HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOMMISSION MEETING November 17, 2009
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
NOVEMBER 17, 2009
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., November 17, 2009, the
Hon. Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Holland, Smith, Mason, Grantham, Hatney, Beard, Johnson, Jackson,
Bowles and Brigham, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
The invocation was given by the Reverend Dr. Paul Gardner, Pastor, Williams Memorial
CME Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Reverend, if you could come forward I have something for you. And thank
you for that wonderful invocation. Office of the Mayor. By these present be it known that
Reverend Dr. Paul Gardner, Pastor, Williams Memorial CME Church is Chaplain of the Day.
For is civic and spiritual guidance demonstrated throughout the community, serves as an
th
example for all of the faith community. Given under my hand this November 17, 2009. Thank
you, sir. (APPLAUSE)
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, on to the recognitions.
The Clerk:
RECOGNITIONS
Employee of the Month
A. Mr. Darrell Bennett, Recreation Manager, Diamond Lakes Regional Park, October
Employee of the Month.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. At this time we would like to recognize our Employee of the
Month. Mr. Mayor, along with Mr. Brigham, would you like to recognize the employee? Mr.
Beck, along with any employee of the Recreation Department. Mr. Darrell Bennett, Recreation
Manager, Diamond Lakes Park. Dear Mayor Copenhaver. The Employee Recognition
Committee has selected Darrell Bennett as the October Employee of the Month for the City of
Augusta. Mr. Bennett is currently the Recreation Manager for Diamond Lakes Regional Park
under Recreation and Parks. He has been employed by the city for over 20-years. Mr. Bennett
was nominated by his immediate supervisor Chris Scheuer. Darrell worked beyond the regular
requirements of his position when he was asked to head up the construction and startup phase of
the new tennis center at Diamond Lakes. In a very short period of time he pulled together an
excellent staff and secured tournaments for the new program. He is a very dedicated employee
and will put the recreation needs ahead of his own. The committee felt that based on his
nomination and Mr. Bennett’s and dedicated and loyal service to the City of Augusta we would
appreciate you joining us in awarding him the October Employee of the Month. Congratulations.
(APPLAUSE)
1
The Clerk: Do you want to say something? No? Okay.
Mr. Mayor: And before I read this I’d just like to say I appreciate, Darrell, all you do for
the city. Many folks might not know this but back when we were able for a year to get in and
take care of the Augusta Golf and Gardens Darrell along with so many other people worked so
diligently to get that back in shape. I know it’s a shame that it’s in the state that it is now but I
just wanted to thank you for that as well. Dear Mr. Bennett on behalf of the City of Augusta it is
with great pleasure that I congratulate you for being recognized as the Employee of the Month
for October 2009. Your contribution to your organization, Augusta Richmond County
Government and the citizens of Augusta has earned you this recognition. I appreciate your
willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty and your outstanding work ethic. You are
truly an asset to the Augusta Richmond County Recreation and Parks Department and the
citizens of Augusta Georgia. Please accept my personal congratulations on this wonderful
award. You are truly deserving of this recognition. Sincerely yours, Deke Copenhaver.
(APPLAUSE)
The Clerk: Mr. Beck?
Mr. Beck: Just a quick word about Darrell. As was mentioned Darrell just got his 20-
year pin so Ole Gray Mares can still do it can’t they, Darrell? Those of you who may have
attended the Employee Day this past Saturday and I think HR will probably attest that Darrell
was probably the key player from the city to get that going along with HR. But just those little
things that he does it goes beyond the call of duty that we all appreciate Darrell so much for. So
it’s well deserved and well earned. Thank you, Darrell. (APPLAUSE)
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, on to the delegations.
The Clerk:
DELEGATIONS
B. Mr. George Cartledge, CH2MHILL. RE: Consideration for support of
CH2MHILL/OMI to be evaluated for full wastewater management, operations and
maintenance services.
Mr. Mayor: And if you could keep it to five minutes, please, sir.
Mr. Cartledge: George Cartledge, 221 Fallen Oak, Columbia, SC. Thank you for this
opportunity to address the Commission regarding our RFP-09-154A regarding contract
operations of the wastewater facilities. We respectfully request that you do not approve the
Engineering Services Committee’s recommendation to award the work to another firm today, as
we believe it is not in the best interests of the citizens of Augusta Richmond County. As you
know OMI has formerly proved this as the procurement process. I think that we can all agree
that the intent of a procurement process is to identify the most qualified firms capable of
providing reliable and cost effective service. The intent should not be to disqualify any firm on a
minor technicality especially a firm that has proven experienced in the history and could provide
Augusta with the best current and future value. OMI has been providing award winning permit
2
compliant cost effective services to Augusta at the wastewater facilities for 10-years. We have
worked in partnership with Augusta to provide superior service and we are part of the
community. The dedicated OMI Augusta team of over thirty employees live here and are
directly impacted by the recommendation to award this work to another firm. Their years of
dedicated service, in-depth knowledge of Augusta’s facilities and documented accomplishments
should be considered. They are proud of what they have done for Augusta and deserve the
opportunity to compete for this work. Due to a minor insurance technicality OMI was not
evaluated for this important work. In our discussions and correspondence with Augusta’s staff
we were told that the procurement process was followed and that Augusta was justified in
disqualifying OMI for further consideration. Given our track record in Augusta we are clearly
qualified to do this work. How can disqualifying the incumbent firm from competing on a minor
technicality be in the best interests of Augusta? Augusta Georgia Code 1-10-52A provides that
when it is for good cause and in the best interests of Augusta Richmond County all proposals
may be rejected in whole or in part. This provision was used during this procurement process
when Augusta received only two conforming proposals, one from OMI and one from United
Water. The four other firms were told what information they needed to submit or clarify and
they were given two weeks to provide that information. The recommended firm ESG was one of
the four firms that was given an additional two weeks. The procurement process does not
prohibit Augusta from asking for clarifications during the review process yet OMI was never
afforded the opportunity to clarify the insurance information that was submitted. OMI can and
does provide this industry standard insurance coverage requested by Augusta. We could have
quickly clarified a response if we had been given the chance just as others in this process were
given the chance. It would in the best interest of Augusta Richmond County to have OMI as one
of the short listed firms asked to provide a Best And Final Offer or BAFO. And what proof can I
use to substantiate this? First OMI sealed price proposal, which is still in the possession of
Augusta shows that OMI/BAFO cost is less than the recommended cost with ESG. Over the
five-year term of this contract it would save Augusta $500,000.00. Second the OMI staff using
our proven procedure and policies and systems is critical to the ongoing success of this project.
Our staff has over 10 years of experience and have been repeatedly contacted by ESG about
employment even before ESG was notified of its selection to recommendation to provide this
work. It appears that the recommended firm is well aware that’s ability to deliver this work
depends on hiring OMI staff. Please do not make such an important decision in haste. Augusta
has much to benefit from the few extra weeks that it would take to interview the most qualified
firms and we feel that OMI is one of those firms. And we would continue to operate the facility
under our existing contract while the procurement process is completed so that would not be of a
concern. Again thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today on behalf of the dedicated
Augusta OMI team and with the best interests of Augusta Richmond County in mind we
respectfully request that you not approve the motion to award this work and you reject all
proposals and re-bids. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Okay, Madam Clerk, next delegation.
The Clerk:
DELEGATIONS
C. Dr. Kelly McKnight. RE: Day Shelter for homeless and underserved.
3
Dr. McKnight: I’m being joined by Derek Duggan somewhere. Derek is the Director as
you know of the Kroc Center and I’ll be brief and not ask you for anything today.
Mr. Mayor: Just as always if you could keep it to five minutes, please, sir.
Dr. McKnight: Same as in church. I understand. Mr. Mayor, Commissioners thank you
for the opportunity of letting me speak on something very dear to my heart today just for a
minute. I’m not here to ask you for any funding in fact yesterday Fred saw me in the hallway
and explained to me that if I was here to ask for any type of funding that it would be like
squeezing, I’ll say his words were blood from a turnip. But on a more serious note over the past
nine months I’ve been analyzing our ministries outreach in Harrisburg and how we could be
more effective in building our neighborhood and the inner city neighborhoods of Augusta. I
have been in discussion with community leaders, business leaders, ministry leaders, residents,
neighbors, landlords, the financially challenged and the homeless and it is a common consensus
that we need a citywide day shelter. A facility such as this would not be located within a
neighborhood setting. Our outreach ministry and other chance minister network would continue
to work with the financially challenged and the underserved residents of Harrisburg. However
the homeless would receive assistance at this new facility and we would encourage other
organizations to follow suit. The day shelter would provide and Derek you can come anytime
you want to, help assessment, skill assessment, employment assistance, educational assistance,
GED instruction, motivational and instructional sessions both live and recorded just to name a
few. Derek is with me he’ll speak in just a moment and has given his approval and that of the
Kroc Center for this idea. He’s actually identified a temporary facility and we plan to enter into
negotiations with them in the immediate future. This citywide day shelter concept would afford
a location for all non-profit who truly desire to minister and serve the underserved of Augusta to
do so. It is my understanding that we have been granted tax-exempt status with the sole purpose
being to enable our ministries and agencies to relieve some of the financial burden that has been
placed on our local government by serving those in need and helping them to become productive
citizens. I’m proud to say that this past year our organization served in excess of 12,000 free
meals, provided Christmas for over 750 children, clothing for over 1,000, affordable housing for
eight families and fifteen individuals and employment assistance for 21. This was accomplished
without one single dime of government funding. We need a citywide day shelter and I along
with my staff am committed to assist in any way needed. Thank you for this time. And if Derek
can maybe address you for a moment please.
