we do our
recognition? Before we move into the regular agenda, we have a certificate of recognition to
present Mr. Steve Shepard. Steve, I know this is a surprise to you, but I’ll go ahead and read it
out. Certificate of recognition given to Stephen E. Shepard for achieving the honor of 30 years
of dedication to the study of law;
Whereas, Stephen Shepard was born in Atlanta, Georgia and moved to Augusta in 1976,
he graduated from Davidson College [unintelligible] 1973 and the University of Georgia School
of Law, J.D., 1976, he has been admitted to practice in the Superior and State Courts, United
States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, the Georgia Supreme Court, and
Georgia Court of Appeals since 1976; he has a general civil law practice with emphasis on
litigation and personal injury, divorce and probate; he has served on Augusta City Council and
several public boards; he and his wife Kathy have three daughters, [unintelligible], Whitney, and
Mallory;
The City of Augusta congratulates, recognizes and applauds your efforts to help the
th
citizens of Augusta, given this 6 day of June, 2006.
Let’s give Steve a round of applause.
Any words?
Mr. Shepard: Do I get to [unintelligible]? Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the
Commission for this honor this day. I want to thank my wife Kathy for coming down.
Obviously it is a truism that behind every successful man is a dedicated wife in my case and I
thank Kathy and our family for the support they’ve given me, especially with the hours that I put
in. I appreciate my law partners signing off on this here as well. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Before we get into the regular agenda, our Mayor of the Day, Aaliyah has to
leave, but let’s give her a big round of applause. Let’s move into the regular agenda. She would
like to say something.
Ms. Williams: I would like to say thank you for giving me the opportunity to be Mayor
for the Day.
Mr. Mayor: I’m just keeping the [unintelligible] for you. Madame Clerk, would like to
move 42 to the front of the agenda. They’re from out of town.
The Clerk: You want to do 42 next?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk:
30
ATTORNEY
42. Consider/Approve General Obligation SPLOST Bond Resolution to be presented by
Tom Gray, Esq. Bond Counsel.
Mr. Mayor: Please—
Mr. Gray: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, my name is Tom Gray. I’m with the law firm of
[unintelligible] Maner and Gray in Savannah and I have with me my law associate, Charla Hall,
who works in our bond department with us. And what is before you today is a resolution for the
Commission to adopt in preparation for seeking competitive bids to purchase the bonds you plan
to issue that were authorized by your SPLOST resolution, SPLOST election. This—by the way,
also here is the financial advisor on this, for these bonds, who is Diane McNabb from AG
Edwards and Company. AG Edwards has prepared an official notice of sale to put out to
prospective bidders for the bonds and that present schedule would be that those—and
preliminary to seeking those bids we are drafting what they call a preliminary official statement
which is a disclosure document that goes to the prospective bidders so that they know something
about us before they submit their bids. Presently the schedule is that bids would be received on
nd
the 22 of this month, following which—and this resolution would provide that the Mayor is
authorized to accept the best bid for the purchase of bonds with the lowest true interest cost. The
purchase of those bonds—would like to before you have your next meeting, have that approved,
know that they have actually won that award. Then on the schedule would be on your meeting
th
on June 26 you would adopt a formal bond resolution which sets out all the terms and
conditions of the bonds. And as you know, these bonds are for the purpose of the construction of
an exhibit hall and the expansion of the Webster Detention Center. So this is a—it’s basically a
one page resolution which would, to summarize, authorize the dissemination of official notice of
sale by AG Edwards, your financial advisor, and would allow the Mayor to accept the best bid
for those bonds with the lowest true interest cost.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners?
Mr. Grantham: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: I got no problem with the motion or second, but I need to ask a question,
whether this is going to include our local banks? I mean I’m not familiar, but we got several
local banks that been really supportive of the city of Augusta and I want to make sure that
everybody has an opportunity. How would that affect those?
Ms. McNabb: I’ve been working with Geri Sams and she has provided me with the
names and addresses and email addresses for all of your local banks and those that have
expressed interest in an opportunity to bid, submit bids on these bonds, as well as we maintain a
competitive sale list that includes all the major firms throughout the country.
31
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams [unintelligible]?
Mr. Williams: I’m just trying to get clear and I think I’m hearing through [unintelligible]
have contacted those local banks and then I heard about throughout the country and that kind of
threw me. Cause throughout the country, there are some banks throughout the country that could
probably eat up those little banks. Now, I don’t know anything about banking now. I mean all
my money in my front pocket.
Ms. McNabb: In choosing to sell bonds by competitive sale, it’s a purely quantitative
process and the bonds are awarded to those, whichever group of bidders—they usually bid with a
group—whichever group of bidders provides the city with the lowest true interest cost.
Mr. Williams: Okay, Mr. Mayor, I got my answer to that.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: I guess you’re stating then that you’re going to be, you’re going to be using
more than one firm?
Ms. McNabb: It will, we will—the underwriting firm that is selected will be whoever
presents the lowest true interest cost. Theoretically it could be one bidder with one firm or it
could be a syndicate of bidders with multiple firms in it. Again, it’s just typically, just simply a
quantitative process. As opposed to the way that you do your water and sewer revenue bonds,
where you are—in that case you’re selecting an underwriter in advance through an RFP process.
And then that underwriter or group of underwriters that you’ve put together then sell the bonds.
In a competitive sale, which is the majority—for a city of this size and bond issue structure of the
general obligations bonds like we’re going to be issuing, the most common method of sale is a
competitive sale. Let me—the water and sewer bond issues are sold by negotiated sale, where
you pick your underwriters in advance. Competitive sale, I do—as your financial advisor, which
you don’t have on your water and sewer issue—as your financial advisor I distribute the
documents to all the potential buyers and they submit bids. So where the underwriters for your
water and sewer issue bring you a final bond resolution after they’ve sold the bonds, this will be
the resolution that Mr. Gray is speaking of where the only thing the underwriters are going to
do—you won’t ever see them. The only thing they’re going to do is take delivery of your bonds
and distribute them to investors.
Ms. Beard: I spoke with Geri and I thought we kind of—I thought she was supposed to
go back and talk with you in reference to negotiated, something with the lead underwriter, so that
some of the businesses in Augusta would be able to participate.
Ms. McNabb: That’s possible. Geri and I haven’t discussed that specifically but that
would be contrary to the way that most governments would sell a general obligation bond issue.
You’ve got a general obligation bond, which is best credit, you’ve got—there’s nothing unusual
about the issue and in accordance with the Governmental Finance Officers Association that
would be the recommended approach. Now, there’s nothing to say that you can’t choose to do it
another way if that’s what you wish to do.
32
Ms. Beard: Yes, because I think that in Jefferson County they used a number, they
[unintelligible] underwriter to give others an opportunity to participate.
Ms. McNabb: That’s the way that you have done the water and sewer revenue bonds n
the past, which would be again the recommended approach in the case of water and sewer
revenue bonds.
Ms. Beard: Is there a chance we could look at that, because I think this is what we have
always done in the past, too, negotiated?
Ms. McNabb: Certainly in the case of the water and sewer revenue bonds that’s the way
it’s been done in the past. Our recommendation, however—I’m sorry—has been to use
competitive sale.
Mr. Gray: Excuse me. I think, and maybe you said this, Diane, but I think the reason
their recommendation is to do it by competitive sale is you’re expected to get the lowest true
interest cost by doing that.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham?
Mr. Brigham: That was my exact question. When you do a negotiated sale, we tend to
have a higher interest rate than we do a competitive sale.
Ms. McNabb: You will be assured, without a doubt, of getting the lowest possible true
interest cost by competitive sale.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Ms. McNabb: A negotiated sale is a little more complicated to analyze. You’re right,
hopefully you get the lowest, but not necessarily.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Is there any further discussion?
Commissioners now vote by the usual sign.
Ms. Beard votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Gray: Thank you. It’s always a pleasure to be in Augusta. My father was born in
Augusta. I went to school with Commissioner Grantham. I hadn’t seen him in about 40 years
and he hasn’t aged a bit.
Mr. Grantham: Right.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk.
33
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVICES
22. Update on Apple Valley Park from Recreation Department. (Requested by
Commissioner Williams)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beck?
Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, you were placed in front of you a
report that I have put together for you. In case it’s gotten kind of lost in the paperwork, the red
tickets were attached to that report. Now, I’ll just go through a little bit of an update for you.
From a budget standpoint, our budget, we have $350,000 in SPLOST V funds and as you’re
st
aware our SPLOST funds do not become available until October 1. That’s the first funding
through SPLOST V that we will get for Parks and Recreation, so Apple Valley will get the first
part of those Parks and Recreation funds. We also have $95,000 in CDBG funds, giving us a
total of $445,000 for this first phase of Apple Valley Park. I’ve also put together a time line for
you to show where we’re at now and where we’re heading with the time line, what kind of park
construction you can expect for Apple Valley Park. Just to go over the time line just briefly,
design is about 95% complete. Design will be completed by the end of this month. That will
give us time to present the final plans to the neighborhood association, as we always do. By July
th
30 our bid documents will be prepared and ready and the bids will go out at that time.
th
September 15 is the deadline, the target date to actually award the bid. Construction will start
st
on the park October 1, with an estimated completion time of March. It should be about a five
month project on the park. And as the Commission has been presented before, this phase of
Apple Valley Park will include of course all the grading site work for this new park project, a
walking and jogging track which will be lighted, an athletic field, basketball court and tennis
court will be on the park, picnic pavilion with restrooms, a playground, and of course parking
area will be in this phase of the park project. So with that I would entertain any questions.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The reason I had this put on, and I thank Tom
for the update, we bought this property with federal dollars and we supposed to have done
something within a year’s time. That was one of the requirements of using federal dollars. And
I’m glad to see this moving forward. No sense in trying to skip over anything now. We are
getting closer. But we been in violation of—since we took the federal dollars we did a walk
through the neighborhood to make sure that the area, the criteria to be able to use federal dollars.
We used those dollars with the stipulation that we would do something within a year’s time, and
it’s been almost three or four years. Tom, I don’t know how old this project is now but we been
[unintelligible] people are steadily asking when are we going to do something? In Apple Valley,
they don’t have any place to go, any place for recreation at all except go down to Bernie Ward.
Some people living in Apple Valley think that’s fine, some people in Apple Valley don’t think
that’s fine. They got kids with a basketball goal in the street. There’s no sidewalks, there’s no
place for them to get out of the road, and they really need something to happen with this facility.
And I’m hoping that we can at least clean it off, get it able for some kind of use, because right
now we cleaned the property off and it’s almost grown back up to where it was before, Tom. I
34
was out there a couple of weeks ago. We cut it back, but if we don’t get a handle on it, we going
to have to go in there with heavy equipment again in order to get it cut back. But I’m glad to
know that by July we done got to the neighborhoods and we had the bids out September, which
will be here before we know it. We will be getting started. But we been out of compliance, Mr.
Mayor, for quite some time and I’m glad to know this.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles?
Mr. Bowles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to confirm—I remember on the bus tour
when Commissioner Williams took us by there, he inquired about a fence surrounding that
property for protection of the neighborhood and I was wondering if that was included in the plan.
Mr. Beck: Absolutely. Fencing is included in this, as well as an access way over to
Pippin, I believe is the side street that goes over that will allow Apple Valley neighborhood folks
not to have to come out on Marvin Griffin Road so they’ll have safer access into the park.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brown?
