HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-02-07 Meeting AgendaCommission Meeting Agenda
Commission Chamber
2/7/2017
2:00 PM
INVOCATION:Dr. Jody Alderman, Pastor St. John United Methodist Church.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
RECOGNITION(S)
Employee of the Month
A. Congratulations! Ms. Tiffiny T. Robinson, Augusta Utilities Customer
Services Division, Augusta, GA February 2017 Employee of the Month.
Attachments
Five (5) minute time limit per delegation
DELEGATIONS
B.Ms. Rebecca Rogers and Mr. Dayton Sherrouse Augusta Canal
Authority. RE: Update on community effort to prevent destruction and
find new purpose for the historic "Mother Trinity CME Church
Building" at 8th & Taylor Streets.
Attachments
CONSENT AGENDA
(Items 1-25)
PUBLIC SERVICES
1.Motion to approve New Location: A.N. 17-2: request by Dwayne
Pearson for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine License
to be used in connection with Ikonz Sportsbar & Grill, LLC located at
1515 North Leg Road. There will be Dance. District5. Super District
9. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 31, 2017)
Attachments
2.Motion to approve New Ownership Application: A.N. 17-3: request Attachments
by Hyeong Soon Jin for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used
in connection with EZQ Food Store located at 2160 Martin Luther King
Blvd. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee January 31, 2017)
3.Motion to approve Amendment #1 to Cooperative Agreement FY2017
with CSRA Regional Commission for Senior Nutrition Services for
Augusta, GA.(Approved by Public Services Committee January 31,
2017)
Attachments
4.Motion to approve the transfer and acceptance of Bus Shelters from the
Jacksonville Transit Authority and the funds to ship them from
Jacksonville, Florida to Augusta, Georgia. (Approved by Public
Services Committee January 31, 2017)
Attachments
5.Motion to approve Infield Mix Soils for the Recreation and Parks
Department. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 31,
2017)
Attachments
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
6.Motion to approve a request for the replacement of 3 Ford Rangers with
the purchase 3 - F- 150’s, with CNG/LPG engine prep package, for
Environmental Services Department. (Bid Item 16-235) (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee January 31, 2017)
Attachments
7.Motion to approve a request from the Utilities Department to replace a
2001 Ford F-350 used in support of the Fort Gordon contract from Allan
Vigil Ford for $48,145.00. (Bid Item 16-190) (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee January 31, 2017)
Attachments
8.Motion to approve appointing a subcommittee composed of Mr. Hasan,
Chairman, Mr. Guilfoyle, Mr. M. Williams and Mr. Jefferson to
evaluate some cost savings with the current fleet contract. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee January 31, 2017)
Attachments
9.Motion to approve Housing and Community Development Department’s
contract procedure relative to authorization of
agreements/contracts/HUD forms for the various federal programs
administered by the Department for program/calendar year 2017.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee January 31, 2017)
Attachments
PUBLIC SAFETY
10.Motion to approve the allocation of funding for the Richmond County
Sheriff's Office (RCSO) in the amount of $103,378.71 to implement the
Governor’s Office of Highway Safety Heat Grant. (Approved by Public
Safety Committee January 31, 2017)
Attachments
11.Motion to approve the purchase of video recorder storage devices for
the Jail. (Approved by Public Safety Committee January 31,2017)
Attachments
12.Motion to approve the Extension of the Emergency Notification System
with West Communication Inc. d/b/a Twenty First Century
Communication, now known as West Interactive Services Corporation,
for a period of three months. (Approved by Public Safety Committee
January 31, 2017)
Attachments
13.Motion to approve the purchase for Richmond County Sheriff's Office
(RCSO) in the amount of $29,461.60 to purchase a security gate for the
Charles B. Webster Detention Center. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee January 31, 2017)
Attachments
FINANCE
14.Motion to approve 2017-21 Capital Improvements Plan. (Approved by
Finance Committee January 31, 2017)
Attachments
ENGINEERING SERVICES
15.Motion to authorize condemnation to acquire title of a portion of
property for permanent easement, temporary easement, and one
temporary driveway easement (Parcel 025-2-109-00-0) - 2702 Ingleside
Drive. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 31,
2017)
Attachments
16.Motion to approve Change Order for Construction Services for Augusta
Canal Embankment Repair Project. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee January 31, 2017)
Attachments
17.Motion to approve award of Construction Contract to Reeves
Construction Company in the amount of $4,351,872.58 for Dover-
Lyman Rehabilitation Project as requested by AED. Award is contingent
upon receipt of signed contracts and proper bonds. (Bid Item 16-223)
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 31, 2017)
Attachments
18.Motion to approve funding for the Design Consultant Services
Supplemental Agreement Five to Hussey Gay Bell in the amount of
$272,910.00 for the Marvin Griffin Road Improvements Project as
requested by the AED. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee January 31, 2017)
Attachments
19.Motion to approve of Change Order #1 for Construction Services for
Renovation of 452 Walker Street. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee January 31, 2017)
Attachments
20.Motion to approve and authorize entering into a contract with Georgia
Power in the amount of $1,025,000 for street light upgrades along city
maintained roadway section of Gordon Highway. Funding is available
for the project in Engineering SPLOST VI as requested by AED.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 31, 2017)
Attachments
21.Motion to approve Change Order for Construction Services for the
Windsor Spring Road Sanitary Sewer Extension Project. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee January 31, 2017)
Attachments
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
22.Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the
Commission held January 17th and Special Called meeting held
January 31, 2017.
Attachments
APPOINTMENT(S)
23.Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. James O'Neal to the
Augusta Planning Commission effective April 1, 2017 representing
District 1.
Attachments
24.Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Steve Sanders. to the
Augusta Public Library Board of Trustees representing District 3.
Attachments
25.Motion to approve the appointment of Ms. Beverly Tarver to the
Augusta Public Library Board of Trustees representing District 9.
Attachments
****END CONSENT AGENDA****
AUGUSTA COMMISSION
2/7/2017
AUGUSTA COMMISSION
REGULAR AGENDA
2/7/2017
(Items 26-33)
PUBLIC SERVICES
26.Update from staff regarding keys to the Jamestown Community Center
for Commissioners. (No recommendation from Public Services
Committee January 31, 2017)
Attachments
27. TA-07 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Georgia Planning
Commission to approve a petition to approve the updated Tree
Ordinance for Augusta, Georgia. (No recommendation from Public
Services Committee January 31, 2017)
Attachments
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Upcoming Meetings
www.augustaga.gov
28.Presentation/update from the Compliance Director regarding initiatives
relating to the city's DBE & ADA Programs.
Attachments
PUBLIC SAFETY
29.Discuss Gold Cross Ambulance Contract. (No recommendation from
Public Safety Committee January 31, 2017)
Attachments
30.Discuss Probation Services Department. (Requested by Commissioner
Ben Hasan)
Attachments
FINANCE
31.Motion to approve a request for $25,000 for MACH Academy to
support the services they provide to our community youth. (No
recommendation from Finance Committee January 31, 2017)
Attachments
APPOINTMENT(S)
32.Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Bill Hollingsworth to the
Economic Development Authority to replace Mr. Michael Schepis.
(Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Mary Davis and Commissioner
Grady Smith)
Attachments
LEGAL MEETING
A. Pending and Potential Litigation.
B. Real Estate.
C. Personnel.
33.Motion to approve execution by the Mayor of the affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meeting Act.
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
Invocation
Department:
Department:
Caption:Dr. Jody Alderman, Pastor St. John United Methodist Church.
Background:
Analysis:
Financial Impact:
Alternatives:
Recommendation:
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Cover Memo
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
Employee of the Month
Department:
Department:
Caption: Congratulations! Ms. Tiffiny T. Robinson, Augusta Utilities
Customer Services Division, Augusta, GA February 2017
Employee of the Month.
Background:
Analysis:
Financial Impact:
Alternatives:
Recommendation:
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Cover Memo
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
Save "Mother Trinity" Church Initiative
Department:
Department:
Caption:Ms. Rebecca Rogers and Mr. Dayton Sherrouse Augusta Canal
Authority. RE: Update on community effort to prevent
destruction and find new purpose for the historic "Mother
Trinity CME Church Building" at 8th & Taylor Streets.
Background:
Analysis:
Financial Impact:
Alternatives:
Recommendation:
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Cover Memo
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
Alcohol Application
Department:Planning & Development
Department:Planning & Development
Caption:Motion to approve New Location: A.N. 17-2: request by
Dwayne Pearson for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer &
Wine License to be used in connection with Ikonz Sportsbar &
Grill, LLC located at 1515 North Leg Road. There will be
Dance. District5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee January 31, 2017)
Background:This is a New Location.
Analysis:The applicant meets the requirements of the City of Augusta's
Alcohol Ordinance.
Financial Impact:The applicant will pay a fee of $4,505.00.
Alternatives:
Recommendation:The Planning & Development recommend approval. The R.C.S.O.
recommend approval.
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Law
Administrator
Clerk of Commission
Cover Memo
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
Alcohol Application
Department:Planning & Development
Department:Planning & Development
Caption:Motion to approve New Ownership Application: A.N. 17-3:
request by Hyeong Soon Jin for a retail package Beer & Wine
license to be used in connection with EZQ Food Store located at
2160 Martin Luther King Blvd. District 2. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee January 31, 2017)
Background:This is a New Ownership Application. Formerly in the name of
Nancy Pak.
Analysis:The applicant meets the requirements of the City of Augusta's
Alcohol Ordinance.
Financial Impact:The applicant will pay a fee of $1,330.00.
Alternatives:
Recommendation:The Planning & Development recommend approval. The R.C.S.O.
recommend approval.
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Law
Administrator
Clerk of Commission
Cover Memo
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
Amendment #1 to Cooperative Agreement FY2017
Department:Recreation and Parks Department
Department:Recreation and Parks Department
Caption:Motion to approve Amendment #1 to Cooperative Agreement
FY2017 with CSRA Regional Commission for Senior Nutrition
Services for Augusta, GA.(Approved by Public Services
Committee January 31, 2017)
Background:The Augusta Recreation, Parks and Facilities Department operates
six senior nutrition sites throughout the county through a
partnership with the CSRA Regional Commission which provides
state and federal grant funds to provide meals to Senior Citizens
including the home delivery program.
Analysis:The amendment provides an additional $50,451 for Augusta,
Georgia.
Financial Impact:Augusta’s match will decrease $1,111 for FY 2017.
Alternatives:1. To approve Amendment #1 to Cooperative Agreement FY2017
with CSRA Regional Commission for Senior Nutrition Services
for Augusta, GA. 2. To deny, this would result in forfeiting grant
funds and possibly terminating the program.
Recommendation:To approve Amendment #1 to Cooperative Agreement FY2017
with CSRA Regional Commission for Senior Nutrition Services
for Augusta, GA
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
220054322
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:Cover Memo
Finance.
Law.
Administrator.
Clerk of Commission
Cover Memo
FROM:
DATE:
TO:
REF:
CSRA REGIONAL COMMISSION
3626Walton Way Ext., Ste.300
Augusta, Georgia 30909
Andv Crosson. Executive Director. CSRA RC
September 1.2016
Amendment #1 to Cooperative Agreement FY 2O{L
Contract Amendments: Changes in this contract, including any increase or decrease
in the amount of the Subgrantee's compensation, shall be incorporated in written
amendments to this contract. Amendments to this contract may be executed on
behalf of CSRA RC only by the CSRA RC's Executive Director.
This amendment transmits the following contract amendment on the contract
referenced above:
FUND CURRENT AMOUNT OF REVISEDSOURCE BUDGET CHANGE (+/-) BUDGET
Title III Cl
Local Match
CBS - HCBS
Home-delivered
AoA NSI
Home-Delvd
NSI - State
Home-Delvd
NSI - SSBG
Home-Delvd
$ 167,981
18,665
-0-
30,908
97,616
40,787
(10,000)
(1,111)
50,723
-0-
13,167
(2,328)
$ 157,981
17,554
50,723
30,908
110,783
38,459
Total $ 355.957 50.451 $406.408
CSRA Regional Commission Augusta, Georgia, a political sub-division of
3626 Walton Way Ext., Ste. 300 the State of Georgia
Augusta, Georgia 30909 530 Greene St.
Augusta, Georgia 30901
Title: Executive Director By:
Date:Title:
By:
Date
Amendments- Cooperative Agreement FY 2017
A*os
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
APT - JTA BUS SHELTERS
Department:Augusta Public Transit
Department:Augusta Public Transit
Caption:Motion to approve the transfer and acceptance of Bus Shelters
from the Jacksonville Transit Authority and the funds to ship them
from Jacksonville, Florida to Augusta, Georgia. (Approved by
Public Services Committee January 31, 2017)
Background:On January 19, 2017, the Jacksonville Transit Authority (JTA)
Board of Trustees approved the transfer of approximately 100
transit bus shelters to Augusta, Georgia for reuse by the Transit
Department.
Jacksonville is installing a new shelter design and removing these
from service. The shelters are in overall good shape and have
useful life remaining.
However, Augusta would be responsible for the cost of shipping
them to this location. The Transit Department has obtained quotes
from companies that are willing to ship them to us. The lowest
cost would be $2,600.00 per truckload of ten shelters. The cost
includes the packing, crating, loading, and shipping to Augusta.
This equates to an average cost of approximately $260.00 per
shelter. This would result in a cost of approximately $26,000.00
for up to 100 shelters.
Analysis:The City of Augusta has more than 600 bus stops throughout the
area with approximately 180 of them equipped with passenger
shelters. These shelters are approximately 16 years old. According
to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the average useful
life of a transit shelter for grant purposes is 10 years. The primary
purpose of bus shelters is to provide convenient locations for the
citizens of Augusta and visitors to the area when using the transit
system. Besides a comfortable place to sit, shelters can provide at
least minimal relief from adverse weather elements while waiting
Cover Memo
on their bus to arrive. However, placing a shelter at every location
can be costly. Most transit agencies use a productivity measure to
determine which stop locations warrant the installation of a
shelter. These standards are usually based on how many
passengers get on and off at a particular location each day. Most
use a figure of 25 to 40 passengers per day. The transit department
is getting more and more calls requesting more shelters. Transit is
working on developing a standard for Augusta pending the final
the results of the Comprehensive Operational Analysis study that
is in progress which are a few months away. The cost to purchase
and install a very basic shelter is approximately $6,500.00 each.
This price does not include concrete pads that may be necessary.
The decision to accept these shelters from Jacksonville will
increase the number of shelters that can be used to nearly 300 and
would save approximately $650,000.00 when compared to the
purchase cost of new shelters. The Transit Department is planning
to refurbish the existing shelters as well as those from
Jacksonville. This would bring all shelters to a like new state. It
would extend the life of the shelters by approximately 8 to 10
years.
Financial Impact:Funding for the transport to Augusta will be provided using
SPLOST Phase 7 allocated for Bus Shelters.
Alternatives:The alternative would be to decline acceptance of the shelters
from Jacksonville.
Recommendation:Approve the transfer and acceptance of Bus Shelters from the
Jacksonville Transit Authority and the funds to ship them from
Jacksonville, Florida to Augusta, Georgia.
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
GL 329-09-1110 JL 216091002
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Finance.
Procurement.
Law.
Administrator.
Clerk of Commission
Cover Memo
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
Athletic Infield Soils Purchase
Department:Recreation and Parks Department
Department:Recreation and Parks Department
Caption:Motion to approve Infield Mix Soils for the Recreation and Parks
Department. (Approved by Public Services Committee January
31, 2017)
Background:The Recreation and Parks Department is performing a variety of
improvements to parks to better serve our customers. Customers
have complained about athletic fields which do not drain well,
have small pebbles, and/or are “too hard”. All of these conditions
stem from purchasing lower quality soils not designed for use on
infields. Two fields were successfully completed in summer, 2016
at Diamond Lakes Regional Park, with very positive results and
customer reviews to date.
Analysis:Parks staff visited several facilities and contacted numerous
potential suppliers to review alternatives prior to making any
purchases. This project seeks to complete the addition of soil to
seven additional fields at Diamond Lakes. Due to these fields
never having been laser graded since their construction in 1999,
fields require a substantial amount of additional soils, as soils have
eroded, been blown away by wind, etc. over time.
Financial Impact:Cost of this project is $30,000.00. This yields approximately 822
tons of infield mix, at $36.50/ton delivered to the site.
Alternatives:The alternative to performing this work and purchasing this
material is to leave athletic fields in their current condition, or
continue to use lower quality infield soils which do not drain as
well, have rocks or other debris, etc., resulting in higher
maintenance and operations costs and lower customer service
levels.
Recommendation:Purchase soils as recommended by Staff.Cover Memo
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
272061474 5223114
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Finance.
Law.
Administrator.
Clerk of Commission
Cover Memo
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
2016 - Environmental Service Trucks
Department:Central Services Department - Fleet Management Division
Department:Central Services Department - Fleet Management Division
Caption:Motion to approve a request for the replacement of 3 Ford
Rangers with the purchase 3 - F- 150’s, with CNG/LPG engine
prep package, for Environmental Services Department. (Bid Item
16-235) (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
January 31, 2017)
Background:Environmental Services Department would like to replace 3- 2009
Ford Rangers which cannot be used at the facility due to the most
recent Takata airbag recall. The replacement inflators are currently
not available and no time line has been published as to when the
inflators will be available. Since these trucks are “crew” type
trucks (2-passenger) they must be parked. The requested F-150’s
will replace the following assets: 209090, 209091 and 209092.
Analysis:Fleet Management submitted a request for bids through the
Procurement Department utilizing the Demand Star electronic bid
system which offers nationwide bid coverage. The Procurement
Department received quotes back from four vendors with the
following results for bid 16-235: Allan Vigil (Morrow, GA) @
$30,041.00, Fairway Ford (Columbia County, GA) @ $31,431.00,
Langsdale Chevrolet (Moultrie, GA) non-compliant and Master
Buick, GMC (Aiken, SC) non-compliant. Neither Langsdale
Chevrolet or Master Buick, GMC provided the pricing for the
requested CNG/LLPG Engine Prep Package.
Financial Impact:The three trucks will be purchased at $30,041.00 each for a total
of $90,123.00 with Environmental Services capital outlay
Alternatives:1.) approve the request, 2) do not approve the request
Recommendation:Approve the request to replace the 3 for Rangers with the purchase
of 3 – F-150s and sell the replaced trucks at auction.Cover Memo
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
Environmental Services Capital Outlay
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Finance.
Procurement.
Law.
Administrator.
Clerk of Commission
Cover Memo
Invitation to Bid
Sealed bids will be received at this office until Friday, September 23, 2016 @ 11:00 a.m. for furnishing:
Bid Item #16-235 6,000 GVW Series Pickup Truck – Augusta Central Services Department – Fleet Management
Bids will be received by Augusta, GA Commission hereinafter referred to as the OWNER at the offices of:
Geri A. Sams, Director
Augusta Procurement Department
535 Telfair Street - Room 605
Augusta, Georgia 30901
Bid documents may be viewed on the Augusta, Georgia web site under the Procurement Department ARCbid. Bid documents
may be obtained at the office of the Augusta, GA Procurement Department, 535 Telfair Street – Room 605, Augusta, GA 30901.
Documents may be examined during regular business hours at the offices of Augusta, GA Procurement Department.
All questions must be submitted in writing by fax to 706 821-2811 or by email to procbidandcontract@augustaga.gov to the office
of the Procurement Department by Friday, September 9, 2016 @ 5:00 P.M. No bid will be accepted by fax, all must be received
by mail or hand delivered.
No bids may be withdrawn for a period of sixty (60) days after bids have been opened, pending the execution of contract with the
successful bidder.
The local bidder preference program is applicable to this project. To be approved as a local bidder and receive bid preference an
eligible bidder must submit a completed and signed written application to become a local bidder at least thirty (30) days prior to
the date bids are received on an eligible local project. An eligible bidder who fails to submit an application for approval as a local
bidder at least thirty (30) days prior to the date bids are received on an eligible local project, and who otherwise meets the
requirements for approval as a local bidder, will not be qualified for a bid preference on such eligible local project.
Invitation for bids and specifications. An invitation for bids shall be issued by the Procurement Office and shall include specifications
prepared in accordance with Article 4 (Product Specifications), and all contractual terms and conditions, applicable to the
procurement. All specific requirements contained in the invitation to bid including, but not limited to, the number of copies
needed, the timing of the submission, the required financial data, and any other requirements designated by the Procurement
Department are considered material conditions of the bid which are not waiveable or modifiable by the Procurement Director.
All requests to waive or modify any such material condition shall be submitted through the Procurement Director to the appropriate
committee of the Augusta, Georgia Commission for approval by the Augusta, Georgia Commission. Please mark BID number on the
outside of the envelope.
Bidders are cautioned that acquisition of BID documents through any source other than the office of the Procurement
Department is not advisable. Acquisition of BID documents from unauthorized sources placed the bidder at the risk of
receiving incomplete or inaccurate information upon which to base his qualifications.
Correspondence must be submitted via mail, fax or email as follows:
Augusta Procurement Department
Attn: Geri A. Sams, Director of Procurement
535 Telfair Street, Room 605
Augusta, GA 30901
Fax: 706-821-2811 or Email: procbidandcontract@augustaga.gov
No bid will be accepted by fax, all must be received by mail or hand delivered.
GERI A. SAMS, Procurement Director
Publish:
Augusta Chronicle August 18, 25, September 1, 8, 2016
Metro Courier August 24, 2016
OFFICIAL
Vendors
ALLAN VIGIL FORD
6790 MT. ZION BLVD
MORROW, GA 30260
FAIRWAY FORD OF
AUGUSTA
4333 WASHINGTON RD
EVANS, GA 30809
LANGDALE CHEVOLET
P. O. BOX 770
SYLVESTER, GA 31791
MASTER BUICK GMC
3710 WASHINGTON RD
AUGUSTA, GA 30907
Attachment B Yes YES Yes Yes
E-Verify Number 94460 689687 523776 KROS8437/
665555
SAVE Form Yes YES Yes Yes
5.01 Fullsize Truck, Rg
Cab
2 wheel drive
$19,566.00 $19,770.00 $19,705.00 $25,100.00
5.02 Fullsize Truck, Rg
Cab
4 wheel drive
$20,898.00 $22,470.00 $22,626.00 $28,776.00
5.03 Fullsize Truck, Ext
Cab
2 wheel drive
$20,698.00 $20,839.00 $22,328.00 $27,784.00
5.04 Fullsize Truck, Ext
Cab
4 wheel drive
$23,584.00 $23,862.00 $25,486.00 $31,466.00
5.05 Fullsize Truck, Ext
Cab
2 wheel drive, 8 cyl
$21,884.00 $22,070.00 $23,380.00 $28,836.00
5.06 Fullsize Truck, Ext
Cab
4 wheels door, 8 cyl
$24,891.00 $25,094.00 $26,538.00 $32,518.00
5.07 Fullsize Truck, Crew
Cab
2 wheel drive
$23,997.00 $25,038.00 CC15743/
No Bid $33,228.00
5.08 Fullsize Truck, Crew
Cab
4 wheel drive
$27,094.00 $27,335.00 $29,078.00 $36,142.00
5.09 Speed control/tilt
steering $215.00 $207.00 Standard n/a
5.10 Skid Plate package
(4x4)$150.00 $148.00 $106.00 $295.00
Bid #16-235
6,000 GVW Series Pickup Truck
for Augusta, Georgia - Central Services Department-
Fleet Management Division
Bid Opening Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 @ 11:00 a.m.
Total Number Specifications Mailed Out: 20
Total Number Specifications Download (Demandstar): 1
Total Electronic Notifications (Demandstar): 95
Mandatory Pre-Bid/Telephone Conference: NOT APPLICABLE
Total packages submitted: 4
Total Noncompliant: 0
5.00 Vehicle and Options Required
Page 1 of 3
OFFICIAL
Vendors
ALLAN VIGIL FORD
6790 MT. ZION BLVD
MORROW, GA 30260
FAIRWAY FORD OF
AUGUSTA
4333 WASHINGTON RD
EVANS, GA 30809
LANGDALE CHEVOLET
P. O. BOX 770
SYLVESTER, GA 31791
MASTER BUICK GMC
3710 WASHINGTON RD
AUGUSTA, GA 30907
Bid #16-235
6,000 GVW Series Pickup Truck
for Augusta, Georgia - Central Services Department-
Fleet Management Division
Bid Opening Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 @ 11:00 a.m.
Total Number Specifications Mailed Out: 20
Total Number Specifications Download (Demandstar): 1
Total Electronic Notifications (Demandstar): 95
Mandatory Pre-Bid/Telephone Conference: NOT APPLICABLE
Total packages submitted: 4
Total Noncompliant: 0
5.11 Minimum
8 Foot Bed
$300.00/
$950.00 $265.00 $614.00 $300.00
5.12 Black
platform Run Bd $235.00 $231.00 $534.00 $780.00
5.13 Elec Windows &
Door Locks $1,235.00 $893.00/
$1077.00 $640.00 $700.00
5.14 Trailer Tow package $460.00 $548.00 $380.00 $375.00
5.15 CNG
Package $290.00 $1,758.00 n/a n/a
5.16 Heavy duty payload
package $1,400.00 $3,304.00 Standard n/a
5.17 XL Chrome
appearance package $300.00 $713.00 $220.00 $510.00
5.18 XL power equipment
package $1,235.00 $893.00/
$1077.00 n/a n/a
5.19 XL sport appearance
package $300.00 n/a n/a n/a
6.01 Fire
Extinguisher $65.00 $50.00 $82.00 n/a
6.02 Outlet
receptacle $70.00 $60.00 $189.00 n/a
6.03 Bedliner $355.00 $375.00 $453.00/
$529.00 $575.00
6.04 Toolbox $450.00 $259.00 $467.00 $500.00
6.05 Trailer hitch $505.00 $144.00 $405.00 $380.00
6.06 Trailer wiring included included $51.00 $150.00
6.07 Trailer Ball $40.00 $12.00 $30.00 $50.00
6.08 Window tint, reg cab $125.00 $125.00 $158.00 $150.00
6.00 Outfitter's Specialty Items
Page 2 of 3
OFFICIAL
Vendors
ALLAN VIGIL FORD
6790 MT. ZION BLVD
MORROW, GA 30260
FAIRWAY FORD OF
AUGUSTA
4333 WASHINGTON RD
EVANS, GA 30809
LANGDALE CHEVOLET
P. O. BOX 770
SYLVESTER, GA 31791
MASTER BUICK GMC
3710 WASHINGTON RD
AUGUSTA, GA 30907
Bid #16-235
6,000 GVW Series Pickup Truck
for Augusta, Georgia - Central Services Department-
Fleet Management Division
Bid Opening Date: Friday, September 23, 2016 @ 11:00 a.m.
Total Number Specifications Mailed Out: 20
Total Number Specifications Download (Demandstar): 1
Total Electronic Notifications (Demandstar): 95
Mandatory Pre-Bid/Telephone Conference: NOT APPLICABLE
Total packages submitted: 4
Total Noncompliant: 0
6.09 Window tint, ext cab $150.00 $150.00 $200.00 $200.00
6.10 Window
tint, crew cab $160.00 $175.00 $220.00 $200.00
6.11 Add on step-driver
and passenger side drs $250.00 $159.00 $246.00 no bid
7.01 Backup alarm $115.00 $75.00 $71.00 $175.00
7.02 LED
topmount light $555.00 $542.00 $504.00 n/a
Year 2017 2017 2017 2017
Make Ford Ford Chevrolet GMC
Model F150 F150 Silverado Sierra
Approximate Delivery
Date 10-12 weeks 90-120 days 60-70 days 8-12 weeks
The following vendor did not respond:
GERALD JONES FORD / 3480 WRIGHTSBORO RD / AUGUSTA, GA 30919
7.00 Alert Warning Systems
2017 6,000 GVW PICKUP TRUCK:
Page 3 of 3
Fleet Management
1568-C Broad Street
Augusta GA 30904
Phone: (706) 821-2892
To:
Through:
From:
Subject:
Date:
This memo is to request a partial award for bid 16-235,6,000 GVW Series Trucks, which
opened on Friday, September 23rdh, for the attached compilation sheet to be awarded to Allan
Vigil Ford of Morrow, Georgia. Since no local vendor submitted a bid, there will be no Local
Vendor Preference option involved.
Please notify us when the vendor paperwork is completed so we can move forward with the
purchase process.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
Best Personal Regards,trz*nk
Ron Crowden
Fleet Manager
Central Setwices Department
Takiyah A. Douse, Director
Ron Crowden, Fleet Managet
MEMORANDUM
fs)Ceri Sams, Procurement Directorr>/A{l,d YIs. Takiyah A. Douse, Central Services Director
Ron Crowden, Fleet Manager
Partial Bid Award Request - Bid 16-235
November 18,2016
2017 6,00O GWv PICKUP TRUCK
BtD 16_235
Year
Brand
Model
Dellvery Date
5.06 Modet .6,000-EC.4x4 (5.0L)
5.09 Speed Control/Tilt Steering
5.10 Skld Plate package 4x4
5.f 2 Black Platform Run Boards
5.14 Traller Tow package
5.15 CNG/!-PG Engine prep pkg
5.17 XL Chrome Appearanca pkg
5.18 XL Power Equipt Group
S.OO OUTFITTER'S SPECIALTY ITEMS
6,01 Flre Extlnguisher
6.02 Three plug Ou{et Receptacle
6.03 Bed Liner
6.04 ToolBox
6.05 Class IV Traller Hltch
6.06 TrallerWring
6.09 WindowTint-EC
7.OO ALERT WARNTNG SYSTEMS
7.01 Backup Alarm
7.02 Cab Mount LED Ftashing Ltght
$heet I
Master
215.00 207.0C rnc nlaIOU.UU 148.00 106.00 295.0023s.0c 231.O0 Fld na 780.00460,00 548.0C 380,00 375.00290.00 1,758.00 nla nla300.00 713.00 220.00 510.001,;13b.00 1,077,0c nla nla
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
2017 - Utiliites F-350
Department:Central Services Department - Fleet Management
Department:Central Services Department - Fleet Management
Caption:Motion to approve a request from the Utilities Department to
replace a 2001 Ford F-350 used in support of the Fort Gordon
contract from Allan Vigil Ford for $48,145.00. (Bid Item 16-
190) (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
January 31, 2017)
Background:This vehicle was declared uneconomically repairable (see attached
evaluation) and is necessary for the day to day operation at Fort
Gordon. This vehicle routinely pulls an equipment trailer loaded
with medium size construction equipment.
Analysis:The Procurement Department published a competitive bid using
the Demand Star application for the 11,000 GVW truck with the
following results: Bid 16-190- 2017, F350 Crew Cab, 4X4, Dual
Rear Wheel: Allan Vigil Ford = $48,145.00 each; Fairway Ford =
$48,664.00 each; Gerald Jones = $48,620 (LVP = $48,145.00) and
Ben Mynatt Chevrolet was deemed non-compliant by the
Procurement Department.
Financial Impact:One F350, Crew Cab, 4X4, trucks @ $48,145.00.00 each for a
total cost of $ 48,145.00. The truck will be purchased through the
GMA lease program for 36 months with 3 annual payments of
$16,048.33.
Alternatives:(1) Approve the request; (2) Do not approve the request
Recommendation:Approve the purchase of 1-F350, Crew Cab, 4X4, Utility Body
truck for Utilities – Fort Gordon.
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
Utilities Capital Outlay/GMA Lease Cover Memo
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Finance.
Procurement.
Law.
Administrator.
Clerk of Commission
Cover Memo
Invitation To Bid
Sealed bids will be received at this office until Friday, June 17, 2016 @ 11:00 a.m. for furnishing:
Bid Item #16-188 9,500 GVW Series Pickup Trucks for Augusta Fleet Department
Bid Item #16-190 11,000 GVW Series Pickup Trucks for Augusta Fleet Department
Bids will be received by Augusta, GA Commission hereinafter referred to as the OWNER at the offices of:
Geri A. Sams, Director
Augusta Procurement Department
535 Telfair Street - Room 605
Augusta, Georgia 30901
Bid documents may be viewed on the Augusta, Georgia web site under the Procurement Department ARCbid. Bid
documents may be obtained at the office of the Augusta, GA Procurement Department, 535 Telfair Street – Room
605, Augusta, GA 30901. Documents may be examined during regular business hours at the offices of Augusta, GA
Procurement Department.
All questions must be submitted in writing by fax to 706 821-2811 or by email to
procbidandcontract@augustaga.gov to the office of the Procurement Department by Friday, June 3, 2016 @
5:00 P.M. No bid will be accepted by fax, all must be received by mail or hand delivered.
No bids may be withdrawn for a period of sixty (60) days after bids have been opened, pending the execution of
contract with the successful bidder.
Invitation for bids and specifications. An invitation for bids shall be issued by the Procurement Office and shall
include specifications prepared in accordance with Article 4 (Product Specifications), and all contractual terms and
conditions, applicable to the procurement. All specific requirements contained in the invitation to bid including,
but not limited to, the number of copies needed, the timing of the submission, the required financial data, and
any other requirements designated by the Procurement Department are considered material conditions of the
bid which are not waiveable or modifiable by the Procurement Director. All requests to waive or modify any such
material condition shall be submitted through the Procurement Director to the appropriate committee of the
Augusta, Georgia Commission for approval by the Augusta, Georgia Commission. Please mark BID number on the
outside of the envelope.
Bidders are cautioned that acquisition of BID documents through any source other than the office of the
Procurement Department is not advisable. Acquisition of BID documents from unauthorized sources placed the
bidder at the risk of receiving incomplete or inaccurate information upon which to base his qualifications.
Correspondence must be submitted via mail, fax or email as follows:
Augusta Procurement Department
Attn: Geri A. Sams, Director of Procurement
535 Telfair Street, Room 605
Augusta, GA 30901
Fax: 706-821-2811 or Email: procbidandcontract@augustaga.gov
No bid will be accepted by fax, all must be received by mail or hand delivered.
GERI A. SAMS, Procurement Director
Publish:
Augusta Chronicle May 12, 19, 26, June 2, 2016
Metro Courier May 18, 2016
OFFICIAL
Vendors
Gerald Jones Ford
3480 Wrightsboro Rd
Augusta, GA 30909
Allan Vigil Ford
6790 Mt. Zion Blvd
Morrow, GA 30260
Fairway of Augusta
4333 Washingotn Rd
Evans, GA 30809
Ben Mynatt Chevolet
281 Concord Pkwy S
Concord, NC 28027
Attachment B YES YES YES YES
E-Verify Number 933751 94460 689647 NO
SAVE Form YES YES YES YES
5.01 Fullsize Truck, Rg Cab
2 wheel drive $31,513.00 $30,253.00 $32,039.00 Non-Compliant
5.02 Fullsize Truck, Rg Cab
4 wheel drive $32,850.00 $31,626.00 $25,176.00
5.03 Fullsize Truck, Reg Cab
2 wheel drive $34,221.00 $32,935.00 $31,805.00
5.04 Fullsize Truck, Reg Cab
4 wheel drive $35,553.00 $34,194.00 $35,505.00
5.05 Fullsize Truck, Ext Cab
2 wheel drive, 4 doors $33,837.00 $32,632.00 $31,637.00
5.06 Fullsize Truck, Ext Cab
4 wheels door, 4 doors $35,169.00 $33,896.00 $35,137.00
5.07 Fullsize Truck, Ext Cab $36,544.00 $35,199.00 $35,238.00
5.08 Fullsize Truck, Ext Cab $39,030.00 $36,439.00 $38,530.00
5.09 Fullsize Truck, Crew Cab $34,990.00 $33,688.00 $32,543.00
5.10 Fullsize Truck, Crew Cab, 4 drs $36,222.00 $34,952.00 $36,643.00
5.11 Fullsize Truck, Crew Cab, 4 drs $37,697.00 $36,280.00 $35,144.00
5.12 Fullsize Truck, Crew Cab, 4 drs $39,030.00 $37,594.00 $39,140.00
5.13 Gasoline Engine, min 6.2L N/C -$7,606.00 -$7,650.00
5.14 Heavy Duty Tow STANDARD N/A STANDARD
5.15 Heavy Duty Tow Package $115.00 $120.00 $148.00
5.16 Rear Seat deleted $100.00 N/A N/A
5.17 Pickup box deleted -$63.00 -$249.00 -$300.00
5.18 Trailer Tow Mirrors, manual adj N/C STANDARD STANDARD
5.19 Trailer tow mirrors, man adj pwr $257.00 INCLUDED N/A
5.20 Roof Clearance Lights $73.00 $85.00 $73.00
5.00 11,000 GVW Series Truck Vehicle and Options Required
Bid #16-190
11,000 GVW Series Pickup Trucks
for Augusta, Georgia - Fleet Management
Bid Opening Date: Friday, June 17, 2016 at 11:00 a.m.