Mr. Duggan: You didn’t tell me I was going to be saying anything so as you probably
know the Kroc Center does not deal with homeless programming at all. However it is a
collaborative of non-profit agencies addressing other concerns in the community. Therefore
speaking with Kelly McKnight I want to work with them to use that same collaborative model
towards creating a day shelter for homeless services and but in the industry we refer to as the
homeless quarter where the existing services are. So we are committed to stand behind this
project and use the same collaborative model to make sure this happens.
4
Dr. McKnight: That was for point of information. Any input you guys have y’all have
my numbers, and, Ms. Beard, y’all have my numbers to let me know and we’d like to work with
you on this. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: I was just going to say I’d like to thank you for taking on this extremely
important initiative. And I think working together with you know the folks from the Kroc
Center, that’s a wonderful project and wonderful model. And anything I can do personally to
help please you know not to hesitate to call me. Ms. Beard.
Ms. Beard: I certainly agree with the Mayor and I think you mentioned you may have a
facility in mind?
Dr. McKnight: Yes, ma’am, Mr. Duggan has identified, I don’t think you ---
Mr. Duggan: I don’t have enough of a commitment in place yet to announce who it is but
it is a facility dedicated to homeless services.
Dr. McKnight: And my suggestion with all the non-profits that participate, participate
financial as well.
Mr. Mayor: Thank y’all. Madam Clerk, the next delegation.
The Clerk:
DELEGATIONS
D. Dr. Thomas R. Dirksen, Friends of the Augusta Library RE: Various problems
associated with facilities transfer as scheduled for summer, 2010.
Mr. Mayor: And if you could keep it to five minutes, too, please, sir.
Mr. Dirksen: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission. Thank you for the
opportunity. My name is Tom Dirksen. I serve as President of the Friends of the Library. This
being my third time around in the office and in the in-between years as President of the Library
Board of Trustees. Some of the Friends have come with me today. May I ask them to stand?
Thank you. June and I brought our six children to Augusta in 1967. MCG had a job for me.
Our kids were educated in the East public schools. Both began college at Georgia Tech. All are
presently employed, own their own home and don’t write home for money. The secret here is no
secret. We share it readily. We read to them when they were young and then made sure that
they read. And they followed through with their own kids. The Augusta Public Library
provided us much fodder for their inquisitive minds. My own mother did the same for me. She
was a grade school teacher who had me reading well before I began my own formal schooling.
Mom really enjoyed third grade. The kids were human enough to be sweet and still could put on
their own snow boots and not wet their pants during class. One of mothers overriding passions
was that if you could teach a child the love reading all the rest will come naturally. I doubt few
of you would argue with Mother and win. We Friends are here seeking a goodly bump in the
Library budget. You Commissioners will of course respond these are hard times. I agree. But
5
I’m a Depression baby and I recall harder times. You’re facing what my uncle and later my Dad
faced with your budget dilemma. Both men having both served on my hometown city council
during that big depression yet both men pulled for the library, its building, its staff and its
programs and the good books I was privileged to sample. I came across last week in cleaning
out my vacation reading club summer certificate made out to Tommy Dirksen. We have a
similar program up the street that’s very successful. It’s very labor intensive, which requires
funding. Let me touch a moment on hard times in library usage. Run a Google on that. You
will find study after study and they will report increased usage. In newer New York library
attendance rose 13% this past year. One third were unemployed and seeking job information.
Library website usage increased 38% seeking job information. Circulation of library materials
increased 20%. Computer training demand increased almost maximum. The lesson here, when
folks experience tough times library services are increasingly sought, utilized and demanded.
Such as this hits very close to home for me. My own son in law was furloughed this past
summer. He spent much time at their local library, kept working with others looking for job
opportunities, reading the Wall Street Journal and was back to gainful employment within two
months. We in Richmond County frequently refer to Augusta as Georgia’s second city, which
sounds great. But untrue in library support is considered. Our library appropriation is slightly
more that $12.00 per capita. Macon has $18.00, Savannah $30.00, Atlanta area counties are near
$60.00. Columbia, SC similar in size to us is $75.00 per capita. If memory serves correctly
Augusta’s $12.00 has improved little since the last time I addressed this body some 10-years ago.
In conclusion we have a proven greater need for library books, programs, staff and services in
these hard economic times. This summer when we occupy new facilities it will more than
double the present space. The original plans for increased staff have been downgraded to only
two and I now fear for them. Your increasing the library budget to our approaching second city
status will help us to meet the urgent needs of today’s unemployed and to help us develop the
love of reading in today’s youngsters who will become our voters tomorrow. I wish you the
wisdom of Solomon in your budget deliberations and thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Dr. Dirksen. Okay, Madam Clerk, on to the consent agenda.
The Clerk: Yes, sir, our consent agenda consists of items 1-20, items 1-20. For the
benefit of any objectors to our Planning petitions, once the petition is read please signify your
objection by raising your hand. I call you attention to:
Item 2: Is a Special Exception in a B-2 (General Business) Zone to establish a Business Park at
property located at 3338 Peach Orchard Road.
Item 3: Is a request for a Special Exception to establish a Child’s After School Program on
property located at 3408 Peach Orchard Road.
Item 4: Is a request for a change of zoning from a B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to a Zone R-1A
(One-family Residential) affecting property known as 1062 Alexander Drive.
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those Planning petitions?
Mr. Russell: None noted, Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1-20.
6
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. Do we have any items to be added to the consent
agenda? Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Smith: I don’t have one to add, Mr. Mayor, but number sixteen the Law Department
has asked that that be withdrawn.
Mr. Mayor: To be pulled? Okay. Okay, Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to add if nobody objects Item 28.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have any further additions to the consent agenda?
Mr. Russell: Item number twenty-seven.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: If my colleagues have no objections the Administrative Services did not
have a quorum. So that’s why our situation is like it is now. But I’d like to add Item #24 and 23
with some instruction to the Administrator and the Law Department.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, you don’t have unanimous consent on Item 23.
Mr. Hatney: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Twenty-four is okay? Okay, do we have any further items to be
added to the consent agenda?
Mr. Russell: Twenty-seven?
Mr. Mayor: What’s that?
The Clerk: The Administrator said Item 27.
Mr. Mason: Negative.
The Clerk: Negative.
Mr. Grantham: (inaudible) have consent.
Mr. Russell: Just thought I’d ask.
Mr. Holland: Mr. Mayor?
7
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland.
Mr. Holland: Thank you. This was just brought to my attention. Item 22 it was moved
forward at no recommendation.
Mr. Grantham: Are they here?
The Clerk: Are the applicants here?
Mr. Holland: Yes.
The Clerk: No objectors. Mr. Sherman? Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any further additions to the consent agenda? Any items to be pulled
for discussion? Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, the applicant on Item 28, on number eight asked that that be
pulled to address the Commission. And the uh, I also want to pull for discussion item #19.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have any other items to be pulled for discussion. Okay,
Madam Clerk, just for the, for clarity if we could note the items added and the items pulled for.
The Clerk: Items added to our consent agenda, items 28, 24 and 22. Items pulled for
discussion item 8, item 16 and item 19.
Mr. Holland: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland.
Mr. Holland: Just one more. That’s item seven. The client is here. I want to pull that
one for discussion, please.
The Clerk: You want to pull item seven?
Mr. Holland: Yes, ma’am, the applicant is here.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Could we add twenty-one to the consent?
Mr. Mayor: Is everybody okay with that?
Mr. Mason: Don’t they get an opportunity ---
Mr. Brigham: Is anybody here?
8
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: I’m going to check to make sure there aren’t any objectors in the room at
this point. Any objectors to item 21? Do you need to read that one Lena?
The Clerk: Yeah, let me read that one. Item 22, for the benefit of any objectors, excuse
me ---
Mr. Mayor: Twenty-one.
The Clerk: Let’s read item 22 as well. Okay 21 is a request to deny a petition requesting
a change of zoning from a zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to a Zone B-1 (Neighborhood
Business). Also for any objectors. Item 22 is for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be
used in connection with Old Town BP Gas Station located at 443 Broad Street. Are there any
objectors to that petition?
Mr. Russell: None noted, Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: Okay. So we’re adding, Madam Attorney do you want for me to recognize
you? Mr. Mayor, can you recognize the Attorney in item 16?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson: Item 16 has been pulled because there is pending procurement protest.
The item will remain in Commission until the protest has been resolved.
The Clerk: Can that be added to consent?
Mr. Grantham: All right.
The Clerk: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, now if we have no further items to be added to or pulled I’d look for a
motion to approve the consent agenda.
Mr. Hatney: So moved.
Mr. Johnson: Second.
CONSENT AGENDA
PLANNING
1. FINAL PLAT – BROWNSTONES AT RAE’S CREEK – S-806 – A request for
concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a
petition by H. Lawson Graham & Associates, on behalf of David Dunn, requesting final
plat approval for the Brownstones at Rae’s Creek. This residential townhome development
is located on Jackson Road and contains 24 lots.