Mr. Brown: I have a question, but I’d like also to say to Mr. Beck that this report that
you’ve given us is very easy for me to follow. It tells me what kind of time line you have, what
kind of money you’re working with, and I appreciate your efforts in providing me with this. The
question I’d like to ask you is, is this a single phase or will there be other things added in Apple
Valley later?
Mr. Beck: Very good question. This actually will be phase I of Apple Valley Park.
Phase I think would be—and the only other thing that will not be completed in this park project
is a community center. We do not have the funding identified right now for a community center
but that is in the master plan that this Commission has approved and as soon as funding is
identified that will complete the park.
Mr. Brown: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, my question is do we have an agreement with the neighborhood
association to run and maintain this park similar to what we have at Jamestown and East
Augusta?
Mr. Beck: Not at this time, Commissioner Cheek, Mr. Mayor, members of the
Commission. Although that is going to be a priority with any of our projects, is to get as much
partnering as we can out of any neighborhood association to help us deliver services. It’s
certainly worked in a lot of other areas and as we look at reduced budgets that’s always a way
that we’re going to have to look to keep those service levels up.
Mr. Cheek: The thing that concerns me is we have regional parks that serve tens of
thousands of people annually, we continue to—and I’ve supported this project since its
35
inception, helped champion it with the Mayor Pro Tem. The thing that concerns me is unless we
have buy-ins from neighborhoods to run these small parks we do not have the staff nor the
budget to maintain as many as we have in our building. I have one park in my district that has
two basketball courts and one unimproved practice field. But I have Diamond Lakes on one
side, Bernie Ward on the other, and hopefully at some point in the future somewhere near the
Goshen area we’ll see something built similar. But I would expect as East Augusta, as
Jamestown and some of the other, Sand Ridge and some of the other neighborhoods have
stepped up to the plate to run and maintain these parks in light of the city’s budget crunch and
the other amenities they bring to the park, that we would expect the same from Apple Valley and
[unintelligible] other parks in order for us to keep the doors open at our major venues. That’s
just an expectation from this Commission chair.
Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, if I could make one other comment.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beck?
Mr. Beck: Of course that being on the Marvin Griffin Road corridor there’s many
industries out there. That’s another partnering that we have had some dialogue with some
industry out there, not only to provide some sponsorship funding but also utilization, possibly to
come in to actually help us build and maintain some of these areas. So that’s another resource
that we’re approaching.
Mr. Mayor:Can I get a motion to receive this as
Thank you, Mr. Beck.
information?
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion? Commissioners
will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Smith out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Moving right along.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVICES
23. Consider a request from the Central Savannah River Resource Conservation and
Development for office space or financial assistance. (Requested by Commissioner
Grantham)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham?
36
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I had requested this. I had a discussion with Mr.
Pete Fulcher, who is with us today. Is he still in the—there he is. Pete, would you come explain
what y’all are doing, how many people you have, what type of service you are giving to the
outside counties of the area and just what you’re looking for?
Mr. Mayor: Could you state your name and address for the record and keep it to five
minutes, please.
Mr. Fulcher: Yes, sir, I’ll keep it short. Pete Fulcher, 2948 Highway 88, Hephzibah,
Georgia. Speaking [unintelligible] RC&D Council. We are a non-profit corporation working
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture through Natural Resource Conservation Services, if that
makes any sense. The bottom line is to improve the quality of life for human and natural
resources. We are a 13 county council which runs from Lincoln County all the way to Bulloch
County. We come before you today because our main office in here in Richmond County and
has been since we were organized in 1990. Due to restrictions, budget restrictions of the federal
government they are no longer paying our rent. Normally they would pay for a coordinator, an
st
administrative assistant, and pay our office expenses, furnish with an office. As of March 31
they discontinued our office. What we are asking you for is office space in this county or
[unintelligible] a month to pay the rent where we’re at. We have an adequate office on Highway
25, right across from Poteet Funeral Home, and we can get a five year lease for $550 a month.
You have before you our annual plan, tell you some of the things we do. [unintelligible] Spirit
Creek Educational Center. In our [unintelligible] we have 250 automobiles on the road, 70 of
which are in Richmond County. At Spirit Creek Educational [unintelligible] we’ve had over
3,000 fourth, fifth and sixth graders there during the past school years. Plus over 800 adults. We
are working with Augusta Tech in certifying developers and builders in the erosion plans. We
are having [unintelligible] not in this county, but in the rural areas. [unintelligible] working with
high school students, teaching them about the environment. That’s it in a nutshell. We just need
a place to [unintelligible]. We’ve been offered a place in Warren County and in the city of
Wrens. Be glad to get the place. But our folks like to come to Augusta cause you go to the mall
and go to BI-LO and Wal-mart. That’s the reason we want to keep it in this county.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Grantham?
Mr. Grantham:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you, Mr. Fulcher, cause this is the
type work that we see throughout the community that people are giving their time and talents.
Not only that but their funds as well. And to hear him say they have over 250 automobiles
throughout these 13 counties, they raised the money to buy these cars and to give these cars to
the people that are using it to help others get around. And we talk about transportation, bus
service and the likes thereof, this is the type of service that we need. This is what I call
I’m going to make a motion that we receive this as information, that
community effort and
we ask our Administrator to not only help us find a facility that we can house this body in;
if not, let’s see if we can’t find some type of funds on a $500 a month basis that we can help
these people locate and stay in Richmond County and not move out of this county.
Mr. Smith: Second.
37
Mr. Fulcher: Can I say one thing? In our [unintelligible] program, this is for people that
are coming off of public assistance. They are referred to us by DFACS. We screen them. We
will sell them a used, a good used car with no down payment, no interest, and we set the
payments up according to what their income is. And as I said, we have 70 of these in Richmond
County. Out of a total of 250 we’ve already had 98 that have been paid off. So we appreciate
any help you can give us.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brown?
Mr. Brown: I certainly applaud the work that this group is doing. I believe that because
of the fact that they are serving 13 counties, based on our budget I think we might consider
asking other counties to also help with the financing of their project. I’m certainly in support of
helping but I don’t know about funding the whole thing.
Mr. Mayor: Good point. Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: If we got 13 other counties, couldn’t we divide the monthly, you know,
among the counties?
Mr. Fulcher: We’ve already been that route.
Mr. Williams: Been that route?
Mr. Fulcher: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: That didn’t work?
Mr. Fulcher: No, sir. These counties are not going to spend their money in Richmond
County.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I know that we’re leasing, for instance Augusta Tomorrow
property for about 750 a month. Someone is renting that from us essentially. I don’t even know
if it’s got a contract on it. It didn’t the last time I checked. But the museum is empty. We’ve
got a station on Central Avenue that’s empty. We’ve got real estate. And Pete, I don’t know if
you guys are paying the utilities as part of your lease or separately, but we’ve got plenty of
vacant buildings and Lord knows with the caliber of volunteers we could probably get some
folks to come in and help maintain some of these structure if we just allow them to occupy them
and make them the headquarters. I just hate to see us, for whatever, reason defer to these other
surrounding counties which are smaller population centers. The metropolitan hub status that
Augusta [unintelligible] 90 mile radius [unintelligible] because we don’t want to use a vacant
building that we have or whatever. I tell you, the job you guys are doing is great and we need to
be expanding that and growing it from Augusta, not from Wrens or wherever else.
Mr. Fulcher: This is the center of the area. It just makes sense to have it here.
38
Mr. Cheek: [unintelligible] but we’re trying.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we’ve been having this
conversation for about the last couple of months. The gentleman came to me and requested
some additional funding. I suggested, as Commissioner Williams did, that we go back and try to
split the bill amongst the 13 counties there. They have done that and were somewhat
unsuccessful. What we have been able to do is as we move forward with our relocation of the
engineering area for Marvin Griffin road it would be my suggestion that we have some space
there after moving the people out of the attic and fill up the space down there. Mr. Sherman tells
me we would have some office space there that would be appropriate. I would rather do that
than search for the dollars. It’s a [unintelligible] the dollars are tight. The space, I think we
could provide and I would be more than happen to continue that dialogue if so directed on the
space.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, the Administrator got a good suggestion. I would ask him
and Pete to get together. Commissioner Cheek mentioned about the different facilities that we
got around here, to look at those places and see what’s, what would be conducive for them to
have that we can, that we can do that with and try to work that out. I think he’s on the right page.
I think he ought to get with the agency so they’ll be all together.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, could I just add one thing.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I do not of that particular one building that we’re renting for seven or eight
hundred and fifty dollars a month that’s overlooking the river right there and I think people are
paying eight to twelve hundred dollars a month for a second floor loft apartment up here. I think
we need to look at all the property we’re renting to some of these folks around here and see if we
can’t in fact put it on the market and get a little bit more money for our property. A lot of them
certainly are not being maintained, if there is a contact on them.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, moving right along.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVICES
39
24. Approve contract with Qore, Inc. for geotechnical engineering consulting for
Augusta's new Main Library.
Mr. Grantham: So move, Mr. Mayor.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: [unintelligible]
Mr. Mayor: Through the Chair, Mr. Williams, through the Chair.
Mr. Williams: I just want to know are you—I mean I know you been on top of this
project and I know you been working very hard, but Mr. Mayor, I want to know if Mr. Swint is
on board, okay, no, no nothing from you? I think support [unintelligible].
Mr. Swint: I was in on the selection process, along with Yvonne and with Bob. We went
through and we balanced the DBE versus the experience the companies had and this was clearly
the top company that had bid on the project.
Mr. Williams: I got no problem, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Is there any further discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Swint: Thank you very much.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
29. Discuss status of underwriter's process for SPLOST V General Obligation Bonds.
(Requested by Commissioner Williams)
Mr. Williams: I wanted to make sure that the local banks—that’s my—
The Clerk: Mr. Williams, you want to delete this?
Mr. Williams: Yeah, we just go ahead and delete that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: We need a motion.
Mr. Grantham: Just include it in the previous motion.
40
The Clerk: [unintelligible] Okay, we have a motion and second to delete that item.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
32. Discuss employees' grievance process through Human Resources. (Requested by
Commissioner Williams)
Mr. Mayor: Did you get 30?
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
30. Discuss fund allocations for CHDOs. (Requested by Commissioner Williams)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, we met and talked in committee about it and I think we got
some answers to some of the questions we had. I want to make this a part of the record that there
was a bottleneck in the [unintelligible] department, I think everything has been put out now. I
see Paul against the wall over there. That the agencies along with the CHDOs know what their
money is, know that the contract is [unintelligible], we have no bottleneck, there is nothing
preventing us now from moving forward, to spend down the funds that we need to spend. Paul,
you need to come around here and say something I won’t be just [unintelligible].
Mr. DeCamp: Is it all right if I just say I agree with everything he said?
Mr. Williams: I wanted to make sure now because we been talking and I been, I been
misled myself thinking that—looking at figures and thinking one way, but now we know that the
process is working, that the CHDOs are doing their job and [unintelligible] is doing their job,
there is nobody being held up.
Mr. DeCamp: No.
Mr. Williams: Everything is moving along as it should be.
Mr. DeCamp: That’s correct.
Mr. Williams:Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we approve.
Okay.
41
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland?
Mr. Holland: I want to add to that, too, Mr. Mayor and Commissioner Williams, that in
the meeting we found a number of things that were happening and now we have a complete
understanding of what’s going on. On top of that we just want to commend Paul for the job that
he’s doing and what he’s done with these CHDOs. The CHDOs now appear to be working
together. And since they’re working together it appears we are going to be moving forward.