Total Number Specifications Mailed Out: 21
Total Number Specifications Download (Demandstar):
Total Electronic Notifications (Demandstar):
Mandatory Pre-Bid/Telephone Conference: NOT APPLICABLE
Total packages submitted: 4
Total Noncompliant: 1
Page 1 of 4
OFFICIAL
Vendors
Gerald Jones Ford
3480 Wrightsboro Rd
Augusta, GA 30909
Allan Vigil Ford
6790 Mt. Zion Blvd
Morrow, GA 30260
Fairway of Augusta
4333 Washingotn Rd
Evans, GA 30809
Ben Mynatt Chevolet
281 Concord Pkwy S
Concord, NC 28027
Bid #16-190
11,000 GVW Series Pickup Trucks
for Augusta, Georgia - Fleet Management
Bid Opening Date: Friday, June 17, 2016 at 11:00 a.m.
Total Number Specifications Mailed Out: 21
Total Number Specifications Download (Demandstar):
Total Electronic Notifications (Demandstar):
Mandatory Pre-Bid/Telephone Conference: NOT APPLICABLE
Total packages submitted: 4
Total Noncompliant: 1
5.21 Speed Control/tilt steering $216.00 $220.00 $216.00
5.22 Skid Plate Package $92.00 $95.00 $92.00
5.23 Power Take-Off Provision $257.00 $265.00 $257.00
5.24 Black Platform running boards $341.00 $345.00 $295.00 / $345.00
5.25 Electric windows and locks $1,035.00 INCLUDED $841.00 / $1035.00
5.26 5th wheel gooseneck hitch pkg $341.00 $345.00 $341.00
5.27 Splash guards/mud flaps $119.00 $120.00 $119.00
5.28 3.73 Electronic locking axle rat $359.00 N/A INCLUDED
5.29 AM/FM stereo/single CD $358.00 $1,025.00 $589.00
5.30 Camper Suspension $148.00 $150.00 $148.00
5.31 Power Equipment Group $1,035.00 $1,040.00 $841.00 / $1035.00
5.32 Tailgate step $345.00 $350.00 $345.00
5.33 17" 6-spoke cast alum wheels $552.00 $555.00 $552.00
5.34 XL appearance group $1,085.00 $700.00 $203.00
5.35 All vehicle keys w/three steel $49.00 $60.00 INCLUDED
5.36 Upfitter switches $152.00 $155.00 $152.00
5.37 CNG System $11,493.00 $13,850.00 $9527.00 /
CNG $289.00
6.01 Fire Extinguisher $50.00 $55.00 $60.00
6.02 Outlet receptacle $50.00 $55.00 $96.00
6.03 Bedliner $349.00 $355.00 $349.00
6.04 Electric brake control $125.00 $250.00 $249.00
6.05 Service Body $4,995.00 $5,967.00 $4,895.00
6.06 Serv Body Bumper/ball hitch $5,525.00 $6,010.00 $5,600.00
6.07 Crane Body $8,800.00 $8,440.00 $8,950.00
6.08 Service Crane $9,400.00 $15,665.00 $8,820.00
6.09 J-Hook railing $190.00 $590.00 $160.00
6.10 PANEL TOP $3,950.00 $6,120.00 $3,700.00
6.11 Panel top $4,150.00 $6,450.00 $3,900.00
6.00 Outfitter's Speciality Items
Page 2 of 4
OFFICIAL
Vendors
Gerald Jones Ford
3480 Wrightsboro Rd
Augusta, GA 30909
Allan Vigil Ford
6790 Mt. Zion Blvd
Morrow, GA 30260
Fairway of Augusta
4333 Washingotn Rd
Evans, GA 30809
Ben Mynatt Chevolet
281 Concord Pkwy S
Concord, NC 28027
Bid #16-190
11,000 GVW Series Pickup Trucks
for Augusta, Georgia - Fleet Management
Bid Opening Date: Friday, June 17, 2016 at 11:00 a.m.
Total Number Specifications Mailed Out: 21
Total Number Specifications Download (Demandstar):
Total Electronic Notifications (Demandstar):
Mandatory Pre-Bid/Telephone Conference: NOT APPLICABLE
Total packages submitted: 4
Total Noncompliant: 1
6.12 Service Body $400.00 $490.00 $355.00
6.13 Servive, DRW $390.00 $568.00 $455.00
6.14 Service Body, SRW $300.00 $555.00 $285.00
6.15 Service body Bumper $390.00 $615.00 $377.00
6.16 flatbed body $3,600.00 $4,800.00 $3,500.00
6.17 tool box $500.00 $325.00 $450.00
6.18 Spotlight $365.00 $375.00 $230.00
6.19 Spotlights $730.00 $750.00 $460.00
6.20 Toolbox $259.00 $1,250.00 $259.00
6.21 Trailer Hitch $200.00 $100.00 $290.00
6.22 Trailer wiring $25.00 $100.00 $25.00
6.23 Trailer Ball $15.00 $25.00 $15.00
6.24 Pintle hook $120.00 $150.00 $150.00
6.25 Pintle hook $140.00 $225.00 $175.00
6.26 Tommy Gate Lift $2,395.00 $2,210.00 $2,395.00
6.27 Pipe Vise $290.00 $325.00 $290.00
6.28 Backrack cab protector $850.00 $750.00 $795.00
6.29 Spot mirrors NO CHARGE N/A STANDARD
6.30 Window Tint $100.00 $175.00 $75.00
6.31 Window Tint,$125.00 $255.00 $175.00
6.32 Window tint crew cab $145.00 $315.00 $175.00
7.01 Backup alarm $40.00 $80.00 $40.00
7.02 Magnetic LED light $270.00 $300.00 $316.20
7.03 Cab Mount Light $410.00 $450.00 $377.40
7.03 Traffic advisor light bar $1,110.00 $1,275.00 $1,067.60
Year 2017 2017 2017
Make FORD FORD FORD
Model F350 F350 F350
7.00 Alert Warning Systems
2017 11,000 GVW PICKUP TRUCK:
Page 3 of 4
OFFICIAL
Vendors
Gerald Jones Ford
3480 Wrightsboro Rd
Augusta, GA 30909
Allan Vigil Ford
6790 Mt. Zion Blvd
Morrow, GA 30260
Fairway of Augusta
4333 Washingotn Rd
Evans, GA 30809
Ben Mynatt Chevolet
281 Concord Pkwy S
Concord, NC 28027
Bid #16-190
11,000 GVW Series Pickup Trucks
for Augusta, Georgia - Fleet Management
Bid Opening Date: Friday, June 17, 2016 at 11:00 a.m.
Total Number Specifications Mailed Out: 21
Total Number Specifications Download (Demandstar):
Total Electronic Notifications (Demandstar):
Mandatory Pre-Bid/Telephone Conference: NOT APPLICABLE
Total packages submitted: 4
Total Noncompliant: 1
Approximate Delivery Date 120 Days 75-100 Days 90-120 Days
Page 4 of 4
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
Fleet Service Contract
Department:
Department:
Caption:Motion to approve appointing a subcommittee composed of Mr.
Hasan, Chairman, Mr. Guilfoyle, Mr. M. Williams and Mr.
Jefferson to evaluate some cost savings with the current fleet
contract. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
January 31, 2017)
Background:
Analysis:
Financial Impact:
Alternatives:
Recommendation:
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Cover Memo
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
Housing and Community Development Department’s (HCDs) Federal Contract/Agreement Procedure
for 2017
Department:Housing and Community Development Department
Department:Housing and Community Development Department
Caption:Motion to approve Housing and Community Development
Department’s contract procedure relative to authorization of
agreements/contracts/HUD forms for the various federal programs
administered by the Department for program/calendar year 2017.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee January 31,
2017)
Background:Each year the City receives Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), HOME
Investment Partnership (HOME), and Housing Opportunities for
Persons with AIDS (HOPWA), Neighborhood Stabilization
Program (NSP 1 and 3), Supportive Housing Program (SHP),
Continuum of Care Program (CoC) funds from the U. S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. These funds are
used to fund agencies and projects to assist low to moderate
income persons and revitalize low-income neighborhoods. The
Augusta Housing and Community Development Department
(AHCD) annually solicits proposals from agencies and develops
CDBG, ESG, HOME and HOPWA budgets which are
incorporated into the City’s Annual Action Plan that is presented
to the Augusta Commission for approval. To carry out the projects
presented in the Action Plan, HUD requires the City to have
agreements with each agency that is to be funded. If a project
involves construction, a construction contract and/or professional
service contracts may also be required. HUD regulations require
grantees to meet a federally mandated spend-down threshold
(Timeliness Standard). It is calculated by HUD each year at the
end of October. Unfortunately, Congress’ failure to approve a
federal budget in a timely manner for its entitlement communities
to receive grant agreements early in the year is not an acceptable
reason for failing to meet this expenditure requirement. To
facilitate the execution of agreements/contracts, we are proposing
the following Agreement/Contract Execution Procedure for the
Housing and Community Department for Program Year 2017: The
Cover Memo
Mayor be given authorization to execute all necessary grant
agreements (wherein 1 City of Augusta signature is requested)
relative to the approved Consolidated Plan/Annual Action Plan
and other federal programs stated above as required by HUD; The
Mayor, City Administrator, and Director of AHCD will be given
authorization to execute all the necessary agency grant agreements
and contracts required to implement the Consolidated Plan/Annual
Action Plan as approved by the Commission. All agreements,
forms, and/or certifications, unless specified on HUD generated or
other federally generated documents which requires only the
Mayor’s signature, will require the signatures of all 3 parties. All
City of Augusta Procurement Policies will be complied with and
acknowledgement given by the appropriate staff of the
Procurement Department.
Analysis:The current process was approved initially by the Augusta
Commission in January 2016 and has worked well. Thus, we seek
your approval to continue in program/calendar year 2017.
Financial Impact:The City receives funding from the US Housing and Urban
Development Department on an annual basis. Last year's HUD
agreements granted the City the use of CDBG funds in the amount
of $1,675,892.00, HOME Investment Partnership funds in the
amount of $719,023.00, Emergency Solutions Grant funds in the
amount of $152,133.00, Housing Opportunities for Persons With
HIV/AIDS funds in the amount of $1,048,948.00 and Continuum
of Care funding in the amount of $184,475.00
Alternatives:Do not approve the process.
Recommendation:Approve contract procedure for Authorization of
Agreements/Contracts for the Housing and Community
Development Department for calendar Year 2017.
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
Funds are available in the respective HUD Program Accounts.
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Cover Memo
Commission Meeting Visual for Contract Process
Date Grant
Received
Deadline to
Meet 1.5 Grant Amount Funds from Prior
Year Program Income 1.5 Threshold to
Meet
Amount to Spend
to Meet 1.5
Days to Meet
1.5
2010 5/17/2010 10/31/2010 2,448,329.00$ 2,706,197.44$ 158,520.13$ 3,672,493.50$ 1,640,553$ 167
2011 7/13/2011 10/31/2011 2,040,442.00$ 2,952,261.31$ 155,106.58$ 3,060,663.00$ 2,087,147$ 110
2012 5/4/2012 10/31/2012 1,723,227.00$ 2,708,067.61$ 208,652.49$ 2,584,840.50$ 2,055,107$ 180
2013 9/6/2013 10/31/2013 1,758,771.00$ 2,025,141.53$ 486,761.47$ 2,638,156.50$ 1,632,518$ 55
2014 6/30/2014 10/31/2014 1,703,221.00$ 1,494,363.89$ 455,526.48$ 2,554,831.50$ 1,098,280$ 123
2015 6/24/2015 10/31/2015 1,689,993.00$ 2,429,043.28$ 125,008.22$ 2,534,989.50$ 1,709,055$ 129
2016 9/7/2016 10/31/2016 1,675,892.00$ 1,886,200.51$ 191,119.49$ 2,513,838.00$ 1,239,374$ 54
Submit to
Novus
Agenda
Admin
Services
Meeting
Commission
Meeting
Receive
Administrator's
Letter
Legal Department Administrator Mayor Clerk of
Commission Returned Total Number of
Days
12/12/2016 1/10/2017 1/17/2017 1/23/2017 1/24/2017 1/31/2017 2/7/2017 2/28/2017 3/7/2017 85
Notes:
3. Neither takes into account the time for the Subrecipients to have their Board Members sign the contracts and return to us.
1/3/2017 1/10/2017 1/17/2017 2/14/2017
1 . This is a very rough estimate of the process. Allows for one week between departments for signatures. Allows for additional time for Mayor's signature.
2. This is a very rough estimate of the process. It removes going before Commission with each contract. Allow's for additional time for Mayor's signature
According to 24 CFR 570.902, HUD grantees cannot have more than 1.5 times their current grant amount in their line of credit 60 days before the end of the Program Year.
Number of
Days to
Complete
Commission
Approval
Process1
Current
Process2
Program Years run from Jan. 1- Dec. 31. this means that grantees must meet their 1.5 threshold no later than Oct. 31
Funds are subject to any Program Income that the grantee received throughout the Program Year
2/21/2017 49
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
$1,640,553
$2,087,147
$2,055,107
$1,632,518
$1,098,280
$1,709,055
$1,239,374
Do
l
l
a
r
A
m
o
u
n
t
PY Years
Series2
167
110
180
55
123 129
54
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Chart Title
Series1
Commission Meeting Visual for Contract Process
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
Allocate funding ($103,378.71) for RCSO to implement Governor’s Office of Highway Safety -HEAT
GRANT 2016
Department:Public Safety
Department:Public Safety
Caption:Motion to approve the allocation of funding for the Richmond
County Sheriff's Office (RCSO) in the amount of $103,378.71 to
implement the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety Heat Grant.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee January 31, 2017)
Background:In September of 2016 the RCSO was awarded a grant through the
Governor’s Office of Highway Safety for $82,702.97 to enhance
the Traffic/Road Patrol Unit. This is a local match grant and
RCSO would be responsible for $20,675,74. Therefore, the total
value of the Heat Grant will be $103,378,71.
Analysis:RCSO will use this funding for additional training, travel and
equipment purchases.
Financial Impact:This is a local cash match grant. The local match is 20% and
funding will come out of the General fund from Sheriff’s Office
Road Patrol Fund (273031310-5223112).
Alternatives:None
Recommendation:Allocate funding in the amount of $103,378.71 to allow RCSO to
implement the GOHS Heat Grant Program.
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
Funding: $82,702.97 and Total Cash Match $20,675.74
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:Cover Memo
Finance.
Law.
Administrator.
Clerk of Commission
Cover Memo
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Application Project Information
Project Title: HEAT Richmond County Sheriff's Office
Project Summary:
H.E.A.T. Unit to reduce fatalities, crashes, and injuries on the roadways of
Richmond County.
Page 1 of 2901/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
General Additional Information
Check here if you are a non-profit organization
Click HERE to view the Non-Profit Disclosure information
Public Funds Documentation
501 (c) (3) form
Secretary of State Certification
Letter of Support
Reference Letter #1
Reference Letter #2
Reference Letter #3
Are funds being sought from other sources? * aYes No
Does your jurisdiction receive any other federal funds from other sources? * aYes No
If so, how much?$12,000,000.00
When is your Audit Period?From: 10/1/2016 To: 9/30/2017
DUNS Number 07-343-8418
Page 2 of 2901/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Problem Identification
The problem identification should clearly present the "Who, What, When, Where, and Why" of the traffic-related
issues that are distressing the community and causing crashes, injuries and fatalities. The statement should
provide a concise description for the defined geographic area or jurisdiction. Include consecutive years of the
most recent local and statewide data, as well as local demographic information.
(Charts, graphs and percentages are effective ways of displaying the data. Chart and graph documents can be
uploaded as attachments on the next page).
The Richmond County Sheriff's Office is responsible for providing coverage for
approximately 330 sq. miles and a population of over 200,000. Two interstates and
several other major national and state highways run through this county. There has
been ongoing construction work on Interstate 20 and I-520 for several years. These
extensive projects still have years before they will be completed. Work on I-20 has
resulted in the closure of the majority of the emergency lanes which were previously
available for deputies to run laser and radar. The elimination of these lanes has
severely curtailed the ability to make speeding cases on this highway, as there is
nowhere for the officers to run stationary speed enforcement and also nowhere for
them to safely get violators off the roadway. A similar enforcement problem has
been encountered on I-520, as miles of construction barrels hamper our ability to
get out after violators and to prevent moving them off the roadway to conduct the
stop.
According to the 2011 NHTSA traffic statistics, out of 159 Georgia counties,
Richmond County ranked 5th in the state for total traffic crash fatalities. Richmond
County had a 68% increase in fatalities from 2010 to 2011 and a 37% increase again
from 2011 to 2012. These increases are a direct reflection due to not having HEAT
units during these years.
The chart below shows the number of crashes, injuries, and fatalities by year from
2012 - 2015.
Year Crashes Injuries Fatalities
2012 11,462 1,631 44
2013 7,976 1,566 26
2014 9,377 1,885 27
2015 10038, 2133, 26
In order to reduce the number of traffic crashes and resulting injuries and deaths,
the maximum speed limit everywhere in Richmond County is 55mph. The adjoining
counties on Interstate 20 (Columbia County in Georgia and Aiken County in South
Carolina) both have speed limits which are higher. Regular speed enforcement on our
stretch of I-20 has shown that the average speed on this highway is 70mph. The units
that enforce speed on this roadway routinely go after violators exceeding the posted
speeds by a minimum of 20mph. A continued effort is needed to stay abreast of the
problem.
The major focus of this grant is DUI enforcement combined with the reduction of
crashes, injuries and fatalities. As such all efforts including deployment hours
will be directed towards this. In the efforts of conducting DUI enforcement, all
ensuring traffic violators will be contacted although not targeted
Page 3 of 2901/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Problem Identification
Page 4 of 2901/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Program Assessment
Program Assessment helps determine the resources a community currently has in place to address the
problem. Include a review of current activities and results of past and current efforts, indicating what did or did
not work. Assess resources to determine what is needed to more effectively address the problem. Identify local
laws, policies, groups, and organizations that support or inhibit the success of the project.
The Richmond County Sheriff's Office is the 2nd largest full-service Sheriff's
Office in the State of Georgia. We answer over 250,000 calls for service each year and handle
calls in the cities of Hephzibah and Blythe in the county also.
Fatalities more than doubled in 2011 bringing the total to 32 and increased again in
2012 by 37% (44). Since the creation of the HEAT Unit we have seen a decrease in
fatalities. In 2014, due to the assistance of the HEAT Unit we experienced 27
fatalities. This goal was reached thru the following:
The Sheriff's Office Traffic Division supervisors have attended DDAC training. Thru
this training high crash areas have been identified and resources have been deployed
to decrease the crashes. These high crash areas have been targeted by monitoring
traffic flow, and when observing violations citing those responsible. This is done
by the highest crash times. We also have targeted those that follow too close due to
it being a contributing factor to a high number of accidents. We have utilized GOHS
network assistance during roadchecks. We held over 40 roadchecks throughout the
county. The purpose of the roadchecks are to identify those that are not following
state traffic laws. We have increased our traffic division manpower to 40 officers.
By increasing the number of officers we are able to deploy into more areas of
concern. The HEAT Officers provide educational information to the military personnel
based at Ft. Gordon twice a month, along with educating the local high schools
students. Traffic safety being the main topic. DUI prevention is a big topic that is
covered. We have the students participate by wearing "drunk glasses" that allow for
them to see the difference in driving sober and impaired. We also discuss other
contributing factors to accidents; speeding, following too close, etc.. We also
reach out to the media to utilize them to reach the public. When we experienced a
high number of pedestrian fatalities Pedestrian Safety information was provided to
all media outlets to educate the public.
We have seen success by doing these things. We continue to search for new ways to
decrease crashes within Richmond County.
Heat Units met all statistic goals in 2014. They traveled to other jurisdictions and
assisted where needed (roadchecks, seatbelt education, and saturated patrol). They
also attended several traffic related training classes.
We are supported by our surrounding agencies, along with M.A.D.D.
Page 5 of 2901/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Program Assessment Chart
For Young Adult Only
College Population:
For Law Enforcement Agencies only
Please provide the current level of enforcement activity for the entire department for the three (3) previous
calendar years (January 1 through December 31). If data is not available for a particular activity/year
combination, enter 0.
Activity Calendar Year
2013 2014 2015
DUI Arrests 1179 1081 1011
Speeding (all cases)10324 8914 8554
Safety Belt Violations 2478 5267 3372
All Other Traffic Violations 29980 27789 19265
Traffic Crashes 7976 9377 10030
Check Point Conducted 26 28 23
For Drivers Education only
Please provide the numbers trained in driver's education for your school for the previous three (3) state fiscal
years (July 1 through June 30.). If data is not available for a particular activity/year combination, enter 0.
Activity State Fiscal Year
2014 2015 2016
How many students were trained in a 30/6* driver's education
program with financial assistance or free of charge?
How many total students were trained in a 30/6* driver’s education
program?
How many students requested financial assistance for driver’s
education?
How many students were denied driver’s education due to a lack of
financial assistance?
*30/6 driver’s education program means 30 hours of classroom training and 6 hours of behind the wheel
instruction
Page 6 of 2901/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Project Objectives: 001
If this goal incorporates a best practice, please check here: aIf not, this application may not be approved.
Proposed programs must be data driven and should be based on proven countermeasures. For guidance on
best practices visit http://www.gahighwaysafety.org/grants/best-practices/
Goal: 6.1 GOHS Goal: Enhance Police Traffic Services
If Other, please specify:
Objective:
Objective: The Richmond County Sheriff's Office will maintain a HEAT Unit during the
FY 2017 grant period. This includes any necessary selection and ongoing training of
personnel, procurement of equipment, and the continuation of enforcement.
Page 7 of 2901/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Project Objectives: 002
If this goal incorporates a best practice, please check here: aIf not, this application may not be approved.
Proposed programs must be data driven and should be based on proven countermeasures. For guidance on
best practices visit http://www.gahighwaysafety.org/grants/best-practices/
Goal: 1.1 GOHS Goal: Reduce Alcohol/Drug Related Crashes/Injuries/Fatalities
If Other, please specify:
Objective:
The HEAT Unit will initiate 30 DUI contacts per month during the grant
period.
Page 8 of 2901/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Project Objectives: 003
If this goal incorporates a best practice, please check here: aIf not, this application may not be approved.
Proposed programs must be data driven and should be based on proven countermeasures. For guidance on
best practices visit http://www.gahighwaysafety.org/grants/best-practices/
Goal: 2.1 GOHS Goal: Increase Overall Safety Belt Usage
If Other, please specify:
Objective:
The HEAT Unit will initiate 45 occupant protection contacts per month during the grant period.
Page 9 of 2901/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Project Objectives: 004
If this goal incorporates a best practice, please check here: aIf not, this application may not be approved.
Proposed programs must be data driven and should be based on proven countermeasures. For guidance on
best practices visit http://www.gahighwaysafety.org/grants/best-practices/
Goal: 6.1 GOHS Goal: Enhance Police Traffic Services
If Other, please specify:
Objective:
The Richmond County Sheriff’s Office HEAT Unit will work with neighboring
jurisdictions twice per month during the FY 2017 grant period.
Page 10 of 2901/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Project Objectives: 005
If this goal incorporates a best practice, please check here: aIf not, this application may not be approved.
Proposed programs must be data driven and should be based on proven countermeasures. For guidance on
best practices visit http://www.gahighwaysafety.org/grants/best-practices/
Goal: 6.1 GOHS Goal: Enhance Police Traffic Services
If Other, please specify:
Objective:
The Richmond County S.O. Office HEAT Unit will participate in
GOHS/NHTSA activities and campaigns during the FY 2017 grant period
Page 11 of 2901/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Project Objectives: 006
If this goal incorporates a best practice, please check here: aIf not, this application may not be approved.
Proposed programs must be data driven and should be based on proven countermeasures. For guidance on
best practices visit http://www.gahighwaysafety.org/grants/best-practices/
Goal: 7.2 GOHS Goal: Disseminate Traffic Safety-Related Educational Materials
If Other, please specify:
Objective:
The Richmond County Sheriff’s Office HEAT Unit will conduct 2 educational
events a month to the public during the FY 2017 grant period.
Page 12 of 2901/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Project Objectives: 007
If this goal incorporates a best practice, please check here: aIf not, this application may not be approved.
Proposed programs must be data driven and should be based on proven countermeasures. For guidance on
best practices visit http://www.gahighwaysafety.org/grants/best-practices/
Goal: 2.1 GOHS Goal: Increase Overall Safety Belt Usage
If Other, please specify:
Objective:
The RCSO HEAT Unit will conduct a minimum of
two seatbelt surveys in their jurisdiction during the FY 2017 grant period.
Page 13 of 2901/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Project Objectives: 008
If this goal incorporates a best practice, please check here: aIf not, this application may not be approved.
Proposed programs must be data driven and should be based on proven countermeasures. For guidance on
best practices visit http://www.gahighwaysafety.org/grants/best-practices/
Goal: 6.1 GOHS Goal: Enhance Police Traffic Services
If Other, please specify:
Objective:
The RCSO HEAT Unit will participate in at
least 3 GOHS sponsored Thunder Task Force mobilizations during the FY2017 grant
period.
Page 14 of 2901/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Project Objectives: 009
If this goal incorporates a best practice, please check here: aIf not, this application may not be approved.
Proposed programs must be data driven and should be based on proven countermeasures. For guidance on
best practices visit http://www.gahighwaysafety.org/grants/best-practices/
Goal: 6.1 GOHS Goal: Enhance Police Traffic Services
If Other, please specify:
Objective:
The RCSO HEAT Unit will conduct a minimum of
2 road checks within the county each month during the grant year.
Page 15 of 2901/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Project Objectives: 010
If this goal incorporates a best practice, please check here: aIf not, this application may not be approved.
Proposed programs must be data driven and should be based on proven countermeasures. For guidance on
best practices visit http://www.gahighwaysafety.org/grants/best-practices/
Goal: 3.1 GOHS Goal: Reduce Speed-Related Crashes/Injuries/Fatalities
If Other, please specify:
Objective:
The HEAT Unit will initiate 180 speeding contacts per month during the
grant period.
Page 16 of 2901/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Project Activities Evaluations : 001
6.1 GOHS Goal: Enhance Police Traffic S...Objective: The Richmond County Sheriff's Office wi
Goal:6.1 GOHS Goal: Enhance Police Traffic Services
Objective:Objective: The Richmond County Sheriff's Office will maintain a HEAT Unit during the
FY 2017 grant period. This includes any necessary selection and ongoing training of
personnel, procurement of equipment, and the continuation of enforcement.
Activity:Activity: Activity 1: Officers will be selected and assigned to the HEAT Unit, as
well as trained for appropriate tasks. Any necessary equipment will be purchased
during the first quarter of the grant period.
Activity 2: The award of the grant will be announced to the media during the first
quarter of the grant period.
Evaluation: Officers’ names and activities will be reported in the GOHS monthly
report. Training certificates will also be submitted to GOHS. Documentation of
equipment purchase will be reported in the GOHS monthly report.
Evaluation:Officers’ names and activities will be reported in the GOHS monthly
report. Training certificates will also be submitted to GOHS. Documentation of
equipment purchase will be reported in the GOHS monthly report.
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOT
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 36
Page 17 of 2901/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Project Activities Evaluations : 002
1.1 GOHS Goal: Reduce Alcohol/Drug Rela...The HEAT Unit will initiate 30 DUI contacts per mo
Goal:1.1 GOHS Goal: Reduce Alcohol/Drug Related Crashes/Injuries/Fatalities
Objective:The HEAT Unit will initiate 30 DUI contacts per month during the grant
period.
Activity:HEAT officers will be dedicated to enforcing the impaired driving laws on
the roadways of Richmond County through saturated patrol and checkpoints in areas
identified by data to be those where DUI related crashes, injuries, and fatalities
occur. A minimum of 30 DUI contacts will be initiated each month by the Unit. All
officers will be up to date with regard to DUI SFST training through refresher and
update classes.
Evaluation:HEAT officers will list impaired driving contacts in their daily
programmatic reports which will be summarized and submitted to GOHS in each monthly
report. Compare the actual number of DUI contacts to the number projected and the
increase or decrease in the number of DUI related crashes, injuries, and fatals to
the previous year. Documentation of DUI SFST training will also be submitted to
GOHS.
Goal: 2.1 GOHS GOAL: INCREASE OVERALL
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOT
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 360
Page 18 of 2901/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Project Activities Evaluations : 003
2.1 GOHS Goal: Increase Overall Safety ...The HEAT Unit will initiate 45 occupant protection
Goal:2.1 GOHS Goal: Increase Overall Safety Belt Usage
Objective:The HEAT Unit will initiate 45 occupant protection contacts per month during the grant period.
Activity:HEAT officers will be dedicated to enforcing the occupant protection laws
on the roadways of Richmond County through saturated patrol and checkpoints in areas
identified by data to be those where non-restraint related crashes, injuries, and
fatalities occur. The Unit will initiate a minimum of 45 occupant protection
contacts each month. The HEAT Unit will maintain at least one CPST on the taskforce.
Evaluation:HEAT officers will list occupant protection contacts in their daily
programmatic reports which will be summarized and submitted to GOHS in each monthly
report. Compare the actual number of occupant protection contacts to the number
projected and the increase or decrease in the number of injuries and fatals in
relation to occupant protection to the previous year. Documentation of CPST training
will also be submitted to GOHS.
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOT
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 540
Page 19 of 2901/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Project Activities Evaluations : 004
6.1 GOHS Goal: Enhance Police Traffic S...The Richmond County Sheriff’s Office HEAT Unit wil
Goal:6.1 GOHS Goal: Enhance Police Traffic Services
Objective:The Richmond County Sheriff’s Office HEAT Unit will work with neighboring
jurisdictions twice per month during the FY 2017 grant period.
Activity:The HEAT Unit will work with other jurisdictions within the area through
checkpoints, saturated patrols, and other traffic operations at least two times each
month.
Evaluation:Activity involving other jurisdictions will be documented in the GOHS
monthly programmatic reports.
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOT
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 24
Page 20 of 2901/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Project Activities Evaluations : 005
6.1 GOHS Goal: Enhance Police Traffic S...The Richmond County S.O. Office HEAT Unit will par
Goal:6.1 GOHS Goal: Enhance Police Traffic Services
Objective:The Richmond County S.O. Office HEAT Unit will participate in
GOHS/NHTSA activities and campaigns during the FY 2017 grant period
Activity:Activity 1: At least one HEAT officer will attend the monthly Traffic
Enforcement Network meeting.
Activity 2: The HEAT Unit will participate in CIOT, OZT, 100 Days of Summer HEAT,and other
GOHS/NHTSA campaigns.
Evaluation:Participation in Traffic Enforcement Network meetings and GOHS/NHTSA
campaigns will be documented in the GOHS monthly programmatic reports.
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOT
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12
Page 21 of 2901/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Project Activities Evaluations : 006
7.2 GOHS Goal: Disseminate Traffic Safe...The Richmond County Sheriff’s Office HEAT Unit wil
Goal:7.2 GOHS Goal: Disseminate Traffic Safety-Related Educational Materials
Objective:The Richmond County Sheriff’s Office HEAT Unit will conduct 2 educational
events a month to the public during the FY 2017 grant period.
Activity:Conduct a minimum of 2 educational events a month to the public during the
grant period. Mention of the Move-over law will be included in every event.
Evaluation:Events will be documented in the GOHS monthly programmatic reports.
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOT
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 24
Page 22 of 2901/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Project Activities Evaluations : 007
2.1 GOHS Goal: Increase Overall Safety ...The RCSO HEAT Unit will conduct a minimum of
two
Goal:2.1 GOHS Goal: Increase Overall Safety Belt Usage
Objective:The RCSO HEAT Unit will conduct a minimum of
two seatbelt surveys in their jurisdiction during the FY 2017 grant period.
Activity:Conduct a minimum of two seatbelt surveys during the grant period. At
least one survey will be conducted at the beginning and one at the end of the grant
period.
Evaluation:Usage rates will be documented in the GOHS monthly programmatic reports.
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOT
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
Page 23 of 2901/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Project Activities Evaluations : 008
6.1 GOHS Goal: Enhance Police Traffic S...The RCSO HEAT Unit will participate in at
least 3
Goal:6.1 GOHS Goal: Enhance Police Traffic Services
Objective:The RCSO HEAT Unit will participate in at
least 3 GOHS sponsored Thunder Task Force mobilizations during the FY2017 grant
period.
Activity:A minimum of one HEAT officer will participate in at least 3 waves of the Thunder mobilizations.
Evaluation:Participation in Rolling Thunder will be documented in the GOHS monthly
programmatic reports.
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOT
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 3
Page 24 of 2901/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Project Activities Evaluations : 009
6.1 GOHS Goal: Enhance Police Traffic S...The RCSO HEAT Unit will conduct a minimum of
2 ro
Goal:6.1 GOHS Goal: Enhance Police Traffic Services
Objective:The RCSO HEAT Unit will conduct a minimum of
2 road checks within the county each month during the grant year.
Activity:The Richmond County Sheriff's Office will conduct a minimum of 2 road
safety checks each month during the grant year. GOHS brochures will be available to
be passed out during the road checks as educational materials
Evaluation:Results will be included in the monthly progress reports each month, and reported to the GOHS
report web site with the agency monthly totals.
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOT
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 24
Page 25 of 2901/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Project Activities Evaluations : 010
3.1 GOHS Goal: Reduce Speed-Related Cra...The HEAT Unit will initiate 180 speeding contacts
Goal:3.1 GOHS Goal: Reduce Speed-Related Crashes/Injuries/Fatalities
Objective:The HEAT Unit will initiate 180 speeding contacts per month during the
grant period.
Activity:HEAT officers will be dedicated to enforcing the laws that govern speed on
the roadways of Richmond County through saturated patrol in areas identified by data
to be those where speed related crashes, injuries, and fatalities occur. A minimum
of 180 speeding contacts will be initiated each month by The Unit. All officers
will be LIDAR and RADAR certified.
Evaluation:HEAT officers will list speed related contacts in their daily
programmatic reports which will be summarized and submitted to GOHS in each monthly
report.
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP TOT
180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 180 2160
Page 26 of 2901/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Media Plan
Describe your plans for announcing the award of this grant to your community through media outlets available to
you. Include specific media sources. Discuss how you plan to keep the public informed of grant activities
throughout the entire project period.
Upon award of the HEAT grant, a local press conference will be conducted at the
Sheriff’s Office headquarters. All local media will be invited, to include the
local newspapers and TV Stations. The press conference will cover all of the GOHS
goals & objectives which will be consistent with the Sheriff’s Office
goals/objectives.
The success of the project grant will be available on the Sheriff’s Office web site.
The Sheriff’s Office will also make the project grant officers available to media,
especially during enforcement efforts such as OZT, Click it or Ticket, and 100 days
of Summer HEAT.
The use of the Sheriff’s Office web site and Facebook page will be included within
the media plan. Posts, photos, statistics, safety tips, etc. will all be
incorporated into our social media educational tools.
Some of the local media outlets are: Augusta Chronicle, Augusta Focus, Urban Pro
Weekly, Metro Spirit, Applause, North Augusta Star, McDuffie Progress, McDuffie
Mirror, The Signal, WAGT, WJBF, WRDW, WFXG, WGAC, and others.
We also have some donated billboards and will use these in conjunction with the grant.
Page 27 of 2901/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Resource Requirements
Use this section to provide a detailed justification of all budget items. All resources should support the
completion of the activities and objectives needed to accomplish the overall grant goal.
1. What personnel are needed? Hours they will they work? Include job descriptions.
2. What are the types and quantity of needed equipment?
3. How will equipment be used and by whom?
4. Describe the training required by personnel.
5. Are all resources necessary in order to achieve the grant goals/objectives?
1. The Richmond County Sheriff’s Office is requesting salaries for two (2) full
time personnel that will be dedicated to traffic enforcement as HEAT unit officers.