9
2. Z-09-57 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) a 20 foot vegetative buffer that
conforms to the Augusta Tree Ordinance shall be erected and maintained along the north
property line and; 2) a 40 foot vegetative buffer area shall be maintained along the rear
property line; a petition by Butler Development Group, on behalf of Stephen H. Steinberg
and Mark Donahue, requesting a Special Exception in a B-2 (General Business) Zone to
establish a Business Park per Section 22-2 (f) of the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County affecting property containing 4.03 acres and is known as 3338
Peach Orchard road. (Tax Map 122-3-103-00-0) DISTRICT 6
3. Z-09-58 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) that a six foot solid board fence
shall be erected and maintained along the east property line and; 2) a chain link fence
erected from the house to the north property line thereby securing the rear yard and
containing a gate to access rear yard; a petition by Doris Mitchell, on behalf of Charles
Black, requesting a Special Exception to establish a Child’s After School Program per
Section 26-1 (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County
affecting property containing .59 acres and is known as 3408 Peach Orchard Road. (Tax
map 133-1-026-00-0) DISTRICT 6
4. Z-09-60 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Ray Wells, on behalf of Events Worldwide, Inc.,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone R-1A (One-
family residential) affecting property containing .76 acres and is known as 1062 Alexander
Drive. (013-3-002-00-0) DISTRICT 7
PUBLIC SERVICES
5. Motion to approve a request by the License & Inspections Department to renew all the
current Alcohol Beverage License holders, arcades and adult entertainment establishments
in Augusta Richmond County. There will be Dance. There will be Sunday Sales. Districts 1
thru 8. Super Districts 9 & 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 9,
2009)
6. Motion to approve 2010 contract for wellness grant with CSRA Regional Commission.
(Approved by Public Services Committee November 9, 2009)
9. Motion to approve a request from University Hospital for approval to hang eleven
Breast Cancer banners on Broad Street during the month of October 2010. (Approved by
Public Services Committee November 9, 2009)
FINANCE
10. Motion to approve the replacement of one aerial bucket truck for Public Services
Department – Facilities Maintenance Division. (Approved by Finance Committee
November 9, 2009)
11. Motion to approve a Bond Resolution authorizing the issuance of General Obligation
Bonds, Series 2009, adopting a form for the bonds, establishing the date, denominations,
and rate or rates of interest for the bonds, levying an annual ad Valorem tax on the taxable
property within Augusta, Georgia sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the
bonds as the same become due, authorizing the sale of the bonds to the successful bidder,
designating a paying agent and bond registrar for the bonds, authorizing the execution and
10
delivery of a continuing disclosure certificate, and for other related purposes. (Approved
by Finance committee November 9, 2009)
12. Motion to approve refund requests for November 2009. (Approved by Finance
Committee November 9, 2009)
13. Motion to approve the recommendation of the Tax commissioner to begin the process to
remove taxes, interest, penalties, and fees from select properties that have previously been
taken to tax sale and not sold in preparation for the upcoming tax sale in March.
(Approved by Finance Committee November 9, 2009)
14. Motion to approve a request from US Bank Trust National Association on behalf of
Sears Roebuck for a credit of 2008 taxes to be applied against the 2009 taxes for property
located at 3450 Wrightsboro Road. (Approved by Finance Committee November 9, 2009)
ENGINEERING SERVICES
15. Motion to approve construction contract award to Blair Construction in the amount of
$544,400.00. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 9, 2009)
16. Motion to approve contract award to Blair Construction Company for services
associated with Water & Sewer System Repairs and Installations in the amount of
$847,439.49. Bid item #09-155 (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 9,
2009)
17. Motion to approve the purchase of a 2010 International Truck with Grapple Loader
and Dump Body for the Augusta Solid Waste Facility. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee November 9, 2009)
18. Motion to deny a request from Mr. Ervin Clack, Jr. for the discontinuation of garbage
service for the home located at 2130 Howard road. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee November 9, 2009)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
20. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held on
November 5, 2009.
PUBLIC SERVICES
22. New Ownership Application: A.N. 09-105: a request by Ky Sook Shin Sanders for a
retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Old Town BP Gas Station
located at 443 Broad St. District 1. Super District 9. (No recommendation from Public
Services Committee November 9, 2009)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
24. Discuss allowing the Housing and Community Development Department to re-classify
the Housing Programs Coordinator I position from paygrade 45 to paygrade 47.
OTHER BUSINESS
28. Motion to approve an employment agreement between the Augusta Aviation
Commission and the Augusta Richmond County Commission and Gary W. LeTellier
regarding his employment as the Executive Director of the Augusta Regional Airport at
Bush Field.
11
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign.
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-6, 9-18, 20, 22, 24, 28]
The Clerk: It’s unanimous.
Mr. Mayor: All righty, Madam Clerk, let’s go to the pulled items first.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVICES
7. Motion to approve the revocation of the Sunday Sales Alcohol License for Allie Katz
Bar & Grill. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 9, 2009)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman:
Yes, sir, number seven is just that, to approve the revocation of the
Sunday Sales Alcohol License for Allie Katz Bar & Grill. The applicant was before you back in
April of this year. They were placed on six-months probation, given six months to come into
compliance with the food sales in order, to recap they had to have 60% food sales in order to
have, to be eligible to apply for Sunday Sales. If you’re eligible, if you do meet the 50% than
you can be classified as a restaurant to be open on Sundays and all ages are allowed in. After the
6-month period we conducted an audit and found that for the six-month average they were at
recommending that their Sunday Sales License be revoked.
19.7, 8% and we’re
Mr. Grantham: So moved.
Mr. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there, actually, the, I believe the
petitioner is here. Okay, yes, sir, if you could come forward and state your name and address for
the record and keep it to five minutes, please, sir.
Mr. Birmingham: My name is Brian Birmingham 4145 Clinton Way. My only comment
is there are other bars that have been granted extensions to the end of the year. They’re not
meeting the 50% requirement either. I would just like to be treated equally with the other bars
that are not meeting this requirement with the temporary licenses. If you’re going to pull one
license for not being over 50% you need to pull all the licenses for not being over 50%.
(Inaudible). Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, sir. Okay we have a motion and a second. If there’s no ---
-
Mr. Bowles: I have a question ---
12
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: --- for Mr. Sherman. Is this an increase or decrease in the food sales?
Mr. Sherman: Okay. Prior to the um, them applying for the Sunday Sales or the Sunday
Sales because of the 50% food they were at 16% so they increased 3.78%.
Mr. Bowles: Okay, we have a motion and a second. If there is no further discussion ---
Mr. Brigham: That motion was to deny?
Mr. Mayor: To deny.
Mr. Mayor: Is there’s no further discussion Commissioners will ---
Mr. Grantham: To approve the revocation.
Mr. Mayor: To approve the revocation.
Mr. Brigham: To approve the revocation, right. Okay, to deny the license.
Mr. Mayor: If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign.
Mr. Hatney abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: Next agenda item, Madam Clerk.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVICES
8. Motion to approve the revocation of the Sunday Sales Alcohol License for The Original
Tavern. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 9, 2009)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman:
Number eight also is the same situation. The applicant applied for a
Sunday Sales License in March of this year. He was given six months probation. We conducted
the audit and found that he’s at 30.8, 3% of the six-month average. Prior to that time for a three-
month period when we did conduct an audit he was at 16%. There was, you know, some
. And again our
improvement but he has stayed in that, around the 30% average
recommendation is that his license be revoked.
Mr. Holland: So moved.
13
Mr. Mason: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have anybody from the, yes, sir. If you could state your name
and address for the record and keep it to five minutes as well, please, sir.
Mr. Laws: Thanks. I’m Sean Laws, 1450 Greene Street. Actually what I was looking to
do is I do recognize we did not hit the 50% on food sales. First I want to thank you guys for
letting us try. We did move from 9% to 30% in a six-month period, which is a pretty good
move. All I’m looking to do is, we’re not looking to renew it in January because we knew it was
to take more like a culture change to get someone to 50%. You open a bar to a restaurant it will
take more than six months. It’s going to take probably over a year to educate people, hey we’re
coming, eat lunch with us, it’ll take time. So we’re not looking at all to reapply in January.
What we would like to do is just see if for the last six weeks of the year if we could either wait to
make this decision to January 1, and then we won’t reapply or just extend it for the rest of the
year. I have two Christmas parties booked for Sundays and also if I close on Sunday I’m going
to immediately have to lay off one of my hourly employees because she won’t have a job after
the holidays. So I’m not looking to, we’re not going to reapply in January. If we decide it’s
going to, once we get back up to fifty we’ll be here smiling, hey guys look we’re at 50%. It’s
going to take a greater time than another 5-6 months to do that. So we’d just like the
opportunity, we purchased the license to fill out the remainder of the year so we can, like I said
not lose one employee before Christmas and for us to have our two Christmas parties that we
have already booked. That’s what I would like to do.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Rob, could you answer a question for me? As far
as the Christmas parties is concerned are they allowed to operate in sales but if they was hosting
a Christmas party a long as there wasn’t any sales of alcohol could they still do those parties?
Mr. Sherman: They’d have to remove all the liquor, beer, etc. out of the building and
make sure it’s all locked up. So I would say no.
Mr. Johnson: Okay. But as a restaurant they could.
Mr. Sherman: As a restaurant, well, of course, you’d be open ---
Mr. Johnson: Right.
Mr. Sherman: --- seven days a week, 24 hours a day.
Mr. Johnson: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, is there any further discussion? Okay, we have a motion and a
second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Hatney abstains.
14
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: Next pulled item, Madam Clerk.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
19. Motion to approve the selection of ESG Operations, Inc. for the Full Wastewater
Contract Management, Operations & Maintenance Program from RFP Item #09-154A.
(Approved by Engineering services Committee November 9, 2009)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham, this was your pull?
Mr. Brigham: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make a motion we reject all bids.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have any discussion?
Mr. Brigham: Now we can.
Mr. Mayor: Well, no, I’m saying I’m asking the rest of the Commission. Do we have,
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Brigham: I do have some concerns about this bid also.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’ll come back. I’ve recognized the Mayor Pro Tem. I’ll come
back to you. Okay.