And I believe between now and November we are going to have an opportunity to say we have
completed the goal that we started out with. Paul once again, you’re to be commended. We
have a group of intelligent, competent people with these CHDOs that are working and they know
that we are going to be observing them as they move along doing the job that they are doing and
it would behoove the members of the Commission to check also so that we can the job that Paul
has done with these CHDOs and what the CHDOs are doing on different projects. Once again,
you’re to be commended and we found out some things that were happening and now we have a
complete understanding of why they happened and now we can move on. Paul, you don’t have
to worry about getting any more gray hair.
Mr. Mayor: I would like to applaud your efforts, and having been in the meeting on
Friday, and there’s a camera in the room so I won’t share what my bottom line of the problem
was as I did in that meeting, but I think we’ve got everything moving along in the correct
direction. We have a motion on the floor and a second to receive as information.
The Clerk: We need a second.
Mr. Hatney: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
32. Discuss employees' grievance process through Human Resources. (Requested by
Commissioner Williams)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We, I’ve got some serious concerns about how
[unintelligible] working through Human Resources. When we have done things in the past and
we talk about grievances have been done, I don’t feel like Human Resources have handled those
grievances professionally. We went through a committee process and sent some stuff back to
Human Resources. They did not handle it right. Again, I was disappointed. I need to know
from Mr. Russell or from someone what is the process when you’ve got a grievance process
going on or an investigation going on? How is that to be handled? Should that be handled in
42
what way? I know it should be handled professional way but I just don’t think that’s been done.
And Mr. Russell, you know exactly which street I’m coming down so you can chime in any time
you feel like it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: What the grievance process is designed to do is to create a dialogue
between the employee who feels like they’ve been treated wrongly for some matter or some
degree and the supervisory people and the administration that actually has control over that.
Where we [unintelligible] not be as good as we could be in developing that dialogue where the
employee feels comfortable or has the ability to talk to their supervisor about their specific
problem. That’s something that we have probably not been as good as we could. Where we
have gone several occasions, though, is when the employees that there is some reason they don’t
have the ability to have that dialogue and they feel threatened or fear intimidation or retaliation.
It’s our thought they should have an opportunity to bypass that initial dialogue and then go
straight forward to Human Relations and file a complaint or an issue there at this particular point
in time. That then is investigated in a different manner. It’s my feeling that most grievances
occur because people don’t understand what’s going on, and if they talk about it they get that far.
If they feel like they cannot talk, the avenue presents itself where if they’re afraid of their
supervisor or afraid of their boss or whatever, afraid to go through the chain of command, then
they need to have another avenue. And by going directly to HR that does that. What we’ve had
problems with in the past with those particular types of investigators is communications
backwards between the individual that is filing the grievance, HR, and the person that
[unintelligible] be able to correct that grievance and that’s the individual with the particular area
that’s being grieved upon. We, you know, what we need to do is make sure that process works
as smoothly as it can and that we don’t have people that are filing grievances that can be handled
internally within the department versus those that are filed for specific reasons outside of, outside
of grievable area. We tend to have created not only in our environment but in a lot of work
environments situations where people don’t really have a grievance. They have a concern, they
have a problem, they have an area, but a grievance should be limited to the areas of discipline,
salary, benefits, and those kinds of issues like that. I think that with the discussion that
Commissioner Williams and I have had over the past couple of weeks it would be appropriate to
sit down not only with him, but probably with the Administrative Services Committee, go
through that entire process in the form of a workshop, educational kind of situation and deal with
the specific issue that he’s bringing forth as a personnel issue in another format.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Fred, I understand that HR has and a lot of people may call a grievance
that may not be a grievance and I think that’s something they ought to discern whether it fits that
category or not. When it gets to the point of being a grievance and then there’s an investigation
going on, and HR does something or any other employee does something that’s going to hinder
that, not make those people—people trust them. If you can’t go to HR and talk honestly to them
and share—now, that don’t mean that a person who files a grievance even has a grievance.
That’s their opinion. And HR ought to be able to discern whether or not what they said is a
grievance or not. And if not, there ought to be another step. But when we got people who come
43
in by numbers, I don’t want to give any names or anything else, but people who are
complaining—everybody ain’t going to tell the same lie. Some may lie but somebody going to
tell a different one. When you get the same story coming back then there is a problem. When
people don’t want to talk to HR because of the fear of what they said, it’s going back to
somebody else or being circumvented, then that creates a problem. So I grant you, I think we
ought to have some discussion. There ought to be a workshop, Mr. Mayor, where we can let
them know. That’s part of their training, I thought, that they should have so they’ll know when
there is a grievance you ain’t got to take no sides. If somebody comes and lies to you, you jot
down the lie they told you and get them to sign it. And that’s all their response ought to be. But
it’s getting out of hand and I thought we ought to get something together, Mr. Mayor, so we can
kind of get this thing kind of herded back in cause it’s going to get worse, I believe.
Mr. Mayor: What I would recommend, Mr. Williams, is to have a work session with the
Administrative Services Committee to address this issue. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I just have to ask the question. I think I’ve asked this about ten
times. I think you probably know what I’m going to ask.
Mr. Russell: We’re working on the final draft of that and hopefully we’ll have that
available for you to review sometime in the next 30 days.
Mr. Cheek: And for those that don’t know what we’re talking about [unintelligible] HR
policy manual, which could have been revised and—
Mr. Mayor: I thought that Fred was clairvoyant.
Mr. Cheek: He is.
Mr. Russell: No, sir, I’m just familiar with the problem and—
Mr. Cheek: It’s about time and that’s the kind of thing that we need that would codify
behaviors and expectations for employees and management alike. It is a very grave deficiency
within this government. Probably would have kept us out of a lot of lawsuits if we had had that
in place a few years back.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland?
Mr. Holland: Mr. Mayor, I have to agree with Commissioner Williams and
Commissioner Cheek. Because when you have a large number of employees and when your
employees feel that they can’t trust the people that they’re working around and working with, it
leads to low morale. And this is one of the biggest problems that we have within our local
government. We have low morale within the government. Because employees feel that when
they share information, this information comes back to the person that it is not supposed to be
coming back to, it creates a problem, creates distrust. Then the employees, they don’t feel like
they have an advocate, they don’t feel like they have anyone to speak up for them. Not that they
are trying to hide anything, but at least they want to feel free and to have some liberty to share
44
some of their feelings about what is happening with them or to them on their jobs. So when they
share this information with the person that’s supposed to be working with them, and then this
information goes back to the supervisor, then they feel then that they are going to have—be
retaliated against, they’re going to feel that there is going to be some intimidation against them.
So we really, really need to come together and sit down and work a program out whereby if
anyone within these departments reveal information from another employee to a supervisor, that
particular individual needs to be dealt with immediately. And that particular individual need to
be dealt with, reprimanded or terminated because it is unfair to employees to share and trust
other employees and trust supervisors and they come back and they share information that they
shared with another person. It’s not right. And people want to get up in the morning and feel
good about going to work. They don’t want to sit on the side of the bed and resent going to a job
because they know that there is going to be some kind of retaliation against them. So we need to
really start working on that and do something about it so our employees—we have a lot of
employees—so our employees can feel good about themselves, so they can feel good about
going to work and not feel that they are going to be intimidated and not going to feel the
someone is going to retaliate against them simply because they went and shared some
information about something that happened to them on the job. It’s not fair.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney?
Mr. Hatney:
Just an observation. I am convinced that employees are our most precious
commodity, second only to the constituency. And those individuals need to feel free to express
themselves. Also I’m convinced that an employee should respect their supervisor, but not fear
I make a
their supervisors. When there is a fear there is something drastically wrong and
motion that we do utilize this workshop.
Mr. Brown: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion? Commissioners
will now vote by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk?
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
34. Motion to approve request to hire maintenance worker in the Augusta Fire
Department. (Requested by Commissioner Hatney)
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: My reason for asking to put this back on was not so much to approve the
request because it was done before, but in view of the fact that we are, we have no idea of the
45
difficulty we are going to have balancing the budget this year. I would believe that it would
behoove us not to employ any positions of this nature that’s not necessarily needed until after
such time that we know where our budget stands. And I would recommend that we postpone
acting on this activity until after our budget is finalized.
Mr. Mayor: Would you put that in the form of a motion?
Mr. Hatney: I just did.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, we hashed and rehashed this before. What we have is an
opportunity have this covered out of an enterprise fund which does not impact the general fund
budget, which is the budget that’s in trouble. To have this position funded and to take one
person into four. We hashed and rehashed this before. This has zero impact on the deficit. Not
doing it will have zero impact on the deficit. Therefore it makes absolutely no sense at all to
defer something that would reduce the workload on our firefighters who have seen four times the
number of calls that they’ve had approximately from last year over what they had last year, one;
two, help maintain our equipment in an orderly fashion, fire plugs and so forth, which cost more
to replace than to repair; and three, again, takes one person and turns them into four with the
additional inmates that are available and willing to do this work and perhaps learn a skill, out
maintaining part of a water system and the first equipment and the stations, maybe they can work
on to become firefighters at some point in time. Again, delaying this because of the budget is a
false economy. There is zero impact. This comes from the enterprise fund and will be funded
from the Water Works Department to maintain Water Works equipment and reduce the workload
of firefighters. It makes sense. And to say that we’re doing this to offset the general fund is a
false economy. It’s not true. It’s not accomplishing anything towards that end, so do to away
with this is basically—it makes—it doesn’t make sense.
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: I did not ask that it be done away with. And I understand it does not have
any necessary direct effect on the budget itself. But all the money that is here belongs to the
taxpayers, no matter what, how you look at it, and [unintelligible] whereas they don’t
[unintelligible]. All I’m saying is let’s wait until after the budget process is over and then
[unintelligible]. We don’t know how many folks [unintelligible] we don’t know [unintelligible].
I just don’t think, I think it’s premature to put anybody in a position that you—even though it
doesn’t have any direct [unintelligible] impact it does have a mind impact.
Mr. Mayor: We have a—Commissioner Cheek?
46
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, let me remind the Commission that one of the largest
expenditure overages in the department, the Fire Department, was overtime. So let us go ahead
and continue to have the firefighters maintain equipment and work overtime instead of having a
position funded from another account which is not part of the general fund and wait until
December to do something about it. I just for one don’t see the logic behind this motion and plan
to vote against it and urge my colleagues to vote against it because this is way to maintain our
equipment to get four people for the price of one, which will come out of another fund, not the
Fire Department or the general fund, and improve the quality and maintenance of our equipment
and the appearance of our fire stations. It’s win, win, win, win. And to delay this—because
certainly if we’re going to set the precedent of stopping this then I am for a hiring freeze across
the board for every position.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if you’d get Chief Willis up here I’d like to ask him how
much overtime that the Fire Department do cleaning equipment and stuff.
Mr. Mayor: Chief Willis?
Mr. Willis: I don’t quite understand the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Williams: How much overtime, Mr. Mayor, did this money—they spent for cleaning
equipment?
Mr. Willis: We work, they work 24 hours a day as you very well know.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. Overtime paid for cleaning equipment or whatever. Now, you
know I know the routine but you tell these folks. Cause if I tell them, they ain’t hear it from me.
You’re the chief. So explain to them how much overtime you have paid in your department for
cleaning equipment. Would be fire hoses, fire machines, fire equipment, fire air packs, any
overtime for cleaning machines or equipment.