Richmond County will supply a third (3rd) person in kind assigned to the HEAT
project.
2. The Richmond County Sheriff's Office will ensure that all officers assigned to
HEAT will be trained in SFST, DRE, CPST and will maintain certifications in laser,
radar and intox operations.
3. The equipment will be used by the H.E.A.T. Team members to enforce traffic laws on the roadways of
Richmond County. The equipment will also be used during road checks within Richmond County and while
assisting other agencies during their road checks.
Page 28 of 2901/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Self-Sufficiency
Continuation Plan
Federal Funding guidelines require that each funded project indicate how the activities of the project will be
continued after federal funds are no longer provided. The continuation plan must identify potential sources of
non-federal funds.
The HEAT team is an integral part of the traffic effort of the Richmond County
Sheriff's Office, and is such a needed asset that we will continue this effort into
the foreseeable future. With the sustained growth of the county and the number of
crashes, injuries and fatalities, traffic safety must be included within all future
plans. With the current expansion of the Traffic Division within the Sheriff’s
Office, it has been made clear that traffic safety and enforcement is a priority and
the HEAT units could be sustained in the future through the budgetary process of the
traffic division.
Page 29 of 2901/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Personnel Service Details - Position
Position/Title Pay
Code
Hours Per
Week
Pay
Rate
Annual
Salary
Percent of
Time
Project
Salary
Deputy Andrew Justice Biweekly 40 $1,489.31 $38,722.06 100%$0
Deputy Hoy Darling Biweekly 40 $1,489.31 $38,722.06 100%$38,722.06
Deputy Christian Gandy Biweekly 40 $1,489.31 $38,722.06 100%$38,722.06
Total $77,444.12
Page 1 of 101/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Personnel Service Details - Benefits
Project Salaries Percent of Time Project Salary
Total 300.00%$77,444.12
F.I.C.A 6.2%$4,801.54
Retirement 6.875%$5,324.28
Health Insurance:1.3%$1,006.77
Worker's Comp.:0%$0
Unemployment Insurance:0%$0
Other:%$0
Other:%$0
Other:%$0
Total $11,132.59
Total Personnel Service:
(Total salaries + fringe benefits)
$88,576.71
Total Personnel Services:$88,576.71
Page 1 of 201/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Pay Schedule for Project Employees
PAY PERIOD DATES PAID
Pay Code Month Beginning Date Ending Date Actual Pay Date
Biweekly October 10/1/2016 10/7/2016 10/14/2016
Biweekly October 10/8/2016 10/21/2016 10/28/2016
Biweekly October 10/22/2016 11/4/2016 11/11/2016
Biweekly November 11/5/2016 11/18/2016 11/25/2016
Biweekly November 11/19/2016 12/2/2016 12/9/2016
Biweekly December 12/3/2016 12/16/2016 12/23/2016
Biweekly December 12/17/2016 12/30/2016 1/6/2017
Biweekly January 12/31/2016 1/13/2017 1/20/2017
Biweekly January 1/14/2017 1/27/2017 2/3/2017
Biweekly January 1/28/2017 2/10/2017 2/17/2017
Biweekly February 2/11/2017 2/24/2017 3/3/2017
Biweekly February 2/25/2017 3/10/2017 3/17/2017
Biweekly March 3/11/2017 3/24/2017 3/31/2017
Biweekly March 3/25/2017 4/7/2017 4/14/2017
Biweekly April 4/8/2017 4/21/2017 4/28/2017
Biweekly April 4/22/2017 5/5/2017 5/12/2017
Biweekly May 5/6/2017 5/19/2017 5/26/2017
Biweekly May 5/20/2016 6/2/2017 6/9/2017
Biweekly June 6/3/2017 6/16/2017 6/23/2017
Biweekly June 6/17/2017 6/30/2017 7/7/2017
Biweekly July 7/1/2017 7/14/2017 7/21/2017
Biweekly July 7/15/2017 7/28/2017 8/4/2017
Biweekly August 7/29/2017 8/11/2017 8/18/2017
Biweekly August 8/12/2017 8/25/2017 9/1/2017
Biweekly September 8/26/2017 9/8/2017 9/15/2017
Biweekly September 9/9/2017 9/22/2017 9/29/2017
Page 2 of 201/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Regular Operating Expenses
Description Unit Price Quantity Total Costs
Annual Maintenance and Fuel for HEAT Vehicles $3,334.00 3 $10,002.00
$0
Total $10,002.00
Page 1 of 501/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Travel
Description Unit Price Quantity Total Costs
Training Travel $3,000.00 1 $3,000.00
Total $3,000.00
Page 2 of 501/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Equipment Purchases
Description Unit Price Quantity Total Costs
$0
$0
$0
Self Inflating Baloon Light for road checks $0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total $0
Page 3 of 501/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Computer Charges and Computer Equipment
Description Unit Price Quantity Total Costs
$0
$0
Verizon Air Card - 1 Year Service $600.00 3 $1,800.00
$0
Total $1,800.00
Page 4 of 501/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Motor Vehicle Purchase
Description Unit Price Quantity Total Costs
$0
Total $0
Page 5 of 501/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Cost Category Summary
COST CATEGORY TOTAL AWARD AMT.
1. Personnel Services (salaries & fringes)$88,576.71 $70,861.37
2. Regular Operating Expenses $10,002.00 $8,001.60
3. Travel $3,000.00 $2,400.00
4. Equipment Purchases $0 $0
5. Contractual Services $0 $0
6. Per Diem and Fees $0 $0
7. Computer Charges and Computer Equipment $1,800.00 $1,440.00
8. Telecommunication $0 $0
9. Motor Vehicle Purchase $0 $0
10. Rent Real Estates $0 $0
11. Total $103,378.71 $82,702.97
MATCHING FUNDS
Local Cash Match (You must enter at least a 0 before
saving to force the page to calculate the category
totals).
20%
$20,675.74
Federal Participation (percentage of total in Item 11)80.00%$82,702.97
Page 1 of 401/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Certification and Signatures
I certify that I understand and agree to comply with the general and fiscal year terms and conditions of this
application including special conditions; to comply with provisions of the Act governing these funds and all other
federal laws; that all information presented is correct; that there has been appropriate coordination with
affected agencies; that I am duly authorized by the applicant to perform the tasks as they relate to the terms and
conditions of this grant application; that costs incurred prior to grant approval may result in the expenses being
absorbed by the grantee; and, that the receipt of grantor funds through the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety
will not supplant state or local funds. Monthly reimbursement claim submissions filed electronically are in
effect, “electronically signed”.
Agency Administrator *
Name:Mr. Lewis Blanchard Title:Lieutenant
Agency:Richmond County Sheriff's Office Address:400 Walton Way
Augusta, GA, 30901
Phone Number:(706) 261-0439 Email Address: lblanchard@augustaga.gov
Fax Number:
Signature:_______________________________Date:3/23/2016
Agency Staff *
Name:Ms. Veronica Freeman Title:Finance Director
Agency:Richmond County Sheriff's Office Address 400 Walton Way
Augusta, GA, 30901
Phone Number:(706) 261-0439 Email Address: vfreeman@augustaga.gov
Fax Number:(706) 821-1064
Signature:_______________________________Date:3/25/2016
FEI Number:
Authorized Official *
Name:Mr. Richard Roundtree Title:Sheriff (AO)
Agency:Richmond County Sheriff's Office Address:400 Walton Way
Augusta, GA, 30901
Phone Number:(706) 261-0439 Email Address: rroundtree@augustaga.gov
Fax Number:(706) 821-1064
Signature:_______________________________Date:3/25/2016
* NOTE: AGENCY ADMIN, AGENCY STAFF AND AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL CANNOT BE THE SAME
PERSON WITHOUT GOHS APPROVAL. STAFF BEING FUNDED UNDER THIS GRANT MAY NOT BE
ANY OF THE ABOVE OFFICIALS WITHOUT GOHS APPROVAL.
Page 2 of 401/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Funding Allocations
Award Amount: $82,702.97
Funding Source Amount to Fund Percentage
402 (2017)
402AL (2017)0.00%
402CP (2017)0.00%
402OP (2017)0.00%
402PA (2017)0.00%
402PM (2017)0.00%
402PS (2017)0.00%
402PT (2017)$82,702.97 100.00%
402SA (2017)0.00%
402SC (2017)0.00%
MAP 21 405b OP High (2017)
405b M1*OP High (2017)0.00%
405b M1*PS High (2017)0.00%
405b M1PE High (2017)0.00%
405b M1TR High (2017)0.00%
MAP 21 405c Data Programs (2017)
405c M3DA (2017)0.00%
MAP 21 405d Impaired Driving LOW (2017)
405d M6X-2016 (2017)0.00%
MAP 21 405d Impaired Driving MID (2017)
405d M5CS (2017)0.00%
405d M5OT (2017)0.00%
MAP 21 405e Distracted Driving (2017)
405e M8X (2017)0.00%
MAP 21 405f Motorcycle Programs (2017)
405f M9X (2017)0.00%
2010 Motorcycle Safety (2017)
2010 K6 (2017)0.00%
DRIVER EDUCATION (2017)0.00%
250 SHARE THE ROAD TAGS (2017)0.00%
Page 3 of 401/13/2017
General Application 2017
Organization: Richmond County Sheriff's Office GA-2017-402PT-139
Version Date: 01/13/2017 09:35:42
Funding Allocations
NASCAR TAGS (2017)0.00%
STATE (2017)0.00%
Total:$82,702.97
Page 4 of 401/13/2017
AUGUSTA, GEORGIA
New Grant ProposaVApplication
Beforc a DepartmenUagency may apply for the granUaward on behalf of Augusta Richmond County, they must lirst obtain approval
signature from the Admlnlstrator and the Finence Director. The Administretor will obtein information on the grant program and
requirements from the funding agency end review these for feesibility to determine if this granUawrrd will benefit Augusta
Richmond County. The Finance Director will review the funding requirement to determine if the grant will fit within our budget
structure and financial goals.
Proposal Project No. Project Title
PROOOOT4 SHERIFFS HEAT GRANT 2OI1
Requesting grant offered by Georgia Highway Safety to acquire and sustain the
Sheriffs Office H.E.A.T. Unit to reduce fatalities, crashes, and injuries on
the roadway of Richmond County.
local Match is20oh. Funding will come GF from Sheriffs Oftice Road Patrol Fund
273. Please reduce budget expense account 273031310-5223112by $20,675.74.
EEO required: No
EEO d€pt. rcquired: No
Start Date: 10/0112016
Submit Date: 1111812016
Total Budgeted Amount: 103,378.7 I
Sponsor: GM00l3
SponsorType: Pf
Purpose: t
Name
End Date: 0913012017
Department: 032
Total Funding Agency:
US DOT
Pass thru Federal
Highway Safety
Contacts
MECE[VED
ADMINISTR.ATOR'S OFFICE
JAlt 0 5 l0l,
AUGUSTA-RlCH14OItlD
COUNTY
Cash Match? Y
Total Cash Match: 20,675.'14
Sheriff
82,702.9't
dMr0/8 6ctts
Flow Thru ID: Gi{eOOKE}r{A
IDTlpe
I GMI003 Freeman, Veronica (706)821-106't
Type
FA
_EL
R. ROI'NDTREE
Approvals
Date
0t/03t2017
.+- -4Dept Signatu rg/- :/ |-
Grant Coord iorto, Sigo
l.) lhay>reiewed the Grant application and enclosed materials and:
,.{i"athe granUaward to be feasible to the needs of Augusta Richmond County
o Deny the request
to*&t)u4'a,,r*/-r-t7
Finance Director Date
2.\ I have reviewed the Grant application and enclosed materials and:
y'On ore the Departnent Agency to move forward with the application
uren VFl5985 - VERONICA FREEMAN pege
Report: GMI000_PROPOSAL - GMl000: Grants Management: r
Current Drte: 0110312017
Current Tlme: l4:47:02
the request
(
lL-.
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
Approval- Purchase Detention Center’s Video Recorder Storage
Department:Richmond County Sheriff's Office
Department:Richmond County Sheriff's Office
Caption:Motion to approve the purchase of video recorder storage
devices for the Jail. (Approved by Public Safety Committee
January 31,2017)
Background:The F and H pods at the Charles B. Webster Detention Center
need repairs and replacements equipment. The recording devices
are not functioning properly, which poses a security risk. These
devices store the recordings of numerous activities, which occur
on the cell blocks each day. RCSO has funding for this purchase
in the 278 fund and would prefer to replace these items as quickly
as possible.
Analysis:RCSO will purchase Video Recorder Storage devices for the jail.
Financial Impact:The Sheriff's Office will use funding out of the 278032511-
5316210. Funding is available.
Alternatives:None
Recommendation:Allocate funding in the amount $75,630.00 for the ICOTECH
quote.
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
Funding is available in account 278032511-5316210
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Finance.
Procurement.
Cover Memo
Law.
Administrator.
Clerk of Commission
Cover Memo
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
Emergency Notification System
Department:EMA
Department:EMA
Caption:Motion to approve the Extension of the Emergency Notification
System with West Communication Inc. d/b/a Twenty First
Century Communication, now known as West Interactive Services
Corporation, for a period of three months. (Approved by Public
Safety Committee January 31, 2017)
Background:West Communication, Inc. d/b/a Twenty First Century
Communications now known as West Interactive Services
Corporation is the current community emergency notification
provider for Augusta-Richmond County. This Amendment to the
2-year contract, allows an extension of services to Augusta-
Richmond County. This short-term extension allows for service
to be continued to serve the residents of Richmond County, while
negotiating a new contract with another vendor for community
notifications.
Analysis:The notification system is utilized by Emergency Management
and other departments to notify county residents of emergency
incidents and non-emergency readiness education events.
Financial Impact:The financial impact of this Contract in the initial year (2014-
2015) was at a cost of $13,000. The financial impact of this
Contract in the second year (2015-2016) was at a cost of
$15,000.00. The cost of extending the Agreement with West
Interactive Services Corporation previously known as West
Communications, Inc. dba Twenty First Century
Communications, for an additional three month period is
$3,750.00 and will come out of the current budget.
Alternatives:none
Recommendation:
Approve the Extension of the current Notification System with
Cover Memo
West Communications, Inc., d/b/a Twenty First Century
Communications now known as West Interactive Services
Corporation for a period of 3 months at a cost of $3,750.00 and
authorize the Mayor to execute the appropriate documents.
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
101039210-5232119
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Finance.
Law.
Administrator.
Clerk of Commission
Cover Memo
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
Security Gate for Charles B. Webster Detention Center
Department:Richmond County Sheriff's Office
Department:Richmond County Sheriff's Office
Caption:Motion to approve the purchase for Richmond County Sheriff's
Office (RCSO) in the amount of $29,461.60 to purchase a security
gate for the Charles B. Webster Detention Center. (Approved by
Public Safety Committee January 31, 2017)
Background:During a Sheriff’s Advisory Board Meeting, the deputies from the
Detention Center requested a secure parking area. The parking lot
where they park is in the vicinity of where the inmates are
released from jail. This is a concern for the female deputies when
they go to their vehicles. Especially at night, there are male
inmates walking between the vehicles. RCSO quoted three
vendors for this project.
Analysis:Quotes from Overhead Door Company of Augusta, Crozier
Construction, and Maner Building Supply.
Financial Impact:Funding is available in the Richmond County Sheriff’s Budget.
Alternatives:None
Recommendation:Approval of purchase for the Security Gate
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
Funding available for the Richmond County Sheriff’s budget
(273032511)
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Finance.
Procurement.
Cover Memo
Law.
Administrator.
Clerk of Commission
Cover Memo
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
2017-21 Capital Improvements Plan
Department:Administrator
Department:Administrator
Caption:Motion to approve 2017-21 Capital Improvements Plan.
(Approved by Finance Committee January 31, 2017)
Background:As discussed at one of the Strategic workshops in 2016, the City
has been working to develop a five-year capital improvements
planning process among several departments that manage
infrastructure assets, similar to what most cities and counties in
the U.S. adopt. A CIP includes both state-of-good-repair asset
management projects to keep infrastructure in safe and reliable
condition, as well as infrastructure expansion or enhancement
projects for the city’s economic development and growth
plans. Augusta is beginning the process in 2017 specifically for
recreation and parks, utilities, and some engineering programs. As
we move forward, we will begin to incorporate the planned storm
water drainage projects, facilities management projects, and other
areas of infrastructure asset management.
Analysis:This plan, for 2017-21, includes significant recreation and parks
capital improvements, utilizing SPLOST funds, and reflective of
priority needs identified in the Parks Master Plan. It highlights
recommended sanitary sewer system rehabilitation and extension
projects, both to maintain available system capacity for growth as
well as to serve current un-sewered areas. It highlights the
Engineering Department’s recommended uses of annual
Transportation Investment Act (TIA) discretionary funds. It also
describes several priority Unfunded capital needs in the
Recreation and Parks programs and for Street Resurfacing, to
maintain a state of good repair. It is recommended that the
Commission approve the attached Capital Improvements Plan,
including: (1) the allocation of SPLOST V, VI and VII Recreation
and Parks funds to the specific projects listed; (2) the
rehabilitation of the Aquatics Center dehumidification system via
design-build-operate-maintain method; (3) the prioritization of the
sewer extension funding in 2014 Bond funds and R & E funds;
Cover Memo
and (4) the Engineering Department’s planned uses for TIA
discretionary funds.
Financial Impact:No additional funds are requested. This item allocates the uses of
existing budgeted funds.
Alternatives:Do not approve a capital improvements plan.
Recommendation:Approve the Capital Improvements Plan, including: (1) the
allocation of SPLOST V, VI and VII Recreation and Parks funds
to the specific projects listed; (2) the rehabilitation of the Aquatics
Center dehumidification system via design-build-operate-maintain
method; (3) the prioritization of the sewer extension funding in
2014 Bond funds and R & E funds; and (4) the Engineering
Department’s planned uses for TIA discretionary funds.
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
N/A
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Finance.
Law.
Administrator.
Clerk of Commission
Cover Memo
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
Acquisition of permanent easement, temporary easement, and one temporary driveway easement to
Richmond County, Georgia from Wilbur N. Ritter, or his successor, as Trustee of the Wilbur N. Ritter
Living Trust and Peggy L. Ritter, or her successor, as Trust
Department:Law
Department:Law
Caption:Motion to authorize condemnation to acquire title of a portion of
property for permanent easement, temporary easement, and one
temporary driveway easement (Parcel 025-2-109-00-0) - 2702
Ingleside Drive. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee January 31, 2017)
Background:Despite repeated efforts, the City has been unable to reach an
agreement with the property owner and therefore seeks to acquire
title through condemnation. In order to proceed and avoid further
project delays, it is necessary to condemn a portion of subject
property. The required property consists of 592.35 square feet of
permanent easement, 563.68 square feet of temporary easement,
and one temporary driveway easement. The appraised value is
$1,700.00.
Analysis:Condemnation is necessary in order to acquire the required
property.
Financial Impact:The necessary costs will be covered under the project budget.
Alternatives:Deny condemnation.
Recommendation:Approve condemnation.
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
G/L 327-04-1110-52.12122 J/L T14041211-52.12122
Cover Memo
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Finance.
Law.
Administrator.
Clerk of Commission
Cover Memo
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
Augusta Canal Embankment Repair Adjacent to Butt Bridge
Department:Utilities
Department:Utilities
Caption:Motion to approve Change Order for Construction Services for
Augusta Canal Embankment Repair Project. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee January 31, 2017)
Background:The initial scope of this project was to repair to the north bank of
the canal in the vicinity of the 15th Street Bridge; the project was
coordinated with the bridge repair due to the draining of the
canal. The bid amount for the original project was $290,516.67.
Once the canal was drained, additional unsuitable material was
revealed in the area of the original work. Also, previously
undetected faults in the canal banks were discovered behind the
City shop, beneath the John C. Calhoun bridge and at the 13 th
Street gates.
Analysis:Due to the revenue lost by the Augusta Canal Authority when the
canal is down, it was important to proceed with the repairs quickly
so that the canal could be re-watered as soon as possible.
Financial Impact:The additional work totals $173,751.48. Funds are available in
514043410-5425110/81600040-5425110.
Alternatives:No viable alternative
Recommendation:We recommend approval of the Change Order in the amount of
$173,751.48.
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
Funds are available in 514043410-5425110/81600040-5425110.
Cover Memo
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Finance.
Procurement.
Law.
Administrator.
Clerk of Commission
Cover Memo
Augusta Canal Embankment Repair Adjacent to Butt Bridge
Change Order Request Justificaiton
AUD_2015‐007
Item Description
Estimated
Quantity Units Unit Price
Quantity Amount Quantity Amount Quantity Amount
1 Demolition, Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS $14,380.00 1 $14,380.00 1 $14,380.00
2 Excavation & Removal of Existing Embankment (2,132 CY
Estimated)1 LS $76,661.64 1 $76,661.64 1 $76,661.64
3 Earth fill, Compacted in Place (2,952 CY Estimated) 1 LS $81,447.52 1 $81,447.52 1 $81,447.52
4 Temporary Access 1 LS $9,112.50 1 $9,112.50 1 $9,112.50
5 Concreted Sidewalk 883 SY $62.07 710 $44,069.70 710 $44,069.70
6 Grass Matting Blanket, Including Grass Seed 1367 SY $7.89 1260 $9,941.40 1260 $9,941.40
7 Grassing 1 SY $1,579.50 1 $1,579.50 1 $1,579.50
8 Construction Exits 2 EA $1,944.00 1 $1,944.00 1 $1,944.00
9 Silt Fence, Type C, Installed and Removed After Construction 2330 LF $5.46 750 $4,095.00 750 $4,095.00
10 Lump Sum Construction 1 LS $25,132.27 1 $25,132.27 1 $25,132.27
11 Excavation & Removal of Existing Embankment 0 CY $23.00 2532 $58,236.00 2532 $58,236.00
12 Earth Fill, Compacted In Place 0 CY $16.00 2254 $36,064.00 2254 $36,064.00
13 Mucking Material in Levee Core 0 CY $23.00 400 $9,200.00 400 $9,200.00
14 Earth Fill, Compacted In Place 0 CY $16.00 400 $6,400.00 400 $6,400.00
15 Tensar TX160 Geotextil Fabric 0 SY $12.25 450 $5,512.50 450 $5,512.50
16 Grubbing 0 LS $4,000.00 1 $4,000.00 1 $4,000.00
17 Excavation & Removal of Existing Embankment 0 CY $23.00 912 $20,976.00 912 $20,976.00
18 Earth fill, Compacted In Place 0 CY $16.00 1046 $16,736.00 1046 $16,736.00
19 Tensar TX160 Geotextile Fabric 0 SY $12.25 0 $0.00 0 $0.00
20 Temporary Access (Ramp @ City Shop)0 LS $6,000.00 1 $6,000.00 1 $6,000.00
21 Silt Fence, Type C, Installed and Removed After Construction 0 LF $5.46 800 $4,368.00 800 $4,368.00
22 Grass Matting Blanket, Including Grass Seed 0 SY $7.89 924 $7,290.36 924 $7,290.36
23 Grassing 0 LS $1,500.00 1 $1,500.00 1 $1,500.00
24 Lump Sum Construction 0 LS $10,000.00 1 $10,000.00 1 $10,000.00
25 Excavate Old Rip Rap 0LS$1,200.00 1 $1,200.00 1 $1,200.00
26 Supply and Place Rip Rap Type III 0TN $73.00 73.12 $5,337.76 73.12 $5,337.76
27 Mobilization/Demobilization 0LS$900.00 1 $900.00 1 $900.00
28 Crew 0DY$1,200.00 1.5 $1,800.00 1.5 $1,800.00
29 Earth Fill, Compacted In Place 0CY $16.00 24 $384.00 24 $384.00
$268,363.53 $195,904.62 $464,268.15
$290,516.67
$464,268.15
$173,751.48
Original Project Scope Amount
Earned to Date Change Order items Total to Date
Change Order Items
CO Task #02
CO Task #03
CO Task #04
CO Task #05
Original Purchase Order
Amount Earned to Date
Change Ordger Amount Requested
CO Task #01
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
Dover-Lyman Rehabilitation Project Contract Award – 16-223
Department:Engineering
Department:Engineering
Caption:Motion to approve award of Construction Contract to Reeves
Construction Company in the amount of $4,351,872.58 for Dover-
Lyman Rehabilitation Project as requested by AED. Award is
contingent upon receipt of signed contracts and proper bonds.
(Bid Item 16-223) (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee January 31, 2017)
Background:Dover-Lyman Rehabilitation project is an approved neighborhood
infrastructure improvements SPLOST project. The project
consists of roadway improvements, drainage improvements, curb
& gutter, and sidewalks within Lumpkin Park Subdivision. Streets
included in this projects are Lyman Street, Dover Street, Quist
Drive, Miles Street, Frohman Street and Sheraton Drive.
Analysis:Bids were received on October 6, 2016 with Reeves Construction
being the low bidder. The bid results are as follow:
CONTRACTORS BID 1. Reeves Construction $4,351,872.58 2.
Blair Construction $4,374,497.51 It is the recommendation of the
Engineering Department to award this project to Reeves
Construction.
Financial Impact:Funds are available in the amount of $4,351,872.58 upon
commission approval. Fund allocation is as follows: $1,700,000
(Dover-Lyman SPLOST III); and $2,651,873 (SPLOST Fund
Balance)
Alternatives:1). Approve award of Construction Contract to Reeves
Construction Company in the amount of $4,351,872.58 for Dover-
Lyman Rehabilitation Project as requested by AED. Award is
contingent upon receipt of signed contracts and proper bonds. 2).
Do not approve and cancel the project
Cover Memo
Recommendation:Approve Alternative Number One.
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE FOLLOWING
ACCOUNTS: $1,700,000 (Dover-Lyman SPLOST III); and
$2,651,873 (SPLOST Fund Balance)
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Finance.
Procurement.
Law.
Administrator.
Clerk of Commission
Cover Memo
Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia
BE IT ORDAINED by the Commission-Council of Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia that the
following Capital Project Budget is hereby amended:
Section 1: This project is approve award of Construction Contract to Reeves Construction
Company in the amount of $4,351,872.58 for Dover-Lyman Rehabilitation Project
as requested by AED. Funding available in the amount of
$4,351,872.58; $1,700,000 (Dover-Lyman SPLOST);
and $2,651,873 (SPLOST recpatured Funds)
Section 2: The following revenues are anticipated to be available to the Consolidated
Government to complete the project.
Special 1% Sales Tax, Phase III
Dover-Lyman SPLOST III
SPLOST Recaptured Funds
Section 3: Copies of this Capital Project Budget shall be made available to the
Comptroller for direction in carrying out this project.
Adopted this ____________________ day of ______________________.
Approved
_________________________________________________
Original-Commission Council Office
Copy-Engineering Department
Copy-Finance Department
Copy-Procurement Department
Please do not process this form. Once Commission approved the orignal will be forwarded for execution. Thanks
AED, ext 5070
CAPITAL PROJECT BUDGET
DOVER-LYMAN CONSTRUCTION INFRASTRUCTURE
Change Number One
Honorable Hardie Davis, Mayor
CPB#323-041110-208823601
Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia
CAPITAL PROJECT BUDGET
DOVER-LYMAN CONSTRUCTION INFRASTRUCTURE
Change Number One
CPB#323-041110-208823601
CPB AMOUNT CPB
SOURCE OF FUNDS CPB ADDITION
SPECIAL 1% SALES TAX, PHASE III
323-04-1110-5212115-201823762 ($54,185)
SPECIAL 1% SALES TAX, PHASE III
323-04-1110-5411120-201823762 ($160,000)
SPECIAL 1% SALES TAX, PHASE III
323-04-1110-5414110-201823762 ($1,785,815)
DOVER-LYMAN SPLOST
323-04-1110-5414110-208823601 ($1,700,000)
SPLOST RECAPTURED FUNDS
323-04-1110-5414110-208823601 ($2,651,873)
TOTAL SOURCES: ($2,000,000) ($4,351,873)
USE OF FUNDS
CONSTRUCTION
323-04-1110-5414110-208823601 $2,000,000 $4,351,873
TOTAL USES:$2,000,000 $4,351,873
by the Commission-Council of Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia that the
Company in the amount of $4,351,872.58 for Dover-Lyman Rehabilitation Project
2,000,000$
1,700,000$
2,651,873$
6,351,873$
Please do not process this form. Once Commission approved the orignal will be forwarded for execution. Thanks
CPB#323-041110-208823601
CPB#323-041110-208823601
NEW
CPB
($54,185)
($160,000)
($1,785,815)
($1,700,000)
($2,651,873)
($6,351,873)
$6,351,873
$6,351,873
Invitation to Bid
Sealed bids will be received at this office until Thursday, September 15, 2016 @ 3:00 p.m. for furnishing:
Bid Item #16-223 Dover Lyman Rehabilitation Project for Augusta Engineering Department
Bids will be received by Augusta, GA Commission hereinafter referred to as the OWNER at the offices of:
Geri A. Sams, Director
Augusta Procurement Department
535 Telfair Street - Room 605
Augusta, Georgia 30901
Bid documents may be examined at the office of the Augusta, GA Procurement Department, 535 Telfair Street – Room 605,
Augusta, GA 30901. Plans and specifications for the project shall be obtained by all prime, subcontractors and suppliers
exclusively from ARC. The fees for the plans and specifications which are non-refundable are $175.00.
It is the wish of the Owner that all businesses are given the opportunity to submit on this project. To facilitate this policy the
Owner is providing the opportunity to view plans online (www.e-arc.com) at no charge through ARC Southern (706 821-0405)
beginning Thursday, August 4, 2016. Bidders are cautioned that submitting a package without Procurement of a complete set
are likely to overlook issues of construction phasing, delivery of goods or services, or coordination with other work that is
material to the successful completion of the project. Bidders are cautioned that acquisition of documents through any other
source is not advisable. Acquisition of documents from unauthorized sources places the bidder at the risk of receiving
incomplete or inaccurate information upon which to base his qualifications.
A Mandatory Pre Bid Conference will be held on Tuesday, August 30, 2016 @ 10:00 a.m. in the Procurement Department,
535 Telfair Street, Room 605.
All questions must be submitted in writing by fax to 706 821-2811 or by email to procbidandcontract@augustaga.gov to the
office of the Procurement Department by Thursday, September 1, 2016 @ 5:00 P.M. No bid will be accepted by fax, all must
be received by mail or hand delivered.
No proposal may be withdrawn for a period of sixty (60) days after bids have been opened, pending the execution of contract
with the successful bidder. A 10% Bid Bond is required to be submitted along with the bidders’ qualifications; a 100%
performance bond and a 100% payment bond will be required for award.
Invitation for bids and specifications. An invitation for bids shall be issued by the Procurement Office and shall include specifications
prepared in accordance with Article 4 (Product Specifications), and all contractual terms and conditions, applicable to the
procurement. All specific requirements contained in the invitation to bid including, but not limited to, the number of copies
needed, the timing of the submission, the required financial data, and any other requirements designated by the Procurement
Department are considered material conditions of the bid which are not waiveable or modifiable by the Procurement Director.
All requests to waive or modify any such material condition shall be submitted through the Procurement Director to the appropriate
committee of the Augusta, Georgia Commission for approval by the Augusta, Georgia Commission. Please mark BID number on the
outside of the envelope.
Bidders are cautioned that acquisition of BID documents through any source other than the office of the Procurement Department
is not advisable. Acquisition of BID documents from unauthorized sources placed the bidder at the risk of receiving incomplete or
inaccurate information upon which to base his qualifications.
Correspondence must be submitted via mail, fax or email as follows:
Augusta Procurement Department
Attn: Geri A. Sams, Director of Procurement
535 Telfair Street, Room 605
Augusta, GA 30901
Fax: 706-821-2811 or Email: procbidandcontract@augustaga.gov
No bid will be accepted by fax, all must be received by mail or hand delivered.
GERI A. SAMS, Procurement Director
Publish:
Augusta Chronicle August 4, 11, 18, 25, 2016
Metro Courier August 10, 2016
OFFICIAL
Reeves Construction Co.
1 Apac Industrial Way
Augusta, GA 30907
Blair Construction
P. O. Box 770
Evans, GA 30809
Yes Yes
48048 224004
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
$4,351,872.58 $4,374,497.51
Bid Item #16-223
Dover Lyman Rehabilitation Project
for Augusta, Georgia - Engineering Department
Bid Date: Thursday, October 6, 2016 @ 3:00 p.m.
The following vendors did not respond:
E. R. Snell Contractors / 1785 Oak Road / Snellville, GA 30078
Barnett Southern / 106 N. Alexander Av / Washington, GA 30673
Beams Contracting / 15030 Atomic Road / Beech island, SC 29842
Bid Bond
Bid Price
Total Number Specifications Mailed Out: 21
Total Number Specifications Download (Demandstar): 6
Total Electronic Notifications (Demandstar): 294
Mandatory Pre-Bid Conference: 5
Total packages submitted: 2
Total Noncompliant: 0
Vendors
Attachment B
E-Verify Number
SAVE Form
Addendums 1-6
Page 1 of 1
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTC--
Abie L. ladson, P.E., CPESC, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Ms Geri Sams, Director - Procurement
Abie L. Ladson, PE, CPESC, Director- Engineering
Monday, December 5, 2015
Dover Lyman Rehabilitation Project
Project Nu m ber: 323-04-1110-208823601
Bid !tem: 16-223
File Reference: 16-014(4)
Ms. Sams, it is recommendation of Augusta Engineering Department (AED) that the subject project
be awarded to Reeves Construction Company in the amount of 54,351,872,58. Award is
contingent upon receipt of signed contract and proper bonds.
Should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me or Hameed Malik
at (706)796-s040.
Thonk you in advonce.
AIL/xm
Attachments(s)
Nancy Williams, Quality Assurance Analyst
Phyllis Johnson, Procurement Compliance Officer
DBE office
Hameed Malik, Ph.D., PE, Assistant Director - Engineering Division
Anthony Taylor, AED Construction Engineer
Valerie Jenkins, AED Accounting Manager
File
Algusta Englnearin8 Adminast?atlon
505 Telfair Street - AuBusta, GA 30901
Office: (706)796-50/tO Fax: (706) 796-5045
www.aurustaqa.Iov
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
Marvin Griffin Road Improvements – SA5 – 16-222
Department:Engineering
Department:Engineering
Caption:Motion to approve funding for the Design Consultant Services
Supplemental Agreement Five to Hussey Gay Bell in the amount
of $272,910.00 for the Marvin Griffin Road Improvements Project
as requested by the AED. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee January 31, 2017)
Background:Marvin Griffin Road Improvements project is an approved
SPLOST project. This project consists of roadway widening of
two lane to four lane, traffic signal improvements, drainage
improvements, curb & gutter and sidewalks along Marvin Griffin
Road between Doug Barnard Parkway (SR56 Spur) and Mike
Padgett Highway (SR56) . On October 13, 2016 road construction
bids were opened and the contract award process is underway. The
construction phase of roadway and drainage improvements require
design related coordination with utilities, railroad, resolution of
constructability conflicts, and request for field information that
warrants design engineer services. Also, this road is a heavy
industry corridor. A timely resolution of design conflicts is critical
for minimizing disruption of industrial operations along this
corridor.
Analysis:In December 2001, commission approved award of design phases
of the project to Hussey Gay Bell. The project phase 1 is
completed and phase 2 is about to go into construction. This
supplemental agreement covers services during construction phase
for contractor request for field information, utility conflicts
assessment & resolution, field engineering, and attending
construction progress meetings.
Financial Impact:Funds are available in amount of $272,910.00 upon commission
approval. Fund allocation is from SPLOST Fund balance.
Alternatives:1). Approve funding for Design Consultant Services Supplemental
Cover Memo
Agreement Five to Hussey Gay Bell in the amount of $272,910.00
for the Marvin Griffin Road Improvements Project as requested by
the AED. 2). Do not approve and find alternative to complete the
project and provide construction phase needed services.
Recommendation:Approve Alternative Number One.
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
Engineering SPLOST Fund balance
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Finance.
Procurement.
Law.
Administrator.
Clerk of Commission
Cover Memo
(SA02 – For changes greater than $20,000) April 2005
AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, We, Hussey, Gay, Bell & DeYoung, Inc., Consultant, entered into a contract with
Augusta-Richmond County on December 18, 2001, for engineering design services associated with
the Marvin Griffin Road Improvements, Project No. 323-041110-296823603, File Reference No.