Mr. Mason:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, given the circumstances that we find
ourselves in and the protocol that was followed the recommendation of the Engineering Services
Committee as well as the recommendation of Procurement, Augusta Utilities Interim Director
I’m going to make a substitute motion that we approve the
and our City Administrator
selection of ESG Operations for Full Wastewater Contract for the Augusta Richmond
County.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion, a substitute motion and a second. Mr. Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I have some real concerns over the technicalities. If we have
one group of technicalities we authorize people to go back and straighten out and resubmit bids
or resubmit the approval of the technicalities. Why was not the entire contract looked at for all
technicalities and everybody given a chance to correct those technicalities at the same period of
time? Obviously that did not happen and therefore I don’t think that we have had a fair bid
where everybody was treated the same. And I am very concerned about that especially in light
of all the troubles we’ve had throughout the Procurement Department where different people are
15
treated in different ways and we’ve ended up in courts over it. I think this bid itself is one of the
better bids that we’ve had. But I think we should’ve allowed all technicalities to be corrected,
not just part of them.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Johnson then Commissioner Beard.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Due to the policy of Procurement I think that
policy was followed. So I want to pretty much put that on the record here today. And I would
like to have Mr. Goins to come up again to reiterate that they followed all procedures and that
Ms. Sams would like to elaborate on that as well she could feel free to do so. But the question
was asked several times that everybody have equal opportunity to submit and apply and that was
yes. And we want to be clear of that. So I want to make sure we’re not faulting individuals in
Procurement but the Procurement policy and the policy stated exactly what was supposed to
happen and they followed the policy and of course was again looked at by the Administrator
along with Utilities and those that was on the selection panel. So, Mr. Goins, do you want to just
elaborate on that?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Goins.
Mr. Goins: Yes, sir. I’d to take the opportunity to explain the process and there’s been
mention of technicalities being waived and so forth. The first set of criteria is performed by the
Procurement Department and there are things like affidavits and signatures and things of that
nature that are initially looked at. In addition to that there are, make sure that an original and the
proper number of documents are there, if addendums have been acknowledged, things like that.
So that is the initial review that’s done by the Procurement Department. In this case all of the
firms met that initial review. The second criteria in this particular process was what we termed
as a screening criteria. And this screening criteria was in the original proposal and I’m reading
from that. It’s attachment B. Screening Criteria General Requirements. Failure to meet any of
these requirements shall disqualify the offerer from further consideration. This second tier if you
will is the tier that’s set aside to of the firms that originally met the original criteria. If that
makes sense. And then there were two firms set aside at this point because they did not meet the
insurance requirements. So it was clear in the process that we as a selection committee had to set
aside these two firms because it clearly states that they would be disqualified and not receive any
further consideration. We had four firms left that we short-listed and the criteria used there was
called Evaluation Criteria, which is attachment C. It was in the RFP and this was made available
to everyone as well. And of the evaluation criteria we short-listed three firms. So there were
four firms that made it to this point and then the selection committee through the scoring process
went to three short-listed firms. We next interviewed those three short-listed firms and asked
them for their best and final offer. That information was provided to the Engineering Services
Committee this past Friday and we made our recommendation based on the evaluation process
that I’ve just explained and the Engineering Services, excuse me, the Engineering Services
Committee approval that recommendation and the selection committee, I hope I can speak for all
of them, stand by our recommendation.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Bowles.
16
Mr. Bowles: Mr. Goins, just a quick question on the evaluation criteria.
Mr. Goins: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bowles: Does that come into factor in the best and final offer or is that totally
thrown out and you go with the best and final price? Or how do you come across the selection?
Mr. Goins: The evaluation criteria is used for the short-listing process and then that
scoring is set aside and then we, from than point on look at the proposal that was provided and
then we go to the interview process. So to get to the shortlist you have to meet the evaluation
criteria and then that scoring is set aside and we only open the proposals of the firms that are
short-listed.
Mr. Bowles: So the technical ratings had no play in the final decision making other than
qualifying those three firms.
Mr. Goins: At that point we hope through the process that we have short-listed the firms
such that other criteria such as price and how the particular offer presents themselves and the
information they provide in the interview, that takes equal or more weight than the technical
criteria.
Mr. Bowles: Thank you. Mr. Russell, the last question will be for you. When do we
determine whether or not to rebid an item? We had two bidders that qualified and we decided to
rebid. And I can count on numerous occasions we been presented only one bid to choose at this
Commission. So do we have a written policy or is it just kind of wily nilly or how are we
deciding on when to rebid?
Ms. Johnson: The code determines when you’re going to rebid or when you’re not going
to rebid. But also it depends on what is being procured, if it’s a good, if it’s a service, if it’s a
public works construction project. So you can’t give a generalized answer to that question. It
depends on the nature of the project and what Augusta Richmond County’s trying to procure.
Mr. Bowles: Is there something I can look at that to say if we had this demolition project
and we get one bid it’s going to be a rebid or not or I mean when you say code what does that
mean?
Ms. Johnson: That means our Code of Ordinances gives an enumerated list of when you
can rebid. Some of the rebids are ---
Mr. Bowles: If you’re allowed to rebid, do you have to rebid?
Ms. Johnson: It again depends on the nature of the problem or circumstance that would
cause you to rebid.
Mr. Bowles: Right and my concern is it’s the same application, the same code, it’s just
we fall in that code consistently or do we do some things sometimes and some things other times.
17
Ms. Johnson: Right, of course I wouldn’t respond that we don’t comply with the code.
And I don’t think ---
Mr. Bowles: I’m not saying we don’t comply but ---
Ms. Johnson: That is what was said and I don’t think that the facts here substantiate that.
We’ve been talking about waiving technicalities. This wasn’t a technicality waive. There was a
procurement protest that y’all heard during Committee and it was determined under our code, the
Code of Ordinances providing that is was in the best interests of Augusta Richmond County to
proceed forward. And that is what we would do. When you’re waiving a technicality it is in a
public works construction project over a certain amount. Just because it’s a contract with
Augusta Richmond County doesn’t mean in every circumstance you can waive a technicality.
Mr. Bowles: I’m not trying to waive a technicality. I’m making sure that we’re
consistently following the same decision-making when we rebid contracts. And it doesn’t appear
to me that’s what we’re doing.
Ms. Johnson: And I can’t help that perception. I can only say to you we can rebid
pending on the nature of the circumstance causing the rebid. Maybe Augusta Richmond County
didn’t have the money that it thought it initially would have to let the contract. Maybe it’s not in
the best interest of Augusta Richmond County to let the contract. Those are reasons under our
Code of Ordinances that we can rebid. So again depending on the nature of the goods, the
service or the project whatever it is we’re trying to procure it could be a different reason. It’s not
always going to be the same reason because they’re not all the same projects. They’re not all the
same projects solicited by the same department.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I had talked with Mr. Drew, our interim utilities
director, at length about this and asked every question I could think of. And then the assistant
director, Mr. Alan Saxon, and they both assured me that this was their recommendation and this
what in my opinion have to stand on. Not being an engineer and hiring these professionals and if
don’t go for their recommendations we don’t need them. And I also went with Mr. Russell and I
feel like he had the same opinion. And this is not a personal decision. We got friends on all
sides but we still feel like it’s in the best interests of Augusta Richmond County to go with the
recommendation of our staff.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a substitute motion and a second. The substitute motion is,
Madam Clerk, to approve?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. The substitute motion is to approve the selection of ESG Operations
for the full wastewater contract management, operation and maintenance program.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, if there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the
substitute sign of voting.
18
Mr. Brigham and Mr. Grantham vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk, on to I believe the regular agenda, first agenda item.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
23. Create compliance staff positions for 2010 budget year.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: Before I ask to make the mistake I’m going to make I’d ask for Mr. Russell
to make a statement where he sees this at because what we’re asked to do here is to establish a
few positions that will not only save the government money but keep us from going back and
forth like frick and frack when we come to these bid processes. And this is what these two
compliance positions would do. And I wanted to ask Mr. Russell something to me that he’s
going to suggest and I would like to have him express that to the rest of us.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. What we’re looking at
is the need for these particular positions. As we look at and what we’re talking about is
somewhat vague at the moment. We’ll be the first to admit that. But what we’d like to do is be
able to come back to you with the thought process in mind that you recognize the need which I
think each of you do. As we come back to you through the proper committee structure with both
job descriptions and funding sources that we would be able to move forward with that. At this
point I have neither but we do recognize the fact in what we’re looking at is the actual conceptual
need to moniker that. There are some opportunities we have within the funds that we would
have available next year to take a look at that but it’s a little bit premature at the moment to do
that. So what I’d like would be to get direction to come back in the next forty days or so with a
recommendation through Administrative Services and Finance with both a funding source and
job descriptions that could be approved.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Russell I think we all understand the need for
some of these supervisory and compliance type positions. My concern comes from when we’re
talking about adding staff to the government. I don’t see why we don’t go out and outsource this
so in two years we can cut it loose and not have any employees we have to sever. Rather just
stop the relationship with that company. Once you grow government it’s going to stay that way
and it’s going to be very difficult to get rid of those jobs down the road. And that’s my concern.
Mr. Russell: And I think when we come back with that recommendation that should be
one portion that we look at. If there are other options available to do that I think that would be
appropriate to look at that. Dr. Hatney and Administrative Services and I hadn’t talked about
19
that but I’d be glad to provide you that kind of information too as we move forward so you have
Option A and Option B.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Following up with what Mr. Bowles has said. I
think that’s very important that that be included that we do have that as part of the
recommendation and not just look at it. And also that we have the budgeted amount of both of
those recommendations based on what the expense and the costs would be giving us the
opportunity at that time to refuse a permanent position and to go along with a part time position
or outsource it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, one of my main concerns are we’re amending the 2010 budget
and we ain’t even adopted it. And I think we are getting the cart before the horse. I think
everybody up here has concerns about the way things are being done and want to make sure
they’re being done right. But I don’t, I just cannot vote to create positions for a budget that I
have not even voted for.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, I would, is there a motion to direct the Administrator to proceed?