Mr. Willis: We would not pay any overtime. We work 24 hours a day whether—
Mr. Williams: No, no. My question was how much. And you say we hadn’t paid any
overtime. You know how much time you on duty. We know how much time you work. Now,
you on duty and we don’t want to qualify what’s working and what’s there. You do a lot of
work around the station in the mornings and that kind of stuff and you do a lot of work when
there is a fire call. [unintelligible] but there is a lot of times there is no calls, there’s rest and
relaxation and you’re on R&R, and that’s a good thing. I’m not fighting [unintelligible]. But I
don’t want to mislead these Commissioners thinking that we have paid money for overtime for
cleaning equipment or for anything like—the driver of the fire machine gets extra pay to be the
driver. He’s supposed to know the plugs, he’s supposed to know the equipment, [unintelligible]
clean the equipment. And he get extra pay for that. That’s his job. So I just what to clarify that
cause I don’t want to be misled as to thinking we have paid—we might have paid overtime for
47
[unintelligible] short of men, but we ain’t paid no overtime I don’t think for no cleaning of
equipment or doing any work around the station. [unintelligible] come back in on off days
cutting no grass, painting no building?
Mr. Willis: No.
Mr. Williams: I just wanted to clear that up.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Is there any further discussion?
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Bowles, Mr. Brigham, Mr. Smith, Mr. Grantham and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Motion ties 5-5.
The Clerk: We have a tie, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: As it was approved before, I will defer to Mr. Cheek on this one, I’ll vote—
The Clerk: To approve the position?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
The Mayor votes No.
Motion fails 5-6.
Mr. Mayor: And with that I would call for a ten minute recess. Let’s stick to the ten
minutes so we can get out of here.
[RECESS]
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
38. Motion to approve a proposal from Lerch, Bates and Associates, Inc. for Elevator
Modernization Consulting for the Municipal Building. (No recommendation from
Engineering Services Committee May 30, 2006)
Mr. Brigham: So move.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. This is—what number, Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: Number 38.
48
Mr. Williams: 38. This is the same facility or same process that we was going through
last week, Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, it is, same thing, similar to the object you just approved on the
consultant for the waterproofing of the facility.
Mr. Williams: Okay, but we’re not paying a consultant to get us a consultant, are we?
Mr. Russell: We’re paying our project manager to get us a consultant that will help us
get the elevators in the building in [unintelligible].
Mr. Williams: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that we’re not—because this came up
last week and I just thought it was embarrassing to have people on our staff that can do this, that
we was paying somebody to put this together for us. That information that I asked you for, I
hope we have it by the time we need it.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I got no problem, Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to make sure that we
wasn’t—
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got a motion and second. Mr. Bowles?
Mr. Bowles: I would like to ask the Administrator why Otis Elevator or somebody that’s
similar that installs elevators couldn’t come and tell us what we need and [unintelligible] what
we need?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: That would obviously be one option to do. What we’ve decided because of
the complexity of these particular elevators that we need somebody—they go up and down.
Mr. Bowles: I didn’t think they went sidewalks.
Mr. Russell: The problem is they don’t go up and down very good and they stop when
they’re not supposed to and there are some issues there. And that’s basically what we’ve done is
asked somebody to write the specs to get it right.
Mr. Williams: And that—Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Through the Chair. I understand. That’s an eighteen thousand dollar
price tag we’re looking at?
49
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: To get a consultant in to tell us?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brown?
Mr. Brown: The $18,000 price tag plus the paperwork necessary to present the idea to
us; is that correct?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: So it’s going to be more, Mr. Mayor, than 18,000.
Mr. Brown: Plus the repair of the elevator?
Mr. Russell: [unintelligible] that’s SPLOST money that’s been budgeted.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney? Through the Chair.
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Administrator, are you saying that we do not have an elevator company
that can actually come in and inspect what’s wrong and give us a price on whatever has to be
done without going the route we’re taking? To me that’s just [unintelligible] money.
Mr. Russell: What I’m saying is that [unintelligible] felt like it was necessary to bring in
a consultant to have write the specs that would get us the elevators we need at this particular
point in time. What we’ve done, I mean we can—that’s what we’ve done. We’ve got somebody
coming in to help us write sufficient specs as we modernize this building to do the elevators in a
manner that’s going to be conducive to moving forward.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Have we tried to get [unintelligible] a local
elevator company to just give us a concept? Maybe not. I mean I don’t think a local company—
I say local, could be Atlanta or somewhere close that would come in and give us some
[unintelligible] because when you’re talking about a consultant to come in, he going to look at
the elevator from the bottom floor to the top floor. I mean he ain’t just going to look at the
operation. He’s going to look at—he’s going to take a fine toothed comb and look at it. and
maybe that’s a good thing. Now, [unintelligible] been working for us since 19—what’s this
building, 1956, and they starting to act up now, but anything with that much age it’s going to act
50
up. Trust me. [unintelligible] Have we even looked at some other avenue of how this could be
done?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: We wrote the specs for this particular item to bring somebody in that could
help us write the specs to do the elevators right. We have not gone to an Otis or an elevator
company. What we’ve done is gone to an expert on elevators that’s going to help us write the
specs so that Otis and those other people can actually bid in a manner that we think is going to be
the most cost effective.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, my last question, I promise you, on this item anyway. Mr.
Munger came and presented something to us. Have we done something different or is this the
same thing? He put together a scenario to go out and find a certified company to come in and do
this. Is this something we done done or this the same thing? Cause I’m really confused now. I
voted on an issue a little while ago that I probably shouldn’t have voted on. But is the same
thing that Mr. Munger put together for us to go out and get a consultant, or we turn around and
say [unintelligible] we had pay that firm to do that. Is this the same thing, Fred, or is this
something different that we done asked somebody to come in and do?
Mr. Russell: This is the same thing that we had at Engineering. Our project manager has
helped us put together specifications to bring in a consultant with expertise in elevators that
would be able to help us write the bids to get the elevators redone.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make a motion that we deny this and revisit
the roofing that we just approved a while ago.
And I still need those figures that we had to
pay the company. That’s no knock on the company but we are not spending money wisely. I’d
like to know what we had to pay the Heery Company to present that to us, that we got to tell
somebody else to come and do [unintelligible] somebody in this building could have done.
Mr. Brown: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We already have a motion on the floor to approve, I believe.
Mr. Williams: Substitute motion, whatever.My substitute motion is to deny this
and to revisit the roofing situation that we was going to look at to spend $38,000 I think it
was—what was that amount? $48,000 and then still got to have the roof done.
Now, you
talking about deficit and spending money—
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion. But with regards to—and I will recognize you
guys, but with regards to the substitute motion, some clarification, Madame Clerk, does the
substitute motion include revisiting an item that’s already been voted on, and is that proper
procedure?
The Clerk: Mr. Parliamentarian?
51
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Parliamentarian?
The Clerk: Can we include that item along with the denial of this agenda item?
Mr. Shepard: I think [unintelligible] make this motion and then make a reconsideration
motion [unintelligible].
Mr. Williams: [unintelligible], Mr. Mayor, I’m sorry to jump in like that, but if they
companion items on the same thing, Mr. Shepard, now the rules says that we can ask for
reconsideration. It don’t say you have to have a separate motion to ask for reconsideration.
Mr. Shepard: I don’t think the two are germane, Mr. Williams. I think if you want to
revisit, the way to revisit is to make a motion on that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, this is something that—reading through my book—we’re paying
an engineering firm to manage our projects who’s going to tell us that we need an engineering
firm to consult on the projects. We are [unintelligible] or anything. It’s very costly. Any one of
us sitting here can, could have said we need a consultant and save that money. Or we can go out
for request for qualifications. I’m sure every major elevator installation firm has to comply with
ADA, OSHA and everything else and they have a complete outline. While elevators are very
important safety devices, as well as convenience devices, they are all governed by federal code
or federal regulations for installation and safety and so forth. This is not rocket science. It’s
elevator science. And I believe the brakes for the elevator were developed at the turn of the
century, last century. So I concur with my twin brother. We may differ but we still look alike.
Anyway, it’s redundant spending of taxpayer dollars that could go into hardware and I am
completely against this.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Let me just make a comment. Personal comment overview. I think a
lot of these things need to be ironed out in committee. If we’re not ready to vote on them they
shouldn’t come out of committee and come to this body. There wasn’t a recommendation, I
know, by the committee on this one.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I think it was denied in committee, if I’m not mistaken. Was
it not, Madame Clerk? They was denied in committee and I thought we had brought something
back, Mr. Mayor, different from what we had. We really didn’t appreciate how [unintelligible] I
thought both were turned down.
Mr. Mayor: This was—it’s shown here on the agenda that it came with no
recommendation. Commissioner Brigham?
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I really don’t care how we get the elevators fixed. They were
approved in sales tax in 1995. This is year 2006. I’ve got a one-year-old grandchild that may
get to ride on it on the day of opening if we continue down the path that we’re going on. I would
much prefer to see us get some elevators. I think that we’ve held the public’s money long
52
enough. If we’ve got to pay Cadillac prices to get an elevator in this building that works and we
don’t have to wait for four or five minutes for it to close the door or take our life and limbs in the
process when we get on to it cause we never know whether it’s going up or going down, but I
think we need to move on and get some elevators working. Now, I am going to support the
motion I made to start with only because I’m interested in seeing some elevators being got into
this building.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brown?
Mr. Brown: [unintelligible] elevators that work in this building and I understand the
frustration that Commissioner Brigham has about the elevators. My main concern is that we talk
about the deficit that we’re in, we talk about the morale of the employees, we talk about the
deficit, I mean the cutting back in all of the departments. And I just don’t see where we have
money to spend, to ask someone to find someone for us to fix the elevator.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Beard?
Ms. Beard: But I think there may be a need for that. I think [unintelligible].
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham?
Ms. Beard: Fred, could we hear from you? Why did you—
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard? Ms. Beard? Through the Chair, please.
Ms. Beard: I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell and then Mr. Grantham.
Mr. Russell: Obviously I share the same problem that several of the Commissioners have
mentioned. The fact that we’ve got projects that are outstanding and projects that are not moving
forward, and I heard very clearly monthly ago that that SPLOST money, the need for projects
that are there. You’ve got people in house that have jobs to do. The decision that was made was
that we need to go forth and spend these kinds of dollars and do it in a way that is most cost
effective. After several long conversations with both Mr. Acree and Mr. Munger it seems to me
that what you’ve got to do is go ahead and begin moving forward. If you don’t want to have a
consultant to help us fix the elevators, that’s fine. But what the process has been is that we’ve
advertised for a consultant to do that, we’re recommending that you hire that consultant because
we think in our professional opinion that the eighteen or whatever thousands of dollars you’re
going to spend by paying that consultant to help get the elevators right is going to be returned in
the savings when we write specs that we think are going to get us the elevators we think we need.
And that’s where you’re at with that basically. The same thing with the roofing issue there.