05-014 (A), and
WHEREAS, certain revisions to the design requested by Augusta-Richmond County are not covered
by the scope of the original contract, we desire to submit the following Supplemental Agreement
to-wit:
Additional Engineering Services during the construction phase for field information,
utility conflicts assessment & resolution, field engineering &
attending construction progress meetings.
It is agreed that as a result of the above modification the contract amount is increased by
$272,910.00 from $249,740.00 to a new total of $522,650.00.
This agreement in no way modifies or changes the original contract of which it becomes a part,
except as specifically stated herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, We, Hussey, Gay, Bell & De Young International, Inc., Consultant, hereby
agree to said Supplemental Agreement consisting of the above mentioned items and prices, and
agree that this Supplemental Agreement is hereby made a part of the original contract to be
performed under the specifications thereof, and that the original contract is in full force and
effect, except insofar as it might be modified by this Supplemental Agreement.
RECOMMEND FOR APPROVAL:
CITY OF AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY
AUGUSTA, GEORGIA
Hardie Davis Jr., Mayor
Approved: Date Approved: Date
[ATTACHED CORPORATE SEAL]
ATTEST: ATTEST:
Title: Title:
Augusta Richmond County Project Number(s): 323-041110-296823603
Supplemental Agreement Number: 5
Purchase Order Number: 57943
PLEASE DO NOT PROCESS THIS DOCUMENT. ONCE COMMISSION APPROVES 3 ORIGINALS WILL BE FORWARDED FOR
EXECUTION. THANKS – EXT 5070
Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia
BE IT ORDAINED by the Commission-Council of Augusta-Richmond County,
Georgia that the following Capital Project Budget is hereby authorized:
Section 1: Approve funding for Design Consultant Services Supplemental Agreement Five to
Hussy Gay Bell in the amount of $272,910.00 for the Marvin Griffin Road
Improvements Project as requested by the AED.
Fund allocation is from SPLOST recaptured funds.
Section 2: The following revenues are anticipated to be available to the Consolidated
Government to complete the project.
Special 1% Sales Tax, Phase II 2,091,400$
Special 1% Sales Tax, Phase III 1,375,600$
Augusta Utilities 36,230$
Augusta Utilities 41,000$
Marvin Griffin Rd. SPLOST 5,944,683$
AUD 1,833,746$
GDOT Funds 1,800,000$
SPLOST Recaptured Funds 272,910$
13,395,569$
Section 3: Copies of this Capital Project Budget shall be made available to the
Comptroller for direction in carrying out this project.
Adopted this ____________________ day of ______________________.
Approved
_________________________________________________
Original-Commission Council Office
Copy-Engineering Department
Copy-Finance Department
Copy-Procurement Department
Honorable Hardie Davis Jr., Mayor
(S.R. 56 to S.R. 56 Spur)
Funds are available in amount of $272,910.00 upon commission approval.
CPB#323-041110-296823603
CAPITAL PROJECT BUDGET
MARVIN GRIFFIN ROAD
CHANGE NUMBER NINE
Please do not process this document. Once approved by the Commission the original will be sent to the Clerk of Commission for execution. For information reference this request, contact Engineering at ext 5070. Thanks
1 of 2 1/12/2017
Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia
(S.R. 56 to S.R. 56 Spur)
CPB#323-041110-296823603
CAPITAL PROJECT BUDGET
MARVIN GRIFFIN ROAD
CHANGE NUMBER NINE
CPB AMOUNT CPB NEW
SOURCE OF FUNDS CPB ADDITION CPB
SPECIAL 1% SALES TAX, PHASE III
323-041110-0000000-000000000 ($1,375,600) ($1,375,600)
322-041110-0000000-000000000 ($2,091,400) ($2,091,400)
507043410-5212115-80900030 ($77,230) ($77,230)
323-041110-5414110-296823603 ($5,944,683) ($5,944,683)
507043410-5212115-80900030 ($1,833,746) ($1,833,746)
GDOT Funds ($1,800,000) ($1,800,000)
SPLOST Recaptured Funds ($272,910) ($272,910)
TOTAL SOURCES: ($13,122,659) ($272,910) ($13,395,569)
USE OF FUNDS
ADVERTISING
323-041110-5233119-296823603 $2,000 $2,000
ENGINEERING
323-041110-5212115-296823603 $237,280 $237,280
RIGHT OF WAY
323-041110-5411120-296823603 $150,000 $150,000
RAILROAD PERMIT
323-041110-5414610-296823603 $30,000 $30,000
CONSTRUCTION
323-041110-5414110-296823603 $12,146,893 $272,910 $12,419,803
AUGUSTA UTILITIES $41,000 $41,000
507043410-5212115-80900030
OTHER FUNDING $36,230
UTILITY RELOCATION
323-041110-5414510-296823603 $515,486 $515,486
TOTAL USES: $13,122,659 $272,910 $13,395,569
2 of 2 1/12/2017
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
Renovation of 452 Walker Street
Department:Utilities
Department:Utilities
Caption:Motion to approve of Change Order #1 for Construction Services
for Renovation of 452 Walker Street. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee January 31, 2017)
Background:The renovation at 452 Walker Street, formally the AT&T
building, is for the purposes of the administrative and customer
service offices for both the Augusta Utilities Department and the
Augusta Engineering Department. The soil conservation county
seat office will also be accommodated within this building. The
original contract amount is $3,220,000.00. During the course of
renovation it has been determined that the existing rooftop HVAC
equipment is currently not operational and outside its serviceable
lifespan (21+ years). If repaired the costs would exceed the costs
to replace the units, and it is estimated that there is an high chance
of failure within the next 1-5 years of service. No warranty would
be provided for repair work due to the age of the existing units.
Full replacement of the equipment is proposed. It will increase the
contract cost by $252,445.60 and increase the contract time by an
additional 8 weeks due to the lead time of the equipment. The
replacement of the equipment will provide full manufactures
warranties.
Analysis:Christopher Booker and Associates, as well as the Augusta
Utilities Department (AUD) have reviewed the Change Order
Proposal submitted by Allen Batchelor Construction, Inc. The
change order represents an increase in contract cost of
$252,445.60 and an additional 8 weeks in contract time.
Financial Impact:Funding in the amount of $252,445.60 is available from accounts:
514043490-5413120/ 81500130-5413120
Alternatives:No alternatives are recommended.Cover Memo
Recommendation:Augusta Utilities Department recommends the Commission
approve Changer Order #1 in the amount of $252,445.60 and an
increase in contract time of 8 weeks.
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
Funding in the amount of $252,445.60 is available from accounts:
514043490-5413120/ 81500130-5413120
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Finance.
Procurement.
Law.
Administrator.
Clerk of Commission
Cover Memo
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
Street Lights Improvements along Gordon Highway
Department:Engineering
Department:Engineering
Caption:Motion to approve and authorize entering into a contract with
Georgia Power in the amount of $1,025,000 for street light
upgrades along city maintained roadway section of Gordon
Highway. Funding is available for the project in Engineering
SPLOST VI as requested by AED. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee January 31, 2017)
Background:Gordon Highway Lighting Upgrade project is an approved
SPLOST project. The project limits are from Skyview Drive to
State Line. This project consists of installing LED lights on
decorative poles with bases serviced underground, removing the
existing poles and fixtures.
Analysis:The upgrade would reduce maintenance and result in a uniform
lighting system along Gordon Highway corridor between Skyview
Drive and State Line. It will also enhance the aesthetic appearance
of the entryways corridor.
Financial Impact:Funds are available in Project SPLOST VI funds.
Alternatives:1). Approve and authorize entering into a contract with Georgia
Power in the amount of $1,025,000 for street light upgrades along
city maintained roadway section of Gordon Highway. Funding is
available for the project in Engineering SPLOST VI as requested
by AED. 2). Do not approve and cancel the project.
Recommendation:Approve Alternative Number One.
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE FOLLOWING
ACCOUNTS: Project SPLOST VI Funds 328-041110-212828105
Cover Memo
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Finance.
Procurement.
Law.
Administrator.
Clerk of Commission
Cover Memo
Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia
BE IT ORDAINED by the Commission-Council of Augusta-Richmond County,
Georgia that the following Capital Project Budget is hereby amended:
Section 1: Authorize and approve entering contract with Georgia Power in amount of
$1,025,000 for street lighting upgrade along City maintained roadway Section of
Gordon Highway. Funding is available for the project in Engineering SPLOST VI as
requested by the Engineering Department.
Funds are available in Project SPLOST VI funds.
Section 2: The following revenues are anticipated to be available to the Consolidated
Government to complete the project.
Gordon Highway SPLOST VI 1,025,000$
1,025,000$
Section 3: Copies of this Capital Project Budget shall be made available to the
Comptroller for direction in carrying out this project.
Adopted this ____________________ day of ______________________.
Approved
_________________________________________________
PLEASE DO NOT PROCESS THIS DOCUMENT; ONCE APPROVED BY COMMISSION AN ORIGINAL WILL BE FORWARDED FOR EXECUTION. PLEASE DO NOT PROCESS THIS DOCUMENT; ONCE APPROVED BY COMMISSION AN ORIGINAL WILL BE FORWARDED FOR EXECUTION. PLEASE DO NOT PROCESS THIS DOCUMENT; ONCE APPROVED BY COMMISSION AN ORIGINAL WILL BE FORWARDED FOR EXECUTION. PLEASE DO NOT PROCESS THIS DOCUMENT; ONCE APPROVED BY COMMISSION AN ORIGINAL WILL BE FORWARDED FOR EXECUTION.
THANKS - EXT 5070THANKS - EXT 5070THANKS - EXT 5070THANKS - EXT 5070
Honorable Hardie Davis Jr., Mayor
CAPITAL PROJECT BUDGET
CPB#328-041110-212828105
Street Lights Improvements along Gordon Highway
1/12/2017
Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia
PLEASE DO NOT PROCESS THIS DOCUMENT; ONCE APPROVED BY COMMISSION AN ORIGINAL WILL BE FORWARDED FOR EXECUTION. PLEASE DO NOT PROCESS THIS DOCUMENT; ONCE APPROVED BY COMMISSION AN ORIGINAL WILL BE FORWARDED FOR EXECUTION. PLEASE DO NOT PROCESS THIS DOCUMENT; ONCE APPROVED BY COMMISSION AN ORIGINAL WILL BE FORWARDED FOR EXECUTION. PLEASE DO NOT PROCESS THIS DOCUMENT; ONCE APPROVED BY COMMISSION AN ORIGINAL WILL BE FORWARDED FOR EXECUTION.
THANKS - EXT 5070THANKS - EXT 5070THANKS - EXT 5070THANKS - EXT 5070
CAPITAL PROJECT BUDGET
CPB#328-041110-212828105
CPB AMOUNT New
SOURCE OF FUNDS CPB CPB
Gordon Highway Street Lighting
SPLOST PHASE VI ($1,025,000) ($1,025,000)
TOTAL SOURCES: ($1,025,000) ($1,025,000)
USE OF FUNDS
328-041110-5414410-212828105 $1,025,000 $1,025,000
TOTAL USES: $1,025,000 $1,025,000
1/12/2017
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
Windsor Spring Road Sanitary Sewer Ext.
Department:Utilities
Department:Utilities
Caption:Motion to approve Change Order for Construction Services for
the Windsor Spring Road Sanitary Sewer Extension
Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
January 31, 2017)
Background:The scope of this project entailed installation of deep gravity
sewer south of Tobacco Road along Windsor Spring Rd. During
the construction phase sandy-silty soils were discovered
throughout the project route down to 20+ feet in depth. These
soils required the additional installation of 12” casing for sewer
services which for safety reasons required wider trenching to be
employed. The wider trenches raised the cost of the project’s
construction by increasing required asphalt patching, asphalt roll
curbing, and concrete driveway replacement
Analysis:Due to the construction of this project occurring within the
construction limits of an active GDOT project it was critical that
the timeframe needed for the trenching efforts was minimized as
much as reasonable.
Financial Impact:The additional work totals $34,316.33. Funds are available in
514043420-5425210/81600050-5425210
Alternatives:No viable alternative
Recommendation:We recommend approval of the Change Order in the amount of
$34,316.33.
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
Funds are available in 514043420-5425210/81600050-5425210
Cover Memo
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Finance.
Procurement.
Law.
Administrator.
Clerk of Commission
Cover Memo
AUGUSTA UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
360 BAY STREET, SUITE 180
AUGUSTA, GA 30901Windsor Spring Road
Sanitary Sewer Extension
PROJECT MAP
WIN
D
S
O
R
S
P
R
I
N
G
R
O
A
D
BOYKI
N
R
O
A
D
INVE
R
N
E
S
S
D
R
I
V
E
BCGH
Item No. Description Bid Quantity Unit of Measure Unit Price Item Value Quantity Installed
to Date
Value Installed to
Date
S‐1A 8" Dia. PVC SDR 26 Depth 0'‐8' 20 LF $33.29 $665.80 20 $665.80
S‐1B 8" Dia. PVC SDR 26 Depth 8'‐10' 115 LF $35.27 $4,056.05 115 $4,056.05
S‐1C 8" Dia. PVC SDR 26 Depth 10'‐12' 458 LF $39.80 $18,228.40 457 $18,188.60
S‐1D 8" Dia. RJ DIP C350, Depth 10'‐12' 10 LF $99.47 $994.70 10 $994.70
S‐1E 8" Dia. PVC SDR 26 Depth 12'‐14' 781 LF $48.05 $37,527.05 781 $37,527.05
S‐1F 8" Dia. RJ DIP C350, Depth 12'‐14' 37 LF $105.98 $3,921.26 44 $4,663.12
S‐1G 8" Dia. PVC SDR 26 Depth 14'‐16' 152 LF $55.68 $8,463.36 152 $8,463.36
S‐1H 8" Dia. PVC SDR 26 Depth 16'‐18' 227 LF $58.85 $13,358.95 227 $13,358.95
S‐1I 8" Dia. PVC SDR 26 Depth 18'‐20' 285 LF $74.09 $21,115.65 293 $21,708.37
S‐4A Jack and Bore 16" Steel Casing w/ 8" Dia. RJ DIP Carrier Pipe 50 LF $438.12 $21,906.00 60 $26,287.20
S‐4B Install by Open Cut 16" Steel Casing w/ 8" RJ DIP Carrier Pipe 40 LF $261.24 $10,449.60 30 $7,837.20
S‐6 Precast Sanitary Manhole (48"Dia.) 9EA $2,461.12 $22,150.08 8 $19,688.96
S‐7A Additional Manhole Depth Type 1, Class 14VF$125.63 $502.52 4 $502.52
S‐7B Additional Manhole Depth Type 1, Class 261VF$125.71 $7,668.31 56 $7,072.44
S‐11 Doghouse Manhole 1 EA $4,925.45 $4,925.45 1 $4,925.45
S‐13A 6" Sanitary Sewer Service ‐ Long Side 7 EA $4,803.87 $33,627.09 7 $33,627.09
S‐13B 6" Sanitary Sewer Service ‐ Short Side 13 EA $1,738.80 $22,604.40 16 $27,820.80
S‐15 Water Main Crossing 1 EA $4,317.10 $4,317.10 $0.00
W‐21 Water Meter Relocation 6 EA $1,267.67 $7,606.02 6 $7,606.02
P‐1 Asphalt Overlay Type F 175 SY $37.73 $6,602.75 156 $5,885.88
P‐4 Milling 0"‐2" 175 SY $50.05 $8,758.75 $0.00
P‐6 Concrete Driveway Replacement 37 SY $173.30 $6,412.10 180 $31,194.00
P‐9 Concrete Roll Curb 20 LF $44.44 $888.80 150 $6,666.00
P‐11 AED Road Cut 18 SY $462.10 $8,317.80 56 $25,877.60
M‐8 Brick Column Replacement 2 EA $2,032.05 $4,064.10 2 $4,064.10
LS‐1 Misc Items 1 LS $30,392.20 $30,392.20 1 $30,392.20
M‐4 Select Backfill 3,387 CY $11.50 $38,950.50 $0.00
A‐1 12" Casing ‐EA $3,500.00 ‐3 $10,500.00
A‐2 Temporary Water Services ‐LS $1,500.00 ‐1 $1,500.00
A‐3 6"x2" Tap ‐LS $850.00 ‐1 $850.00
A‐4 Reconnect Water Services ‐EA $245.00 ‐2 $490.00
A‐5 8" Concrete Patch ‐SY $346.58 ‐27 $9,357.66
A‐6 Raised Edge Asphalt ‐LF $29.00 ‐380 $11,020.00
Totals $348,474.79 $382,791.12
$348,474.79
$382,791.12
$34,316.33
Windsor Spring Road Sanitary Sewer Extension
Change Order Request Justification
Contract Items Contract Amounts
A
Additional Items
Totals to Date
Orginal Contract Amount:
Total Installed:
Change Ordge Amount:
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
Minutes
Department:
Department:
Caption:Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the
Commission held January 17th and Special Called meeting held
January 31, 2017.
Background:
Analysis:
Financial Impact:
Alternatives:
Recommendation:
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Cover Memo
Commission Meeting Agenda Commission Chambe r - lllT t2017
ATTENDANCE:
Present: Hons. Hardie Davis, Jr., Mayor; Jefferson, Guilfoyle, Sias,
Frantom, M. williams, Smith, D. williams, Hasan and Davis, members of
Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Absent: Hon. Fennoy, member of Augusta fuchmond County
Commission.
INVOCATION: Reverend Marion Davis, Pastor Macedonia East Baptist Church.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO TIIE FLAG OF TIIE TINITED STATES OF AMERICA.
A. Update from Dr. Terrance Cook regarding Project Access services to the Itemcommunity. (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Mary Davis) Action:
None
B ItemAnorovalsheet.html
Motions
MotionType Motion Text
Presentation is made by Dr.
Ierrance Cook.
CONSENT AGENDA
Made Seconded MotionBy By Result
(Items l-26)
PLANNING
1. TA-07 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Georgia Planning ItemCommission to approve a petition to approve the updated Tree Ordinance for Action:Augusta, Georgia. Rescheduled
minute ti
lE TA reoort.ndf
E Dec 2016 TA-07 Ordinance Llnsuese - New Ordinrnce in ifc l'.nfircfwnrt{
B ItemApprovalsheet.html
Motions
Motion MotionType Text Made By
. Motion to Commissioner Commissioner Ben Other
No action is taken on this motion due to the passage of the substitute
motion.
Seconded By
Text Made By Seconded By
Motions
Motion Motionr ype
@ za-r-24l.odf
lB ItemApprovalsheet.html
Motions
Motion Motion TextI ype
Motion to
^ dDDrove.APProve vtotlon passes 9-
0.
Motion
Result
Motion
Result
Substitute motion to
refer this item back tocommittee. CommissionerDefer Voting No: MarionCommissioner Williams
Ben Hasan.
Motion Passes 8-1.
Commissioner
'u*;;$il'
Passes
2. ZA'R-245 - A request by the Augusta Planning Commission to approye apetition to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as follows: . Slction 2- Definitions: Accessory Building, Accessory IJse, Breezeway, Building,Building Height,- Building, Main / Main Building, Lodging/Bouiding Uous-eSection 3-8-1,2,3,4 & 5 - . open Space / RecrJation Ari. (Approved bycommission on December 2012017 - waive second reading)
Item
Action:
Approved
Made By
Commissioner
Ben Hasan
Seconded By Motion
Result
Commissioner
Andrew Jefferson Passes
3. ZA-R-245 '3 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Georgia PlanningCommission to approve a petition to amend the Comprehenri'n. Zonini
Ordinance as follows: ' Section 2 - Definitions - Amend Accessory Buildin!' Section 8-1^ - _Acc.essory Building, R-l (one-Family Residentiaf
Zone; Section 30-2 - Building permits and Site plans.
Item
Action:
Approved
lB za-r-245 3.pdf
IB ItemAnorovalsheet.html
Motions
r#:" Motion rext Made By Seconded By Motion
Result
4. ZA-R-246 - A request for concurence with the Augusta Georgia Planning ItemCommission to approve a petition to amend Section l3 (R-lE --One-famil] Action:Residential) of the Comprehensile Zgn g Ordinance for Augusta, Georgia by Approvedadding special Exceptions in the R-lE zine- Urban village.
Motion to
^ dpDrove.APProve uotion passes 9-
0.
lB za-r-246.pdf
B ItemAnorovalsheet.html
Motions
Y:iti"Il Motion Textr ype
Motion to delete this item
from the agenda at the
Delete request of the petitioner
and Planning &
Development Department.
Motion Passes 9-0.
Commissioner Commissioner
Wayne Guilfoyle Ben Hasan Passes
Made By
Commissioner
Wayne
Guilfoyle
seconded By ffiXir'
Commisioner
Sean Frantom Passes
PUBLIC SERVICES
5. Motion to approve New Location: A.N. l7-l: request by Voncellies A. Allen ltemfor an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer, & Wine Li".r.. to be used in Action:connection with Club Twyst located at 1855 Gordon Highway. There will be ApprovedDance. District 2. super District g. (Approved -bv irublic servicesCommittee January 10, Z0l7)
lB Club Twvst pdf
lE ItemAnorovalsheet html
Motions
f#:"t Motion rext Made By seconded By Motion
Result
Commissioner Commisioner
Wayne Guilfoyle Sean Frantom Passes
6. Motion to approve a request by Joel Sobel for a Sunday Saleslicense to be Itemused in connection with The Pinnacle club located at 699 Broad Street. District Action:1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 10, Approved2017)
Motion to
^ apDrove.APProve vtotio, passes 9-
0.
Motion to
^ aDDrove.APProve vtotion passes 9-
0.
lB Pinnacle Club.pdf
lB ItemAonrovrlsheet,html
Motions
Y.:l:'" Motion Text Made Byrype seconded By Motion
Result
Commissioner Commisioner
Wayne Guilfoyle Sean Frantom Passes
7. Motion to approve the contract through an FAA grant for Obstruction Clearingand New Windcone at Daniel Field Airport. REF: Ap0l7-9026-53(245\Richmond PID - T005959. (Approved by Public Services CommitteeJanuary 10,2017')
lB Bxnfuit a.pAf
lB Electronic Contract for Obstruction_Clearinq and Windcone.ndf
E ARC ADDroval-Contractors for Obstruction Clearins and Wind Cone proiects FylT.pdf
lB ltemAoorovalsheet.html
Item
Action:
Approved
Motions
+';J:"' Motion rext Made By Motion
ResultSeconded By
8. Motion to approve Contract Modification #l to Griffin Contracting, Inc. for the ltemARFF Pavement Rehabilitation as approved by the Augusta Aviation Action:Commission December 15, 2016. (Approved by Public Services Committee ApprovedJanuary 10,2017)
Motion to
^ aDDrove.
^APProve Motion passes 9-
0.
Motion to
^ aDDrove.APProve vlotion passes 9-
0.
Commissioner Commisioner
Wayne Guilfoyle Sean Frantom Passes
@ Contract Modification I Griffin Contracting.pdf
lB ItemAoorovalsheet.html
Motions
Hj:' Morion Texr Made Byrype
Commissioner Commisioner
Wayne Guilfoyle Sean Frantom Passes
Seconded By
Seconded By
Motion
Result
Motion
Result
9. Motion to approve a request by Zhi Ye for a Therapeutic Massage Operators Item
License to be used in connection with Yenny Massage locaied it 32lB Action:Wrightsboro Rd. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Approved
Committee January 10, 2017)
[B Yenny Massage.pdf
IB ItemAnorovalsheet.html
Motions
Y.:l^" Motion Text Made ByI ype
10.
Motion to
^ aDDrove.APProve vtotion passes 9-
0.
Motion to approve Mead & Hunt Work Authorization#32 for the oversight ofthe Airport Taxiway A project as approved by the Augusta Aviation
Commission December 15, 2016. The length of this contract is 420 calendardays. (Approved by Pubtic Services committee January 10, z0l7\
Commissioner Commisioner
Wayne Guilfoyle Sean Frantom Passes
Item
Action:
Approved
E ltemApnrovalsheet.html
Motions
X:l:"' Morion Text Made ByI ype
Motion to
^ aDDrove.Approve vtotion Passes g-
0.
E wA 3t - Trrt' A CA.pdf
E z-16-4l.pdf
IB ItemAonrovalsheet,html
Motions
Motion Motion Textrype
Commissioner Commisioner
Wayne Guilfoyle Sean Frantom Passes
Seconded By Motion
Result
ll. Z-16-41- A request by the Augusta Planning Commission to approve, with Item
the conditions stated below, a petition by Stanley Mack, on behalf of Stanley Action:
and Shelley Mack, requesting a Special Exception to establish a Family Disapproved
Personal Care Home per Section 26-l (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta, Georgia affecting property containing .31 acres and
known as 3603 Richdale Drive. Tax Map 143-0-277-00-0 DISTRICT 6
I . The home shall be staffed in three (3) 8-hour shifts on a 7 -day, 24-hour
basis with no staff sleeping in the home. 2. A private room shall be
provided for staff to conduct business. 3. No more than six (6) clients are
permitted to reside in the home based on the number and size of the existing
bedrooms. 4. In order to continue to maintain a local business license, the
applicant must continue to maintain a license with the State of Georgia,
proof of compliance with the minimum requirements of Chapter 111 .8-62.01
of the O.C.G.A must be provided, and the applicant must provide updated
fire department compliance for six (6) clients. All requirements must be met
within six (6) months of approval of this Special Exception request, or the
Special Exception is void. 5. If wheelchair bound persons reside in the
residence all2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design requirements must
be met, including but not limited to: ' All doorways must be at least 3 feet.
wide. ' At least one bathroom that permits a wheelchair dependent person to
use all bathroom facilities unimpeded. 6. All conditions must be met prior
to issuance of a local business license. (Approved by Public Services
Committee January 10, 2017)
Motion to deny.
Made By seconded By ffiXil
Voting No:
Commisioner
Sean Frantom,
r\^_-- Commissioner Wayne Commissioner CommissionerDeny c*uiroyt", sammie Sias Ben Hasan Passes
Commissioner
Grady Smith.
Motion Passes 6-3.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
12. Motion to approve a one (l)-year extension of the existing fleet maintenance Item
contract with First Vehicle Services with the Central Services Director Action:
reporting back in six months with information concerning the feasibility of Approved
bringing the operation back in-house. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee January 10, 2017)
B Extension Proposal.pdf
E Month to_Month Letter.pdf
lB ItemApprovalsheet.html
Motions
X:j1" Motion Text Made By Seconded By Motion
f YPe -'---- -J Result
Motion to approve.
^ Mr. M. Williams Commissioner CommissionerApprove abstains. Sammie Sias Ben Hasan Passes
Motion Passes 8-0 -1.
13. Motion to approve Fair Chance/ Hiring Policy commonly known as "Ban-the- Item
Box" in accordance with action(s) taken by the Commission in its regular Action:
meeting held on December 20,2016. (Approved by Administrative Services Approved
Committee January 10, 2017)
lE Fair Chance 10.0 R.pdf
B ltemAporovalsheet,html
Motions
|'#:" Motion Text Made By seconded By f;Xil
Approve Motion toapprove. Commissioner Commisioner
Passes
Motion Passes 9- Wayne Guilfoyle
0.
Sean Frantom
Seconded By
Seconded By
Motion
Result
Motion
Result
14. Motion to approve award for coating of the metal roofs at the Fleet Item
Maintenance Facilities on Broad Street and Tobacco Road to Horizon Roofing Action:of Monroe, Georgia in the total amount of $80,000.00. (Bid Item 16- Approved
245) (Approved by Administrative Services Committee January 10,2017)
Motion to
Approve ffi3,',il'r"sses e- $:T#H:li!,. ff#Tl.xffi passes
0.
15. Motion to approve Housing and Community Development Department's Item(HCDs) use of the same procedure (as 2016) relative to auihorization Action:
of agreements/contracts/task orders for the Laney Walker/Bethlehem ApprovedRedevelopment Project and the Hyde Park/Wilke.ton Gardens Drainage
Improvement Project for program/calendar year 2017. (Approved uyAdministrative Services Committee January 10, 2017)
IB 16-245 ITB_to_peper.pdf
E 16-245 TAB - oFFICIAL.Ddf
E 16-245 Department Recommendation of Award.pdf
lB Mail List-and Demandstar planholders.pdf
IE ItemAoorovalsheet html
Motions
f.]j:Il Motion Text Made Byr ype
IB \Yelcher l.l 9-l 6 Annrovel f .crrcr nrrf
IB lWn - Contract Sen'ices Snreedsheef l220lt( nrtr
B Hyde Park - Services Review and Responsibility l220l6.pdf
B ltemAnnrovrlsheet.html
Motions
Motion;- ---- Motion Text Made Byrype
Motion to approve.
Approve Mr. M. williams out. commissioner
Motion passes 8-0. t'en Hasan
PUBLIC SAFETY
Commissioner
Dennis williams Passes
16. Motion approve an amendment and renewal for the Inmate Medical Contract Item
for the Richmond County Sheriffs Office to Correct Care Solutions at a cost of Action:
$5,387,124.80 per year for a two-year renewal period. (Approved by Public Approved
Safety Committee January 10r2017)
B Auqusta GA - Second Amendment - Finat (425k ECF ll-22-l6.odf
E ItemAnnrovalsheet.html
Motions
s.,oj]" Motion Text Made Byrype seconded By Motion
Result
Commissioner Commisioner
Wayne Guilfoyle Sean Frantom Passes
17. Motion to approve acceptance of State grant in the amount of $19,200 to Item
support the operations of the State Court's DUI court program for the period of Action:lllllT - 6130117. $2,133 or l0% cash match funding source is from Approved
204022320-3511410. (Approved by Public Safety Committee JanuarT 10,
2017)
Motion to
^ aDDrove.APProve vtotion passes 9-
0.
Motion to
^ aDDrove.APProve vtotion passes 9-
0.
E CJCC I TSupDlementalCranlA$ ardSteteCourt.pdf
B New srantJrroposal.ndf
lB Item.{oorovalsheet.html
Motions
X:'1"" Morion Text Made Byr ype Seconded By Motion
Result
Commissioner Commisioner
Wayne Guilfoyle Sean Frantom Passes
ENGINEERING SERVICES
18. Motion to determine that a portion of Emmett Street Lane as shown on the ltem
attached pat has ceased to be use by the public to the extent that no substantial Action:public purpose is served by it or that its removal from the county road system is Approved
otherwise in the best public interest, pursuant to O.C.G.A. 532-7-2, with the
abandoned property to be quit-claimed to the appropriate party(ies), as
provided by law with an easement being retained over any existing water/sewer
lines (or if relocated over the new utility lines with old lines and easement
being abandoned in place) as directed the Augusta Utilities Department, and an
easement being granted by the acquiring party(ies) in favor of Augusta (and the
public) for ingress/egress from the remainder of Emmett Street Lane to Druid
Park Avenue as directed by the Augusta Engineering Department. (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee January 10,2017\
B Abandonment of Portion Emmett Street Lane.pdf
lB Emmett St Ln- BOC Presentation.pdf
E ltemAnprovalsheet.html
Motions
X:11"' Motion Text Made By seconded By #,f;i,'I ype
Motion to
^ approve. Commissioner CommisionerApprove ilotion passes 9- wayne Guilfoyle Sean Frantom Passes
0.
19. Motion to determine that Franklin Lane from Tuttle Street eastward to the Item
terminus as shown on the affached plat has ceased to be used by the public to Action:
the extent that no substantial public purpose is served by it or that its removal Approved
from the county road system is otherwise in the best public interest, pursuant to
O.C.G.A. $32-7-2, with the abandoned property to be quit-claimed to the
appropriate party(ies), as provided by law and an easement to be retained over
the entire abandoned portion for existing or future utilities as directed by
Augusta Engineering Department and Augusta Utilities Department.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 10,2017)
B Abandonment Franklin Lane from Tuttle Street.ndf
lE ItemApprovalsheet.html
Motions
X:11" Motion Text Made By seconded By Motion'l'ype ""-- -r Result
Motion to
A _----^_-^ approve. Commissioner CommisionerApprove ilotion passes 9- wayne Guilfoyle Sean Frantom Passes
0.
20. Motion to authorize Condemnation to acquire title of a portion of property for Item
Temporary Easement - 2702 Wellington Drive (Parcel 025-4-125-00-0). Action:
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 1012017) Approved
B 2702 Wellinston Drive Condemnation Reouest.pdf
IB ItemApprovelsheet.html
Motions
X:**1" Motion Text Made By seconded By Motion'l'ype - ------ -r *-------- -r Result
Motion to
Approve il3#;"sses e- $"#HEi:ill,," s;#Tffi:; passes
0.
21. Motion to authorrze Condemnation to acquire title of a portion of property - Item
2065 Willow Street (7,500 sq. ft.) (Parcel 087-4-029-00-0). (Approved by Action:
Engineering Services Committee January 10, 2017) Approved
E 2065 Willow Street Condemnetion Request.docx.pdf
E ltemAoorovalsheet.html
Motions
X:j:" Motion Text Made By Seconded By Motion
t YPe - ---- -J Result
Motion to
Approve ix5,#;"sses e- fi,"#HEi:li!,. s:#?l.:f,:1 passes
0.
22. Motion to authorize Condemnation to acquire title of a portion of property for Item
Rightof-Way and Temporary Easement - 2648 Wheeler Road (Parcel 033-2- Action:
112-00-0). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 10, Approved
2017)
IE 26{8 1\'heeler Road Condemnation Request.pdf
B ItemAnnrovalsheet.html
Motions
i'#:" Motion Text Made By Seconded By ffitjil
Motion toapprove. Commissioner Commisioner
^ Motion Passes 9- Wayne Guilfoyle Sean Frantom passesApprove 0.
23. Motion to approve the Engineering and Utilities Departments developing a Item
joint plan to correct the storm water flooding and the overflowing of the Action:
sewage systems in the Rocky Creek basin in the general area between Peach Approved
Orchard Rd and Mike Padgett Hwy bordered by Smith Dr. and Scott
Rd. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January l0r2017)
B ltemApprovalsheet.html
Motions
X:li"' Motion Text Made By Seconded By f."rlilrype
Motion to
A -_..^_-^ approve. Commissioner CommissionerApprove vtotion passes 9- Wayne Guilfoyle william Fennoy Passes
0.
24. Motion approve the amount of $24,000.00 to have 39 Streetlights added to Item
Corpse Drive, Clifford St., Crawley St., and Summerton Dr. in the Haynes Action:
Station subdivision at a cost of $1,014.00 per month thereafter. This is also to Approved
approve a new lighting tax district for the 119 lots associated with above roads.
Funding is available in the Street Lighting budget account
#2760416105312310. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
January 10r2017')
lB ItemAnorovalsheet.html
Motions
*:1'" Motion Text Made By Seconded By Motion
t YPe '''--- -r Result
Motion to
Approve ffi3,1:;'i",ses e- $"##H:lf"!,. S:#Tl"',f,:H passes
0.
25. Motion to approve the amount of $3,345.28 to have 8 Streetlights added to Item
Weldon Adams Dr., Ken Miles Dr., and Ted Tidwell Ln. in the Manchester Action:
subdivision at a cost of $120.00 per month thereafter. This is also to approve a Approved
new lighting tax district for the 27 lots associated with above roads. funding is
available in the Street Lighting budget account #2760416105312i10.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee January l0r2017')
E ItemAoorovalsheet.html
Motions
X:11"' Motion Text Made By seconded By f."rti,'lype
Motion to
^ approve. Commissioner CommisionerApprove ilrotion passes 9- wayne Guilfoyle Sean Frantom Passes
0.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
26. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission Item
held January 3rd and Special Called meeting held January 10, 2017. Action:
Approved
E Resuler Commission l\teetinq Januarv 3 20l7.odf
IB Called Commission Meetins Januan' l0 20l7.odf
B ItemAoorovalsheet.html
Motions
X:j*1" Motion Text Made By seconded By MotionlYPe -- -r *-------- -J Result
Motion to
Aoorove approve. Commissioner CommisionerI rPPrv v v Motion Passes 9- Wayne Guilfoyle Sean Frantom Passes
0.