Mr. Hatney: So moved.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: And proceed just for clarification, Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: To bring back to Administrative Services and Finance a job description and
a funding source or potential for outsourcing these particular positions based on our best
recommendation at that point.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, one more comment.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: One more comment and I think it would be important again in what was
just stated that this recommendation comes back to us. And I notice where we have on the
agenda today to adopt the budget. But I would recommend that we do not adopt the budget
today, that we wait and see how this particular item falls into the budget and that they both be
adopted after our next Commission meeting if that’s the case.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell actually had asked for I believe, what did you ask for Mr.
Russell, forty days to bring this recommendation back?
20
Mr. Russell: Including the job descriptions and everything but I could probably identify
funding sources at whole lot easier than I could identify the job descriptions at the moment. So I
think what I’m looking for is some conceptual understanding that these are something we need to
look at either an out-funding source or through internal positions and some direction to do that
and bring it back to you for your approval. That’s what I’m after.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Okay Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Could we get Madam Clerk to read that motion?
The Clerk: Okay. The motion was to approve conceptually the recommendation to
create the compliance staff position and to allow the Administrator forty days to obtain job
description and a funding source and the possibility of outsourcing it and bringing back his best
recommendation to the Administrative Services and Finance Committee.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk: That’s good?
Mr. Mayor: Well done. We have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
The Clerk: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: I’m not asleep.
The Clerk: I know. Are you going to vote?
Mr. Grantham: Yeah, I’m going to vote.
The Clerk: Okay. Not today?
Mr. Grantham: Maybe not.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Are you sure you’re not asleep.
Mr. Grantham: Am I put on a time limit?
The Clerk: No, sir, we just want to publish the vote.
Mr. Grantham: I’m going to let you publish it. I’m going to let you publish it in a
minute.
21
The Clerk: In a minute.
Mr. Grantham: I’m going to do this again.
Mr. Mayor: Your rheumatism is acting up today.
Mr. Grantham: Goes against my better judgment.
Mr. Mason, Mr. Brigham and Mr. Smith vote No.
Motion carries 7-3.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item.
The Clerk:
FINANCE
25. Consider a request/report from the Administrator regarding the Countdown in
Downtown regarding city sponsorship to provide certain services and in-kind match
funding. (Requested by Commissioner Johnson)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. We have been working for the
past several days with Margaret Woodard in reference to the potential of doing this event on
New Years Eve. As you looked at the initial budget presentation that was made you’re talking
about $63,760.00, which was a fairly large event with a fairly large name band and those kinds
of those things there basically. We’ve been able to reduce that by using some regional stuff and
some in-kind services with the City with an approximate budget of about $19,330.00. That’s
$19,330.00 that’s not designated from and fund source at this particular point in time. What we
are discovering though is that we pitched this over the last five or six days to various assorted
outside agencies that might partner with us is that enthusiasm for next year seems to be fairly
high. They um, and I would um, want to say that we’re pretty sure that we would have a main
line sponsor similar to our other events that’s committed for next year and that’s just a matter of
dotting the “i’s” and crossing the “t’s” at this particular point in time. What we’re also
discovering is that we’re somewhat late in the process to find additional funding for this year at
this particular point in time. What I would suggest you do is, well, I can’t identify $19,000.00
that I have available to me to do this at this particular point in time. We could reduce the scope
some more and I’d like to work with Commissioner Johnson about that to determine whether or
not that would be worth our while or not at the moment. But you know we’re close but I haven’t
quite got there yet.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, does anybody have any questions, comments? Commissioner
Johnson.
Mr. Johnson:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It breaks my heart to hear that, Fred, because
now we’ve got to take that money to some other city now. But this is something I really wanted.
22
You know I actually talked with Margaret at the beginning of this year and tasked her with you
know the task of trying to find resources to help fund this event. I think it would generate “x”
number of dollars. Being down at San Antonio you know you’re just looking at the things they
implement and it’s just for the investment and the return you know that you get is almost three to
one. And I think this is one of those situations where we will have that kind of return if not
greater. But I would like to refer it back at least to Committee. Let’s see if we can maybe get a
local bank or somebody to maybe participate and pull it out. I have spoken to several people
about it and the people are very excited and I’ll hate to let this year go by and people go
somewhere else and spend their money. I know we can use it, the budget it tight and it can do a
So if we can just refer it back and give us some time and
number, make it better for us.
maybe get with some local banks and see if they can get some revenue generated.
Mr. Mayor: Would you like to put that in the form of a motion?
Mr. Johnson: I would like to put that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Jackson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. If there is no further discussion
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Hatney: What are we doing?
Mr. Mayor: Sending it back to Committee.
The Clerk: Refer it back to Committee.
Mr. Hatney: When was it in Committee?
The Clerk: Last week.
Mr. Hatney: It was?
The Clerk: Yes sir, Finance Committee.
Mr. Hatney: It was in Finance.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Holland votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
The Clerk:
SUBCOMMITTEE
Legal Administration:
23
26. Discussion of a No Solicitation Ordinance. (Requested by Commissioner Bowles)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: Thanks, Rob, come on up.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Bowles: Give everybody a brief scenario of what has happened over the last few
months and what we’re trying to address. And we can send this back to Committee and come
back and vote on it. I just want to give everybody and update.
Mr. Sherman: Presently we have an ordinance. It’s titled Temporary and Transient
Vendors. What that means is that if they appear from out of town, you come to Augusta and in
this case what occurred was it was a door-to-door salesman selling a product and they registered
with us, we had copies of all the sales peoples drivers licenses. In some neighborhoods the
neighbors felt that the sales approach was too aggressive. If they asked the sales people to leave
they would maybe argue with them about well come on or just a persistent aggressive sale.
Anyway so we had complaints in Commissioner Bowles district and we met with the neighbors.
The district attorney was there, she gave them some suggestions. One is that if you prefer not to
have solicitors come to your front door or to your house simply post a sign that says No
Soliciting and then you have a right to tell them to get off your property and you can easily call
the Sheriff’s Department. We were asked to look at our ordinance to see if it could be improved.
And we did go through our ordinance and again our ordinance is basically just saying you are
required to get a business license, you post a bond, there’s a regulatory fee for every day that
you’re selling. But we don’t have any regulations in telling you how or when you can go. So
what the proposal is, is that it gives you some definitions non-profits, school kids going door to
door selling magazine, girl scouts, boy scouts, et cetera, are exempt. But they all have to comply
with the regulations on when and how. Such as again if the resident has a No Soliciting sign
posted you can’t go on the property. It’s simply saying no trespassing. It says that if engaging in
door-to-door soliciting of residents on Sundays or between the hours of 6 p.m. and 9 a.m. is
prohibited. Enter any private dwelling without the consent of the owner or occupant or to remain
after being requested or directed to leave. The aggressive sales, aggressive sales you can’t do
that. Failure to register and carry or produce for inspection a permit when required under this
chapter. So regardless whether you are for profit or if you are non-profit if you’re a school kid
selling magazines you have to have a letter from your school, identification to let the homeowner
know who you are. If you are a business that is for profit you have to have the same thing. A
copy of your business license and identification. So that’s pretty much what it includes. It just
provides regulations on how to go door-to-door if you’re soliciting on private property only.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles:. And just make a recommendation that we
Thank y’all for y’all’s work
get this ordinance put in everybody’s box when we come back at the next Administrative,
Legal, Administration Subcommittee meeting and discuss it.
24
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second on that?
Mr. Jackson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: This question I need to ask is that if some of these folk with things the way
they are now you really don’t, you know they have come by your office, you got a license and all
that good stuff. But you really don’t know who’s at your door until you open it. So are you
saying it’s illegal would it be illegal for us to do an ordinance where folk don’t have that right
unless they have an appointment?
Mr. Speaker: I answer that Reverend, Commissioner Hatney. If you’re asking can we
ban solicitation outright the answer would be no.
Mr. Hatney: How come?
Mr. Speaker: Because solicitation in the United States is considered a lawful profession.
No government, federal, state or county, can outlaw a lawful profession or lawful occupation.
An occupation under the law is considered a property right. You cannot take a persons property
right without justification. Also the speech, that even if they are soliciting for commercial
purposes it’s protected by the First Amendment. So you cannot deny a person due process.
Mr. Hatney: At my house.
Mr. Speaker: At your house ---
Mr. Hatney: He’s put his foot in my door and I don’t want him there.
Mr. Speaker: You can do it at your house because that’s your private property.
Mr. Hatney: Okay.
Mr. Speaker: And this government can’t tell you ---
Mr. Hatney: You answered the question. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: You can’t ---
Mr. Hatney: You just answered my question. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and second. Yes, Commissioner Holland.
Mr. Holland: Thank you. Let me ask does this deal with religious affiliations also,
people coming from door-to-door?
25
Mr. Speaker: The regulations that we ---
Mr. Hatney: (inaudible)
Mr. Speaker: --- that the government made regarding solicitations cannot ---
Mr. Holland: I can’t hear you. It’s impolite to talk while others are talking.
Mr. Speaker: The regulations, the changes in the regulations that were made in the
ordinance that we will make will be content neutral. We cannot distinguish between what type
speech. That would be a First Amendment violation or equal protection violation to say okay
politicians can come to the door but someone who wants to sell vacuum cleaners can’t come or a
certain denomination can’t come.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Grantham: Keep preachers away.