That’s our professional opinion that because we do not have the expertise, our project manager,
which is Heery, has brought forth a program to get us the expertise to get these things done. It’s
your decision, obviously, and our recommendation is that you hire the consultants in both cases
to do this. If you prefer to do it another way that’s an issue that we can do there to. But it’s my
53
standpoint of trying to move these projects forward to try to do it in a way that has the least
[unintelligible] impact on the current building that we have. As we deal with both waterproofing
and the elevator issues we need professionals with great deals of expertise in both of those areas
that we do not possess internally. That’s why this is the table. That’s why I recommend that we
do it. And that’s where we’re at basically. If you want to go in some other direction that’s fine,
too. And that’s your, that’s your place to tell us. That’s where we’re at. But in our professional
opinion the money spent for these consultants is well worth what you’re going to end up with, a
tight set of RF—requirements written to bid out the elevators or to do the waterproofing.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I personally feel like the problem here is not
getting a consultant. And I want somebody to clear something for me. Isn’t Heery under contract
to be our project advisor? And if that’s the case, are we using them in a capacity as if we would
an employee in order to tell us to go out and get a consultant? If that’s the case then I don’t feel
like we’re spending any additional money. If they are under contract with us to perform those
type of duties then that’s what we need to do, is listen to these people as providing information
for us as far as experts on repairing the roof or repairing the elevator or fixing whatever needs to
be repaired, they’re under contract to give us that type of information. And if I’m wrong I need
to be corrected on that, either Mr. Administrator or Mr. Attorney.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: That’s my understanding of the contract, sir.
Mr. Grantham: Okay. Well, then, you know, all we’re doing now is going by a
recommendation to either hire a consultant or not hire a consultant. Doesn’t matter who brought
the proposal to you. Did Mr. Russell bring the proposal or did Heery bring the proposal? What
does that matter? They’re both under some form of salary from this government. So are we
going to hire a consultant or not hire a consultant? That’s what we need to vote on. Thank you,
Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: I believe everybody has been recognized with their hand up more than once
on this issue. Is there—
Mr. Cheek: Only once, only once.
Mr. Mayor: Only once? Mr. Williams—Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m just going to say this. This is the thing that concerns me, is
while everything that has been said is valid, we’ve asked staff to come back with a
recommendation, they’ve given us a recommendation for a consultant to come in. The bottom
line, though, if we write an RFQ there will be several companies that want to bid on the five
elevators or whatever in this building, that will come in on their dime and do an assessment and
give us an offer. Those will all be compliant with the Code of Federal Regulations as pertains to
safety and other things. We continue to have staff that are paid comparably to these
54
professionals that we are calling in as consultants to maintain our buildings, but we continue to
defer what I consider their responsibilities of oversight of maintenance and review of RFQs and
setting of specifications consistent with building codes, they defer that to other people and still
collect a salary. Now, again, it goes back to we’re paying three people to do the same job. And
that’s my concern. And where his policy—and Fred has done nothing but bring us the product,
and Heery, too, that we asked for—there is a serious flaw in this as we’re paying three times or
two times for something, well actually three times for something and not having a bolt turned or
a piece of concrete put down or anything else. And that is where we spend more in Augusta for
things that other people get cheaper, because of the way we are handling the approach of these
types of things. So I’m definitely against it. Mr. Mayor, I will add to that that I, for one, as a
Commissioner don’t expect this to sit for another year and then come back with the same
request. Staff needs to get on this and write an RFQ to have five elevators renovated and then
send that out to all responsible contractors and then move on with it, not go through spending a
bunch of money to do that.
Mr. Mayor: Well, it is obvious to me we’re not going to come to resolution on this issue,
but briefly, Mr. Williams, and then Mr. Brown, and then we need—I would like for somebody to
call for the question so that we can move for this and move on.
Mr. Cheek: Call for the question.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, first of all, we have a consultant that we already have in this
government in the name of Procurement that does like Commissioner Cheek just said, if we need
it, a professional, we send out RFQ or RFP or whatever that is. Now, we going pay that group to
tell us to get another group that we got to pay, tell us to still go get RFP out for what we want.
That’s a waste of taxpayers’ money. We got a procurement office. We got somebody in place.
And Mr. Russell, I asked earlier, I need to know how much money do we pay this firm—and you
can just tell right there—how much money we pay this firm for getting those two agenda items
ready for us? Now, we know 18,000 is for one and 28,000 for the other one, but what are we
paying the firm to get that ready to tell us that?
Mr. Russell: What you—
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. What you paid the firm for not only getting the
agenda item ready but doing the request and reviewing the proposals and the consultants for the
roofing was $4,000. $4,080. And for the elevator it was $3,600. That includes not only
preparing the agenda item, obviously, but writing the request for proposals and reviewing those
requests for proposals.
Mr. Williams: That’s seven or eight thousand dollars, Mr. Mayor, that we are paying a
firm to tell us to pay a consultant who is still going to tell us to go out for RFP cause they can’t
get nobody here. We’ve got to send out [unintelligible] we got to still go out for RFP, RFQ so
we be competitive and hire somebody to do the work. Cause the consultant is not going to do it.
That’s a waste of taxpayers’ money. And I’m through with that issue.
55
Mr. Mayor: And it looks to me as though there is in the other business, we’re going to be
addressing this issue again, and the bottom line is are we going to be able to reach resolution
today, to me. I mean in these Chambers. I mean if not, we need to move on. Commissioner
Brown?
Mr. Brown: I’ve heard a lot of talk about the specialty nature of the work that’s going to
be done. The only thing that I’m wondering is who has more expertise in working on elevators
than someone who does it every day, an elevator company?
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Cheek, would you reiterate the statement you made, the last one, cause
I think that made sense.
Mr. Cheek: That was a long time ago.
Mr. Mayor: Through the Chair, gentlemen.
Mr. Hatney: I think you mentioned—
Mr. Cheek: I’ll do my best but simply for the elevators, and I don’t want to over-simply
this, but you take the spec sheet from the original installation and you go out with a request for
proposal to the different companies and you get them to give you same [unintelligible], an
economy version and a Cadillac version. But these people will compete for these jobs because
there is big money to be made, people looking for work. But we’re paying a facilities manager
to maintain and oversee facilities. We’re paying Heery. And now we’re going to pay a
consultant. That’s three people we’re paying. And not a bolt and not a piece of concrete has
been done. And then we’re going to come back with a proposal from the vendor that is going to
have a list of specs comparable to what we’re doing, what we’re asking for. But the bottom line
is we could go straight to the vendor with a request for proposals or request for qualifications
with a proposal for the project and get it done in one fell swoop instead of going through all of
these steps. And it’s just that we spend money, we triple spend money with zero product. And I
venture to say, I’ve got a 23-year-old son that’s never work on elevators and if we pay him the
same thing he could get us a request for proposals out. It’s not rocket science.
Mr. Hatney: My question, Mr. Mayor, is to the administrator. In view of the fact that—
and I know you’ve been sitting there listening--that this Commission is not satisfied with
spending all that extra money. Wouldn’t it be simple for you to sit down, submit, do that RFP or
whatever you’re talking about and ask folks to come in and make bids on this? Because in the
end, that’s all going to be done. That’s all going to be. And after you [unintelligible] and people
have got to do the work [unintelligible] give you the price. You already paid [unintelligible]
people already.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
56
Mr. Russell: Obviously after looking at this, it’s my recommendation that we hire a
consultant, which would give us the opportunity to develop the RFQ that would get us the
elevators we need. If that’s not the will of the Commission we internally can develop those RFQs
and deal with that. I mean that’s the issue at this point [unintelligible] this particular point in
time.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called for. Let me just state it sounds to me as though
the will of the body is to do the request for proposals but that’s the motions that have been made.
We have a substitute motion on the floor. Madame Clerk, could you read the substitute motion?
The Clerk: Well, part of the substitute motion was ruled out of order by the
parliamentarian, to reconsider the [unintelligible]. So the substitute motion as it stands now is to
deny the request to approve the proposal for the elevator modernization consulting.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, and then this thing’s been discussed.
Mr. Russell: If you deny the request, please also direct us to develop the RFQ and go
look for somebody to fix our elevators.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. It’s been discussed. Commissioners will now vote on the substitute
motion.
Mr. Williams: I amend my motion to include that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Please. That would be good.
Mr. Williams: If I need to amend my motion to include that, I think that should be
automatic and should go through Procurement, like everything else. Send them out to find
somebody. They have to know nobody.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Okay. Mr. Williams has amended his motion. We will now vote on
the substitute motion by the substitute sign.
Ms. Beard, Mr. Brigham, Mr. Smith and Mr. Grantham vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion to reconsider.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: What is that agenda item?
The Clerk: Item 16.
Mr. Brigham: Call the question, Mr. Mayor.
57
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second and the question has been called for.
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Cheek: There has not been adequate debate.
Mr. Brigham: It’s been adequately debated more than once today.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams has made a motion to revisit agenda item—could
you read it back, please?
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
16. Motion to deny contract with Stafford Engineers for Roof and Waterproofing
Consulting on the Augusta Richmond County Municipal Building and direct the
Administrator to have Facilities Management engage a professional to perform this work.
(Approved by Engineering Committee May 30, 2006)
The Clerk: It was approve to award the contract to Stafford Engineers for the roof and
waterproofing consulting on the Municipal Building. Now, reconsideration of that item.
Mr. Mayor: And the question has been called for. I do agree that this has been
thoroughly discussed. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Ms. Beard, Mr. Brigham, Mr. Smith, Mr. Bowles and Mr. Grantham vote No.
Motion ties 5-5.
The Clerk: There is a tie, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: I will vote, and let me explain my reasons. I will vote no on this. But I
think this is something that should be handled in committee. I think once again perhaps there is
a work session that can be put together to address these issues prior to coming before the body.
The Mayor votes No.
Motion fails 5-6.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Point of clarification, Mr. Mayor. I think your vote is no not to revisit, I
think. Is that right?
Mr. Mayor: My vote is to not revisit it.
Mr. Williams: Not revisit. And Mr. Mayor, and you are the chief officer of this
community and you talking earlier about saving money, about how we need to look at what is
going on with our finances and—
58
Mr. Grantham: [unintelligible]
Mr. Williams: I got the floor now, Mr. Mayor. If I’m wrong, just tell me I’m wrong, but
we ain’t going to have no two heads cause anything with two heads is a monster. That’s all it is.
So I had the floor, Mr. Mayor. I was saying you are the chief officer. We talked earlier about
saving money and doing what is right for this community and cutting the expense as much as
possible. I think that we are really being scrutinized and looked at very carefully by how we
vote on serious issues up here that affect the lives of citizens and the taxpayers of Augusta
Richmond County. And—
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, I agree completely with you, but when this body makes a
decision, which we had already made the decision on this one--I believe you might have voted
for it--we move on. There are other ways to address this issue. I am in complete agreement with
you that this needs to be addressed but the body made a decision.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, I think that—
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: --it is out of order for anyone on this body to sit and question the decision
of a Commissioner or the Mayor on how he votes. If he needs to take that up with me later, I’d
be glad to in a room somewhere, but to publicly get out here just to chastise someone is
ridiculous.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek—I’m not recognizing you—this is Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Anyway, I was just going to say that as a matter of record, if you look at the
example we have with CH2MHILL and the school board has with [unintelligible] as far as
project management is concerned, we are underutilizing Heery. Heery is an international
engineering firm that could very well do all the stuff that we’re talking about and they could
have handled it in-house and brought this to us if we were utilizing them in the same manner
which we started or said we would do, like we did CH2MHILL, to manage these projects. If we
continue to—they’re just advisors now. Let’s set them free and let them manage all these
projects. It will save us some money. We can do value engineering and maybe get a bigger
bang for our buck. How unusual.
Mr. Mayor: And let me say I am not in disagreement with that, but to come here with
these issues that are not ready to be voted on at times, once again, let’s do a work session to
address only this issue. We don’t even have to go through the committee structure. But I am
fully in favor of that so we can reach some resolution. We’re not going to reach resolution in
here, is my personal opinion.
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor, can I ask a question?
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney?
59
Mr. Hatney: I’ve got one concern. Y’all help me, please. I was under the impression that
after a vote is taken there is no more discussion on that. I could be wrong. I thought after a vote
is—
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Parliamentarian, correct?