****END CONSENT AGENDA?K'r'f *
AUGUSTA COMMISSION
ut1t20t7
AUGUSTA COMMISSION
REGULAR AGENDA
u17 t2017
(Items 27-33)
PUBLIC SERVICES
27. lJpdate from Recreation and Parks Director about Riverwalk cleanup from 8th to Item
l0th streets. (Requested by Mayor Hardie Davis, Jr.) Action:
None
B Mayor Davis items.pdf
lB ItemAnorovrlsheet.html
Motions
Motion:----- Motion Textrype
Made Seconded Motion
By By Result
lnformation from Mr. Parker regarding a
current update on the work that has been
and is being performed on the
Riverwalk cleanup between 8th and lOth
Streets is to be sent to the Clerk by next
Friday.
FINANCE
28. Motion to approve one time funding for repair and paint of rail fencing along Item
Riverwalk. (Requested by Mayor Hardie Davis, Jr.)Action:
Approved
lB Mavor-Davis-items.odf
B ItemApprovalsheet.html
Motions
X:j*1"' Motion Text Made By seconded B Motion
rype )Ilon t ext lYlaoe I,y Seconoeo l'y Result
Motion to approve tasking
the Administrator and
Central Services Director
to advertise for an RFP for
Approve l[L:,"Jfr,",:lreport
back ir""ilHjJf'.' S:fffi]f*' passes
Commission with funding
from SPLOST VII. Mr. M.
Williams abstains.
Motion Passes 8-0 -1.
29. Motion to approve a request $25K for MACH Academy to support the Item
services they provide to our community youth. (No recommendation from Action:
Finance Committee January l0r20l7) Disapproved
lB Asenda ltem Comm. Sias I\IACH. BOH.odf
E ltemAonrovelSheet.html
Motions
[]i1" Motion rext Made By seconded By f*iir ype
Motion to approve.
Mr. M. Williams
abstains.
Voting No:
Commissioner
Approve Mary Davis, ff##,:'Ji*" ;:fffffif*' Fails
Commisioner
Sean Frantom,
Commissioner Wayne
Guilfoyle.
Motion Fails 5-3 -1.
30. Update from Finance on status of Risk Recovery efforts from April 13,2016 Item
meeting. (Requested by Mayor Hardie Davis, Jr.) Action:
Rescheduled
lB Mavor Davis items.odf
E ltemAoorovalSheet,html
Motions
X:jtt^" Motion Text Made By seconded By Motion
Type Result
Motion to refer this
^ item back to Commissioner CommisionerApprove cLmittee. sammie sias Sean Frantom Passes
Motion Passes 9-0.
ENGINEERING SERVICES
31. Update from staff regarding the James Brown Enhancement Project. Item
(Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams) Action:
Approved
El ItemApprovalsheet.html
Motions
Y:j1"t Motion Text Made By seconded By MotionType -.---- -" Result
Motion to approve
. receiving this item as Commissioner CommisionerApprove iiro.-utio.r. Ben Hasan Sean Frantom Passes
Motion Passes 9-0.
32. Motion to approve removal of mulch and replace with sod at James Brown Item
Plazaby February 14,2017. (Requested by Mayor Hardie Davis, Jr.) Action:
Approved
B Mavor Davis items.ndf
lB ItemApprovelsheet html
Motions
Motion Motion Text Made By seconded By Hrfii'l'ype
Motion to approve with
the stipulation that the
funding does not exceed ,1 - .-- .__.. _ _t _uommlssloner uommlsslonerApprove tne money allocateo,ror Marv Davis Ben Hasan rasses
this project. Mr. Jefferson
abstains.
Motion Passes 8-0 -1.
ADDENDUM
33. Ratiff the recommendation of the Mayor & Mayor Pro Tem the reappointment Item
of Commissioner Wayne Guilfoyle to the General Aviation Commission- Action:
Daniel Field as ex-officio member. (Inadvertently excluded from the slate of Approved
commission's ex-officio appointments in meeting held January 3,2017 .
lB ItemAonrovalsheet.html
Motions
Motion Motion Text Made Seconded Motion'I'ype By By Result
Unanimous consent is given to add
this item to the agenda.
Motions
f#:" Motion Text Made By Seconded By fl:lirll
Motion toapprove. Commissioner Commisioner
^ Motion Passes 9- Wayne Guilfoyle Sean Frantom passesApprove 0.
LEGAL MEETING
A. Pending and Potential Litigation.
B. Real Estate.
C. Personnel.
34. Motion to approve execution by the Mayor of the affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meeting Act.
Upcoming Meetings
Item
Action:
None
www.auqustaqa.qov
CALLED MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
January 3I,2017
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 31,
2017, the Honorable Hardie Davis, Jr., Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Jefferson, Guilfoyle, Sias, Frantom, M. Williams, Smith, D. Williams,
Hasan and Davis, members of Augusta fuchmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hon. Fennoy, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Mr. Mayor: Good morning, everybody. We'll call this meeting to order. The Chair
recognizes Attorney MacKenzie.
2. LEGAL MEETING
A. Pending and potential litigation
B. Real estate
C. Personnel
Mr. MacKenzie: I would entertain a motion to go into an executive session to discuss
pending and potential litigation, real estate and personnel.
Mr. Sias: So move.
Mr. Jefferson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Voting.
Mr. M. Williams: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. M. Williams: Point of order. Can I have Miss Kellie to make sure she's in our legal
meeting to, Miss Kellie Irving, for a legal, we're going to talk about potential litigation. I need an
update and that's why we've got the department. I don't have no problem going into legal but I
want to make sure that she's, or a representative if not her, to be there in legal. And that ought to
be a standard practice.
Mr. Mayor: Well, let's talk about that when we get back there. Voting.
Ms. Davis, Mr. Frantom and Mr. Guilfoyle out.
Motion carries 6-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
Mr. Mayor: All right, we've reconvened. The Chair recognizes Attomey MacKenzie.
3. Motion to authorize execution by the Mayor of the affidavit of compliance with
Georgia's Open Meeting Act.
Mr. MacKenzie: I would entertain a motion to execute the closed meeting affidavit.
Ms. Davis: So move.
Mr. Frantom: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Voting.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the diaper dandy himself since it's basketball season,
the commissioner from the 7ft.
Mr. Frantom: I'd like to make a motion to approve a resolution to abandon
approximately 180 feet of OId Berckman Road off of Washington Road as a part of the road
system of Augusta.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a proper second. Voting.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the commissioner from the 6ft.
1. Discuss the Downtown Development Authority. @equested by Commissioner Ben
Hasan)
Mr. Hasan: Mr. Mayor, thank you, sir. I'd like to make a motion for a resolution in
support of maintaining the Downtown Development Authority's current organizational
strucfure.
Mr. Sias: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All those in favor will vote yea and those opposed vote no.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, with regards to the resolution that was just voted on and
adopted, upon execution I'd like to have it immediately transmitted to the Downtown Development
Authority.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the commissioner from the 4ft, the retired Sergeant
Major himself.
Mr. Sias: Thank you, sir. Move to approve a resolution authorizing a local supplement
of $91700 to the salary for the elected office of Augusta Richmond County State Court
Solicitor.
Ms. Davis: Second.
Mr..Mayor: A motion and a second from the distinguished Mayor Pro Tem and the lady
from the 3'd. Voting.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes Attorney MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: That's all I have. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. A1l right. Committee meetings, Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: Thank you.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
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 Called Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on
January 31,2017.
Clerk of Commission
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
District 1
Department:
Department:
Caption:Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. James O'Neal to the
Augusta Planning Commission effective April 1, 2017
representing District 1.
Background:
Analysis:
Financial Impact:
Alternatives:
Recommendation:
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Cover Memo
To be
a\Authority,Commission for A County.
NOTE: Any infonnation entered on this questionnaire would become public information uponyourappointnent. /
P^t" 1 Ao(
=c / \ (
2. Home Phone: 67( 770 52 S \Business Phone:JoLlqo {60D
3. Address: 2Q51 Bx L (\ cr \o7
Street County State zip
Female
TALENT BAIYK INT'ORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE
bypersons desiring to volunteer their services on the f ) rrn n ( n
DateofBirth, t zf,qffi-7( sex: Male
A
V4.
5.
6.
7.
Registered Voter: Yes
Voting District:
Marital Status:Single
,r/No
8. Education:High School AR Gu,
College OUSE
Relatives working for the City/County, _tJOrUA
occupation, l1..'Us-cr. qCe- A gan.r.[
Race: White African American "/Spanish Surnamed American Indian
Engaged
Separated
Divorced
o,r Aq r\d
Asian Arnerican
Other
9.
r0.
11.
PA.::i f serve on:pAsenuy serve ol
L'c>rr-l^€rC <
m\
{e-
you hqveB
lrry>d e[ .tAuacr
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
District 3 Appointment Library Board of Trustees
Department:
Department:
Caption:Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Steve Sanders. to the
Augusta Public Library Board of Trustees representing District 3.
Background:
Analysis:
Financial Impact:
Alternatives:
Recommendation:
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Cover Memo
TALENT BANK INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE
TO BE COMPLETED BY PERSONS DESIRING TO VOLUNTEER THEIR SERVICES ONTHE Lt ERhRY AUTHoRrry, BoARD oR coMMrsstoN FoR AUGUSTA, GEoRG|A
NOTE: ANY INFORMATION ENTERED ON THIS QUESTIONNAIRE WOULD BECOME PUBLIC INFORMATION UPON
YOUR SUBMlSSION/APPOINTMENT.
EMAIL ADDRESS:
/- 24 -tz
NAME:SrEtin t. €nntxos
HoME eaouE:fub -21b -q131 aus. pHoNE: 70 b - 74 -ot7 t
HoME ADDRESS: 74f /.rqrrtCrtsffe PD . ?,.r^,-u, 6/+ koloq
DATE:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
o
10.
11.
STREET
DArE oF BIRrH: Z -J7 - nY I sEX;
COUNTY
MALE '/
STATE
FEMALE
ztP
REGISTERED VOTER: ,.5 / NO-
vorNc DrsrRrcr 3
MARITAL STATUS: SINGLE MARRIED-- Vl SEPAMTED
ENGAGED DIVORCED
EDUCATION:HIGH SCHOOL
coLLEGE l/rn,r. or 6eo?6 tA
RELATIVES WORKING FOR THE COUNTY:
occUpAroN: / 77ozatet
MCE: WHITE \. AFRICAN-AMERICAN ASIAN AMERICAN
SPANISH SURNAMED AMERICAN INDIAN OTHER (specify)
LrsT B9ARDS YOU PRES
1. tBtepf oF,m
3. AuBusr* 6
lCll mcpL G .pcPvouca) Tacw (cr,nrre-e
HAVE A PARTICULAR INTEREST OR EXPERTISE.
NONE
12 LISTANYAREA IN WHICH
Eoog /Ltfennc te5
H/9ToR, c 7a e e<wft7rcal _ Dodl mdt! ?€t/€tornettT
Rev. $2016
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
District 9 Appointment
Department:
Department:
Caption:Motion to approve the appointment of Ms. Beverly Tarver to the
Augusta Public Library Board of Trustees representing District 9.
Background:
Analysis:
Financial Impact:
Alternatives:
Recommendation:
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Cover Memo
TALENT BANK INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE
TOBEC BY PERSONS DESIRING TO VOLUNTEER THEIR SERVICES ON
, BOARD OR COMMISSION FOR AUGUSTA, GEORGIA
NOTE:ANY INFORMATION ENTERED ON THIS QUESTIONNAIRE WOULD BECOME PUBLIC INFORMATION UPONYOUR SUBMISSIONiAPPOINTMENT.
*************************l************************************t****t*******it*l************************t************
EMA, L ADDRESS: btarver@aug usta.ed u or beverly.tarver@yahoo. com
DATE: 2q Jrnu^,ry
1.NAME: Beverly Myers Tarver
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
HOME PHoNE: 7 06.421.3331 BUS. PHoNE . 7 06.721.0670
H9ME ADDRESS: 3164 Truxton Road Richmond GA 30906
STREET
DArE OF BtRrH: 1012511959
REGISTERED VoTER: YESXX No-
vo,NG DtsrRtcr Commission District 5
MARITAL STATUS: SINGLE
COUNTY
SEX: MALE
STATE
FEMALE
ztP
XX
ENGAGED
MARRIED- SEPARATED
DIVORCED XX
8.
9.
10.
11.
EDUCATION:H;GH scHoo. Glenn Hills High School
g9LLEGE Augusta University, BA, English and MpA
RELATTVES WORKTNG FOR THE COUNTy: none known
occUpATloN: University Administrator
RACE: WHITE AFRICAN-AMERICAN XX ASIAN AMERICAN
sPANlsH SURNAMED AMER|CAN tNDtAN orHER (specify)
LIST BOARDS YOU PRESENTLY SERVE ON:
1. None
2.
3.
12. LIST ANY AREA IN WHICH YOU HAVE A PARTICULAR INTEREST OR EXPERTISE.
lnternational Student and Scholar Services; University Admissions and Student FinancialAid
Student Worker at Augusta Library during undergraduate program; Public Administration
Rev. 6-2016
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
Jamestown Community Center
Department:
Department:
Caption:Update from staff regarding keys to the Jamestown Community
Center for Commissioners. (No recommendation from Public
Services Committee January 31, 2017)
Background:
Analysis:
Financial Impact:
Alternatives:
Recommendation:
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Cover Memo
REGUI,AR MEETING
Page 1
COMMISSION CHAMBERS
May 4 , 1,999
Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:03 p.m.,Tuesday, May 4, L999t the Honorable Bob young, Mayor,presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Bri_dges, H. Brigham, ,1. Brigham,Colclough, Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, and Shepard, members ofAugusta Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hon. Powerl-, member of Augusta Richmond countyCommission.
Also present were Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission;Mr. OJ-iver, A&ninistrator; and Mr. Wal_I, County Attorney.
THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND TROWELL.
THE PLEDGE OF AILEGIANCE WAS RECITED.
DELETION FROM THE AffiNDADelegation from The Laney-walker Develotrxnent corporation
ADDI TIONAL INFORIT{ATION
Supporting documents for Items 39, 41A, and 41B
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA1. Consider award of },Iain Lift Station construction tothe Low bidder, Heavy Constructors, fnc., in the amount of$1,495,000. (Fr.rnded by Account 508043420-5425210.)2. Agpoint l{r. Bryan Halternrann to the HistoricPreservration Board representing District 9.3. Reappoint Mr. Rick Beard to the Augrusta AviationConunission at Bush Field representing District 9.4. Reappoint Ms. Barbara Gordon to the Housing &Neighborhood Develotrrnent citizens Advj-sory council represent-ing Di-strict 9.5. Award contract to the low bidder, ldabusconstruction co., in ttre amount of $942,6a3.27, subject to thereceipt of signed contracts and proper bonds for the Hyde park
Drainagre Improvements Project (CPB#321-O4-292A2257L, . -
MR. J. BRTGTIAM: So move.
MR. BRTDGES: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Is there any objection? These items areadded to the agenda.
MOTION CARRIES 1O-0.
Page 3
regarrqing the engineering senrices for the design and instarl-ation of the eguitrxnent purchased from the Department of Energyat the sarrannah Rj-ver site. punded by Account #50G043530-
542LLLO.13. Motion to approve engineering contract with ZELEngineers in the amount of $282,000 regarding the engineeringrservices for design and contract actninistration for treatmentplants at lhe proposed o1d waln:esboro water Facilities and theKimberly-C1ark Tract Water Facilities.
#5080434 10-52121 1 15 .
Funded by Account
L4. Motion to approve easement in perpetuity to thechurch wardens and vestrryrnen of the Episcopal chureh inAugrusta (known as St. PauL r s Church) for the purpose ofconnecting new two-story childrenrs Ministries center toRiverwalk.15. Motion to approve easement agreement with meteredsenrice for Westover Memorial park, Inc.16. Motion to authorize engineering ser\rices formaterials testing program with csRA Testing & Engineering co.in the amount of $41000.00 per month for a two-year periodwith a thirtlr (30) day termination provision. Resources forthis program will be allocated frqn the speciar one percent
Sales Tax-Phase III, Account #32304LL1O-296923O97-6011110.L7. Motion to approve funds for relocating andreplacing a 14" water line resulting from the construction oftwo deceleration lanes along state Highway 56 for the Augrusta
YDC parking 1ot expansion.18. Motion to approve change order #5 with no increasein cost extending the contract time by 19 days for smalLBusiness Incubator Facility.
PUBLIC SATETY19. Motion to approve road nanre change of GracewoodRoad to Gracewood Drive.20. Motion to approve the purchase of nine (9) printersat an estimated cost of $91351 and provide the necessaryfunding. The License and rnspection Department will bereceiving new conputer software for a&ninistrative operationsin ,.Tury 1999. The prJ-nters will maximize the eificiencl,potential of the new software. E\.rnded from y2K.
PUBLIC SEFS/ICES2L. Pulled frorn consent agenda.22. Motion to aStprove an agrre€rrent between Augrueta andsandridge Neighborhood Association, subject to approrrar ofAttorney, for operation of rramestown cormunity center andeliminate one part-time position.23. Motion to approve Memorandum of Agreement betweenAugrusta Housing Authority and Augrusta-Richmond countyRecreation and Parks for sununer youth program funded by thaHousing Authority and implemented bv the Recreation Depar-tmentin ttre amount of $50,000. 00.
Page 4
24. Motion to approve new ownership request by Kwang
Bong Chong for a retail package beer and wine license to be
used in connection with Get N Go Convenience Store located at
2350 Windsor Spring Road.25. Motion to approve new ownership request by Gnar Z.
Sarsour for a retail package beer and wine license to be used
in connection with Ace Market, Inc. Iocated at 839 East
Boundary.26. Motion to approve new ownership request bY .]ackie
C. WaII for a consung>tion on premises liquor, beer and winelicense to be used in connection with The Country Club
Restaurant located at 1102 Broad Street.27. Motion to approve new ownership request by .IackieC. WaIl for consur:ption on premises liguor, beer and wine
Iicense to be used in connection with The Country Cldc Lounge
located at 1102-A Broad Street. There will be a dance ha1l.2A. Motion to approve new ownership request by MelanieL. .Jones for consunq>tion on prern:ises 3-iquor, beer and winelicense to be used in connection with Big Daddlrrs Lounge and
Restaurant located at 3626 Tlalton Way. There will be a dance
hal1.29. Motion to approve new ownership request by ,.Iong
Song Nathanson for a retail package liquor, beer and winelicense to be used in connection with J.C. Package Shoplocated at 2501 Peach Orchard Road.30. Motj.on to approve palment of attorneys fees and
expenses of PauJ-, Hastings, ,fanofsky & Walker LLP in the
amount of $1,847 from Airportts revenue account for advicerelating to Augrusta Regional. Airport at Bush Field.31. Motion to approve the reclassification of one (1)
Bus OSrerator II (Grade 39) to t'laintenance Support Technician
(new title with proposed Grade 38) for Augusta Public Transit.
PE?ITIONS & COt'!'{UNICATIONS32. Motion to approve minutes of the Augrusta Conrnissionheld April 20, 1999.
ATTORNEY33. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for thedemolition of certain unsafe and unj-nhabitable properties inthe Turpin Hill Neighborhoodz L732 l4eadow Street, 1711 MeadowStreet, 1613 Ramsey Street, 1681 Emory Street (District 5,Super District 9l; East Augusta Neighborhood: 2O9 HolJ-owayDrive, 1906 Alabama Road, 1920 Alabama Road (District 2, SuperDistrict 9); Sand Hills Neighborhood: 26LO Haze1 Street(District L, Super District 9); and South Augrusta Neighbor-hood: 32L2 O1d Louisville Road (District 8, Super Dj-strict10). (Approved by Conrnission ApriL 20r 1999 - second reading)
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. llayor, I move approrral of the consentagenda, Items 1 through 33.
Page 5
MR. KUHLKE: SCCONd.
D{R,. BRIDGES: Can we puIl Item 21?
ITHE CLERK READS THE ALCOHOL LICENSE REQUESTS; NO OB.]ECTORS
PRESENT. ]
TIAYOR YOUNG: We have an amended motion to approve the
consent agenda, removing Item 21-, and we have a second. Any
discussion? AlI in favor, please vote aye.
I',OTION CARRIES 9.0.
CLERK: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, Mr.Powell will not be in attendance in today's meeting. Hers
somewhat under the weather.
!{AYOR YOUNG: AIl right. Madame C1erk, we'd like to go
ahead and take up Item 40 now. We have a number of peoplehere who are interested in that item and we'l-l- take that onenext.
CLERK: Item 40: Motion to approve a request by SusanPaircloth to transfer the retail package liquor, beer and winelicense used in connection with McBean Package Store locatedat 5274 Mike Padgett Highway to 908 Hephzibah-McBean Road. No
recomnendation from the Pub1ic Services Conrnittee on April 12,no action vote by the Cormrission on April 20.
MR. BRfDGES: Mr. tr4ayor, could I make a motion on this,please? Due to the general character of the neighborhoodthere in McBean at the crossroads of 56 and Hephzibah-McBeanRoad, that--ttrere is a recreation facilit'1' across the streetfrom where this business will be located. It's used byseniors during the day, it's the senj-or center, and during theevening it's used for kids. The children congregate there.Therets a recreation area there. And due to that recreation,because there's mj-nors that congregate in that vicinity, Idon't think that a liquor store in that area is conpatiblewith the neighborhood and I don't believe it's j.n the bestinterest of that connrunitlr and, therefore, I would make amotion that the request be denied.
MR. KUHLKE: I'II second that motion. Mr. Mayor, Iwould like to say something for my colleagues also. I tookthe opportunity to go out there, and the last time I voted forgiving this transfer, but I was misinformed as to where thelocation was. Vfhen you stand on this piece of property,you're right across from the fire department or adjacent tothe senior citj-zens. And I'd say this: If we were in the new
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into 0ris &.0^, "f 4,
1999, by and between SANDRIDGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. and AUGUSTA,
GEORGIA ("Augusra"). This agreement will remain in effect for one (l) year.
WHEREAS, the Sandridge C-ommunity Association has identified *desire to staff
and provide programs for Jamestown Community C.enter; and
WHEREAS, the Sandridge Community Association has determined that it would
be to the benefit of the taxpayers of Augusta for the Sandridge Communiry Association and
Augusta Recreation and Parks Deparfrnent to jointly operate the Jamestown Community Center;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the munral promises and the
coverurnts contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the reccipt and sufficiency
of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
A. Responsibilities of Sandridqe Community Association
The Sandridge Community Association shall provide adequate staffing of
Janrcstown C-ommunity Center, which shall include ttre following features:
I Hours of Operation - Fall, Winter and Spring (August - May) 3:00
p.M. - 6:00 p.M.; Summer (June - July) l l:00 A.M. _ 5:00 p.M.
2 The Sandridge Community Association shall provide staff for all
rentals at the facility alrd follow the rental guidelines provided by
the Augusta Recreation and parks Department, and shall have a1
volunteer starf execute and keep on file a Volunteer Release Form.
(See Staffing Requi rements Attachment)
The Sandridge Community Association shall issue keys for
Jamestown Community Center to members and officers of the
Sandridge C,ommunity Associ ation.
The Sandridge Community Association shall maintain an invenory
of all supplies furnished by ttre Augusta Recreation and parks
Department to Jamestown C;ommunity Center and shall perform
general maintenance of the interior/exterior of Jamestown
Community Cfiter, which includes mopping, sweeping, and
picking up of litter from grounds. (See Staffing Requiremenrs
Attachment).
The Sandridge communiry Association shall provide rabor to paint
the interior of the Recreation Center.
The sandridge community Association shall formulate programs
and activities for the Jamestown community center as well as
maintain a current safery inspection of all existing playground
equipment. In the event that any equipment is deemed unsafe, that
equipment must be properly labeled unsafe and Recreation
personnel must be contacted immediately.
The sandridge community Association must follow all safety
guidelines set forth by the Augusta Recreation and parks
Department which include notiffing the Augusta Recreation and
Parks Department immediately in the following cases: break-ins,
property damage, or emergencies.
8 The Sandridge Community Association shall be covered under the
Volunteer Protection Act of 1997, 42 U.S.C. gl450l, et seq.
B. Responsibilities of Aueusta Recreation and parks Department
The Augusta Recreation and Parks Deparrnent shall be responsibre
for assisting the Sandridge community Asociation in the operation
of Jamestown Community Center as follows:
I Supply all utilities.
2 Perform all repairs and normal maintenance for the upkeep of the
facility (painting, pesticide treatment, etc. ).
3 Provide for trash collection from existing canister on ground.
4 Provide for stripping/waxing of floors within the facility.
5 Supply both programming and janirorial supplies.
6 Provide administrative assistance.
7 Supply all capital purchases as needed depending on funding.
8 Provide assistance with speciar events that are programmed by the
Sandridge Communiry Association.
9 Provide all necessary guidelines/manuals conceming building rentals
and safety related questions.
l0 Assume reqponsibiliry for break-ins and emergency situations that
may arise.
I I Assume responsibility for liability as provided in the Votunteer
Protection Act to the Sandridge Community Association.
C. Responsibilities of Augusta Recreation and Parks prior to lease:
I Paint exterior of building.
2 Provide paint for interior of building.
3 Strip and wax floors in building.
4 Install extra rule signs for puk.
5 Repair screens over vents in Bar-B-eue pit.
6 Remove decayed wooden railing in front of building.
7 Provide ciu stops for parking lot.
8 Provide C-ommunity Association Members with first aid and CPR
training.
9 Remove Coke machine.
The Augusta Recreation and Parks Department shall also provide the following
departmenal contracts for the sandridge community Association:
I Chrislynne Kuhlke - District Supervisor - Emergency Contact - 796-
5025 1727 -75 I 0 (pager).
2 Robby Kiser - Program Manager- 79GSU2S
This Agreement contains the entire agre€ment of the parties, and no
representations, inducements, promises or agreements, oral or otknilise, between the parties not
embodied herein shall be of ury force or effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be
executed, the day and year first above written.
SANDRIDGE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC
ATTACHMENT
STAFFING REQUIREMENTS :
Sandridge Community Association must supply staff members that meet the following
qualifications:
Certified CPR and First Aid;
Desire and knowledge of practices and principles needed to develop activities for children and
adults;
Clerical skills that involve maintaining records pertaining to program registrations, supply
inventories, rental contrircts, user fees and other facility charges and information;
Supervise programs for children.
Have executed a Volunteer Release Form, in the form attached hereto.
GENERAL SUMMARY
It is the responsibility of the Sandridge Community Association to coordinate and monior
activities held at Jamestown Community Center within departmental and City guidelines. Also,it is essential for the Sandridge Community Association to work with instructors, program
participants, community leaders, civic organizations and the general public to ensure programs
and services.
VOLUNTEER REGISTRAT ION
AUGUSTA, GEORGIA
I,
Augusta, Georgia's volunteerwork at the Augusta, Georgia
, wish to participate in
program by volunteering to
(describe work which wl}l be donel fOfhours per week from1999. I understand that Augusta
through-,
, Georgia may cancel myparticipation in its program at any time, for any or noreason. I understand that I will receive no paymentfor my participation and f do not wish to receive, andhereby decline, payment. f understand that f am not an
employee of Augusta, Georgia, and that I am not, andwill not be, eligible for workers I compensationcoverage or other benefits. The particular volunteerservices which f am to perform for Augusta, Georgiahave been explained to me, and I hereby assume allrisks and hazards incidental to my engaging in thesevolunteer services. I hereby release and covenant notto sue Augusta, Georgia, the Augusta-Richmond County
Commission, and its officers, elected officials,agents, employees and representatives from any and allliabillty in connection with my participation in thevolunteer program.
SignaturePrinted name:
Date signed:
Sworn to and subscribedbefore me this _ day of, Lggg,
Notary Public
My Corunission Expires:
VOLTINTEER REGI STRAT ]ON
?,UGUSTA, GEORGIA
participation in its program at any time, for any or
,, lfuzoro /4 ' , wish to participate inAugustai Georgia's volunteer program by volunteeging tonuyLrDLcl , \rEL)rgr_cr > vul_urrLeer program Dy volunEegrl-ng Eo
19rk at,rt}re Augusta, nGeorgia.tT -*-dx) Zren4f2f Z// Ua-/d7)tt-b .F---t@z-at *
(describe work which will be donel fOf f() *7rrours per weet< ito*fuLthroughwz)1999. I understand thdt Augusta, Georgia may cance my
noreason. I understand that I wi}l receive no paymentfor my participation and I do not wish to receive, andhereby decline, payment. I understand that I am not anemployee of Augusta, Georgiar dnd that f am not, andwiIl not be, eligible for workers' compensationcoverage or other benefits. The particurar volunteerservices which f am to perform for Augusta, Georgiahave been explained to me, and I hereby assume alLrisks and hazards incidental to my engaging in thesevorunteer services. r hereby rerease and covenant notto sue Augusta, Georgia, the Augusta-Rlchmond CountyCommission, and its officers, elected officials,agents, employees and representatives from any and aI1Iiability in connection with my participation in thevolunteer program.
Sworn to and subscribedbefore me this _ day of, 1999.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
Printed name:Date signed:
VOLUNTEER REGIS?RATION
AUGUSTA, GEORGIA
,,F"LIT] R*f , wr.sh to participate in
Augusta, Georgiars volunteer program by volunteering to
w9q:k at the.Augusla, Georgia lfarnesn2qyn
50 {describe vrork whj.ch will be done, fOf
frours per week from througl-- ,1999. I understanO that augusEa, Georgf-a-mE[Ence1 myparticipation in 1ts program at any time, for any or noreason. I understand that I will receive no paymentfor my participation and I do not wish to receive, and
hereby decline, payment. I understand that I am not an
employee of Augusta, Georgia, and that I am not, andwilI not be, eligible for workers' compensation
coverage or other benefits. The particular volunteer
services which I am to perform for Augusta, Georgia
have been explained to me, and I hereby assume allrisks and hazards incidental to my engaging in thesevolunteer services. I hereby release and covenant notto sue Augusta, Georgia, the Augusta-Richmond County
Commission, and its officers, elected officials,agents, employees and representatives from any and allIiability in connection with my participaLion in thevolunteer program.
Printed name:
Date signed:
Sworn to and subscribedbefore me this _ day of
, 1999.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
,i
SignaLure
VOLUNTEER REGISTRATION
AUGUSTA, GEORGIA,:
T,
Augusta, Gk at the gust rq].a
, wish to participate 1nvolunteerprogram b volunteering toOti|t-
rYL
hours per1999. rparticipation in its program at any time, for any or noreason. I understand that I will receive no paymentfor my participation and I do not wish to receiver tsDdhereby decline, palrment. I understand that I am noL anemployee of Augusta, Georgia, and that I am not, andwill not be, eligible for workers' compensationcoverage or other benefits. The particular volunteerservices which I am to perform for Augusta, Georgiahave been explained to me, and I hereby assume aI1risks and hazards incidental to my engaging in thesevolunteer services. f hereby release and covenant notto sue Augusta, Georgia, the Augusta-Richmond CountyCommission, and its officers, elected officials,agents, employees and representatives from any and allliability in connection with my particlpation in thevolunteer program.
Printed name:
Date signed:
Sworn to and subscribedbefore me this _ day of, L999.
My Commission Expires:
REGULAR MEETING
1
COMMISSION CHAMBERS
May 2,2000
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:02 p.m., Tuesday, May 2, 2AOO,
the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Cheelg Colclough, Kuhlke,
Mays, Shepard and williams, members of Augusta Richmond county commission.
Also present were Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Mr. Oliver, Administrator; and Mr.
Wall, County Attorney.
TI{E INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY REV. JOYNER
TTM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED.
Mayor Young. Before we get into the agenda, the Chair would like to recognize
Commissioner Jerry Brigham. Commissioner Jerry Brigham is appropriately flowered today as a
new grandfather, the child having arrived two days ago. Jerry would like to put on the official
record who your grandchild is?
Mr. J. Brigham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Our grandchild is a little lady by the name of
Brittany Taylor Brigham. She was born yesterday at 5:45 in Honolulu, Hawaii. I'm sure she's
enjoying it a whole lot more over there than I'm going to enjoy it in here.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Commissioner Brigham. Madame Clerk, are there any
changes to the agenda?
Clerk: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. We have a request to delete ltem 22 from our
Addendum Agenda, and two additions, a Resolution pledging the support of the City of
Augusta for the designation of Georgia State Route 121 as the Woodpecker Trail, and a
Resolution expressing condolences to the family and friends of Dr. I. E. Washington
Mayor Young: Gentlemen, what,s your pleasure?
Mr. Mays: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mayor Young: Is there any objection to these deletions and objections? None heard.
So the changes are so ordered. Madame Clerk, let's move ahead.
634. Motion to approve change order #12 fior the final contract quantity adjustments
for Diamond Lakes Regional Park to Blair Construction, Inc., as a deductive
change order in the amount of $211855.78. (Approved by Public Services
Committee April 24, 2AA0)35. Motion to approve the renerwal of an agreement between Augusta and Sand
Ridge Community Association for operation of Jamestown Community Center.(Approved by Pubtic Services Committee April 24r2O0O)36. Motion to approve a resolution to author!r:e a pre-application to be filed with the
Georgia Department of Natural Resources for a Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF) grant for land acquisition at Sand Hills Park (Approved by Public
Services Committee April 24,Z0OO)37. Pulled from consent agenda.
PLANNING:
39. Pulled from consent agenda.
ATTORNEY:
40, Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend an act entitled '6An Act to create a
Board of Commissioners for Roads and Revenues for the County of Richmond;
to define their powers and duties; and for other purposes" approved August 19,
1907 (GA.L. 1907, P. 324 as amended, particularly by an Act approved August14,l93l (GA.L. 1931, P. 555), by an Act approved March zz,lg74 (GA.L. 1974,
P.3034), by an Act approved March zB, 1974, (GA.L. 1974, p.3562), and an
Ordinance adopted under the Home Rule provisions of the State of Georgia
approved on May 1,1979 and May 15,1979 (GA.L. 1980, p. 4590), and by ,,An
Act to provide that the governing Authority of Richmond County shall be aBoard of Commissioners consisting of Chairperson-Mayor and ten members, to
designate the Board as the Commissioners-Councilpercons, and for other
purposes" (1995 GA. LAws, P. 3648), as amended (1996 GA. LAWS, P.3602;
1997 cA. LAws, P. 4024; 1997 GA. LAWS, p. 4690; and 1999 GA. LAws, p.
4143) so as to provide for the audit requirements of Augusta, Georgia; and for
other purposes. (Approved by Commission Aprit 19r 2000 - second reading)
APPOINTMENTS:
4Oz. Motion to approve the following appointments:* Mr. Bernard Harper, District 4 appointment to the Coliseum Authority.o l![r. Herbert Thomas, District 4 appointment to the Housing &
Neighborhood Development's Citizen Advisory Board.* Ms- Amanda Carroll-Barefield, District 8 appointment to the Augusta-
Richmond County Library Board.
MINUTES:
40b. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
April 19,2000.
Mayor Young: 37, okay. Are there any others? so we have items 1, g, 13, 24,2g,
31,32,37 and 39. Did we leave any out? We have a motion and second to approve the
consent agenda minus those items. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Yes, sir, Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Did you -- after 28, give me those numbers.
Mayor Young: 31,32,37 and39.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay.
Clerk: Before you vote, let me just clarify, Item 38 and 44, there is backup material in
our book, but those items were deleted from the agenda, but we failed to pull out the backup.
It's not a part of this agenda book. Items 38 and 44,the backup material in the agendabooks.
Mayor Young: The question has been called. All in favor of the consent agenda
minus those items, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk Item l: Motion to approve the purchase of one 1S-Passenger Van for the
Recreation Department from Augusta Dodge at a cost of $221672.50 (low bid).
(Approved by Finance Committee April 24,2000)
Mayor Young: Let's take Item 8 with that.
Clerk Item 8: Motion to approve the purchase of one Crew Cab Truck for the
Recreation Department (Bid 99-152) from Pontiac Masters in the amount of $2S"346
(low bid). (Approved by Finance Committee April 24,,2000)
Mayor Young: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes. I just wanted some information from Mr. Beck or somebody in
Recreation. Are we exchanging? Are we buying this type of van in place of an old van? Are
we replacing? Is that what we are doing?