Mr. Hatney: Can’t get to heaven like that ---
Mr. Mayor: We just came out of a political campaign season and we’re in a runoff.
Don’t tell these people they can’t go knocking on folks’ doors.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATOR
27. Consider adoption of 2010 budget.
Mr. Mayor: You didn’t get this one consented, Fred?
Mr. Russell: I tried. Mr. Mayor item 28 is probably going to take less time than item 27.
Mr. Grantham: Motion to receive as information.
Mr. Mayor: Twenty-eight was consented.
The Clerk: He’s trying to prolong the process.
Mr. Russell: I saw the Chair of the Aviation Board out there and I didn’t realize it was
consented. Just trying to help. It would be appropriate at this time for somebody to entertain a
motion that would approve the budget as recommended.
Mr. Grantham: I make a motion to receive as information.
26
Mr. Hatney: Second.
Mr. Russell: Let me take about five minutes here if you don’t mind that we can do the
council’s will here. You know for the last several weeks and months we’ve been working on the
budget. But let’s talk a little bit about what got us here and where we’re at today. Um,
something I’ve always found somewhat offensive is people come to us and say that we’re raising
taxes over and over and over again. The facts don’t really present that and they’re not accurate.
If you look at the tax on a house in 2006 it was a $200,000.00 home that I always use. The tax
was $276.47 for county, no for maintenance and operation. That was raised in 2007 to $285.22.
The cost in 2008 was $285.22, the cost in 2009 was $285.22 and the recommendation you’re
going to hear from me today would have that cost be $285.22. I do not see how anybody can add
those numbers together and repeat over and over again that we have continually raised taxes.
The current millage rate was 8.1.49 mills. Our tax cap is 10.82 mills. We’re at 84% of that tax
cap, 84.8% of that tax cap. We have available to us as established in the 1979 Legislation that
established that cap approximately 2.671 mills and that is an available amount of around $11
million dollars based on our current digest. Let me reiterate there’s been no tax increase in the
county M & O since 2006. Our fund balance as of December 31, 2008 is $13.6 million dollars.
That 13.6 million dollars is about forty days of operational costs. You passed just recently the
bonding available to us through the next SPLOST and that fund balance will go t $23.6 million
dollars as soon as we get that money back in the bank. That gives us 69-days of operational
based on our fund balance. Those two things in my mind speak very highly to what you’ve done
as managers and stewards of the public dollar. We’ve not increased services, we’ve not raised
taxes, we’ve not raided the fund balance. We’ve done things that are prudent, we’ve done things
that are smart and we’ve done things that put us in a fairly enviable position not only in our state
but in our country from an economic standpoint. We’ve not had to lay off a lot of people, we’ve
not had to close a lot of programs. We tighten our belt. We’ve tightened it real tight. We’ve
looked at ways to save money and we’ve done so as best we can. We’ve done away with a few
things that some people might consider frivolous. But you know that’s always something else’s,
somebody else’s program. You know I sympathize with Coach here when I started talking about
doing away with the golf course. It paid my trip to the grocery store, you know it usually lasts
about two hours because I get caught five or six times by people that want to tell me how to do
my job and how to do it better than I’m doing it. I had to increase that by about 45 minutes,
Coach, because now they want me to learn how to play golf because they want to keep the golf
course open. They wanted, people want services, they want them to be cost effective, they
wanted to be efficient and in most cases they don’t want to pay a lot of taxes for those services.
And you all know that as well as anybody because everybody that comes to you like they come
to me said don’t raise my taxes, don’t raise my taxes, don’t raise my taxes and the next thing
they say is oh by the way can you clean up the trash on this road or can you make a road here or
a sidewalk there or do that. There’s not a lot of understanding in the public sometimes about
how things work as far as that goes. What they do need to understand though is that we have,
that you have not raised taxes, you’ve got a decent fund balance and they budget that I’m about
to present to you provides a level of service that’s consistent with what you’re doing today.
When we first started we talked of funds out of balance and some people in the media
immediately said you’ve got an $8.5 million dollar hole. Let me tell you what out of balance
means. Out of balance is the difference between what you think you want and what you think
27
you’re going to get. It doesn’t mean that the city’s in trouble, it doesn’t mean that we’re in
bankruptcy or anything like that. It means that we anticipated expenditures of $8.5 million
dollars are wants higher than what we projected our income. Two things happened there.
There’s some expenditure to can’t control and our income projections have been very, very
conservative. We’ve always done that and that’s why we’re in the shape we’re in and that’s a
good shape to be in. If you look at some of these 5.8 in law enforcement, the port authority
thirty-seven, emergency telephone about 171, housing and community development 379, the
public transit system about 1.7, municipal golf course Coach about $310,000.00. What a budget
is not a document written in stone it’s a plan of operation and you’ve entrusted me in the past
couple of years to go with a plan and keep a very close eye on that plan as we continue to move
forward. And that’s what I would like to do again this year is make sure we’re conservative,
make sure that we’re timely but make sure that we continue to move forward. To approve the
proposed budget initiate they process to increase the sales tax and to make budget plans mid-year
as we’ve done in the past that would give us the opportunity to have six months more data to
deal with instead of making guesses today based on projections on two months ago data. The
th
budget is presented October 20. We had about a $5.8 million dollar hole in law enforcement
and then what we’re looking at now, the next slide would be revenue enhancements that we did
not include in the original cost estimates there. Beer tax not paid to the Coliseum Authority. As
you know in the past we’ve been giving the Coliseum Authority all the beer tax. That’s about
$600,000.00 a year. It’s our estimation that once we paid off the bond for the Coliseum
Authority and do that that beer tax money is back on the table. If you’ll notice in the paper just
today or yesterday there’s articles about how well the Coliseum’s doing. I’m meeting with their
finance people in the next week or two to determine how to help enhance that and how to
continue to move forward with that. But what that means in my mind is the $600,000.00 we can
use in the general fund to help fill some of the issues that we have. Franchise fees. That’s the
fees we get from telephone, the power company, gas company those types of things. We feel
that that’s, we were low in that first projection by about $300,000.00. Sales tax about $200,000
we think we can capture. Delinquent tax collection is the program Steven Kendrick talked about
last week, or was it last week here in Finance, yes. And we believe that that’s going to not raise
anybody’s taxes but make sure that those people that owe taxes are paying, which I believe is a
good thing. In addition to that the Public Defender entered a new defense program that you
approve several months. That’s going to bring us about $325,000.00. In my initial proposal not
only was there a tax increase but there was an increase for a 1.1 mill or about $3.00 or so per
household for arterial lights. With what we’re proposing today that has gone away. We don’t
think we need that or want to talk about that later. So once again the budget I present to you has
no tax increase for the third year in a row. The reductions are there and they’re going to hurt
some people and that’s unfortunate but that’s the reality that we’re facing with. What I’d like to
do with neighborhood enhancement is fund that for six months. Indigent defense court fees,
$40,000.00. That’s where we had money set aside to pay for a lawyer for indigent defense. As
that program has moved forward those dollars are being recaptured in other ways so see a
savings there. Eliminate the funds for, alliance for Fort Gordon. Eliminate Land Bank funding.
That process is moving together fairly well and it’s beginning to get a grasp for itself and we
think we can do that. Summer work temps about $50,000. The Marshall and I have been
working together. We think we can get about $150,000 out of his budget. The EMA budget at
this point in time is a $40,000 savings that we project. One position in probate court about
$30,000 and that’s a vacant position. Reduced code enforcement, demolition program about
28
twenty-five that hurts but I think that’s where we start out and hopefully we’ll be able to replace
some of that. Rescind the hiring freeze as we’re doing now it’s another half million dollars to
the good. Funding for special elections it looks like based on what we learned from the Election
Board we can save about $110,000 there within the next year. I have reduced the fees for the
Regional Planning Agency but state law requires me to pay them at a certain level. We had to
put that back in there. That’s another fine example of the state telling us how to spend our
money. A good program, a good cause but we’re required and mandated to pay that so that’s an
addition forty-two we had to put back. Temporary workers reduce that by 90,000. We think
once again that we’ll have a better feel for this in the very near future. About $650,000 for the
Retirement Incentive Program. Tom’s reduced recreation budget by 163. Reduction in the
general fund contingency of 434 and other managed reductions through the nickels and dimes
that we go forward that pulls us out. What I’d like to do with the public golf course is fund that
for six months, make a decision later on how that works. I know several of you have asked us to
look at a way to privatize that and do that. I think that’s a viable alternative. I was surprised by
the number of phone calls I got, Coach, from people that were doing that so that they could come
in and improve the service, keep it open and make it cost effective for us. I think that’s
something we need to look at. I’d to put on the record I don’t particularly want to close the golf
course I just need the money. If there are other options available I think that that would be a
good way to get that done and that gives us six months to do that. The same thing with
neighborhood enhancement. One of the big things here we want to talk about is money for the
Sheriff’s Department. He’s identified about $500,000.00 in savings that he’s comfortable with.
In addition to that that million dollars can be made up by reduction in the number of people in
jail. As you know it costs us about $41.00 - $50.00 a day to keep people in jail. These numbers
are down to about 300 or so and we see that as a savings over the next six months that would
easily come up with that $500,000.00. The Sheriff and I after many discussions are in agreement
that that is prudent way to budget for this particular point in time. Recreational services we’ve
got to cut out some lights and unfortunately do with that. Fifteen part time employees we’re
going to phase out through attrition. Nobody goes home unless they want to on their own.