Mr. Hatney: There should be no more discussion on that, we should call for the order of
the day.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, I agree with the sentiments of Commissioner
Hatney. We should go on to the next item.
Mr. Mayor: Well done. Let’s go to the next agenda item.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
39. Motion to award a contract to Cascade Engineering for the purchase, delivery,
public awareness, and asset management of carts for the Solid Waste Department. (No
recommendation from Engineering Services Committee May 30, 2006)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson: I’m handing you basically a supplement to your packet. Most of this data
is already in your packet. But I just streamlined the data. It seems like I gave a lot the last time.
The first question is on page number 1. Why we do want to replace the carts? It starts out very
simple. It saves us money. It saves Augusta money in the end. Number 2, it assists us in
correcting billing discrepancies between what we get billed and what we bill for. The third one,
it provides us an asset, an actual cash asset that we can use for us long term, which fixes
problems at the end of the contract with how do we move contractors around, how do we move
trucks around, and it provides a uniform look to the city. If you turn to page 2, contract savings.
This is where the rubber meets the road. We currently pay Advanced Disposal a dollar-twenty-
five for cart rental every single month. If we lease these carts we’re going to end up paying
about 77 cents per cart per month. If you track that out for the contract length that saves us $1.05
million just between what we would pay Advanced versus if we financed it ourselves. So we
effectively can do it cheaper. If you go to the next page, billing discrepancies, we get billed for
53,896 homes. We bill for 52,800. Generates a difference of 1,096 and we don’t know where
they are. So in essence if we take the contractors’ cans out, we put ours in, we log the address,
we know where they are, we then can bill them. That gives us an addition $302,000 a year in
new revenue for a system that is currently going broke. Over the life of the contract that’s $2.1
million, money in revenues that we currently don’t have. The next page is asset values. If we
spend the $2.4 million to replace the carts, they come with a written warranty for ten years. At
the end of seven, which would be the contract life of our solid waste, that leaves us 30% value.
That means that we’re going to have an asset worth $713,000 still on the books as far as
depreciation goes. So in summary, which is the last page, if I spend $2.4 million I’m going to
60
save Augusta 1.5 million money in the bank. I spend 2.4, we’re going to net a 3.8 million dollar
savings, the net total savings, net benefit to Augusta, is $1.5 million. So the last page is the
recommendation.
Mr. Cheek: Move to approve.
Mr. Brown: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Is there any further discussion?
Commissioners will now—Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Thank you. Mark?
Mr. Johnson: Yes?
Mr. Smith: The carts that we are renting now, if we buy new ones and own them
ourselves are we penalized by this company? Do we have a contract to hold them a certain
amount of time? Are we losing any money by doing this?
Mr. Johnson: No. Originally up front we wrote the contract with an option. We had a
price for service and a price for cart rental. And each contractor bid that way. So as an example,
Advanced Disposal was a dollar-twenty-five and 13.63. Augusta Disposal bid 75 cents and
13.75. So an example we can replace all of Advanced’s carts and put money in the bank day
one. We can break even on replacing Augusta Disposal’s carts. And that’s why we’re going to
take a phased-in approach because that improves our cash flow and keeps us solvent.
Mr. Smith: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brown?
Mr. Brown: My question is two-fold. One, I’d like to ask you just based on our deficit,
the $2.4 million that we’re talking about spending, in what kind of increments are we spending
that money?
Mr. Johnson: This money would be spent pretty quick because again that’s money saved.
77 cents versus a dollar-twenty-five is money in the bank. That’s day one savings.
Mr. Brown: All right, the other question I have is, is this plan that you’ve put together
for us that will show the money that we will save by purchasing our own carts, is this not part of
a long-range plan if we decide to purchase trucks that will make us even more profitable and
possibly [unintelligible]?
Mr. Johnson: This gives us additional options at the end of this contract life. It really
does two things for us. If we choose to remain with private contractors, we don’t have to play
switch with 60,000 carts, because Advanced Disposal might win in a different area. So we don’t
61
jeopardize service. But if the Commission chooses to internalize service then we have spread out
our capital cost over two contract life cycles versus one.
Mr. Brown: So is it possible that we could—the money that we will save, as well as the
money that we may—we possibly utilize that money at a later date to be able to buy trucks and
make us even more profitable?
Mr. Johnson: The theory is good, but I’m already $4 million in the hole. This goes to the
bank.
Mr. Brown: I understand.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles?
Mr. Bowles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Now, these are for your regular trash pickup,
garbage containers?
Mr. Johnson: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bowles: Okay. While we’re on the subject of trash, you know, in considering the
exorbitant fees our residents are paying, have we looked at possibly reducing service to once a
week and then recyclables and yard waste pickup every other week to cut the trips down in half?
Mr. Johnson: We did do that originally and what was basically done is we bid a menu of
service, we brought it back to this body, and they selected the service based on the cost. And the
service levels that were selected was Commission action. But to answer your question, it would
have saved about $2 a month or $24 a year to go to that reduced service.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mark, I need to ask one question about the contract. It says
[unintelligible] delivery, public awareness. Are we hiring this company to do more than just buy
the garbage cans? They going to be the one that—what?
Mr. Johnson: In their contract what it does, asset management as an example, they track
where the carts goes and where it’s at so we can actually upload that information back into the
billing system. Public awareness, they give out literature with carts, they were actually asked to
make a public access video for proper placement, do’s and don’ts, so they were asked to do some
additional—there are some additional things in that contract, yes. But what it does, a lot of those
like asset management [unintelligible] our billing. It’s part of the delivery service and it’s part of
correcting the problems that we have.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just let the record reflect the reason there is a deficit
in the solid waste collection budget is because the Commission failed to raise rates about 45
62
cents a month or something, $4 a month, after three years of zero increase as promised to the
public. This is a very sound plan. Mark is offering us advice, taking us in the right direction,
and so I just urge approval of this. This was, without the deficit, until the contract
[unintelligible] we went through, one of the finest programs the city has implemented. Cleaned
up a lot of the city. And for the record, if you compare services to services, we are much cheaper
than a private hauler unless you get Bubba and Buck in a pickup truck. So we are offering a very
good deal to the citizens of Augusta and cleaning up the city. So I just urge passage.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: One question. On the page that states building discrepancies and additional
revenue, kind of help me with that.
Mr. Johnson: Right now if you look at what we get billed for by our haulers and you take
Advanced Disposal, Augusta Disposal and Inland Service and you add them all up, we are billed
for 53,896 units. If you take what goes out on the tax bills for urban services and for suburban,
we bill 52,800 units. There is a difference of 1,096 that we don’t know where it is. We did an
audit a year-and-a-half ago and we found about 3,000 parcels that had service and we added
those revenues back in, but I can’t find these. And so the end result is, if we take the cans away
and then put them back and track them to a parcel, I’ve got a much better shot of knowing who’s
got what.
Mr. Hatney: One other question I’ve got, I think Mr. Bowles mentioned, once a week
service, stuff like that, my concern with that is, is that Advanced does that now sometimes. I
give a good example. Last Friday they picked up half of the street I live on and they got the
other half today. That happens a lot of times. So if we’re paying for them to pick up twice a
week they should at least pick up both sides of the street. It’s the same company that does it. I
watch them. The go down the street, sometimes they ride all day long and forget to come back
on the other side. I’m just making an observation. I’m not making this up. It happens. I’m not
faulting you for it. I’m just saying these things happen.
Mr. Johnson: I understand.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham?
Mr. Brigham: A couple of questions. First off, on the thousand customers that we are
missing, surely we can do something to improve that number. It should not be that high. Surely
if we’re going to find it by buying these carts, we ought to be able to find them without buying
these carts. Either way it should be found.
Mr. Johnson: Agreed. And this is the—by replacing the carts it’s the least intrusive.
Because most of it is in the downtown urban services district, specifically with the businesses,
and because we’ve never cared because it was paid for lump sum as opposed to per unit. So it
st
transitioned January 1 when we went to per unit. The only way for me to fix that is to go
downtown and take the carts away and them bring them back one unit at a time, for the most
63
part. Advanced Disposal and I talked through a strategy of doing a block at a time to capture that
if this wasn’t approved. So I share your sentiments. I agree.
Mr. Brigham: Okay, second thing. Before we get into any discussion about getting into
trucks, do you have any idea about what the cost of a garbage truck is, as compared to a fire
truck?
Mr. Johnson: Not compared to a fire truck, but a garbage truck is about $156,000.
Mr. Brigham: We can buy a fire engine for about—a pumper for just about the same
thing. So how many trucks will we have to have to get in to running our own fleet?
Mr. Johnson: I can’t say I was prepared to answer that question today.
Mr. Brigham: I didn’t think you would be. I just wanted to make sure—Mr. Mayor, I
call the question.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second and the question has been called for.
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk:
ATTORNEY
40. Approve settlement with Hansen Technologies.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, this relates to the
Information Technology Department. Mr. Mike Blanchard is here. Hansen was brought on to
develop software, principally in code enforcement area. There was a go-live date about six
months ago which was missed. This was brought to the attention of my office, and together my
office and IT put together a letter under the contract and under the surety bond that told Hansen
that we were considering declaring a default. That was what the contract document required. In
response to that letter, Hansen has offered to refund Augusta’s money paid under the contract in
the amount of $125,850. The alternative lies with the body to accept that and let Hansen rescind
the contract and we will not have any further expenses in the area. I’ve told the people from
Hansen that they would have to send me a certified check and that I would make no commitment
until this body had considered this matter. If you wish to approve a refund to the city, you’d vote
in favor of this matter.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
64
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’m not opposed to the refund but Mr. Shepard, are we, have
we lost anything? If they supposed to have done work and they haven’t done it, are we just
taking back what—
Mr. Shepard: They didn’t hit their deadline. They didn’t get the software done in time.
It’s not done now is my understanding and we just are getting our money back.
Mr. Williams: There’s no penalty involved as far as—
Mr. Shepard: No, sir.
Mr. Williams: We’re getting our money back but we didn’t get our services and we been
waiting on our services for some time so we’re missing something, we’re losing something.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, the alternative
would be to get liquidated damages from the point of when they failed to go live, which was on
the order of about $14,000. And then we’d go through the process of having them declared in
default, more attorneys fees, getting the surety involved, more litigation. So this is an
opportunity to start over with a different vendor and I think that’s the recommendation of IT in
view of the fact that they are willing to pay all of our money back.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I know it’s—
[End of tape 1]
[Beginning of tape 2]
Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 9-0.
[RECESS]
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead and call the meeting back to order.
The Clerk:
ATTORNEY
41. Consider/Approve ratification of Phone Poll for TE Grant MOU through Georgia
DOT for Depot on "Pension Property."
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, this agenda item was drafted in contemplation of a quicker
deadline that was coming from the Department of Transportation. In fact, the deadline is the
middle of the month, I believe, and I have to state that this is—certainly you can go ahead by
65
unanimous consent and approve this TE grant application. It is for the depot property on the
pension property in the amount of $450,000 transportation enhancement funding. You can
approve that but when I wrote it I thought we had to have everybody phone polled in order to
meet a deadline prior to this time. That is not the case. I state that on the record. But if you
want to go ahead and approve the transportation enhancement grant for this property, you can do
so at this time.
Mr. Grantham: So move.
Mr. Hatney: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion? Commissioners
will now vote by the usual sign.
Ms. Beard and Mr. Cheek out.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor: Next agenda item?