7
held
tr 4/i'.i., ?,
' ,. l
a' AGREEMENT
TFIIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 2nd dry of May r
2000, by and between SANDRIDGE COMMUMTY ASSOCIATION, hc. and
AUGUSTA, GEORGIA ("Augusta"). This agreement will remain in effect thru December
31,2000;thereafter, this agreement shdl be on aye^rtoyeer basis beginningJanuary 1" of
eachyear and terminating on the 31o day ofDecember of each year, and will automatically
renew on a year-to-year basis. Either party hereto, however, may terminate this Ageement
by gr"irg to the other parrya notice in writing of not less than 30 (thiny) days, said notice to
be forwarded by cenified mail, return receipt reque*ed, rc rhe parties at the following
respective ad&esses.
\(IHEREAS, the Sandridge Community Association, Inc. has idendfied a desire to
staff and provide programs forJamestown Communiry C.enter; and
VHEREAS, the Sandridge Community Association, [nc. has determined that it
would be to benefit of the taxpayers of for the Sandridge Community Association and
Augusta Recreation and Parla Depanment to jointly operar€ the Jamesrown Communiry
Gnter;
NO\7, TF{EREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutud.promises and the
covenants contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledge, the parties agree as follows:
A. ResponsibilitiesofSandridgeCommuniqyAssociation
The Sandridge Community Association shall provide adequate staffing of
Jamestovrn Community C-cnrer, which shall indude the following features:
1. Hours of Operation - Fall, \07inter and Spring (Augusr - May) 3:00
P.M.- 6:00?-\{.; Summer 0"". -J"ly) 11:00A.M. - 5:00 P-IvI.
3.
4.
ft.'S*&dge Community Association shall prbvide staff for all
rentals at facility and follow the rental guidelines provided by th.
Augusta Recreation and Par{rs Department, md shall have all
volunteer staff execute and keep on file a Volunteer Release Form
and complete the Criminal BacJ<ground Checl< Consent Forms.
(See Atmchmenm)
The Sandridge Community Association shall issue kry for
Jarhestown Community Center to members and officers of the
Sandridge Community Association
The Sandridge Communiry fusociation shall maintain an inventory
of all supplies furnished by the Augusta Recreation and Parks
Department of Jamestown Community Center and shall perform
general maintenance of the interior/emerior of Jamestown
Cnmmunity Center, which includes mopping, sweeping, and picJring
up their liner from grounds. (See Staffing Requirements
Auachment)
All revenues received by Sandridge Communiry Associarion for
services rendered at Jamestown Community Center shdl be
expended for materials, supplies or other ser-vices thar directly effect
the operations of Jamestown C-ommunity Center.
The Sandridge CommuniryAssociation shall formulate programs and
aaivities for the Jamestown Communiry Center as well as maintain a
culrent safety inspection of all existing playgound equipment. In the
event that any equipment is deemed unsafe, that equipment must be
properly labeled unsafe and Recreation personnel must be contacted
immediately.
6.
),1
.:
7. fU. S*iUag. Community Association mu* 'follovl all safery
guidelines set forth bythe Augusta Recreation and Parks Depanment
which include notifying the Augusta Recreation and Parks
Department immediately in the following cases: break-ins, property
damage, or emergencies.
8. The Sandridge Communiry Association shall be covered under the
Volunteer Protection Ao of 1997, 42 U.S.C. 14501, er seq. (See
Aaachmen$
B. Responsibfities of Augusta Recreation and Parks Department
The Augusta Recreation and Parks Department shall be responsible
for xsisting the Sandridge Community Association in the operation
f Jamestown CommunityCxnter as follows:
1. SrppV all utfities.
2. Perform all ripairs and normal maintenance for the upkeep of the
facility (p"irti"g, pesticide trearmenr, etc.).
3. Provide for trash collecdon from existing canister on grounds.
4. Provide for stripping /waingof floors within the facility.
5. S"pph borh programming and janitorial supplies as budgeted and
approved by Augusca Commission.
6. Provide administrative assistance.
7. S"pply all capfual purchases, as needed depending on funding.
, 8. Provide assistance with special events that are prograrnmed by the
Sandridge Community Association.
g. Provide all necessary guidelines/manuals concerning building rentals
and safety questions.
10. Provide for CPR/Firsr Aid Training for volunteer staff.
..\
.z
11. nror-" iesponsibility for break-ins and emergericy sinrations that
may arise.
12. Assume responsibfiry for liability as provided in the Volunteer
Protection Act to rhe Sandridge Community Associadon.
The Augusra Recreation and Parls Depanment shall also provide the following.
departmental contracts for the Sandridge CommuniryAssociation:
1. Clrislynne Kuhlke - Disrict Supervisor - EmergencyC,ontao:
(*ork) 7 9 6-5025, 2404564 (pager)
2. Robby Kiser - Program Manager: (*ork) 796-5025,240-4552 (pager)
This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties, and no representations,
inducements, promises or agreements, oral'or otherwise, between the parties not embodied
herein shall be of any force or effeo.
IN VTINESS \00HEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be
executed, the day and year first abo.ve written.
SAND
BY
Its President
ffi
ryclD
')
ATTACHMENT
STAFFING REOUIREM ENTS :
San!{dg9 CommuniryAssociation must supp}y staffmembers that meer rhe following
qualifications:
Crnified CPR and Firsr Aid:
Desire and knowledge of practices and principals needed to develop acrivities for children
and adulcs:
Clerical skills that involve maintaining records pertaining rc program regisrrations, supply
inventories, rental contracrs, user fees and other faciliryitrrg.r *a inf6rmation; '
Supervise protrams for children.
Have executed a VolunteerRelease Form, in the form anached hereto.
Must clear the requirements set forti in the criminal background check policy for volunteers.
GENERAI SUMIVIARY
It is the responsibility of the SANIDRIDGE COMMUNITY AssoCLATIoN to
coordinare and monitor aaivities held at-Jamestown Community Center wirhin depanmental
and Crty guidelines. AIso, it is essential for SANDRIDGE CO{{MUI{ITY ASS&IATION
to workwith instructors, program participants, communityleaders, civic organizations and
the generd public to ensure programs and services
,- :')
JAIVI ES TO\TN COMMLINITY CENT ER
1999ANNUAL REPORT
Submitred By:
Ingrid Charles
Barbaru Thompson-Reed
Recreation Center Coordinators
I. Personnel and Staff
List of staff and positions:
Mrs. Ingrid Charles - Recreation Coordinator
Mrs. Barbara Thompson-Reed - Recreation Coordinator
Nathaniel Charles - Assistant
Operation Hoursl
June 66 - August 756,1999 Monday - Friday - 9:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.
August 196 - December 31$, 1999 Monday - Friday - 3:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.
II. Financial Report
Revenues Generated:Rentals $ 5,149.00
Expenditures:Utilities 2,4OO.OO.
Programming Supplies 700.00
Total:
m. Program/Seryices Implemented
Play Pals - Programs focus on self-awareness, confidence motor skill. developments organization creative arts in special events. Iwo days a week
these programs were free for all3 to 5 year old. This program was a success
through the entire period. There were participants on a regular basis.
Tea Time - This program is for Seniors ages 55 and older. The program is
held three days a week with various activities. There was no cost to anyone,
evaything was free.
Easter Egg Hunt - This program is for ages 4 to 72 years old. Prizes given to
eve{yone. Easter baskets were given for the most eggs found and for the
golden egg.
Halloween Treats Give-A-Vay Treat Bags - This program is bags filled with
assorted candy, also prizes were liven for the besi cuitom. Theie were
hotdogs and hamburgers for everyone.
Attendance:
:
Day Camp 65
Play Pals 45
Tea Time (Seniors) l5T
Easter Egg Hunt 217
Halloween Party 255
Neighborhood Meetings 3,360
t.^
Headstart
Free Play
Rentals
Crime'S/atch
Pool Tournament
Basketball Tournament
Community Day Fest
Community Social
Aerobics
Total:
Highlights of. 7999t
Tea Time
Easter Events
Summer Camp
Hallowecn Party
Basketball Tournament
Pool Toumament
Community Activities:
.,
Facility and Maintenance:
General Upkeep:
D-"!ly upkeep is done the coordinatois. The maintenance department assisted
with repairs. The RCCI prison crew assisted with the outsidi grounds.
Equipment Used:
Lawn mowers
Floor buffers
Mops
Brooms
W. Recommendations:
Build tennis courts
Put a floor in storage closet
Repair on all entrance/exit doors
Repair of kitchen counter top
Repair BBQ Pit warer sink, lights
Repair all windows leakage
507
23,750
2,899'
1,969
65
154
475
458
15
33,690
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
TA-07 Tree Ordinance
Department:Planning & Development
Department:Planning & Development
Caption: TA-07 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Georgia
Planning Commission to approve a petition to approve the
updated Tree Ordinance for Augusta, Georgia. (No
recommendation from Public Services Committee January 31,
2017)
Background:
Analysis:
Financial Impact:
Alternatives:
Recommendation:
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Cover Memo
1
2
1
AUGUSTA
TREE COMMISSION
MEMBERS
2016
BIRKIE AYER DISTRICT 1
PAUL THOMPKINS DISTRICT 2
HENRY FRISCHKNECHT DISTRICT 3
ROY SIMKINS DISTRICT 4
JARREL A. GIBSON DISTRICT 5
CLYDE LESTER DISTRICT 6
ROGER W. DAVIS DISTRICT 7
SID MULLIS DISTRICT 8
PATRICIA BAILEY DISTRICT 9
ANNETTE HARLAN DISTRICT 10
DIANE SPRAGUE LEGISLATIVE
REV RONALD FREEMAN LEGISLATIVE
1
The work upon which this publication is based was funded in whole or in part through
an Urban and Community Forestry grant awarded by the Southern Region, State and
Private Forestry, U.S. Forest Service and administered by the Georgia Forestry
Commission.
In accordance with Federal law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) policy,
this institution is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national
origin, sex, age, or disability. To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA
Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence
Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice and
TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity employer.
1
AUGUSTA TREE ORDINANCE
AND
TREE ORDINANCE ILLUSTRATED
GUIDE (IGO)
Prepared and adopted by the
Augusta Tree Commission
Roy Simkins, Chairman
Melanie Wilson, Secretary
Adopted by the
Augusta Commission
Hardie Davis, Jr, Mayor
Grady Smith, Mayor Pro Tem
These documents provide standards for the protection of public trees, for the designation
of landmark trees, and landscaping, tree protection and tree establishment standards for the
development of private property in Augusta, GA. Included are Chapter 8-4 of the Augusta,
Georgia Code entitled “Trees” (Ordinance No. 6095) and amendments thereto, and the
“Illustrated Guide to Implementing the Augusta-Richmond County Tree Ordinance”
(Ordinance No. 94-1, adopted December 7, 1993).
Updated JANUARY 2017
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TREE ORDINANCE Page
8-4-1 Purpose and Intent 1
8-4-2 Minimum Canopy Required 2
8-4-3 Establishment of Tree Commission 4
8-4-4 Administration 5
8-4-5 Public Tree Protection 5
8-4-6 Licensing 6
8-4-7 Regulation of Tree Care 7
8-4-8 Tree Protection Zone; Official Tree List 8
8-4-9 Standards of Tree Care Management 8
8-4-10 Moving Buildings or Other Large Objects 14
8-4-11 Landmark Trees 14
8-4-12 Nuisance Trees and Shrubs 15
8-4-13 Tree Protection/Tree Establishment Requirements
for Private and Public Development 15
8-4-14 Compliance 25
8-4-15 Tree Establishment Bond 26
8-4-16 Appeals and Variances 26
8-4-17 Abrogation and Greater Restrictions 27
8-4-18 Severability 27
8-4-19 Inspection, Enforcement, Violation, and Penalty 27
8-4-20 Mitigation 30
8-4-21 City Code and other Development Regulations 32
2
1
Chapter 8-4-1. PURPOSE AND INTENT.
This Chapter of the Ordinance provides standards for the protection of public trees, and for
the designation of landmark trees, and further provides landscaping, tree protection and tree
establishment standards for the development of public or private property in Augusta, Georgia.
Consistent with the expressed purpose of this article, all persons shall make reasonable efforts to
preserve and retain certain existing, self-supporting trees as defined herein.
It is the intent of this Ordinance that all applicable sites within the City maintain or obtain a thirty
percent (30%) minimum tree canopy, as defined and explained herein.
It is the purpose of this Ordinance to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of
provisions designed to:
(a) Aid in stabilizing the environment's ecological balance / offset negative effects of climate
change by contributing to the processes of air purification, oxygen regeneration, wildlife
habitat, groundwater recharge, and storm water runoff retardation, while concurrently
facilitating noise, glare, and heat abatement;
(b) Encourage the preservation of existing trees and vegetation on-site and replanting of trees
to increase canopy coverage across the city in order to maximize carbon sequestration;
(c) Prevent soil erosion;
(d) Protect and enhance the aesthetic qualities of the community;
(e) Prevent structural and pavement saturation;
(f) Safeguard and enhance private property values and protect private and public investments;
(g) Conserve energy.
2
Chapter 8-4-2. MINIMUM CANOPY REQUIRED.
PURPOSE. The City desires that a minimum amount of tree canopy coverage be required on all
new development sites, redevelopment sites, and all sites with additions or expansions, on all land
uses within the City’s jurisdiction.
REQUIREMENTS. All land undergoing development shall provide for thirty percent (30%)
minimum tree canopy coverage. Tree canopy coverage is the sum total of preserved trees and
replacement trees at their anticipated canopy coverage ten (10) years from the time that the site is
developed. As set forth in the IGO.
The canopy may be achieved by preserving existing trees, by planting new trees according to the
minimum standards in this Ordinance, or by a combination of the two. Minimum tree canopy shall
be calculated and established pursuant to the formula and analysis set forth in this Ordinance and
illustrated in the Illustrated Guide (IGO). Any existing tree, from the approved list in the IGO, of
not less than six inches (6”) diameter at breast height (DBH) left in good growing condition on the
property is eligible to be counted toward the minimum required canopy and has to be protected.
The property owner shall be subject to the minimum tree canopy requirement set forth in this
section. The property owner shall base the canopy calculation on the gross site area.
If a site over one (1) acre in size was formerly in a forested state and fifty percent (50%)
or more the land area was “clear cut” within three (3) years of the plan submittal date
without an approved Site Plan, that includes approved grading and erosion and
sedimentation practices, for any land disturbing activity that took place, then the property
will be prohibited from developing for three (3) years. It will be the applicant’s
responsibility to provide proof that any clear cutting activity on the site was done by an
approved Site Plan than included an approved grading and erosion and sedimentation plan
or took place greater than three years prior to the current submittal date.
(1) Calculation of Tree Canopy Coverage
(a) The baseline canopy measurements on a proposed development site shall be provided by
the developer/property owner and submitted as part of the tree survey and Tree Protection
/ Tree Establishment Plan. The percent canopy cover preserved may be calculated by
actual ground measurement (field survey) or by aerial photographs from Augusta,
Georgia’s GIS, to scale.
(b) All trees to be preserved shall follow tree preservation guidelines established by this
Ordinance in Chapter 8-4-9 and in Chapter 8-4-11 for Landmark Trees.
3
(c) The Minimum Canopy Requirement shall be calculated by the following formula:
MCR = SA x 0.3
Where:
MCR = Minimum Canopy Requirement (in square feet – 30%)
SA = The gross Site Area ( in square feet)
Calculation: example
Step 1: SA– 43,560 sq. ft. x .30 = 13,068 sq. ft. MCR
Step 2: Preserved Canopy from Tree Survey = 5,350 sq. ft.
Step 3: MCR (13,068 sq. ft.) - Preserved Canopy (5,350 sq. ft.) = 7,718 sq. ft. to meet
MCR
Step 4: Select enough overstory and understory trees to equal area to meet MCR
Step 5. Trees planted or replanted to achieve canopy requirements shall be selected from
the Augusta Tree Species Selection list set forth in this Ordinance. In addition, replanting
/ new planting shall be at the ratio of not less than one overstory tree for every three
understory trees. Canopy credit may be met by planting all overstory trees, but not by
planting only understory trees. All replacement trees shall be maintained for a period of
three years under a Tree Establishment Bond (see Section 8-4-15) to ensure their
survivability. Required trees on the site must be maintained / retained in perpetuity or
replacement plantings of the same size and species must be planted should the tree become
diseased, die, become a public health hazard, or is removed for any reason.
(2) Mitigation Policy
(a) If a tree designated as a protected tree on tree survey or a Tree Protection / Tree
Establishment Plan is required to be removed due to building footprint, damage from
construction, or dies during development, the developer shall be required to replant a tree(s)
of equal size and caliper on the site.
(3) All mitigation shall follow requirements established in Chapter 8-4-20 of this Ordinance.
(4) Tree Survey
(a) In order to assure that the location of existing trees and vegetation on the development site
is acknowledged prior to preparing any design plans for development, a tree survey is
required. The tree survey must be submitted to the Planning & Development Department
4
(b) in advance of, or with a Tree Protection / Tree Establishment Plan, and prior to any land
disturbing activity and will be reviewed as part of the Tree Plan review process.
o Elements required as a part of the tree survey include: a map, drawn to scale, and a
written component, identifying any potential landmark, specimen and significant
trees, and identifying all existing trees on the site with identification of what is to
be preserved and what is to be removed.
(c) A certified arborist, landscape architect, or forester shall evaluate the tree survey to
determine what existing trees will be preserved, and how it can be incorporated into the
Development Plans / Site Plans for the site. Critical Root protection zones for all trees to
be preserved shall be indicated on the tree survey.
(d) Details for planting, mulching and watering shall be included on the plan.
(4) Canopy Credit for Tree(s) Planted to Meet Canopy Coverage
(a) The area devoted to newly planted areas may be counted as part of the tree save area. The
land devoted to tree save areas that is represented by newly planted trees will be calculated
on the basis of the following credits for new trees. A planted large maturing overstory tree
shall be counted as equivalent to one thousand four hundred square feet (1,400 sq. ft.) of
canopy; a medium maturing overstory tree shall be counted as the equivalent of seven
hundred and fifty square feet (750 sq. ft.) of canopy; and a small maturing understory tree
shall be counted as the equivalent of three hundred square feet (300 sq. ft.) of canopy.
Chapter 8-4-3. ESTABLISHMENT OF TREE COMMISSION.
(a) There is hereby created the Augusta Tree Commission which shall consist of ten (10)
members appointed by the Augusta Commission plus an additional two (2) members
appointed by the Richmond County Legislative Delegation. All appointments shall be for
four (4) year terms. The role of the Tree Commissioners will be to define problems, suggest
solutions, and provide support to the Director; review any appeals or variances and
recommend acceptance or rejection to the Director; annually review the Illustrated Guide
to Implementing the Augusta Tree Ordinance (IGO) and update it as needed; review
petitions for landmark trees; conduct educational programs with respect to tree care and
preservation; and promote and support the city’s effort to become/maintain a Tree City
USA designated Community. The Tree Commission shall meet no less than quarterly. All
members shall be residents of Augusta, Georgia. All vacancies shall be filled for the
unexpired terms.
(b) All Tree Commissioners shall serve without compensation. The Augusta Commission and
the Richmond County Legislative Delegation, when appointing members to the Tree
Commission, shall appoint persons from the following fields of association: registered
landscape architect; realtor / developer of commercial property (licensed broker who is
member of board of realtors); urban forester; an extension agent; architect; engineer; an
5
(c) appointee from the Garden Council of Augusta; a master gardener; and 3 citizens at large
who have knowledge of, and interest in trees and the urban forest appointed by Director.
The Georgia Forestry Commission Urban Forester may serve as an ex-officio member.
(d) All terms shall expire on March 30 of the applicable year, and new terms shall begin on
April 1 of the applicable year.
(e) Members shall not receive a salary, although they may be reimbursed for authorized
expenses.
Chapter 8-4-4. ADMINISTRATION.
(a) The Augusta Planning & Development Department shall have the responsibility for
administering all provisions of this Ordinance that relate to the development of private
lands. The Augusta Tree Commission shall have the responsibility of administering all
provisions that relate to the development of public lands.
(b) Fees. Reasonable fees sufficient to cover the costs of administration, plan review,
inspection, appraisal, and publication of notice, as applicable, shall be charged to applicants
as established by this Article. The amount of such fees shall be fixed by the Augusta
Commission.
(c) Enforcement Officer. The City Arborist, with the Code Enforcement Officer as his
designee, is the designee who shall be given the authority to enforce the Ordinance against
the City’s citizens in the event of compliance failure. This designee shall also have
enforcement responsibility and control over all regulated, unsafe and diseased trees located
on public and private property.
Chapter 8-4-5. PUBLIC TREE PROTECTION.
(a) Any request for the severing from the stump and removal of a tree on a public right-of-way
shall be directed to the Augusta Tree Commission for approval. In the event approval is
given, Augusta, GA shall notify the local neighborhood association, if any, and shall post
on such tree for a period of fourteen (14) days a notice of their intent to remove said tree.
Decisions of the Tree Commission shall be final, and there shall be no appeal to the
Augusta Commission.
(b) Trees deemed a danger to the public or the adjoining property by the Tree Commission or
the appropriate City Department shall be exempt from the restrictions of this section and
can be removed for the safety of the public and/or adjacent properties.
(c) Nothing herein shall be construed as prohibiting the cutting and/or removal of a tree or
trees incidental to a road improvement project, a drainage project, or a water and sewerage
project of Augusta, Georgia or the Georgia Department of Transportation.
6
(d) All other projects causing disturbance within rights-of-way which may cause extensive
damage to trees therein shall likewise be reviewed by the Augusta Tree Commission for
recommendations.
(e) No person or organization, outside of City authorized personnel, or City contract personnel,
shall do any of the following acts to any public tree without first obtaining the proper
permission from the Augusta Tree Commission:
(1) Cut, prune, break, damage, remove, kill or cause to be killed.
(2) Cut, disturb, or interfere, in any way, with the soil or any root within the dripline.
(3) Place, spray, or apply any chemical that is known to be toxic to trees in a location that
may be absorbed by any part of the tree.
(4) Fasten any rope, wire, sign or other device whether invasive to the tree or not.
(5) Remove or damage any guard devices placed to protect any tree.
(6) Conduct razing, removal, demolition, expansion, or renovation of any structure if
deemed by Augusta, GA to be damaging to neighboring public trees.
(7) Maintain a stationary fire or device which vaporizes noxious fumes deleterious to tree
health.
(8) Pave with concrete, asphalt, or other impervious material within the dripline of any
public tree unless approved construction techniques are followed as prescribed. (Ord.
5933, June 17, 1997)
Chapter 8-4-6. LICENSING.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the business of planting, cutting, trimming,
pruning, spraying, or to otherwise treat trees, shrubs or vines on public or private property,
within the City of Augusta, without first producing evidence of a business license.
(b) The Augusta Commission shall require anyone who removes or maintains trees as a
business on public or private lands, within the City of Augusta, must first be examined by
the Director or their designee, or the City Arborist, on his/her ability to carry out such work
before being granted a license to practice as a tree expert. Passage of the examination
administered by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) for certified arborist or
certified tree worker may be accepted in lieu of said examination. A fee shall be set by the
Augusta Commission and all fees shall be made to Augusta, Georgia to accompany the
application for examination for each applicant.
7
Chapter 8-4-7. REGULATION OF TREE CARE.
(a) ON CITY OWNED LAND
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person or firm to engage in the business or occupation
of pruning, treating or removing street or park trees or trees within City owned
public rights-of-way without first applying for and procuring a Tree Disturbance
Permit. Such a permit will only be granted to individuals, businesses or companies
who employ a Certified Arborist to perform or supervise all tree work.
(2) In order to receive a Tree Disturbance Permit, applicants must first sign an affidavit
agreeing to abide by ANSI 300 Standards for tree care. Specifically, the “topping”
of trees shall be prohibited except in cases where the top of the tree has been injured
beyond repair by a storm or related incident.
(3) Before any permit shall be issued, each applicant must first file evidence of
possession of liability insurance and workman’s compensation insurance in the
minimum amounts as required by the City of Augusta; indemnifying the City or
any person injured or damage resulting from the pursuit of such endeavors as herein
described.
(4) At the recommendation of the Director, in conjunction with the City Arborist, the
Code Enforcement Officer is authorized to issue a Notice of Violation (NOV) and
a Stop Work Order (SWO) in order to suspend or revoke the right of any person or
business to perform work for the City of Augusta that engages in work practices
which do not comply with tree care standards as specified in this Ordinance and the
related ANSI Standards.
(b) ON PRIVATE LAND
(1) The City shall require all companies providing tree care services on private
property have a current business license and must have passed the City test for tree
care qualifications or be a ISA Certified arborist, or be under the direct supervision,
at all times while on the job site, of such an individual.
(2) At the recommendation of the Director, in conjunction with the City Arborist, the
Code Enforcement Officer is authorized to issue a Notice of Violation (NOV) and
a Stop Work Order (SWO) in order to suspend or revoke the right of any person or
business to perform work on private property that engages in work practices which
do not comply with tree care standards as specified in this Ordinance and the related
ANSI Standards.
8
Chapter 8-4-8. TREE PROTECTION ZONE; OFFICIAL TREE LIST.
(a) There is hereby established a tree protection zone which shall include all public rights-of-
way and all public lands of Augusta, Georgia.
(b) The Augusta Tree Commission is hereby charged with the duty of determining the types
of species of trees approved for planting, as well as those prohibited, and the conditions
under which such trees shall be planted along streets, in parks, and in public places within
Augusta, Georgia. When completed, the list shall be presented to the Augusta Commission
for its approval. When approved, the said report shall be known as the Official Tree List.
Revisions in the Official Tree List should be reviewed annually and updated every three
(3) years, as needed by the Augusta Tree Commission.
All trees hereafter planted on public property or on private development property within
Augusta, Georgia must be on the Official Tree List, unless otherwise specifically approved
by the Augusta Tree Commission.
Chapter 8-4-9. STANDARDS OF TREE CARE MANAGEMENT
General Tree Care Management
a) The City of Augusta shall have the authority to insist that all property owners treat or else
allow the City to treat trees suffering from transmittable diseases or insect infestations
which are on private property but are affecting the health of public trees on public property.
If the disease infestation warrants drastic action to curb its spread to healthy public trees,
the Augusta Planning & Development Department will notify in writing the owners of such
trees. Removal shall be done by said owners at their expense within thirty days after the
date of service of letter. In the event of failure of the said owners to comply with this
provision, the City shall have the authority to remove such trees and charge the cost of the
removal on the property owners’ property tax notice.
b) In case of emergencies, such as windstorms, or other disasters, the removal of broken limbs
or uprooted trees, using proper Best Management Practices (BMP) practices, shall be
allowed during the emergency period so that the requirements of this Ordinance would in
no way hamper private or public work to restore order to Augusta, Georgia. This work is
to be done in accordance with the emergency standards as outlined by Augusta, Georgia.
c) The City shall have the right to remove, or cause or order to be removed, any tree, or part
thereof, which is in an unsafe condition, or which, by reason of its nature, obstructing the
view of any street intersection, is injurious to sewers, electrical power lines, gas lines, water
lines, or other public improvements, or is affected with any injurious fungus, insect or other
pest, whether on public or private property. The Augusta Planning & Development
Department will notify in writing the owners of such trees. Removal shall be done by said
owners at their expense within thirty days after the date of service of letter. In the event of
failure of the said owners to comply with this provision, the City shall have the authority
9
to remove such trees and charge the cost of the removal on the property owners’ property
tax notice.
d) The Augusta Tree Commission, in conjunction with the Director and a qualified
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist shall review annually and
formulate, revise and administer changes in the IGO every three years, as needed, on
current standards of arboriculture practices as it relates to tree care on public and private
land.
The Tree Commission shall make provision for educating the public about trees and include
(but not be limited to) an inventory of tree resources, standard planting practices, tree
maintenance, tree replacement and tree cover specifications. and needed maintenance work
complete with estimated cost and time schedules. The Tree Commission will coordinate
and facilitate events for the City such as Arbor Day and is encouraged to be active and
participate in events such as Earth Day and other community tree-related outreach or
lecture events.
Tree Preservation / Protection Plan
(a) A tree preservation / protection element shall be incorporated into the Tree Protection /
Tree Establishment Plan that is a part of the permit for land disturbance, which incorporates
current industry standards for tree preservation / protection for development of property
and during site disturbance. A detail listing of preservation / protection plans are attached
in the IGO manual.
10
Tree Pruning Standards
a) All pruning on any tree required by this Ordinance shall be performed in strict compliance
with the “American National Standards” as set forth in the ANSI A300 (Part 1) – 2008
Pruning, or current ANSI standards and ANSI Z133 Safety Standards. A copy of the
standards is available at the Augusta Planning & Development Department for review or
can be purchased at ANSI.org.
b) Examples:
c) Trees trimmed for clearance from utility lines shall be trimmed in such a manner, using
current industry standards, as to provide clearance from lines for a designated period of
time or cycle, not to exceed three (3) years. In all cases where conditions permit,
directional pruning or side trimming methods shall be used to obtain necessary clearance.
Topping is prohibited.
Topping of Trees:
It shall be unlawful as a normal practice for any person, firm, or city department to top any
street tree, park tree, or other tree on public property. Topping is defined as the severe
cutting back of limbs to stubs larger than three inches (3”) in diameter within the tree’s
crown to such a degree so as to remove the normal canopy and disfigure the tree. Trees
severely damaged by storms or other causes, or certain trees under utility wires or other
obstructions where other pruning practices are impractical, may be exempted from this
Ordinance at the determination of the Tree Commission or their designee(s).)
11
“Tree Topping” means the severe cutting back of limbs to stubs of three (3) inches or more
in diameter within the tree’s crown to such a degree as to remove the normal canopy and
disfigure the tree. Tree Commission should reference the (ANSI 2133.1 – 2000) document
as it applies to Tree Topping.
Tree Removal Standards:
a) A Permit is required for removal of all public and protected trees.
b) Removal shall follow all current ANSI Z133 standards for safety.
c) Stump removal On Public Property.
The stump and root flares of all removed trees shall be ground to a depth of at least eight-
inches (8”) below the ground level so that the top of the stump shall not project above the
surface of the ground. All grindings shall be removed and the soil cavity shall be filled with
clean topsoil and the area leveled and seeded. If the area where the tree is removed is to
be paved, the stump shall be removed to a suitable depth to allow adequate paving.
12
Tree Planting Standards:
a) All trees planting shall be conducted in accordance with the most recent Arboricultural
Specifications and Standards of Practice of the International Society of Arboriculture as
published in the American National Standard for Tree Care Operations (ANSI 300 – Part
5 & 6) and herein referenced in this Article, and the Augusta IGO manual.
b) All planted trees shall have a minimum tree establishment zone based upon its mature size
(Table No.1). Refer to the tree species list located in the Augusta IGO manual for
information on the size and tree quality rating for a specific species. No one species shall
make up over fifteen percent (15%) of the total number of trees planted on the development
site.
Table No. 1:
Mature Size Canopy area in square feet
Small Canopy Trees (Less than 25') 300
Medium Canopy Trees (30'--50') 750
Large Canopy Trees (50' and larger) 1400
c) Minimum caliper. The minimum caliper (measured at six inches (6”) above the soil level)
for planted trees is three inches (3”). Multi-stemmed trees shall not have more than three
to five stems with each stem being a minimum of one inch (1”) and be eight feet tall.
d) Site Selection: Minimum distances, at the time of planting to avoid conflicts with city
infrastructure and structures shall follow listed guidelines in Table No. 2:
13
Table No. 2:
Mature Tree Size In Height
Structure/Infrastructure
Description
Large
50 – 70’
Medium
30 – 40’
Small
15 – 20’
Evergreen
40 – 50’
Minimum Width of Tree
Planting Space
6’ + 6’ 4’ 8’ +
Spacing between trees (o.c.) 45’ 40’ 20’ 30’
Overhead utilities Not Within
30’
Within
20”
Okay Within
30”
Intersections (sight distance) 40’ 40’ 40’ 40’
Stop signs, traffic signs,
street lights, traffic signals
20’ 20’ 20’ 20’
Fire hydrant, gas or water
valves, storm drains
8’ 8’ 8’ 8’
Underground utilities 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’
Building 15’ 10’ 5’ 15’
Mailboxes 10’ 10’ 10’ 10’
The Director may waive or modify the minimum space requirements as circumstances
warrant and/ or on a case by case basis.
e) Distance from curb and sidewalk:
1. The distance public and private trees may be planted from curbs or curb lines and
sidewalks will be in accordance with the three species size classes in the Augusta, GA
Recommended List of street trees and no trees may be planted closer to the curb or
sidewalk than the following:
a. Small trees two feet (minimum of a four foot wide treelawn)
b. Medium trees three feet (minimum of a six foot wide treelawn)
c. Large trees four feet (minimum of a six foot wide treelawn) except in special
plantings designed or approved by the Augusta Planning and Development
Department
For purposes of this Ordinance, “treelawn” is defined as the strip of land
between the sidewalk and the street
f) Certain trees shall be prohibited from being planted within Augusta, GA (See
Appendix) The Augusta Tree Commission may add trees to the list as necessary. Existing
trees will be grand-fathered.
14
Chapter 8-4-10. MOVING BUILDINGS OR OTHER LARGE OBJECTS.
No person shall move any building or other large objects which may injure any public tree
or parts thereof along any street without first having obtained written permission from the Director
of Planning and Development.
Chapter 8-4-11. LANDMARK TREES.
The Augusta Commission may, upon petition by the property owner, designate a tree as a
landmark tree, as defined herein. All nominations for landmark trees shall be reviewed by the Tree
Commission which shall make a recommendation on such nomination to the Augusta Commission.
Trees so designated shall thereafter be considered public landmarks and shall not be destroyed nor
endangered except as recommended by the Tree Commission. The designation of a Landmark Tree
shall be based upon an evaluation of the tree in relation to the criteria set forth in the IGO.
Upon designation as a Landmark Tree, the tree shall be protected as provided in this
Ordinance.
(a) Removal of Landmark Trees on Public Property: “All located and designated (whether by
signage or not) Landmark Trees”
(1) A person requesting to remove a Landmark tree must obtain a permit from the Planning
and Development Department by Tree Commission before the tree removal activities
commence. A start date for removal must be given. Owners and persons who remove a
Landmark Tree without a permit are subject to the civil penalties set out in Chapter 8-
4-19. For purposes of this Ordinance, a Tree Protection / Tree Establishment Plan
approved by the City and issued a Land Disturbing Permit constitutes a permit. Permits
for the removal of Landmark trees will be granted only where:
The tree is located in the buildable area or yard area where a structure or
improvement may be placed and there is no other reasonable location and/or
preservation would unreasonably restrict use of the property.
The tree is diseased, injured, in danger of falling, creates unsafe sight distance or
conflicts with other sections of this Ordinance or provisions of other ordinances or
regulations.
Mitigation for each healthy Landmark tree removed will require replanting with
designated trees from the approved planting list that meet the canopy square footage
removed.
15
(b) Replacement of Landmark Trees
(1) When a Landmark tree(s) is removed from a site during construction, or dies within five
(5) years following construction, the developer shall replace such tree on the subject
property with an amount of trees and/or landscaping of equal value. Valuation of the tree
removed or lost shall be determined by the Director of Planning and Development
Department in consultation with a person qualified by training or experience to have
expert knowledge of the subject. Valuation of trees and vegetation shall be established in
accordance with standards established by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers
(CTLA).
(2) If replacement isn’t feasible or desired on the subject property, as determined by the
Director, a monetary sum equal to the value, as determined by an ISA certified arborist
based on the ISA Trunk Formula Method of Appraisal, of the lost or removed Landmark
Tree(s) may be paid to a tree-planting fund (hereinafter known as the Tree Mitigation
Fund) maintained by the Augusta Commission for the purposes of planting and
maintaining trees throughout the jurisdiction of the City.
Chapter 8-4-12. NUISANCE TREES AND SHRUBS.
Any tree or shrub or parts thereof growing on public or private property which interferes
with or endangers the use of the public streets or obscures sight distance or creates a traffic hazard
on intersections or endangers the life, health, safety or property of the public, shall in the opinion
of the Tree Commission be declared a public nuisance. The owner shall be notified in writing of
the existence of the nuisance and be given a fifteen (15) day period of time for the commencement
of its correction or removal. If not corrected or removed within thirty (30) days, the Augusta
Planning and Development Department shall cause the nuisance to be corrected or removed and
the cost shall be assessed to the owner as provided by this Ordinance.
Chapter 8-4-13. TREE PROTECTION/TREE ESTABLISHMENT
REQUIREMENTS FOR PRIVATE AND PUBLIC
DEVELOPMENT.