We’re going to close the community centers by about an hour earlier. First Friday we’re looking
at that as an issue at 25,000. Seasonal planting reduced. We’re not going to plant as many
flowers in the fall or spring and that’s about 20,000 and come up with Tom’s about $163,670.00.
Can we go back two slides? What we did not talk about on this slide is at the bottom and that’s
furloughs. That’s something that a lot of government’s are doing. The state’s doing it and lots
of local governments are doing that. As we’ve talked at some length that’s not a fix for problems
that’s a Band-Aid and not a good Band-Aid but by proposing that we do that we are, we do free
up enough money at this particular point in time to balance the budget without a tax increase.
Let me suggest that my proposal would be to furlough people four days for a savings of about
$800,000.00. That furlough would include everybody elected officials on down through the line
and that we do that beginning in September. We furlough one day in September, one day in
October, one day in November and one day in December. That gives us six months, seven
months to make up our mind if that’s really the thing to do and let’s us look at the income we
have coming in. It gives us an opportunity to make a decision later on based on better facts and
better numbers on viable that program actually is and whether or not it would be necessary. It
might be necessary to do it four days it might be necessary to do it in two days or three days or
one day. The best-case scenario in my mind it would not be necessary to do it at all. Only a one
percent turn around in the sales tax makes up that money. A few good months in sales tax makes
29
up that difference and I think that’s something we owe not only to our employees but to our
citizens who would get the services those employees provide to look at very judicially. What I
would suggest was that and the savings comes from that would be that we actually close the
facilities. That’s where you get your money from the electric bill or whatever, you figure Friday
and each of those weeks we’ve targeted and close that Friday and deal with that then. And I
think that’s the most prudent way to do that. If you just try to manage the furlough and have
people take all different times you don’t reduce services for that particular day. My great fear is
that we end up not saving any money because you end up either paying overtime or paying
whatever to replace those people and our best bet in my mind my recommendation would be that
we close one day. There’s some additional savings there too. Not only do you save the salary
money but uncaptured in that would be savings due to electricity, gas and the other things that
would come with that normal process there. I think our citizens would quickly understand why
that had happened if necessary that we do that. To recap with what we’ve got here revenue of
$124,379.470 in expenses of $124,379/470 dollars in the general fund. The difference as you see
there is zero. The general fund’s balanced. Other funds, I think part of what we need to do has a
local government is to continue to make sure and I’ve said this over and over again that we have
proper venues for financing our needs and I think that’s something that ya’ll have been bold
enough to do and move forward with that. That penny sales tax, and here’s some examples of
that are up here. That would give us sufficient dollars. It doesn’t end up playing on the, or
praying on the back on the property owners, the shared tax. And I think that deserves some merit
and some consideration. Not only do I think that but um, in our citizens survey that’s been on
the web of the 369 responded that have responded as of 11/17 to the web address 210 say our
current sales rate is appropriate. 103 say it’s insufficient, 56 say it’s excessive. If you at the
questions that were asked do you support an increase in sales tax to fund law enforcement, the
Fire Department, Marshall, 911 yes at 71%, 72% actually. 72.1% and no is 27.9%. So I think
the public recognizes the need, they recognize the opportunity and they recognize the fact that
the services that are provided are the services that they get. And I think that’s important. So I
would suggest and I know that we’re going to be talking about that in the future but I suggest
that you continue to move forward with that plan. We are setting an example for other places in
the state. But my fear is that we need to set it quickly or somebody else will be tapping into that
extra penny as we move forward. Other funds that need to be balanced are the revenue for the
Port Authority. There’s a sufficient fund balance to do that. Fund balance appropriation for the
911, increase revenue for ACD would be through program income or decrease program
expenditures and we’re working on that. Transit’s always a biggie. That’s $1.7, $1.8 million
dollars as we move forward with that. You know every time I’ve attempted to cut that we’ve not
done that. And I think that’s a good decision that y’all have made. I think what we need to
continue to look at though are ways to enhance that revenue. I would suggest that we go back
out as we’ve done with the golf course and I would suggest that we look at a way to privatize
that if at all possible. That’s seems to be more and more the things that being done. Don’t know
if it’s a good idea, don’t know if it’s a bad idea but I think that we need to give that idea some
consideration as we move forward with this process. It’s a hole that we’ve had to fill over and
over again and filling it in on the backs of the riders is not appropriate in my mind. I’m not to
sure that paying for it as a general fund expenditure is appropriate but I find that less egregious
that trying to reduce services or trying to increase fees to cover that. The golf course like I said
looking to privatization looking to a general fund transfer but we would suggest that we do that
for six months and move forward with that. What that does is balance the other funds. What I
30
would ask you to do is consider letting us do this that we, that the budget as presented is
approved that we look at the monthly revenue projections and expenditures as we’ve done in the
past. We in June or July as we had to make the call that we increase or decrease or maintain or
act as they are I’m comfortable that we’re going to be okay with that. You know I don’t have a
crystal ball but if you look at the way the economy seems to be going if you look at the way
things seem to be happening a few good months in our sales tax and a lot of our issues go away.
Six months collection on that penny and a lot of our issues goes away and I think that’s what we
need to continue to work on as a group. I think that’s what we need to continue to put forward as
we chart our own destiny. You’ve entrusted me over the past four years, six years I guess to
manage the budget and do it well. With your direction and the staff we’ve got we’ve been able
to do that a lot better than most other places. I would ask you for that continued trust and
continue the ability to manage the budget as we go forward. There are some reclassifications in
there. What I’d like to do is bring those back. The budget numbers are set but bring those back
through Administrative Services as we’ve done in the past. I think that’s appropriate as you look
at that. And I think we continue to manage it as best we can. Those are the things we need to do
in my mind and those are the opportunities we have. I’d be happy to try and answer any
questions. I’m not to sure it’s going to get any better than this Ladies and Gentlemen. The staff
has done a great job in trying to put this together and I appreciate your attention. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Fred, just prior to going to the Commissioners I’d like to make a comment.
Really I would say given the state of the national economy to see a local government to be able
to go three straight years without increasing the millage rate and no big cut to essential services
is a pretty amazing thing. So I’d like to just thank you and your staff your hard work on this.
But with that I will turn it over to any Commissioners. Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Again, Fred, I do commend you for what you
have done here. In regards to privatizing I know it’s been talks about that in regards to transit as
well as the golf course. And I will say I’m not specially for privatizing. Because when you get
into just starting to privatizing everything it becomes a trend and the government gets out of it.
But I will say what we’ve done with the James Brown Arena have worked and it’s, I mean we’ve
had a great amount of success in a years time. And there is an article in today’s paper talking
about that. But um, it may be something in some aspect that we do need to look into and so I
think if we can maybe get some feedback on that at some point we can do that. And as far as the
one-cent sales tax I am inclined to support that without having to raise the millage rate, okay? I
think that is a shared tax or something that we can look at applying overall if we’re going to have
to do that at some point I truly feel we will based on the economy. And one of the questions I
had I saw you had on there four days of furlough.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Johnson: How did you come up with four days and why didn’t you just say five days
a week?
Mr. Russell: What I was looking at initially is one day a quarter and that gave me the
amount of money that I was looking for, about $800,000.00. And then after some thought I
decided instead of furloughing one day a quarter the best bet would be to furlough late in the
31
year. I mean my feeling is at that point we would know, it would give people the time to prepare
for that because that’s a substantial cut to their pay on that particular week. But what it would
also do is give us an opportunity to look at where we are in June and July to determine whether
or not we need to do that. So it’s driven by the dollar amount about $800,000. It’s also driven
by some compassion to make sure we don’t send somebody home in the first quarter and then
have that turn around that I talked about and discover that we didn’t need to do that. So that’s
the process that we used to get to that number.
Mr. Johnson: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: And just um, Commissioner Grantham, I’ll come to you next. But I did
want to because I get questions in public with regards to the potential for the Municipal Option
Sales Tax, one-cent sales tax. That is something to educate the public that we have to have
approved by the state legislature in Atlanta through our delegation and it would have to go to a
vote of the people. Fred, you referenced the budget survey. I think that that’s something, a great
new tool that this city has and will continue to promote that and get input from the citizens. But
as you referenced 72% of the people that responded to the survey were in favor of that option at
this point moving forward. Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think one of the points Mr. Russell made was
very good and clear and that is that in balancing the budget he did go and use some form of
furlough that we have seen take place in other governments whether it be state level or our Board
of Education or others. And I do feel like that they have taken a very careful way of doing a
potential furlough for the future. That gives us an opportunity to continue to work toward the
goal that we need to have in balancing our budget. But I think what it does is it clears the
perception for our constituencies that we are looking at furloughs and that we are looking at
doing things in a way that the other governments are doing and in a way that we are treating our
people fairly. We’re giving this a six-month trial basis before that ever goes into effect and I
think based on that it may give our employees an incentive to work, produce and do a better job
for us in that area. Not that they’re not doing a good job but I think when it says if I work a little
bit harder I may not have to have that furlough. And so I want to compliment you on doing that
and your finance staff and the way they provided that. We had some head knocking on it we
discussed it and talked about it but I just feel like it was important to bring this us so that the
general public will know that we’re looking at it in the same lights of other governments.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I would like to commend you as well, Fred,
and the staff, the Finance staff and everyone who’s taken a part of this. I think we’re getting
there. I don’t think we’re there yet but I do think we’re getting to that point. I think those
furloughs unfortunate as they are I think they are something we must look at in the overall
scheme of things. Now the question is how realistic is the fact that if you’re banking on this one-
cent sales tax to go through, obviously we know that we cannot approve that up here as from this
Commission. But have you had any dialog from anyone from the state or anyone period in
reference to how realistic this could be as we move forward.