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS
43. Discuss 2006 Budget. (Requested by Commissioner Joe Bowles)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bowles?
Mr. Bowles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just have a really general overall question. After
th
last week’s meeting, about a $5 million deficit, I remember back at the December 13 meeting,
and after reviewing the minutes from that meeting, it appears to me that the Commission
approved the budget this year with a plan that would have done one of three things: either
offered early retirement, transferred people to a fund other than the general fund, or terminated
39 employees. And I would just like to have an update on where we are on that situation and
also where we are in regards to your group of developing an ad hoc committee to take a look at
where we can make some serious cuts into this deficit.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, I’ll just answer my part of that and I was hoping Ms. Beard would
still be here. But I would like you and Ms. Beard to serve as Commission representatives on
that, as co-chairs of the Finance Committee, and would like to proceed and am proceeding,
informing your committee, that also includes members of the community who are in the financial
fields, to really get the best and brightest minds and diverse group together to address that issue.
Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: The second part of that question is, you’re absolutely right. We initially
made those cuts, looking at the reduction of about 39 positions. What we’re attempting to do, as
we have done in the past, is through attrition, and have not reduced positions themselves, but are
66
a little bit ahead on our lapsed salaries from last year. Is that going to work to get us where we
need to be? I’m not sure yet. I think we are probably going to have to talk about actually
reducing those positions at some point in the very near future. We’ve attempted to do that
through attrition and through a slow process of hiring people to fill only critical needs and to
move forward with that. It’s an ambitious goal. Our lapsed salaries are up a little bit and we’re
happy about that. Lapsed salaries are salaries we’re paying that we’re recouping through savings
by not having people on board. Just to have that. But as we talked about initially, we’ve got
some very hard decisions that are going to be forthcoming and they’re ones that will be on your
plate very shortly.
Mr. Bowles: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, I’d also like—
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: --just to let everyone know that with $5 million to trim, and this is a trend
that has been going on basically since January of 2002, where we started off with $29 million
and at the end of this year we’ll be down to less than $15 million in our reserve funds. And we
didn’t get there overnight and it seems that we’ve been budgeting the last five years increases in
revenue and it just hasn’t come and now is the time we’re going to have to make the difficult
decision to reduce non-essential functions of our government. We’re going to have to separate
our needs from our basic necessities for our citizens. I think there are a lot of ways that—a lot
of areas to look into and if we don’t want to face those decisions you’re going to have to look at
rescinding some of that 8% pay raise that was given out in November. I think for each
percentage of a pay raise was a million dollars to the budget and if you reduce across the board
4% you’d get $4 million back. And that’s an easy way out of not having to let people go, but
we’re going to have to make some sort of decisions in the near future.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham, I’ll recognize you in a second, but let me just go
on record to say it’s going to be a comprehensive approach, but the faster we start making those
decisions, the faster we’re going to come out of this. Commissioner Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. One of the things that I learned in the last two
years as far as in the tax assessor’s office is that once these properties are revalued and new
construction is put on the books, it does take some time for that to come into play so that we
recognize that growth as far as the revenue is concerned. So what I would encourage us to do is
to have someone from the tax assessor’s office, either Mr. Smith, who is the chairman of that
board, and Ms. Murray, to come up and just give us a little explanation based on what the re-
valuation situation is right now. I understand there is about 25% left to be re-valued, along with
some ad valorem taxes that have not been accounted for this year. So we may be in a little better
shape. I’m not saying much, because all that was indicated that we only had about a 1% growth
rate. But 1% is certainly better than none. But I would like some explanation to where we can
get a better handle on what we are looking for based on the revenues coming in under our taxes.
I’d ask for the administrator to let’s include that, either in a committee meeting or in a session to
have them come as a body to tell us about this.
Mr. Mayor: I agree. I think that’s a good recommendation. Mr. Cheek?
67
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I think the record needs to reflect that studies have been done
that show an estimated 1% growth in real value in this city over the course of the next year. And
projections are for slow, sustained growth at that rate. Compared to current inflation and
projection inflation, with the price of fuel affecting everything, we are losing ground, and don’t
anybody up here sit around and say that things are good. Because they’re not. When we vote
against things like we did earlier today and other things that will help change that trend in the
next four to five years, which is as long as it’s going to take for us to see positive impact on our
economy, then we further tie the hands of future Commissions. And make no mistake about it.
The only way out of the current situation that we’re in is head count. Head count. That’s people.
Reduction of service, parking vehicles, turning lights off, and reducing head count. We can
dance around it. If we continue to dance around it as we’ve done—we’ve been very creative,
this board has been very creative, the staff has been very creative trying to offset the negative
trend of economic grown in the Augusta area. It’s 20 years old and it’s not getting better. We
need to take a leadership position in changing that trend and managing vacant property, is
exactly what we’ve done in the past that has got us in the problem we’re in now. People don’t
want to come here to do business with us because of the headaches they have to go through.
We’ve got to grow this economy for the future of this city. The tax base is not growing. We’re
going to have to work with the school board, we’re going to have to work with every agency we
can to try to turn this around, but it’s going to take years. The only way to address this in the
short term are economies that we haven’t used to date, which reflects back down to either things
like furloughs, layoffs, reductions of force, and those are the only things that are going to turn
this around, or as mentioned, a rollback in wages. Those are the tough decisions we’ve got to
make. But even making those this year, if we don’t change some of our other habits as a board,
our future is not bright and we’ll end up with the price of gasoline and energy and insurance and
everything else being in a deeper hole and having to do the same things for years to come, unless
we change the economic course this city is on.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can we get a motion to receive this as
Thank you, Mr. Cheek.
information?
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Brown: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion? Commissioners
will now vote by the usual sign.
Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next agenda item, please, ma’am.
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS
68
44. Discuss the contractual arrangements with Heery International. (Requested by
Commissioner Keith Brown)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brown?
Mr. Brown: Mr. Mayor, thank you. I asked for this item to be put on the agenda because
I had some concerns and some thoughts about what our relationship is with anyone that does
business with the city, and particularly Heery International. Based on information that I have
compiled, it looks to me from—I have an attachment number 1 that talks about minutes from an
th
April 14 meeting from 2004 that says—and this is Mr. Tommy Boyles speaking—[reading] one
final thing, and this is just, I guess this is a concern of mine. Because we are talking about
something like a $70 million judicial center. But the last $50 million was to come because of the
approval of the voters of the next issue of the sales tax. So I suppose that the question I have is
there is an escape clause in there. [ends reading] Then it goes on to talk about new projects,
[reading] the ones that are mostly listed in on the sheet are really—can only occur with the
extension of the sales tax program. [ends reading] The attorney, Mr. Shepard, goes on to say
[reading] yes, the answer to that is yes. [ends reading] My point is that in my understanding the
agreement was entered into with Heery International based on the SPLOST IV passing. There
are items that I have listed that were talked about that should have been or were going to be done
with Heery International acting as the project management for a judicial center, a traffic control
center for Public Works, Augusta Utilities Public Works Complex, administration building, main
library, License & Inspection, and the list goes on. Those things are not the things that Heery
International are working on. Also, when the [unintelligible] went out it talked about [reading]
the Purchasing Department of Augusta Richmond County, herein referred to as the owner,
intends to select, based on proposals, a firm to provide professional program management
services for its proposed capital improvement plan. The owner strongly encourages minority and
women owned firms to participate in this RFQ and further urges the project team of all firms
reflect inclusion of women and minorities [reading] it goes on. My question, and what I don’t
understand, is how is it that we continue—and I have a stack of invoices here—to offer work
without including anyone else to a company that is not bidding on the work, we don’t know if
they’re including local or minority businesses, and how can we explain over half a million
dollars that we spent last year with this company to the taxpayers, using taxpayers’ money, why
we aren’t including or going through the process that we normally should go through?
Mr. Mayor: One thing before I recognize you, Mr. Russell. I mentioned this to
Commissioner Williams and to Commissioner Brown that we’ve had a lot of questions today. I
like to see situations where we get a resolution. I think really work sessions are often the best
things. We had one with the DDA where we focused just on that issue recently so I would make
a recommendation—you can take it or not—that we address this issue further in a work session.
Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: I can respond to his questions or we can refer that to a work session,
whichever.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brown, what’s your—
69
Mr. Brown: I would like to hear what Mr. Williams has to say.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This came up, this came up before. This is not
the first time. We at one point was getting invoices that didn’t say anything but the dollar
amount as to what was done. I brought it to the attention of this body several times that this firm
was hired for a sales tax that didn’t pass. But they yet continued the work. Not saying the work
is good, not saying the work is bad. There is no knock on the firm. I don’t blame them. I would
do—if I was in their shoes I would do the same thing. But we as elected officials have to be
studious of the money to know that there is a process that we need to go about. We have been
paying and paying and paying. Commissioner Cheek mentioned about [unintelligible] whoever
who comes in and done some work with our water situation, with Max Hicks, and I think done a
great job. But that contract was renewed, had an ending and beginning date. I been asking for
months, if not years, how this get to the point it is, Mr. Mayor. And I hear you say workshop.
That sounds good. But the buck got to stop somewhere. Somebody needs to explain to us how
they continue. Mr. Brown has some information, I think he said, that Mr. Boyles asked the
question how can we eliminate the contract once it get started. They was hired to do some work
under the sales tax that didn’t pass. But they stayed aboard. Our previous administrator, Mr.
Kolb, was here. They done work there. Our new administrator, Mr. Russell, they continued to
work there. This is no knock on their work. I want to reiterate that. But we ought to have
guidelines if that’s the case when a firm comes in here and stays here and what we just
experienced earlier today, Mr. Mayor, about charging us to tell us we need to get somebody to
charge us to tell us what we need to get. You know, it’s age-old question now about are we
being stewards of the money. Are we holding this firm accountable. And Mr. Russell, who is
the administrator, if he have given that direction he should have came to this body. Now the
contract, in my mind is over. The first time we had contract that had no expiration date. We talk
about evergreen contracts. We was doing away with that. We wasn’t going to have evergreens.
We got a lot of contracts probably in this government. But if you read the contract that we got,
that Mr. Russell gave out to us, they was hired for sales tax that wasn’t approved by the voters,
that’s turned down. We done turned around and put another sales tax list together and
[unintelligible]. So I’d like to hear what Mr. Russell got to say now [unintelligible] workshop.
[unintelligible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me recognize Mr. Cheek first.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I think I can kind of sum up a way to save a lot of money and
increase efficiency and [unintelligible] utilize a project management in the true sense of the term.