(a) Application. The regulations set forth in this Ordinance shall apply to all properties
affected by development proposals requiring site plans pursuant to Section 30-2 of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta, Georgia. Permits for clearing land and
grading of land shall not be granted until plans as required by this Ordinance have been
approved.
(b) Exemptions. The following types of developments are exempt from compliance with any
and all provisions of this Ordinance:
(1) Construction (including clearing) of single-family residential structures on
individual lots; and
16
(2) Site Plans that require grading only (no construction of improvements) may be
exempt from providing Minimum Canopy Requirement of development at the
discretion of the Director; however a streetyard must be installed per 8-4-13-(d)-
(5) and required side and rear buffers shall be installed per 8-4-13-(d)-(9) and 8-4-
13-(d)-(10), except for silviculture operations. Note: Grading / land disturbance
activities that result in violations of state water buffers may result in civil penalties.
If water is not available onsite, water must be extended to the property to meet the
irrigation requirement of this Ordinance,
(3) Telecommunication facilities in LI or HI zoning unless the site is in view of a
residential use in a residential zone, as viewed from the base of the tower.
(4) Federal, State and local government utility infrastructure (water, sanitary sewer and
storm sewer) projects only.
(c) Tree Protection / Tree Establishment Plan required. Except as herein provided, there shall
be a Tree Protection / Tree Establishment Plan for every development requiring a Site Plan.
Such Tree Protection / Tree Establishment Plan shall include a tree survey/inventory, a tree
establishment element, a tree protection element, and a landscaping element.
(d) Landscape element design principles and standards.
(1) A minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the total land area of any development shall
be devoted to tree canopy.
(All Tree Protection / Tree Establishment Plan designs shall follow the thirty
percent (30%) Minimum Canopy Requirements of this Ordinance.)
(2) No artificial plants, trees, or like materials shall be counted toward meeting the
standards of these regulations.
(3) All retained or planted trees shall be protected or situated so as to prevent damage
from environmental changes (such as a lowered water table) or land disturbance
resulting from any building or facility construction or site grading / land
disturbance.
(4) Sidewalks, curbing, or any other paved or impermeable surfaces within the
greenspace area shall not count towards the thirty percent (30%) minimum canopy
requirement or the street yard requirement.
(5) A streetyard area shall be provided along any existing or proposed public street
right-of-way or private right-of-way adjacent to or adjoining the property except
for those portions of the lot used for driveways. Detention or retention ponds at the
front of the property near the right-of-way do not relieve the developer from
installing the required street yard.
17
For site plans that include fewer than one hundred (100) total parking and loading
spaces, the minimum width of the streetyard shall be ten feet (10’) and the
streetyard shall be that area immediately adjacent to the right-of-way. Street yards
shall be landscaped and properly maintained by the owner and shall have live
vegetation including groundcover, grass, trees, shrubs and may, unless otherwise
prohibited, include fences and walls and plantings for parking areas. Each street
yard shall have at least one (1) large tree for each forty-five linear feet on center
(45’ o.c.) of street frontage, with a large tree being located within twenty feet (20')
of each side property line. All planted trees must be a minimum of eight feet (8’)
in height, be at least three inches (3”) in caliper, have a single trunk, and be
unbranched to six feet (6’).
In zoning districts where zero setbacks are permitted by the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for structures adjoining public street rights-of-way, the street yard and
its plantings may be located upon the public property if approved by the
Engineering Department. In all other cases, the street yard must be located on
private property.
For site plans that include one hundred (100) or more total parking and loading
spaces, the minimum width of the streetyard shall be fifteen feet (15’) and the
streetyard shall be that area immediately adjacent to the right-of-way.
When a use of land is intensified or expanded in such a way that the required
parking must be increased more than twenty percent (20%) (except for parking
areas where a twenty percent (20%) increase would be less than five (5) new spaces)
then the entire site including the already developed area must be provided with a
street yard. The minimum width of the streetyard shall be five feet (5’) and the
streetyard shall be that area immediately adjacent to the right-of-way.
Where a property adjoins a right-of-way such as gas, power, railroad, etc., that is
adjacent to and parallel with a public or private street, the subject property shall be
deemed to front on the public or private street and streetyard requirements shall be
adhered to.
When a major subdivision (ten (10) lots or more) of property occurs along an
existing or proposed public street, a streetyard ten feet (10’) in width, adjacent to
the right-of-way, shall be installed and have at least one (1) large tree for each forty-
five linear feet on center (45’) of street frontage, with a large tree being located
within twenty feet (20') of each side property line. All planted trees must be at least
three inches (3”) in caliper, have a single trunk, and be unbranched to six feet (6).
Streetyards shall be landscaped and properly maintained by the owner and shall
have live vegetation, groundcover, grass, trees, shrubs, and may, unless otherwise
prohibited, include fences and walls and plantings for parking areas.
In areas, where overhead power lines conflict with the planting of the required
streetyard, trees from the approved list, “Trees to be Planted Under Power Lines”,
18
may be utilized and shall be installed to have at least one (1) tree for each thirty
linear feet on center (30’ o.c.) of street frontage, with a tree being located within
fifteen feet (15’) of each side property line.
As of January 2003, any existing streetyard tree may not be cut or removed without
permission of the Director.
(6) Parking lots providing over five (5) spaces shall contain interior landscaped areas.
This section shall apply to any surface parking lot or loading area or vehicular
service area or portions thereof built after the adoption of this Ordinance. The
number, size, and shape of interior tree planting islands areas shall be at the
discretion of the owner subject to the following provisions:
(a) A minimum of five percent (5%) of the total interior area of parking lots,
loading areas, and vehicular use areas shall be devoted to tree planting
islands areas. A single island size shall be a minimum of 8’x18’ (144 sq. ft.)
measured inside of curb to inside of curb. Required street yards may not
count toward the five percent (5%). There shall be no more than twelve
(12) consecutive parking spaces in any row between planting islands, which
must contain a large tree, and which must be at least one hundred forty-four
(144) square feet in area with a minimum width of eight feet (8’) measured
inside of curb to inside of curb. On such site plans one of every five (5)
required planting islands must be a minimum of thirty six feet (36) in length
and eight feet (8’) in width, inside of curbing, unless all parking spaces are
arranged around the perimeter of the parking lot. When row parking is
utilized, the end of each row of parking must be a double planting island
with a minimum of one large tree per row of parking (two trees per island).
The soils within tree planting islands shall be clean and free from debris,
loose from compaction and with the proper soil mix for planting.
When a use of land is intensified or expanded in such a way that the required
parking must be increased more than fifty percent (50%) (except for where
such an increase would be less than twenty (20) spaces), the new parking
area must conform to the requirements of this subsection and the already
developed parking area must be retrofitted with planting islands at a rate of
one for every twelve (12) which is no less than one hundred square feet (100
sq. ft.) in area and with a minimum width of eight feet (8’).
All internal planting areas shall be landscaped with approved plant materials
compatible with accepted arboricultural practices as set forth in the IGO.
The area devoted to interior planting islands may be deducted from the
required parking area pursuant to Section 4-2 of the Zoning Ordinance at a
rate of one (1) space per two hundred square feet (200 sq. ft.) of planting
island except that the requirement of spaces shall not be reduced over ten
percent (10%).
19
Note: Pedestrian aisles and handicap aisles count as one or more parking
spaces, based on width, for the purposes of calculating consecutive parking
spaces.
As of January 1, 2003, any existing parking lot tree may not be cut or
removed without permission of the Director.
(b) No parking space shall be further than sixty five feet (65’) from the trunk of
a large tree with no intervening building.
(c) Within existing parking areas, all new curbing around landscaped islands
shall match existing curbing within the site. If no curbing is present within
the site, then concrete curb and gutter, per City of Augusta standards and
specifications, shall be used around landscaped islands.
In new parking areas, all curbing around landscaped islands shall be
concrete curb and gutter, as approved by the City Engineer.
(7) Lighting serving to illuminate a parking area shall not be located within a required
planting island. Further, no light pole shall be within twenty feet (20’) of a required
tree.
As of December 31, 2008, all light pole locations shall be indicated on the Tree
Protection / Tree Establishment Plan.
(a) No flag poles shall be located within a required landscaped island nor within
twenty feet (20’) of a required tree.
(b) No signs, except for directional signs, shall be located within a required
landscaped island nor within twenty feet (20’) of a required tree provided that
no such directional sign shall exceed thirty inches (30”) in height nor more than
four square feet (4 sq. ft.) in area.
(c) No bicycle racks, utility boxes, fire hydrants, transformers or other site
appurtenances shall be located in a required landscaped island.
Notes shall appear on the Plan as follows:
No lighting can be within twenty feet (20’) of a required tree or within a
required landscape island.
Lighting on the Electrical Plan must be consistent with lighting delineated
on the Tree Protection / Tree Establishment Plan; if conflicts between the
two Plans arise, the lighting on the Tree Protection / Tree Establishment
Plan supersedes lighting on the Electrical Plan.
20
No signs, with the exception of small directional signs (these signs may not
exceed thirty inches (30”) in height nor more than four square feet (4 sq. ft.)
in area), may be located within twenty feet (20’) of a required tree or within
required landscape islands.
No bicycle racks, fire hydrants, utility boxes, transformers or other site
appurtenances may be located in required landscape islands.
(8) A permanent water source shall be provided not more than one hundred feet (100’)
from any planted tree. Gator bags, water storage tanks, water trucks and other
similar devices cannot be used as a permanent water source.
A note shall appear on the Plan as follows:
A permanent water source must be within one hundred feet (100’) of all
required trees.
(9) Where the rear property line in a multiple-family residential, professional,
commercial or industrial zone abuts an R (Residential) zone or single-family
residence, a buffer strip not less than twenty feet (20’) in width shall be provided.
Further, where the rear property line in a commercial zone abuts an A
(Agricultural), R-MH (Residential Manufactured Home), R-2 (Two-family
Residential), or R-3 (Multi-family Residential) zone or single-family residence
within one of these zones, a buffer strip not less than twenty feet (20’) in width shall
be provided. This buffer strip shall be designed to provide a year-round visual
screen that is at least eight feet (8’) in height and completely blocks the view of the
subject property by a person standing just across the property line on the adjoining
residential property. It shall consist of six foot (6’) solid board or 'shadowbox' style
fence or masonry wall that has two finished sides and is approved by the Tree
Commission, unless a fence already exists on the adjoining property that meets the
requirements of this Ordinance. The buffer strip shall be planted with medium or
large trees spaced on forty-five (45’) centers with interplanted evergreen plant
material, berms, mounds or combinations thereof to achieve the objective within a
maximum three (3) year period. No buildings, structures, storage of materials, or
parking shall be permitted within this buffer area. Buffer areas shall be maintained
and kept free of all debris, rubbish and weeds.
As of January 2003, any existing rear bufferyard tree may not be cut or removed
without permission of the Director.
(10) Where the side property line in a multiple-family, professional, commercial, or
industrial zone abuts an R (Residential) zone or single-family residence, a planted
buffer strip not less than ten feet (10’) in width shall be provided. Further, where
the side property line in a commercial zone abuts an A (Agricultural), R-MH
(Residential Manufactured Home), R-2 (Two-family Residential), or R-3 (Multi-
21
family Residential) zone or single-family residence within one of these zones, a
buffer strip not less than twenty feet (20’) in width shall be provided. This buffer
strip shall be designed to provide a year-round visual screen that is at least eight
feet (8’) in height and completely blocks the view of the subject property by a
person standing just across the property line on the adjoining residential property.
Said buffer strip shall begin at the front setback line and extend along the entire
remaining side boundary. It shall consist of a six foot (6’) solid board or
shadowbox" style fence or masonry wall that has two finished sides and is approved
by the Tree Commission, unless a fence already exists on the adjoining property
that meets the requirements of this Ordinance. The buffer strip shall be planted
with medium or large trees spaced on forty-five foot (45’) centers with interplanted
evergreen plant material, berms, mounds or combinations thereof to achieve the
objective within a maximum three (3) year period. Buffer areas shall be maintained
and kept free of all debris, rubbish and weeds. No buildings, structures, storage of
materials, or parking shall be permitted within this area.
As of January 2003, any existing side bufferyard tree may not be cut or removed
without permission of the Director.
(11) The mature or ultimate spread of planted trees shall be shown on the Tree Protection
/ Tree Establishment Plan. Planted trees shall be diagramed according to the
following minimum standards in order to qualify for Minimum Canopy
Requirements:
*large trees – forty-five foot (45’) spread
*medium trees – thirty foot (30) spread
*small trees – fifteen foot (15’) spread
(12) No new utilities (overhead or underground) shall be located directly above or below
existing or proposed tree locations. (Proposed utilities must be routed away from
all trees.)
A note shall appear on the Plan as follows:
No new utilities (overhead or underground) may be located directly above or below
existing or proposed tree locations. Proposed utilities must be routed away from
all required trees on this site.
(e) Tree protection and tree establishment elements. Land cleared for development or land
being proposed for development shall have, after development, not less than thirty percent
(30%) Minimum Canopy Requirements of total area being developed. Minimum Canopy
Requirements shall only be calculated on the acreage of the site that is being developed.
Undeveloped portions of the site shall not be required to provide Minimum Canopy
Requirements (including street yard requirements) nor shall Minimum Canopy
Requirements for existing trees on undeveloped portions of the site be counted toward the
requirements of the developed portion of the site. Tree protection and tree establishment
22
elements may be provided separately or collectively depending on the nature, complexity,
and scale of the development.
Such elements shall be included on the Tree Protection / Tree Establishment Plan:
(1) Existing tree cover and tree cover that is to be removed.
(2) The location and species of all trees to be retained on the developed portion of the
site for which Minimum Canopy Requirements are to be claimed, including their
DBH, health, and their tree protection zones. Where a grouping or cluster of twenty
(20) or more trees is located within a proposed tree protection zone, the location of
individual trees within such cluster is not required to be spotted on the Plan,
provided the number of trees for each species within the cluster is given and the
average DBH is identified for each species. Existing trees on undeveloped portions
of the site (i.e. future development) or trees within the right-of-way(s) cannot be
counted toward Minimum Canopy Requirements.
(3) The location, species, and DBH of all trees located on adjacent rights-of-way.
(4) A listing in chart form of all trees to be planted on the site for which Minimum
Canopy Requirements are to be claimed, giving their respective species, caliper,
and mature spread.
(5) A description of tree planting specifications if different from those listed in the
Illustrated Guide to Implementing the Augusta Tree Ordinance (IGO).
IGO and any amendments thereto are hereby adopted by reference. The guide will
be reviewed annually by the Tree Commission with the updated version being
adopted by reference and each time made a part hereof. All Tree Protection/Tree
Establishment Plans shall be provided in a manner consistent with provisions
contained therein.
As of January 2003, any existing tree that would count toward the overall
requirement for Minimum Canopy Requirements may not be cut or removed
without permission of the Director.
(f) Tree Protection and Tree Establishment Standards. Tree protection zones shall be
established and maintained for all trees preserved or planted on a site for which Minimum
Canopy Requirements are to be claimed. The following provisions apply to such zones
and the trees within them.
(1) The tree protection zone shall have a dimension of not less than one-half (1/2) the
distance to the dripline of the preserved tree, or the minimum tree protection zones
for planted trees set forth in Table 1; whichever is greater. Tree protection zones
shall be barricaded prior to the commencement of construction and until the
Certificate of Occupancy has been issued.
23
(2) The area within any tree protection zone must remain open and unpaved. The use
of perforated pavement may be allowed subject to the approval of the Director.
(3) Deleted
(4) No vehicles shall be parked, construction material stored, substances poured,
disposed of, or placed, within any tree protection zone at any time during clearing
or construction of the project.
(5) No change in grade within the tree protection zone shall be allowed except for a
maximum addition of two inches (2”) of sandy loam topsoil covered with mulch.
(6) Tree wells or tree walls (islands) shall be constructed as needed to protect the
preserved trees from grade changes which result in changes of water supply to the
tree protection zone. Adequate means for drainage of excess moisture from the tree
protection zone shall be provided if tree wells or tree walls are constructed.
(7) For planted trees, the minimum size Tree Protection Zone centered upon the planted
tree shall be as specified in Table 1.
(8) The ground elevation where trees are to be planted in a street yard shall be within
five feet (5’) of the ground elevation of the street right-of-way.
Table 1
Minimum Tree Protection Zone for Planted Trees
Mature Minimum Area **
Tree Size Square Feet Protection Zone
small * 16 2.0' radius
medium * 66 3.0' radius
large * 200 4.0' radius
* A listing of small, medium, and large trees is found in IGO.
** Protection Zone = Minimum distance from tree trunk to edge of dripline.
(g) Tree selection and planting standards. (This section shall be shown on Tree Plan as notes.)
(1) All required trees are recommended to be grown within one climatic zone of
Augusta, GA
(2) Trees planted for canopy cover credit shall meet quality and size standards as
described in the ANSI Z60.1 American Standard for Nursery Stock dated 1990 and
24
published by the American Nursery and Landscape Association, as officially
revised and amended from time to time. All trees shall be per IGO list.
(3) All trees selected for planting should be of urban tolerant species and suitable for
the site conditions of planting location, including growing space limits, soil
moisture, soil volume, and classified as water wise plant once established. All trees
shall be per IGO list.
(4) All required trees shall be nursery grown, typical of their species or variety, with
normal, densely developed branches and vigorous, fibrous root systems. Trees
shall be sound, healthy, vigorous, free from defects, free from disfiguring knots,
free from sun scald injuries, frost cracks and/or abrasions of the bark, and be free
from plant diseases, insect eggs, borers, and all forms of infestation. All trees shall
have a fully developed form without voids and open space. Trees shall not be loose
in the container or root ball. It is recommended that dug trees shall have been root
pruned at least once.
(5) All required trees shall have straight, single central leaders. Trees that have the
main trunk forming a “Y” shape are not acceptable. Trees that are not fully
branched will not be accepted. Trees shall have no bark damage and shall not be
leaning or have significant sweep, crook or bend. Trees shall have a minimum three
inch (3”) caliper and shall have no branch more than ½ the diameter of the main
leader and shall have a straight unbranched trunk to six feet (6’). Trees specified
as “multi-stemmed” shall have a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5)
separate canes a minimum of one inch (1”) caliper each coming from the root ball
and pruned into tree form with no branches on the lower half of the tree. Multiple
plants shall not be used as a “multi-stemmed” plant.
(6) All required trees shall be set in the planting pit to proper grade and alignment, and
shall be set upright, plumb and faced to give the best appearance or relationship to
other trees. Each tree shall be set one to two inches (1-2”) above the finish grade
and backfill shall be brought even with the top of the root ball. No fill shall be
permitted atop the root ball.
(7) All burlap, ropes, straps and wires shall be removed from the root ball. If it is not
possible to remove the burlap and wire from the bottom of the root ball, the burlap
and wire shall be cut away from the sides and removed from the hole.
(8) After required trees are set, the backfill shall be muddled around the base of the
root ball and all voids shall be filled.
(9) All required trees shall have their planting pits mulched with approved mulching
material immediately after planting. The mulched areas shall be thoroughly water.
Note: Mulch shall be placed to a maximum thickness of three inches (3”) no mulch
within eight inches (8”) of trunk of tree.
25
(10) If staking and supports have been installed on the required tree(s), all staking and
supports shall be removed after one growing season.
(11) As a general rule, the following guidelines for tree diversity within the tree planting
site and population should be adhered to: 1) plant no more than ten percent (10%)
of any species; no more than twenty percent (20%) of any genus; and no more than
thirty percent (30%) of any family.
Note: All provisions of 8-4-13-(g) shall appear in note form on the Tree Protection / Tree
Establishment Plan.
Chapter 8-4-14. COMPLIANCE.
All improvements shown in the Tree Protection / Tree Establishment Plan shall be
constructed and all plant materials shall be in place and approved by Augusta before a Certificate
of Occupancy will be issued for any use of land or structure(s) that is not exempted from this
Ordinance. If at the time of request for a Certificate of Occupancy the required landscaping is not
in place and it can be determined Augusta personnel that unavailability of plant materials or that
weather conditions prohibit completion of this planting, then the developer may, at the discretion
of the Director, provide an executed contract binding until December 31 of the calendar year in
which the application is made that provides for the completion of such landscaping work, and also
a Performance Guarantee or an Irrevocable Letter of Credit from a federally insured lender in an
amount to be approved by Augusta Planning & Development commensurate with the cost of
completing the required landscaping.
Existing trees or other landscape features as delineated on previously approved Site Plans and
subsequently installed to conform with the minimum standards of this Ordinance may not be
removed or altered without prior approval of the Planning Director.
In the event that trees cannot be planted on the site or in the proper location on the site (example:
streetyard trees or parking island trees) due to hardship, a variance of the Tree Commission may
be applied for. The variance request shall include: the variance fee, as set forth by Augusta, GA,
a letter explaining the need for the variance, a mitigation package at a rate of two trees for every
tree not planted on the site, (trees will be planted at another location on the site or at a location as
set forth by the Augusta Tree Commission), and a Tree Establishment Bond in the amount of five
hundred dollars ($500) per tree in the mitigation package. If trees are to be planted offsite,
installation of the trees will be the developer’s responsibility, and maintenance for a three-year
term, from the date that the trees are planted will also be the developer’s responsibility. A
Maintenance Agreement outlining proper care of trees to be planted offsite will also be required
for a term of three years, unless waived by the Augusta Tree Commission. In lieu of the mitigation
package, a fee in the amount of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) per tree to be mitigated
shall be payable to Augusta Georgia, and deposited in a separate Tree Landscaping Account
(hereinafter referred to as the “Tree Bank” or the “Tree Mitigation Fund”), for placement of or
replacement of trees within the City. A Tree Establishment Bond nor a Maintenance Agreement
will be required if this option is exercised.
26
The primary objective of the Tree Bank / Tree Mitigation Fund is to use payments for the
installation and maintenance of trees on public property. The City shall also use all such payments
for the cost associated with implementation of this Ordinance, for City sponsored tree management
/ tree education programs, and for the study, inventory, maintenance or treatment of public trees
requiring the services of a Certified Arborist or other qualified consultant with the approval of the
Director. Mitigation funds will not be used in lieu of General Fund support for the existing urban
forest management program.
Chapter 8-4-15. TREE ESTABLISHMENT BOND.
A three-year Tree Establishment Bond shall be posted with the Augusta Planning &
Development Department prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. This bond shall be in
the amount of the contract award for landscaping or in an amount determined by the Augusta
Planning & Development Department, whichever is higher. After thirty (30) months, Augusta
Planning & Development staff shall inspect the site and make a determination as to whether or not
the required trees and landscaping have not been removed, the required trees and landscaping are
healthy, the growth and the integrity of the required trees have not been compromised, the canopy
of the required trees have not been reduced in any fashion, and the required trees have a reasonable
chance of surviving to maturity. Upon such a finding, the bond shall be released at the end of the
three-year Tree Establishment Bond period. In absence of such a finding, the Tree Establishment
Bond shall not be released and the owner/developer of the property shall be notified to replace the
unhealthy trees and landscaping or take other appropriate action as required by Augusta Planning
& Development staff. If the owner/developer fails to comply with the decision of Augusta
Planning & Development staff within sixty (60) days of receiving a written notice, then the City
shall use the Tree Establishment Bond to the extent necessary to bring the property into compliance
with the provisions of these regulations.
Chapter 8-4-16. APPEALS AND VARIANCES.
(a) Decisions of the Director may be appealed to the Augusta Tree Commission, who
serves as an advisory body to the Planning Director. The Planning Director has the
final say on any appeals matter.
The Tree Commission shall also hear requests for variances from the provisions of this
Ordinance, at the request of the Planning Director. The variance request must be made
in writing to the Director by the first Monday of any given month for that month’s Tree
Commission meeting. The Tree Commission shall review the appeal or variance and
make its recommendations to the Director. The Planning Director has the final say on
any variance matter.
(b) Variances shall only be granted upon a determination that the variance is the minimum
necessary to afford relief and when in the opinion of the Tree Commission, or the Director,
relief is justified.
27
(c) Variances shall only be granted upon:
(1) A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional
hardship; and
(2) A determination that the granting of a variance will not adversely impact the intent
and purpose of these regulations.
(d) The Tree Commission may approve, deny, or approve with conditions a request for a
variance. Conditional approval may be granted where mitigation of the impact is agreed
upon by the Tree Commission and the petitioner and approved by the Director.
(1) The Tree Commission, at its discretion, may require mitigation plantings in City street
right-of-ways, in City parks, or on other City-owned property, if mitigation plantings
cannot feasibly be planted on the subject site. The Tree Commission, at its discretion,
may require a mitigation fee to be paid to the City of Augusta, pursuant to Chapter 8-
4-14 of this Ordinance, to be used for plantings in City Street right-of-ways, in City
parks, or on other City-owned property, such as City-owned medians.
Chapter 8-4-17. ABROGATION AND GREATER RESTRICTIONS.
This Ordinance is not intended to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements,
covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this Ordinance and another regulation conflict or
overlap, whichever regulation imposes the more stringent restrictions shall prevail.
Chapter 8-4-18. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Ordinance is declared to be invalid, such declaration shall not affect,
impair, or invalidate the remaining provisions of this Ordinance.
Chapter 8-4-19. INSPECTION, ENFORCEMENT, VIOLATION, AND
PENALTY.
(a) Inspection
The City may periodically inspect areas subject to the provisions of this Ordinance or may
inspect a site based on a complaint registered with the Planning and Development
Department.
(1) Inspections shall be made during normal business hours – those hours being Monday
through Friday, 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
28
For areas that are gated, or locked, reasonable notice shall be given before a site visit
No person shall refuse entry or access to any authorized representative of the City who
requests entry for the purpose of inspection, and who presents appropriate credentials.
(2) No person shall obstruct or interfere with such inspection.
(b) Enforcement and Violations
All violations of the provisions of this Ordinance or failure to comply with any of it
requirements shall be reported to the Augusta Planning & Development Department. Once a
violation is evident, the Augusta Planning & Development Department, acting on behalf of the
Augusta Commission, shall notify the owner in writing of the apparent violation of this Ordinance.
The written notice shall direct the owner to cease the violation until such time as the requirements
and procedures of this Ordinance have been met. Upon failure of the owner to comply with this
notice, the Augusta Planning & Development Department shall notify the Augusta City Attorney
of the violation and the Augusta City Attorney shall immediately begin legal procedures in the
Superior Court of Richmond County to prevent, enjoin, abate, or terminate such violations in
addition to injunctive relief. All persons, firms or corporations failing to comply with the
mandatory provisions hereof or doing any act prohibited hereby shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
and shall be punished as provided in Chapter 1-6-1 of the Augusta Code. Each day such violations
continue shall be considered a separate offense. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the
Augusta Commission from taking such other lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy
any violations.
Penalty
Any person who violates any of the provisions of this Ordinance, or rules of orders adopted
or issued pursuant of this Ordinance shall be subject to any one or all of the combination of
penalties authorized by this Ordinance.
(1) Public Property
a. Any action resulting in the removal, death or destruction of a public tree on City
property or within City right-of-way shall be subject to a fine depending on the size of
the tree pursuant to the provisions set forth in this Ordinance.
b. Trees of three inch to five inch (3”-5”) caliper will be fined one thousand dollars
($1,000) per removed, damaged/destroyed tree, plus the cost for replanting a
replacement tree(s) of equal caliper and species by a reputable nursery. Replacement
trees must carry a 3-year Tree Establishment Bond per the requirements of 8-4-15.
c. Removal, damaged or destroyed tree(s) larger than five inch (5”) caliper will be fined
one thousand dollars ($1,000) plus an appraisal of the Tree value by a Qualified Tree
Professional using the current edition of the International Society of Arboriculture’s
Guide for Plant Appraisal using the Trunk Formula Method of Appraisal. The
29
appraised value of the tree will be the value placed on the tree in addition to the one
thousand dollars ($1,000) fine. The cost of the appraisal shall be paid by the Person(s)
who removed, damaged/destroyed existing trees in violation of this Ordinance. The
replacement tree shall be of three inch (3”) caliper or of caliber designated by the
Director up to six inch (6”) caliper. Replacement trees must carry a 3-year Tree
Establishment Bond per the requirements of 8-4-15. Nothing herein contained shall
prevent the Augusta Commission from taking such other lawful action as is necessary
to prevent or remedy any violation.
(2) Private or Development Property Issued a Land Disturbance Permit
a. Tree Disturbance Prior to Permit Approval: The penalty for the removal of or damage
to trees, prior to the issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit shall be a civil penalty of
ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per acre or fraction thereof. (i.e., the civil penalty for a
site of 0.35 acres that is cleared prior to Planning and Zoning Department approval or
prior to the issuance of a Tree Disturbance Permit is three thousand five hundred dollars
($3,500).
(3) Additionally, the City may deny a building permit or site plan approval to any
developer/landowner that clears land in anticipation of development in violation of this
Ordinance for up to three (3) years after completion of the timber harvest. Removal or
Damage to Individual Trees after Permit Approval: The penalty for removal of or damage
to the Critical Root Zone of protected trees after the issuance of a Tree Disturbance
Permit, within an approved Tree Protection Zone (without approval by the Director or
his/her designee shall result in replacement of the tree by the developer on the subject
property with an amount of trees and/or trees of equal value. Valuation of the tree
damaged / removed or lost shall be determined by the Director in consultation with a
person qualified by training or experience to have expert knowledge of the subject.
Valuation of trees and vegetation shall be established in accordance with standards
established by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA).
If replacement isn’t feasible or desired on the subject property, as determined by the
Director, a monetary sum equal to the value of the damaged or removed tree(s) may be
paid to a tree planting fund (the Tree Mitigation Fund) maintained by the Augusta,
Georgia for the purposes of planting and maintaining trees throughout the jurisdiction of
the City.
(4) Failure to Install or Maintain Tree Protection Devices: There shall be a civil penalty of five
hundred dollars ($500) per day for failure to install or maintain approved tree protection
measures sufficient to protect the TPZ beginning with the date the citation is issued and
ending when the site is in compliance.
30
Chapter 8-4-20. MITIGATION
(1) Any protected trees, on land issued a Land Disturbing Permit for development, which is
six inches (6”) DBH or greater that is removed, destroyed or (receives more than fifty
percent (50%) damage to the crown, trunk, or root system) and does not meet the exemption
provisions of this Ordinance shall be mitigated per the requirements of this Chapter of the
Ordinance. In the event that the loss of a protected tree requires mitigation, the party
responsible for mitigation shall either replace the protected tree(s) by planting new trees
equal in value to the removed / destroyed / damaged tree, pay a mitigation fee to a tree
planting fund (the Tree Mitigation Fund) maintained by the Augusta Commission for the
purposes of planting and maintaining trees throughout the jurisdiction of the City, or a
combination of both.
(2) The mitigation authorized by this Chapter of the Ordinance is not meant to supplant good
site planning. Tree replacement will be considered only after all design alternatives which
could save more existing trees have been evaluated.
a. Mitigation Through Planting New Replacement Trees:
A sufficient number and diameter of replacement trees shall be planted in order
to equal the total diameter inches or fraction thereof of trees six inches (6”) or
greater and slated for removal. Replacement trees shall be a minimum of three
inches (3”) diameter when measured six inches (6”) above the soil line and a
minimum of eight feet (8’) in height when planted and unbranched to 6’ or as
exempted by the IGO.
All replacement trees shall equal value of canopy square footage of trees lost,
based on Recommended Tree List in this Ordinance.
All replacement trees shall be a species listed on the replacement tree list and
guaranteed for three years from the date of the final inspection and acceptance
of the project.
The location of replacement trees is restricted from utility easements and rights-
of-way (in the case of rights-of-ways, unless approved by the Planning
Director).
Replacement trees should be planted on the site from which existing trees are
to be removed. If this is not feasible, an applicant may initiate a proposal to
plant trees offsite. This proposal has to be approved by the Planning Director.
Replacement trees shall be planted prior to the issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy or project release. Optimum planting times do not always
correspond to project completion. For that reason, replacement tree plantings
may take place after the project is released by the City; provided, that before
31
project release, a fiscal security in the form of a Performance Guarantee is
posted in the amount of $500 per required tree
b. Mitigation Through Payment of Fee:
In lieu of new planting of replacement trees, a monetary fee of two hundred and
fifty dollars ($250) per diameter inch of the tree(s) removed or damaged shall
be assessed and paid to the Augusta Commission. All mitigation fees shall be
deposited into the City’s Tree Mitigation Fund.
c. Mitigation of Landmark Trees:
Landmark Trees, as defined in the Definitions section and noted in Chapter 8-
4-11. A monetary fee of five hundred dollars ($500) per diameter inch of the
Landmark Tree removed or damaged shall be assessed and paid to the Augusta
Commission and deposited into the City’s Tree Mitigation Fund, or;
d. If replacement trees are to be planted, the total amount of replacement canopy to be
planted shall be in an amount that is twice the square footage of the canopy
Landmark Tree(s) removed and shall, otherwise, meet the requirements of Section
A above. If any protected tree dies within three (3) years of the issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy, final inspection or acceptance of public improvements
and is brought to the attention of the Director, the original permit applicant shall be
subject to the replacement/mitigation requirements for protected trees per this
Ordinance.
e. The primary objective of the Tree Mitigation Fund is to use payments for the
installation and maintenance of trees on public property. The City shall also use all
such payments for the cost associated with implementation of this Ordinance, for
City sponsored tree management / tree education programs, and for the study,
inventory, maintenance or treatment of public trees requiring the services of a
Certified Arborist or other qualified consultant with the approval of the Director.
Mitigation funds will not be used in lieu of General Fund support for the existing
urban forest management program.
32
Chapter 8-4-21. CITY CODE AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
All Development Plans / Site Plans and construction details must satisfy Augusta, Georgia Code
Title 8 Planning and Zoning - Section 4 Trees, Section 5 Zoning, Section 8 Site Plan Regulations,
and Section 9 Subdivision Regulations.
Done in Open Meeting under the Common Seal thereof this ____________ day of
__________________________, 2017.
Approved by the Augusta Commission this ____________ day of
__________________________, 2017.
Hardie Davis, Jr, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________________________
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
First reading - _____________________________
Second reading - _________________________
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
Compliance Department
Department:
Department:
Caption:Presentation/update from the Compliance Director regarding
initiatives relating to the city's DBE & ADA Programs.
Background:
Analysis:
Financial Impact:
Alternatives:
Recommendation:
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Cover Memo
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
Gold Cross Contract
Department:
Department:
Caption:Discuss Gold Cross Ambulance Contract. (No recommendation
from Public Safety Committee January 31, 2017)
Background:
Analysis:
Financial Impact:
Alternatives:
Recommendation:
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Cover Memo
I
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
July 18, 2002
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:03 p.m., Thursday, July
18, 2002, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Colclough, Shepard, Beard, Cheek,
William and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hon. Kuhlke, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also Present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena Bonner,
Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by the Rev. Sam Davis.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
The Clerk: Rev. Davis, on behalf of the Augusta Commission, we would like to
thank you for coming in today to invoke the spirit of God upon our session today and we
honor you as Chaplain of the Day. Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, under recognitions.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. As a matter of business, Mr. Kuhlke will not be attending
today's meeting.
RECOGNITION:
Congratulations! to Commissioner Lee Beard for his election to the Georgia
Municipal Association's Board of Directors and as third Vice-President of GMA
District Seven.
The Clerk: We would like to offer congratulations to Commissioner Lee Beard
for his election to the Georgia Municipal Association Board of Directors and as well as
the Third Vice President of the Georgia Municipal Association District Seven.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Delegations.