32
Mr. Russell: Let me clear up one thing. The budget’s balanced without that one-cent
sales tax, okay? I’m looking at that as a potential that would relieve some of the pressure in this
coming year but it’s balanced without that. I’m not depending on that to make it work, okay?
What we had is some conversation with several, with at least one legislator. We’ve had some
interest in that. In other localities as you know through the municipal association or whatever
we’re getting to press those issues very, very heavily. I think you know if we have or bold
enough to get it on the table I think you’ll find a lot of people that will join us in looking at that.
There’s localities throughout the state that are a whole lot worse off than we are and are looking
for some way to continue to do that. You know I think we can be on the cutting edge. This year
the budget balanced without that but it would sure make life easier if we could do that in moving
forward.
Mr. Mason: If I could follow up, Mr. Mayor. I saw in there, well, I don’t have it in front
of me now but I think I saw somewhere where it showed $600,000.00 in the Beer Tax that we’ve
been talking about for quite some time that’ll come available in February. Is this the same
dollar’s that’s been thrown around in reference to maybe Laney Walker or maybe the TEE
Center? I mean haven’t we been throwing the $600,000.00 figure around a couple of times.
Mr. Russell: About 2.4 million dollars total in that particular fund that goes towards from
the hotel/motel tax that has gone towards payment of the bonds and additional dollars for the
Civic Center. That’s six hundred of that. We haven’t talked about the 1.8 that’s left that’s
actually paying for the bonds at about $800,000 and then the additional dollars there. So that’s
money that we can move to the general fund. The additional dollars are monies that are specified
specifically for entertainment or district kind of things so we can’t touch that without having a
fund for specific, i.e. the TEE Center would qualify or additional bonding for the Civic Center if
that’s the route we end up going. But those dollars are designated. That $600,000 is one that we
can use for the general fund.
Mr. Mason: Okay so, just so I’m clear. That’s not the same dollars that you had
referenced before in terms of the TEE Center, in terms of a funding mechanism for Laney
Walker or in terms of parking decks or any of that.
Mr. Russell: That’s six hundred for beer that had gone to the general operation of the
Civic Center that we don’t need to give them.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney, then Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Hatney: I’m listening to what you said about the beer tax and I think you said 2.5 all
together.
Mr. Russell: Two point four.
Mr. Hatney: Two point four and you’re talking about six hundred and you said the use
this that and the other but you’re saying it cannot be used to enhance the repayment of bonding
for the Laney Walker.
33
Mr. Russell: It can be put into the general fund and we can use it for whatever the
general fund you wanted to use it for. So, yes, you could do that if that’s the decision you make,
yes.
Mr. Hatney: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay and before I get to Commissioner Brigham I just want to put in a plug.
I think I’m in favor of going ahead. And I think getting this approved today just as Mr. Russell
mentioned he doesn’t think it’s going to get much better than this. I still, not tax increase no cut
to essential services is a pretty good dog gone budget. They put a lot of work into this.
Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: First off, Fred, you and your staff need to be commended. Y’all have
done an excellent job.
Mr. Russell: (unintelligible) cut my throat but go ahead.
Mr. Brigham: Yeah, I’m fixing to cut your throat.
Mr. Russell: I figured you would. I just thought I’d take an aggressive voice.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s not get so violent in our references.
Mr. Brigham: I understand there’s two new positions in this budget.
Mr. Russell: Yes.
Mr. Brigham: And you said something about some reclassifications?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Brigham: Can you give me an approximate number of positions that are going to be
reclassified?
Mr. Russell: Well, not off the top of my head but what the deal was with the departments
was that we would bring those back into through the Administrative Services. But the numbers
would involve savings involved. So if you had “x” number of dollars in your personnel item you
could reclassify those positions, give me those savings and you would have another bite at the
apple as they move forward. The two positions that we have there are one for the Law
Department and one for Steven’s program. The number that we saw, the tax collection program
the numbers, the gross numbers we saw were netted out from those positions. The position
would be paid for with the numbers brought in through this new program and the number you
saw was actually after the position had been netted out.
Mr. Brigham: Okay, the other question I have I noticed we’re still continuing to do some
programs that probably should be looked at very hard. Also I know that we have reduced the
34
indigent care money that we have spent in this community on indigent care funds. I am
concerned that while I know like everybody is suffering I also know that the indigent care is
reached a point they are growing in services and that we should really look hard at finding some
dollars by reprogramming some other funds to look at a way to augment these times when people
are using the public facilities for health care and are not going to private patient, pay patients
because they don’t have the money to do it. And I think we need to look at that very hard. And I
am not in favor of adopting a budget until we have an opportunity to do that.
Mr. Russell: As you know and as the staff just reminded we reduced those funds by 15%
which I think is a prudent thing to do. But at 15% once again buys us time to be able to look at
that. I agree with you fully that those particular sources need to be looked at very quickly and
then dealt with. But that gives us the time to do that. We’ve got, if we reduce it 15% of their
expenditure we’re able to look at that and whatever gain we’ve got you would have the ability to
allocate those resources you felt appropriate. That gets us that gets us started in the starting gate.
Obviously as each of you know it’s not written in stone it’s a living document and as we know
we can continue to modify it and meet our needs as best we can or and move forward with that.
So I mean that’s, I don’t have a solution for your question today. I might have one in two
months I might have one in six months. But I don’t know how to get there unless you want to
give me what you don’t want to have and we can move forward with that.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Russell, while you might have an answer in six months those people
are going to cut their budgets today. The services are going to stop being rendered today and
because we’re giving them a figure that’s not six months out. We’re giving them a figure that
starts January first.
Mr. Russell: I think if they pay attention to what I’m saying that they need to be
cognizant of that that if things stay the same that’s where they’re at. But if things get better
there’s always a potential for more and if they listen closely I think they can figure that out. And
once again I think the things you pointed out are things that are worthy of funding. But without a
tax increase, without reduction of other things it’s hard to get there.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Grantham:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. With the information that we received today
I’ll make a motion that we receive it as information and that we have further dialog with
our Administrator and bring it back at our next Commission meeting for approval.
Mr. Hatney: Second.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, that would be a ---
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: --- proper motion at this point. What you need to do is just this meeting
needs to be recessed. It needs to be, whatever that word is.
35
The Clerk: Yeah, recessed and then we just continue discussion ---
Mr. Russell: It needs to be ---
Mr. Grantham: Continue discussion ---
Mr. Mayor: Madam Attorney, just ---
Mr. Grantham: I included that. I said receive as information and go forward we
continued discussion.
The Clerk: Discussion right, right.
Mr. Russell: And as some of you know the public might not know based on the local
ordinance, based on the local ordinance we have to have this budget today. That’s why it’s
presented today. We can’t leave this meeting as is without having an adopted budget. So what
we would have to do is continue this meeting until some other time appropriate which would
probably be just prior to the next Commission meeting, re-adjourn this meeting, vote on the
budget and move forward with that. So that gives us time to continue the dialog but it doesn’t
violate the ordinance that we passed.
Mr. Grantham: You’ve worded it so eloquently.
Mr. Russell: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, just for clarification, Madam Attorney, are we proceeding in proper
fashion?
Ms. Johnson: Actually we’re going to have a motion to recess the meeting not to
adjourn. We’re going to recess it and come back.
Mr. Grantham: So moved.
Mr. Hatney: Second.
The Clerk: Are we going to have a Legal meeting?
Mr. Mayor: She had, we need a Legal meeting as well.
The Clerk: And then after we come back from the Legal meeting ---
Mr. Mayor: Then we’ll recess it.
The Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Grantham: (Unintelligible).
36
The Clerk: A minute ago I couldn’t get you to vote now you want to vote to
(unintelligible).
Mr. Grantham: I want to get out of here.
Mr. Mayor: So can we, I’m just trying to get this clear in my head. Do we take any
action on agenda item #27?
Ms. Johnson: Just receive it as information.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second to receive it as information. If there’s
no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: And ---
Mr. Russell: Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen, I appreciate it.
Mr. Mayor: --- Madam Attorney, I believe you had requested a Legal meeting.
Ms. Johnson: Yes for pending and potential litigation and personnel, please.
LEGAL MEETING
A. Pending and Potential Litigation.
B. Real Estate.
C. Personnel.
ADDENDUM
29. Motion to approve going into a Legal Meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Can I get a motion to go into Legal Session ---
Ms. Beard: So moved.
Mr. Mayor: --- for those reasons?
Mr. Hatney: So moved.
The Clerk: She moved.
Mr. Hatney: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign of voting.
37
Mr. Bowles and Mr. Jackson vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
[LEGAL MEETING]
Mr. Mayor: Ready, Madam Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay I’ll go ahead and call the meeting back to order.
31. Motion to authorize execution by the Mayor of the affidavit of compliance with
Georgia’s Open Meeting Act.
Mr. Hatney: So moved.
Mr. Jackson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign.
Ms. Beard, Mr. Bowles and Mr. Holland out.
Motion carries 7-0.
ADDENDUM
30. Motion to approve recessing the Commission meeting and reconvening at 1:30 on
Tuesday, December 1, 2009.
Mr. Hatney: So moved.
Mr. Jackson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Next full Commission meeting, correct?
Next full Commission meeting.
st
The Clerk: December 1.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, the motion is to recess the meeting until 1:30 on December 1, 2009
prior to the next full Commission meeting. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Ms. Beard, Mr. Holland and Mr. Bowles out.
Motion carries 7-0.
[MEETING RECESSED]
38
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy
of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on
November 17, 2009.
________________________
Clerk of Commission
39
40