If you follow the model of CH2MHILL and [unintelligible] with the school board, they basically
have all of their new construction projects handed over to the project management firm. They
manage the projects and give a direct report to the boards and probably one liaison person within
those departments or those boards. Here in Augusta we have CH2MHILL who is essentially
doing that for the Utilities Department, leaving the staff employees to do the day-to-day
operations. At the end of the projects, those employees that are part of the management firm go
away. We don’t have the head count. Currently if you look at many of the major projects that
we have ongoing in the city, we have Heery, who is bound by whatever, then within the different
70
departments you have people running SPLOST projects. We have them in Public Works, we
have them in Recreation. Everywhere there is a SPLOST dollar being spent we have got a
person in that department, at least one, that is taking administrative money to manage the
projects in addition to the construction companies and other groups that are managing the
projects. That’s additional head count. That money could be rolled over, all the projects
dropped onto a management firm, they could manage it for us, value engineer it, do a lot of bulk
buying and other things for several of our different projects, and save us some money and allow
us to reduce some head count and save some money on the general fund budget. That is the way
things are going in Augusta and they always have. Heery came in and for turf, for head count,
for whatever reason, which is the nature of most department heads and all, is we didn’t want to
give up those liaison positions within each one of the departments and so we kept giving crumbs
to Heery and managing things the same way we always have. If we want to get value for our
project dollars, we don’t need Public Works to manage staff up to do all this construction work
that doesn’t have a sustainable funding source, we give it to a project management firm which
has hundreds of engineers and staff to manage it. They produce a turn-key project. We vote on
it, fund it, and it’s gone. Those employees are gone at the end of the day. We continue to want
to staff up or use the excuse that we don’t have staff to do projects. How many of you have
heard that before? But that’s where we’re at. I, for one, am in favor of a professional
management firm and I’ll say this and then I’ll shut up. [unintelligible] saved enough money by
value engineering in the $119 million initial sales tax for the school board to pay their own fee
and build a stadium and a track and a school. They did it the right way at the school board.
We’re not doing it that way here. That’s where we need to make the change. We could save
head count, we could get our projects done in a timely manner, and probably get more for our
money that way. I think Heery or some comparable firm could do that for us if we’ll set them
free to do it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Brown?
th
Mr. Brown: This is a memo that I have dated March 8, 2005. I won’t read the whole
thing but basically down toward the bottom it says [reading] a designated project manager would
have represented Augusta’s financial interests and enforce effective and accountable project
management. [ends reading] It goes on to say [reading] therefore there are some—these are not
finance related problems but a very poor contract that does not protect the government. It is
questionable why this contract was approved in this method, i.e., in a vacuum. [ends reading]
And this is from then Finance Director David Persaud.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I agree with my twin brother about the school board and how
they done that. Had we been able to see some savings—now, let me just lay some stuff on the
table. When you go back to CH2MHILL we spent $28 million on a four year contract for them
to operate our waste water treatment plants out there. Do you know how many employees or
how much money we could have saved had we spent $28 million in this government? Now, we
pay a firm, and we still paying people, but we paid a firm $28 million. And if a firm, whether it
be this one or any other firm, can show us where their project manager, management have saved
us money and showing us how we can build and do greater things, I’ll be in support. But we
71
done spent over half a million dollars—I don’t remember what the number was that Mr. Brown
read earlier—we done paid out over half a million dollars to this firm for just nit-picking. Nit-
picking meaning little stuff here, little stuff there. We ain’t shown nowhere where we saved
nothing. And in fact they proved that we didn’t save, that we really lost money on paying three
people to do—to get us to tell us what we needed, no work being done. I’m in the process, I’m
in the mindset that if we got a firm that can do that and save us money and can show us where
they saving us money, they ought to be there. But a firm ought now to be sitting around waiting
on errands to do or things to do and then we send them over here and over there and they billed
us accordingly for whatever work they done. We just talking about being smart and how to be
stewards of the money. That’s, that’s not good, Mr. Mayor, so it’s no knock on no firm. I just
think that we need to go ahead and break this contract or really get a contract with this firm or
some other firm through the normal process. Not having somebody who been here since ’94--
this is 2006, almost ’07 in about six more months—that this firm has been here with no direct
assignment that it be able to go and come as directed by the administrator, I guess, or the mayor
or anybody else giving direction, Mr. Mayor. I mean business ought to be handled like business
and I think we need to recognize that. So if they can save us some money we need to give them
a contract to do some certain things and to show that they produce. We ain’t seen nothing been
produced yet except some money out of this government going into somebody else’s pocket.
Mr. Mayor: Well, my point being with recommending the work session, but maybe it can
come from here, what direction do we want to give staff to proceed? And let’s give them a clear
direction on how to proceed. What is the will of the body? Commissioner Bowles?
Mr. Bowles:I
I just want to—I think we’ve debated this enough and discussed it and
just would like to go ahead and make a motion that we accept this as information and set
up a workshop so we can get into some details on how we can solve this problem,
rather than
beating up on Heery International. And I’d just like to make that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion?
Mr. Cheek: Just one thing.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d love to attend and participate.
Mr. Bowles: It will be in the afternoon.
Mr. Cheek: But have it in the afternoon, away from normal—you know, work sessions
sometimes we have to work and so I’d like to have it in the afternoon where I can attend.
Mr. Mayor: We will do that. Commissioner Brown, would you like to take the lead on
setting that up?
72
Mr. Brown: Yes, I will.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. I think we—Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Is that going through what committee? Now, y’all setting up—
Mr. Mayor: What committee actually?
The Clerk: Engineering Services.
Mr. Mayor: Engineering Services. Okay. Jimmy, that would be you. Commissioner
Brown?
Mr. Brown: Are there projects that are open that we are being billed for at this time, is
one thing I’d like to know before we go to work session.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Commissioner Brown, we can give you a total as to these that they’ve done,
the work that they’ve done, what they’ve accomplished. There’s time lines available and budget
numbers for the projects that they’ve been assigned, the projects that they’ve got and where
we’re at with that. We can provide that to you.
Mr. Brown: That’s not the answer to my question. I’m not asking about what they’ve
already done. I’m talking about work that is ongoing.
Mr. Russell: Yes. Same answer to that question.
Mr. Brown: There is work that is ongoing?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. And we can provide that same level of information for you, sir.
Mr. Brown: If there is work that is ongoing I’d like for us to make a decision today.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, while I’m certainly not one in favor of the status quo in many
ways, my concern is if we choose not to continue to Heery at this point in time that’s going to
turn it over to an over-burdened staff who—and I believe the Law Enforcement Center is one of
the projects, several others. I just, I’m concerned about changes until we’ve had a workshop and
talked about it.
Mr. Williams: So we can really look at the apples, the oranges, or whatever we got to do.
We’re not trying—I want to correct Mr. Bowles. We’re not trying to beat up on Heery. They
just happen to be the company that’s here today. If it been any other company it been the same
treatment. I think we should be fair about that. But we need to do the workshop so we can
73
determine what work they are doing and what we need to go out for bids and get somebody else
in and do it the competitive way that this government was set up to do so everybody is included.
Mr. Mayor: Absolutely. And let me just say we talk so much about the problems but I
think the workshop is the right place to talk about the solutions and the recommendation as far as
how to proceed can come out of the workshop.
Mr. Hatney: Make one observation. Mr. Mayor, every other item [unintelligible].
Mr. Mayor: Well, it’s—
Mr. Hatney: [unintelligible] I don’t have a problem with workshops. I don’t think every
time we come to something that may need a decision be [unintelligible] by the workshop. This
one, I don’t mind doing. I think we need to do it expeditiously.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brown, and then—
Mr. Brown: I think that goes back to the point that you made, Mr. Mayor, that some of
these things need to be worked out in committee before they come before the Commission, and I
certainly would like, will defer on my comment about deciding now and go to workshop.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. To go to workshop.
Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS
45. Motion to approve Resolution of Support for the CSRA Regional Development
Center to continue to manage and administer the Coordinated Transportation System for
Augusta, Ga. (Requested by Commissioner Betty Beard)
Mr. Mayor: Is there anybody here to speak to that issue?
The Clerk: The correspondence was sent to Ms. Beard and she’s our representative on
the RDC. She requested that this item be placed on--
Mr. Grantham: Motion it be delayed.
Mr. Holland: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have—
Mr. Grantham: That it be deferred.
74
The Clerk: Next meeting? Okay.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion? Commissioners
will now vote by the usual sign.
Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS
46. Discuss the zoning matter affecting property located on Lumpkin Road and
Highway 56 relative to the establishment of a Group Home. (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem
Marion Williams)
The Clerk: I think this item was deferred from the last meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: That’s Highway 56. Mr. Mayor, we asked that the Planning and Zoning, I
think, to look into what the State was doing as far as acquiring a piece of property, opening up a
facility in the neighborhood. They came down for zoning and they wasn’t able to achieve the
zoning and some of the people in the area have been calling and saying they already setting up,
they already trying to open up that facility. And I don’t know if anybody here from Planning and
can address that or not, but that’s—Steve—
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I’ve been in touch with the local
attorney for the DHR. He is willing to meet with us and representatives of the Planning
Commission. They are taking the position that these group homes, if they’re under the authority
of the State, can be located pretty much anywhere. And that is something we need to talk to
them about because I don’t think they appreciate the disruption, potential disruption of
neighborhoods where this occurred, the amount of time that we have spent here with considering
group homes that they basically said you’ve got to take them. It’ State case law on the matter
st
and I would—I just got a reply from this attorney June 1 so I’ve been on that. I don’t know that
you can zone them out. I have a feeling that the zoning that we enact is subordinate to the State
but I think we should bring the community concerns to the DHR, and if necessary, to our State
legislators because they make state policy. And we could certainly, if we are just trying to face
down a State agency, that’s likely not to work because of our status as a subordinate political
subdivision of the State. But I do see in this letter that they want to talk about it and I think we
should take them up on that opportunity.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I appreciate that, appreciate the attorney checking into it but
this is not just a group home. These are mental patients who have been incarcerated for all kinds
of crime. There is a school there, Butler School right up the street on Lumpkin Road. There is a
75
church next door to it on Lumpkin Road and 56 there. There’s neighbors who complaining.
This ain’t something that just came up. They came down, we refused the zoning, and they
withdrew without prejudice and they just went back and just started to [unintelligible] open up.
Now, the community has got to be considered some of way, Steve, and I hear what you said. But
we really need to meet with them and talk with them and get the community here as well to see if
these people are violent residents that’s going to be placed back in society there, and been
incarcerated, and with a mental history. I don’t blame the community, I don’t blame the people
that is upset about it. They need to have some assurance that there is going to be protection of
some kind. Two businesses next door have called several, several times in concern about how
they are setting up in order to go ahead and put it in. I think we if we can work together, we
ought to work together. But I think if there is going to be some forcing us, the community need
to know we done done all we can do as a government and it’s a State issue that we can’t do
anything about it. But I would welcome that meeting whenever we can and get the community,
along with Planning and Zoning, along with those members that is interested in what’s going on
out there.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith?
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. They are in fact working on that home out there.
I’ve seen the State vehicles in there a lot. But I think that we need to get a ruling from the
Attorney General, along with this other ruling, whether or not the State can override our
Planning Commission and our vote. I think that’s really the key to it.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I concur with my colleagues. I had this conversation with then
Representative Ben Allen a couple of years ago. According to the Delegation members it’s their
impression that the State is required to get local approval before they locate in an area. And so if
we find an opinion from the State Attorney General or these other agencies differing from that,
we definitely need to take it to our Delegation, because these people are setting up for-profit
businesses in neighborhoods that basically cause an equity transfer. They make money on the
property and the property values of the surrounding homes go down. But according to Ben
Allen, they had to get local approval and they’re just not doing it in a lot of cases.
Mr. Mayor: What motion would we like to make to proceed on this?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Smith, you want to make a motion?
Mr. Smith: I’d like to make a motion that we send it to the Attorney General and
get his ruling on it.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion? Commissioners
will now vote by the usual sign.
76
Mr. Grantham and Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 8-0.
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS
47. Motion to approve the recommendation from the Board of Health regarding the
reappointment of Ms. Stella Nunnally to the Community Service Board.
Mr. Brigham: So move.
Mr. Hatney: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion? Commissioners
will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Grantham and Ms. Beard out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: With no more business to come before the body, we stand 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 the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on
June 6, 2006.
____________________________________
Clerk of Commission
77