The Clerk:
DELEGATION:
Friends of the Augusta Library
11
Mr. Mayor: We have a number of people here also for item number 46, so
Madame Clerk, if we could move forward to that, please.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY:
46. Consider award Ambulance Contract for 2003 to Rural Metro Ambulance
Service. (No recommendation from Public Safety Committee July 8, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, are you going to speak to this?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, you have before
you this evening two proposals for ambulance service beginning January of 2003. A
Technical Services Committee was appointed by a subcommittee of the Public Safety
Committee to study our ambulance situation. Their mission was to contract for
ambulance service, based on specific performance-based standards for transporting
patients and for providing patient care during transport. During this process, after we
structured and put on the street an RFP, there were about 20 ambulance services that were
interested. However, only two responded to the invitation for proposals. The Committee
reviewed written and oral presentations, and the Committee consisted of staff and
members of the emergency medical community. The RFP itself was based on a model
that was constructed of Augusta dispatching ambulances and providing for a minimum of
six ambulance trucks within the Augusta area. The proposers were asked to at least meet
the minimum, but they were free to develop their own proposals based on the fact that
they would meet those performance-based standards. So we were looking for compliance
with respect to responses within specific areas of Augusta. We were looking for the
quality of personnel that would be staffing 24 hours bases, those particular ambulance
companies, as well as other patient care standards that were laid out in the RFP. After the
Technical Committee reviewed the two proposals, both the written and the oral, it was
their opinion unanimously and unquestionably, that Rural Metro should be the one that
the Commission awards the ambulance service contract to. And therefore, that
recommendation is made. Staff is available, and we will answer all questions that the
Commission may have.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. George, one of the questions I had in
regards to the RFP: my understanding is that the RFP stated that after the initial bid we
would come back for a final bad, after the bids were opened, that we'd come back for a
final bid and see what that would be. And did we bypass that? Did I misread the RFP?
Mr. Kolb: I think you might have misread the RFP. What we did is we reviewed
proposals, and based on qualifications and their comparison, we made a selection. At
that point, sealed bids which contained the actual dollar amount of the bids were opened.
Now there may be some provisions in a contract that a minor that would have non-
monetary impact on the service that is provided, based on what model is finally selected,
12
but other than that, there would be no rebidding or renegotiation of price of anything of
that nature.
Mr. Bridges: And you're saying that wasn't in the RFP?
Mr. Kolb: Is Ms. Sams or Mr. Wasson here?
Mr. Bridges: Geri, do you know what I may be alluding to? I mean I don't have
a copy of the RFP but I thought I saw that in there that after the initial bid, that we would
get an opportunity for a final -- like a final offer.
Ms. Sams: On page 6, is that what you're referencing, Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: I don't remember, Geri. I don't have a copy of it and I read it at one
point.
Ms. Sams: Okay, on page 6 of the proposal, may I read it?
Mr. Bridges: Sure.
Ms. Sams: Discussions with the officer and technical revision of the proposal
may occur. Discussion may be conducted with the responsible officer who submit
proposal for the proposed clarification and to be assured full understanding of and
conformance to solicitation requirements. Officer shall be accorded fair and equal
treatment with respect to any opportunity for discussion and revision of proposals and
such revisions may be permitted after submission and before award for obtaining the best
and final offers. In conclusion, in conducting discussion that shall be no disclosure
information derived from proposals submitted by competing officers.
Mr. Bridges: I'm not sure if that was it or not. But go ahead to the other
questions, Mr. Mayor. I may be the only one stuck on that.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As Public Safety Chairman, this same
question as Commissioner Bridges came up in Public Safety, and we had the document
brought forward so we can look at it. And it is on page 6 where the final offer is
supposed to be brought back. George, I think I asked that question then, but my question
now is when will that be done if we award a bid to anybody now? When will that be
done if we had not be done already?
Mr. Kolb: Well, as far as -- I'm not sure that that provision is in there and it's
being interpreted correctly. We have the final proposals, subject to negotiating a
contract, which the contracts will come back to you at a later date.
13
Mr. Williams: Okay. Well, maybe I need to address something else. Let me, is
someone from Gold Cross here? Let me, let me, let me ask a couple of questions from
them cause from what I got a copy of the proposal, the RFP, specifically looking at page
6, I was under the impression that that was what we would do, the offer would come
back. And my question, the reason the question came up was because of the amount
different in the services. It was a great difference in the service. Who is here from Gold
Cross? Mr. Snider? Ifyou will --
Mr. Mayor: Sir, if you'll come forward and give us your name and address for
the record, and then Mr. Williams may proceed.
Mr. Snider: Tom Snider, 3835 Evans-to-Locks Road. I'm with Gold Cross EMS
and Mr. Williams, to answer your question, the item that we looked at was Item H on
page 6 of the RFP, which is final negotiations and letting the contract. The Committee
will write the technical proposals, open, consider pricing proposals submitted by each
offer and request final and best offer from the top ranked three firms if available.
Mr. Williams: And that's what I saw in the proposal as well, the top ranking
three. And we only have two. And we keep talking about a process of doing things right,
so the two final, the two top contenders here. Did you bid? How was your bid
structured, Mr. Snider? I mean, what I'm getting at, why the difference in the two and
what I proposed was that the amount was so great and I need to know why was the
amount so great?
Mr. Snider: IfI could -- would it be appropriate to pass out a handout?
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Mr. Snider: When we had a pre-bid conference with -- I'm not sure of the date
but I think it was four companies represented. Various questions were asked, and one
question was asked about dispatching, and would the vendor be required to provide
dispatching. And at the time I think the answer was they felt like the county would do
the 911 dispatching, but that never was clear. And so when we figured our bid, the part
of our bid was $432,000, we put in there for dispatching because reading the bid
document and the comments that we had, we were unsure as to how the county wanted
that bid. We bid top of the line, $432,000 for dispatching. Since that time, and in the
[inaudible] presentations I was told the county definitely was going to do their own 911
dispatching, with the 911 Center, and basically if that's the case, what we have done or
what we were willing to do is go back out the $432,000 for dispatching, which would
change that cost to $768,000 annually.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Kolb, can I finish?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, let Mr. Williams finish.
14
Mr. Williams: Okay, Mr. Snider, so if your bid was backed out $432,000 and that
means that your bid is more competitive then because of the dispatch; is that right?
Mr. Snider: Yes, sir. That's where -- the county was paying $36,000 a month for
dispatching, I believe January, February and March. And that's where we took the figure
and ran that out 12 months and that's where the $432,000 came from. If that's not a
requirement of the bid, then backing that out of our original bid.
Mr. Williams: Okay. And my next question is, Mr. Snider, what other offers did
you have in your contract, and I don't have either one of the contracts here in front of me
right now. I'm just looking at this you just passed out. But what, what, what was the
other offers that you had in? I'm looking at the additional loan of two ambulances to go
to south Augusta. Was that in your proposal? Was that something you come up today or
was that in your proposal in the beginning?
Mr. Snider: No, sir, that was in our proposal that we would loan two fully-
equipped ambulances to the Augusta Fire Department to use in south Augusta. At one
time in the past I think we talked about maybe putting those vehicles, maybe one in
McBean, one in Blythe, that could be manned by the firemen. So that was in our
proposal and still in our proposal.
Mr. Williams: I think what I'm trying to get at, we got police protection and fire
protection in that area. We would never be able to provide good ambulance service in
Augusta, the inner city, then in the outer city. There is no way we can do that unless we
do it with the fire service and using those designated stations out there. And people in
south Augusta, I mean if you've got a heart attack, if you got a victim, somebody you
need, if it ain't but once a year, that time is just as critical if you need it 20 times in the
inner city. But also on this sheet that you just passed out was the use of the -- is that three
helicopters? Was that in your proposal as well?
Mr. Snider: Yes, sir. We have three helicopters. We have two manned
helicopters and one backup helicopter.
Mr. Mayor: Are they all here in Augusta?
Mr. Snider: Yes, sir. We have one stationed on top of the Medical College of
Georgia Children's Center, one stationed at Doctors Hospital. And those helicopters
have been available for two years. They've never been used in Richmond County. But
we certainly would like for them to be used in the outlying areas such as Blythe, McBean,
below Hephzibah. They can make the difference between life and death.
Mr. Williams: One other question, Mr. Snider, is that as Public Safety Chairman
and as a Commissioner, I'm very, very much interested in trying to work something
where our own Fire Department would handle ambulance service. What if your company
got this bid and we needed to go to the Fire Department to do these services?
15
Mr. Snider: What we have proposed and I'll just give you my feelings, and of
course the feelings of Gold Cross EMS. I spent 25 years at the University Hospital
Ambulance Service. And that's basically a public type ambulance service, as you know, at the
hospital. Ifirmly believe that the Augusta Fire Department is the agency that needs to
handle ambulance service in Richmond County in order to provide the best care and the
shortest response times. Now we are willing to work with the Fire Department. If we receive
this bid and three months from now the Commission so wishes that the Fire Department start
into the ambulance service, every time an ambulance is put on to the fire service, we would
reduce our bid by the amount for that service. So if the County wanted to take it over
within 12 months, we would work with them and back out of that contract, or a year-and-a-
half or whatever. But Ifirmly believe that's the way to go to provide the best emergency
care for all the citizens.
Mr. Williams: Was there a mention or was there in that process, Mr. Snider,
we're talking about a bond situation?
Mr. Snider: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Are your company willing to put up a bond for ambulance
service? We got a situation here with our garbage situation and that bond really stepped
in and helped us out a great deal. And if any services -- are you willing to do that as
well?
Mr. Snider: Yes, sir. We have a letter in our bid from our -- I'm not sure if it's a
Sheriff s agent or the bonding company stating that we qualify and we are eligible to get
that bond and be more than happy to make that available from day one.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, Iwant to make a motion here but maybe some other
Commissioner have something they want to say. Isee Commissioner Colclough' s hand
up.
Mr. Mayor: There are some people who would like to speak and the Chair has
some questions. And I think we ought to hear from Rural Metro, too, in all fairness, to
respond to these same issues. Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I am aware of or I
became aware that Gold Cross had alleged that they had $450,000 in their bid for
ambulance services because they were not aware that Augusta was going to do the
dispatching. However, in reading their proposal, on page 4 of their proposal they talk
specifically about providing dispatching services for ambulances and they inquire or they
talk about in their proposal that if Augusta wanted them to provide dispatching that they
would do it at no additional cost to Augusta. Now that is clearly in their proposal. So
I'm just curious as to where the $450,000 is coming from. However, even if we took into
consideration the $450,000 that they would take away from their bid, when we're
comparing apples and apples in terms of six ambulances as compared to eight
16
ambulances, the cost that Rural Metro is offering is still cheaper for those types of
ambulances than Gold Cross. $680,000 as compared to $745,000 for the six ambulances.
$760,000 for eight ambulances as compared to $1.14 million for Gold Cross. In addition,
I wanted to remind the Commission that the helicopter service is available to any
ambulance service that needs it in the area that is qualified, and certainly Rural Metro is
qualified and they have used the helicopter service in the past. However, there is a policy
that is established by the Medical College that the helicopter service would not be used in
normal circumstances within a 15-mile radius of the hospital. Now that 15 miles
encompasses the majority of Augusta. The last point I'd like to make is I would not
recommend that Augusta government do its own transporting. It is very, very costly.
We'd have to hire additional personnel, and the liability issues, the equipment that we'd
have to beef it up with would make it very cost ineffective. And let me also mention that
cities in this country are getting away from the government providing ambulance
services. They're going more and more to private ambulances because of that very issue,
that it is too costly to provide that service. And Augusta would certainly be no exception.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Kolb just brought up another question. I'd like to ask
someone from Rural Metro to come because he just brought up an issue that I'd like to
get an answer to.
Mr. Mayor: Who is representing Rural Metro today? All right, if you'll come up
and give us your name and address for the record.
Mr. Doss: Ernie Doss, 2717 Double Branches Road, Lincolnton, Georgia.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Doss, the Administration brought up an issue just now and as
Public Safety Chairman I was not on this committee and I only heard in Committee what
all the rest of the Commission heard. But I know last year when we extended this
contract, can you tell my why last year that Rural Metro wanted a million dollars for the
extension plus $36,000 or whatever the amount was for the dispatch? Why is that so
much cheaper now than it was then? I mean are things going the other way? Are they
going backwards? I always thought the increase came in.
Mr. Doss: The City at that time had a different standard than was in the RFP, so
the pricing is totally based on the standards, the requirements that are based in the RFP.
What the City is looking for as far as response time performance. And what we believe,
the resources that are necessary to make those particular response times.
Mr. Williams: Well, I wasn't in those negotiations, like I said, but can you tell me
what's been taken out, what's the difference, we you are not providing now that we were
asking for before? What? Will you not have as many ambulance? Will you not have a
time frame? Tell me what was taken out to give you -- I mean for the extension was a
17
million dollars plus $36,000 for dispatch. So I'm, I hear what you said but what, what
was taken out?
Mr. Doss: Commissioner, it would be almost impossible. I do not remember the
standards that we were looking at at that time and how we were preparing our pro formas
to meet those standards.
Mr. Williams: I understand you may not give me details, but there ought to be at
least three things you can mention that we won't be, you know, that we're not requiring
now. I mean that was a lot of money, you know, a big difference.
Mr. Doss: I'm sorry, one of the things that is different in this RFP that is different
from the models, the other models, is you changed the response time standards. There
are -- the City has a different set of response time standards. The City now is a single
[inaudible] zone today. January 1 the City is looking at changing to three different
response time zones. Each of those response time zones has their own different response
time. When we looked at a model of how to do that, and how best we can get that, we
were looking at those standards. We're also looking at how much more of our non-911
resource we could commit to these resources to help the City reduce its subsidy.
Additionally, our work force has done a tremendous job of capturing demographic
information to allow us to have better collections. That also has -- our ability to collect
more from users helps us reduce the amount of subsidy that the City has to pay to provide
those services. Cause it is a user-based service.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, ifl can help clarify.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Kolb, let me finish.
Mr. Mayor: He's trying to clarify something. Let him do that, Mr. Williams, and
then we'll come back to you.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Kolb: You asked about the million dollars. I was going to try to explain that
to you.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Kolb: Originally it was $600,000 for ambulance services for a year. Plus the
dispatching, which was about $38,000 per month. That totaled up to a million dollars.
The Commission approved the Augusta 911 Center taking over the dispatching function,
and at that point, March 1 I believe is when it happened, or April 1, the $38,000 was
taken away. So that is what brought the cost down to $600,000 annually.
Mr. Williams: But the extension, what I was speaking of, when we met several
times and I was on that committee with several Commissioners and the extension for an
18
extended period of time -- I don't remember the time frame, Commissioner Mays or
somebody else may.
Mr. Kolb: One year.
Mr. Williams: For one year. But that one year was a million dollars.
Mr. Kolb: That's correct. It was.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Plus.
Mr. Kolb: No.
Mr. Williams: Is that --
Mr. Kolb: No. It was $600,00 plus the cost of dispatching, which put it above a
million dollars a year.
Mr. Williams: So the $600,000 plus the $38,000? And the $38,000 was backed
out after 911 was doing that at the Center? Is that what you're saying?
Mr. Kolb: That is correct.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I have a question for Mr. Snider. Mr. Snider, during the bid
process, during the negotiation process, was it not clear that who would do the
dispatching? EMS dispatching?
Mr. Snider: No, sir, it was not clear to us in the pre-bid conference. It was stated
that they felt like that Augusta would do the 911 dispatching, but it was not definite and
clear to us. When I read through the bid document, there were some items in there about
putting -- that we would do -- that Augusta would do 911, then the vendor would do the
emergency seven digit, and so it was not clear, and therefore we put in our document that
we would do the dispatching for the $432,000 and going back to the fact we would have a
final and best offer opportunity if Augusta said, which they did in the old presentations,
that they would do the dispatching, then that's what we backed out.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Colclough: Hold on, I'm not finished. Mr. Kolb, you mentioned that
Medical College had a policy that helicopters will not be used within a 15-mile radius, so
we are going to sit here and follow a policy when someone is in Blythe, Georgia or
Hephzibah, Georgia, is suffering a heart attack or an aneurysm and follow policy that if
19
the helicopter can get that person to the hospital quicker than an ambulance, we will not
use the helicopter?
Mr. Kolb: Commissioner Colclough, what I said 1s that under normal
circumstances. You have to understand --
Mr. Colclough: No, wait, wait, wait. I'm asking a question. I'm not saying
normal or abnormal. I'm saying if we have a citizen out in Blythe, Georgia or
Hephzibah, Georgia who suffers a heart attack or an aneurysm and can get that person to
the hospital in time to save that person's life, we're going to follow a policy and send an
ambulance?
Mr. Kolb: It would be at the discretion of the ambulance on the scene. They
make the decision at that point in time.
Mr. Colclough: Excuse me.
Mr. Kolb: What I said under normal circumstance that probably would not be
necessary. By the time you warm up the helicopter, get people to fly it, get to the scene,
get back to the hospital, you can have driven the 15 miles both in terms of response, as
well as in terms in getting back to the hospital.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Snider, do your people -- do your folks have people on
standby?
Mr. Snider: Could I address that?
Mr. Colclough: Just answer.
Mr. Snider: Yes, sir, we have, we have a pilot and a physician and a medic or
nurse on duty 24 hours, 7 days a week.
Mr. Colclough: 24/7?
Mr. Snider: Yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: So that means that you can get a helicopter from here to
Hephzibah in what length of time on a call?
Mr. Snider: Normally what we would do if a call came in of a heart attack say in
Blythe, as the ambulance went enroute to Blythe, the nurse and physician and pilot would
be notified. They would go to the aircraft. Once they were told they were needed, they
would crank the aircraft, which would be a five minute warm-up time, and the flight to
Blythe would be six minutes. So in 11 minutes they would be on the scene.
20
Mr. Colclough: It takes more than 15 minutes to get from my house to University
Hospital when I was having an emergency, by ambulance. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Snider, do I understand, though, that you have never
sent the helicopter to retrieve anybody with a heart attack or hangnail or anything in
Richmond County; is that not correct?
Mr. Snider: That was correct.
Mr. Mayor: You made that statement; you've never been dispatched for a call in
Richmond County?
Mr. Snider: July 4th was the first call we were dispatched to, as Dyess Parkway,
and I believe Powell Road. But the two years we've been in service, we have never had a
request for the helicopter anywhere in Richmond County but we do fly to Emanuel
County, Jefferson County, McDuffie and the other surrounding counties.
Mr. Mayor: Let me ask you a couple of questions. With respect to the cost of
dispatch, was that the cost that you factored, that you say you factored into your
proposal? Because you've said that you based your number you've just given us today
on what we're spending for dispatch.
Mr. Snider: Right. What you were paying -- the $36,000.
Mr. Mayor: Well, what was the number that you used when you prepared your
original proposal then?
Mr. Snider: That was the number that we used. That was in our $1.19 million --
right at $2 million.
Mr. Mayor: $1.94.
Mr. Snider: Right.
Mr. Mayor: But Mr. Kolb says that your bid document says that that would be an
add-on to what you submitted for your proposal. Is that not correct, Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Well, ifl could read it. It will answer a lot of questions. This is Gold
Cross' proposal that was submitted in response to the bid. Located on page 4. It is the
understanding of Gold Cross EMS that the Augusta 911 Center and its employees will
continue to dispatch all 911 ambulance requests. Gold Cross EMS currently operates a
dispatch center located in Augusta at 1109 Medical Center Drive; this site currently
dispatches our ambulances in Richmond County, Columbia, South Carolina. Current
staffing has one call taker and one primary system status control. We also operate from
the Columbia County 911 Center. This is the primary dedicated dispatch site for all
Columbia County, Georgia ambulances. As an option, Gold Cross EMS would prefer to
21
use our Medical Center Drive location as the primary dispatch point for all 911 EMS
calls in Richmond County, Georgia. And then it goes on to talk about with the optional
request that they be the primary dispatcher, this service would be provided at no
additional cost to Augusta.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: All right. It -- now -- just a minute, Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams has
complained in this Chamber and in committee on a number of occasions about response
time with Rural Metro. Yet Rural Metro scored higher than Gold Cross in the ratings for
response time. Mr. Williams, you've also complained about customer service. I think
Mr. Mays has had some comments over time about that, too. Customer service on the
part of Rural Metro. Yet Gold Cross scored the lowest on customer service in the rating
for their proposal. When you look at the proposal review, Rural Metro scored higher in
seven out of the eight categories. And when you look at the rating sheet, Rural Metro
scored 10 out of 13. Gold Cross had 2. And there was a tie for 1. And then when you
look at the dollar value that's applied to the contract that's submitted, Rural Metro is
cheaper. It's cheaper, even when Mr. Snider comes in and discounts it today, Rural
Metro is still cheaper. So it's obvious from looking at the data we have in front of us
here today that Rural Metro is the best bid and it is the most cost effective bid.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Again, I don't know who did the grading.
I say again as Public Safety Chairman I was not included on any of those conversations
or any of those gradings. I didn't even find out anything until we came to Committee
with it. But when we did our Finance, our Finance Chairman was in on our Finance
[inaudible] and the process and I think every other department. That's not either here or
there. What you said earlier about the ambulance not being used, I'd rather have one and
not need one than the need one and don't have one. I mean I hope it's never used. I hope
the ambulance sit there and the wings for a long -- I mean the helicopter sit and the wings
fall off before we use it. But if you need one, it ought to be there. Mr. Kolb mentioned
about the dispatch area. They can go to South Africa and dispatch them as long as they
get there when they supposed to get there. Where they are located at don't mean a hill of
beans to me. I'm trying to get the best service for the people in south Richmond County
now. West Richmond County, the inner city ain't got no problems cause we're relatively
close to the hospitals. But when you look at those people on the other side of Tobacco
Road out there, those people going be in trouble when, when, when a emergency arrive,
and anytime in emergency it always seems to be worse than it is. And when it takes you
11 minutes, it going to see like 22 on ordinary. All I'm looking at is what's going to be
better for the City of Augusta and for the citizens of Richmond County. We've got
police that patrol that area. They ride up and down those streets. We got fire stations
that's located on corners of those residences and we talking about building more. We
need to provide the same type service when it comes to ambulance. Now you may not
22
need a ambulance out there ever again. But if you need one, it ought to be sitting
somewhere where he can get to you or I if we need that. And that, that's what I'm
proposing here now. As Public Safety Chairman I say again I think -- well, in fact I
know. I'm going to make a motion, if I can get a second, that we award this contract to
Gold Cross for the ambulance service for Augusta Richmond County in the year 2003 in
January 1.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Colclough: I'll second.
Mr. Mayor: There is a second. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First, Jim, I'd like to get back to this
wording. It does look like it could be construed as a matter of being able to make two
offers. I understand now it actually comes from our ordinance, and I think directly from
our ordinance, and I think we need to change the wording if that's the case. But can you
tell us what this phrase here means in regards to request final and best offers from the top
three ranked firms if available? And I'd still like the floor afterwards, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Wall: The language that has been quoted to us comes directly from the
Augusta Richmond County Code. And the process has been where we seek RFP' s, those
bids would come in, they would be evaluated, and the prices would be evaluated. In the
event that the pricing was above the budget amount or beyond what, the lowest price,
then at that point the opportunity is there to negotiate with the top three firms to try to get
something that can be accepted so that you don't have to go back out and rebid the
process. That's the intent of this provision. Obviously they are construing the language
differently, but that was not the intent and it comes directly from the Purchasing Code
and it was not, it was never the intent that we would open the pricing and then start
negotiating with the top three and see who we could battle down to the lowest price.
Mr. Bridges: And that's been our practice in the past when we've utilized this?
Mr. Wall: Correct. Correct.
Mr. Bridges: Okay. Once again, I think we probably need to work on some
wording there, and I'm serious about it, I think we need to move along with it. Mr.
Mayor, also I note that when Gold Cross brings the $432,000 off for the dispatch, they
are still $8,000 above Rural Metro as far as low bid, so Rural Metro is still the low bid in
that regard. I don't think at this point, given the I guess confusion over the wording that
we can go out again and do this all over again because they know each other's bid now.
And if we've given Gold Cross the opportunity to lower their bid by $432,000, based on
this language as it was construed, then we need to do the same for Rural Metro, which
they have not done that, they don't need to do that, they're low bid anyway. In regards to
23
some of the other issues that have been raised, particularly in regards to the helicopter, as
I understand the 15 mile limit from the hospital, McBean and Blythe and probably
Hephzibah, too, would still be outside of that limit, so there would be no problem with
the 15 mile limit. I think the 15 mile limit is 14 miles is somewhere around where
Highway 88 comes into Highway 25, so I think that wouldn't be a problem. And also I
talked with Mr. Snider some about the helicopter, and it's not -- after talking with Tom,
it's not a big concern with me. The helicopter is not that big of an issue with me. If
you've got to warm it up for five minutes, you've got your flight time, and then you've
got to find a place to land, you've got to transport the person to the location that the
helicopter can land in the field, you've got the wires and trees and those types of things to
be concerned about, plus my understanding is in an ambulance you've got more
equipment and you're able to work on the person on the way back to the hospital,
whereas with the helicopter that, that's not necessarily something that you can do. I've
had, you know, conversations with some of the employees at Rural Metro. I know at one
time a couple of years ago there was a low morale there. The morale seems to be much
better. Some of the employees tell me they're concerned if they lose this contract that
they'll have to go to work for Gold Cross at less pay. I'm hearing $2 -- I'm hearing $10
compared to around $8. And you know, I certainly can understand their concern there.
But we did have a committee to look at this, we had them analyze it, we had them take
the bids, do the interviews. Even with the changes for Gold Cross, Rural Metro is still
the low bid. And I think we've got to have somebody to serve this county. I think we've
got to take care of it. I think we've got to have an ambulance service to do and I agree
that it should be private. I'm concerned about any taking over by the government of
ambulance service. I'm concerned about the liability and what we might be involved
with there. So Mr. Mayor, given those things, I will make the motion that we avoid the
-- award the bid per the Committee's recommendation to Rural Metro.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I'll second that for discussion.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Listen, I chair this committee. How about holding it down? We can
take a substitute motion, and Mr. Bridges made one. Is there a second?
Mr. Boyles: I'll second that for the purposes of discussion.
Mr. Mayor: All right. There is a second to that motion.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, clarification, please, sir?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, first of all, we paying our Fire Department, our fire
service men to get EMS training and to be able to do. We running fire trucks and police
24
cars and ambulance now as first responders. That's something I think that this
government need to look forward to doing even more of We having people to come on
now, they got to pass those training in order to be assistant. Had it not been for our Fire
Department, had it not been for what we got now, regardless of the criticism that's been
floating around this town, had it not been for those people doing the job that they do now,
we have a lot of people out there that, that's in pain and hurt. But because they are doing
a good job and because we [inaudible] to them, that's something that we really need to
look at. Commissioner Bridges talked about the price difference. When you factor in,
and I hope we never need the helicopter and not that it would go out and do the things
that ambulance can do, that's transportation, that's bringing forth, back and forth, that's
not doing the actual service work. But to get somebody back here is what we need to do.
When we look at the two ambulance that Gold Cross is proposing to put in south Augusta
to be manned just in case and three helicopters, I think we really getting more than what
we pay for here. Now if you just going to look at just the basic, then yeah, I agree. Price
is price. But when you look at the two ambulance that they talking about putting in south
Augusta and fully equipped in case -- we may not need it ever in life. Hopefully we
don't. But they'll bee there. Plus the three helicopters. How in the world can we say
that that's a cheaper price? Now I may not know much, but I can figure that much. And
I don't understand how we can sit here and not see that. The last point, Mr. Mayor.
Rural Metro, if I'm not mistaken, we had some problems and I hope they get those
problems worked out. But we had some problems a year or so ago where we had them
on probation, did we not? Jim, help me out, cause everybody else done got quiet here.
Can [inaudible]? That's all right, Jim. I, I, I --
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: Well, that's the same thing. I understand that. That's all I got,
Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard and then Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, we really get going on this. The first think I wanted to
know, and I think we just heard a ruling from our Attorney on this, and I think the
interpretation has been given there. At first I was kind of and am still possibly, but prior
to the motions on the floor, I was willing to kind of go along with looking at this again,
because it has been quite confusing here this afternoon with all of the different things that
we have come up with and the support that each of these businesses have had. I think the
point would be now if we're going to vote on this as it's listed here and if we are going to
vote that way, I think it's going to be hard for anybody to sit here with that much
difference in price to go with, with Gold Cross. I mean I'm for one, it would be
impossible for me to vote that way today, with Gold Cross. I think they have excellent
services and I think they will provide excellent services. If we are going to look at the back-
out and that has not been brought forth, are we going to allow them to back out the services
that they've suggested that they could back out? That has not been cleared. And that need to
be cleared in the motions that have been on the floor. I think the other thing that we could
possibly look into is the contractual services. In this I mean when we do
25
the contract, when Jim write up the contract there with them, I think that we have to have
certain stipulations in there wherein some of us are doubting that they, the respond time is
where it should be, and there are other things that are suspect in this, from what I'm
hearing on the floor. I think that would have to be inclusive in all of this if, if, if we're
going to go with Rural Metro here. I think it's necessary that we incorporate all of this
into that. But it does put us in a predicament here with the things that have been alleged
today, and really I personally feel that we need to take another look at that. But since
both motions, and not to that effect, then we would have to deal with what we have here.
But I think there is a lot of flaws in what we have here today and we are going to have to
kind of get those into the contract, provided Rural Metro is awarded this today.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, my [inaudible], ifl can --
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard has the floor.
Mr. Williams: I, I, I --
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Williams. I know you're Public Safety Chairman
and I'm sure you'll get to speak again. Mr. Snider, Mr. Doss, did you folks receive from
us as the City something like an invitation to bid or solicitation for bids? Did you receive
some contact that we were interested in a new ambulance provider?
Mr. Snider: Yes.
Mr. Doss: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: Okay, you did? So do we call it an invitation to bid or do you
remember what we called it? Whatever, it doesn't matter. Well, tell me, did we not state
in there, George or Geri or Jim or whoever from the City, what the facts were that we
were interested in? I mean, you know, for example, the population that was going to be
served, the requested response times, and in particular who was going to provide the
dispatching? I mean you read what came from Gold Cross' response, George, but what
was our representation to the bidders? Do y'all have that handy?
Mr. Kolb: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: Can we have that for the record, please? I mean didn't we say who
was going to provide the dispatching? Or did we not?
Mr. Kolb: Not only did we say in the written document, but we also had a pre-
bidders conference before the bids were taken. And the question was specifically asked,
and Jim can read the question and the answer, that made it very clear that we were going
to do the dispatching, that that was in the model that was in the RFP. And while I'm
talking, also in the RFP, in terms of Commissioner Beard's point about holding
26
accountability for performance, we have included and it will be included in the final
contract penalties for violation of response times. Going to various, on various runs. So
there are penalties built in because we are asking them to enter into a performance-based
contract.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, ifl could.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: I think President Reagan said trust, but verify when we were talking
about nuclear weapons. I think lawyers say trust, but show me the documents. So I again
renew my request. What did the document say? Either hand it to me or read it into the
record, one or the other. What did we show them in writing, Mr. Administrator, Mr.
Lawyer?
Mr. Wall: All right. There was a -- following the release of the RFP, there were
questions and answers from the pre-bid conference that was held on April 19, 2002. And
this was faxed to a number of companies, including Rural Metro and Gold Cross EMS.
And there were two questions that addressed the issue. Question No. 14 is who will be
dispatching 911 ambulances, Augusta 911 or the provider? And then B, is the intention
of Augusta that the provider function as a secondary public safety answer [inaudible]; if
so, are there any system hardware, software equipment requirements? The answer is or
was given: it is the intent of the Augusta Richmond County Commission at this time that
Augusta dispatch ambulances. Issues regarding secondary [inaudible] will be addressed
under a separate issue. Then subsequently there was a second question under the
additional questions. Question No. 1: who will dispatch? Answer, assume 911, Augusta
911.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: Excuse me. Jim, I hear the question but what were our
representations? I mean I, I, I differ, I distinguish between the question and a statement
of our fact. I mean [inaudible] get it.
Mr. Wall: The answer was Assume Augusta 911.
Mr. Shepard: That's assuming. For planning. Thank you.
Mr. Kolb: If I could also read from the RFP itself Control center operations.
The Augusta 911 Center is the primary 911 Public Safety answering point for Richmond
County. Established in 1999 by an act of the Augusta Richmond County Commission
provides police, fire, and EMS dispatching services. Augusta 911 is responsible for all
911 emergency medical dispatch call taking functions and the dispatch of all ambulance
providers and all first response agencies.
27
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Anybody? Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles and then Mr. Mays.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Irregardless of either company,
irregardless of either company, I thought I heard a while ago someone make a statement
that our standards have been lowered in this contract compared to what they were in the
year 2002? Did I hear that from someone?
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Boyles: In this meeting. A few moments ago. Someone mentioned that our
total standards, and I think that was because one bid was low was because the standards
have been lowered and that's what concerns me. Are we lowering our standards?
Irregardless of either company. I'm not talking companies. I'm talking emergency
standards now.
Mr. Wall: Well, I heard the question and I heard the answer that was given and I
think it did convey that impression. I think it does need some clarification because that
was not the intent of the committee. Prior to this RFP, you have one county-wide
standard. There were no performance criteria. There was no penalty if the ambulance
company did not meet that standard.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Wall, for my mind, would you just explain standard to me?
Mr. Wall: Response time. Hw long it took from the time the call came in to the
911 Center until --
Mr. Boyles: Measurable standard?
Mr. Wall: That's a measurable standard. Until the ambulance was on scene. And
it had to be an ambulance. I mean it could not be, you know, some race car. The don't
call it race car. What's the name for it? Chase car.
Mr. Speaker: Fly car.
Mr. Wall: Fly car. Fly car. It could not be a fly car. It had to be measured from
the time that the ambulance got on scene. So what we did as part of this RFP process was
go through and define areas of the county and provided response time for them to meet.
And that criteria was set forth in the RFP and it was done with the medical professionals
who were a part of that committee. Not something that, you know, staff who didn't deal
with medical emergencies dreamed up. This is something that they came up with in the
standards. So whereas prior to or under the existing contract, I mean if it takes 30
minutes to pick someone up in Hephzibah or Blythe or whatever, there is no penalty in
28
the contract for the failure to do that. And that's my best explanation. I mean Phil
Wasson or someone else perhaps might be able to give us more detail on that.
Mr. Boyles: So this does not, does not lower anything?
Mr. Wall: It is intended to greatly improve, and particularly in south Richmond
County because you now have a measurable standard that they have to meet.
Mr. Boyles: One final question. Did Legal sit in on the RFP hearing? Or the
special committee?
Mr. Wall: I sat through the process of developing the RFP, yes, I participated in
that. I did not participate in the actual interview process myself Mr. Heywood sat in on
that.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Heywood is the lawyer?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir. I couldn't be there the entire time. And I didn't feel like it
was appropriate for me to sit through half of it and not sit through all of it.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Mays and then Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Mays: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And you mentioned a minute ago that I had
had concerns in reference to where this whole thing was going with ambulance service
for the City. And I guess as any old ambulance driver, you'd want concerns about it.
You'd have in terms of about what happens with the future in reference to to this subject
as well, I think personally we are blessed to have competing business factions to be here
locally and to even be at this point. This has personally got it the point of where I wanted
to see it get all along. In spite of what some things that have been written in some
quarters in reference to myself and to my family that were absolutely -- now Mr. Mayor,
I'd be remiss if I did not say that, to a point of where I think some things that were taken
totally out of context, not by either one of the companies, but quite frankly, by daily
editorial page of the daily newspaper which was outright damn lie. And when you go to
the low standards of resurrecting somebody's mother who is dead and to tell a lie about
it, with no facts about it, never apologized, then I do take personal offense to it. But I've
learned a long time ago to separate how I conduct my business as far as City government
is concerned, as to how I deal with what's personal. I take somewhat of a Tony Brown
attitude that it's not important about what names you may be called, but what's more
important is what name do you answer to. I know who I am and I know whose I am and
that's what's most important. I've learned to separate that a long time ago. So to base
this on a fairness of what we're doing. I'm glad to see us get to this point, because
competition makes this a better process and a better product. I know both of the persons
standing here before this microphone today. Quite frankly, probably personally wish
they was in business and still together. That's not the case. Two competing firms are out
29
here that are proposing service this year and I think we have to make a decision. I agree
with Commissioner Beard. It's hard, when you go through a process that unless you are
going to back everything out and start all over again, then you have to deal with what's
on the table. I think both of them will reply to that. I looked through the proposal. I've
read through both of their proposals. I've sat in on part of the presentations they made
and made sure I wasn't there when they opened any numbers, but I think that the
committee did a very good job in terms of the type questions they asked in terms of
trying to be fair in both categories of where it went. I think, though, that the real question
we have before us in Mr. Bridges' motion, though, is to clarify what will be done within
the contractual stages of where we go from this point. Now it's my understanding, Mr.
Mayor, I may deviate just a little bit but I need to ask a question or two, primarily of the
Attorney and Administrator that I want to be answered. But it's my understanding from
the committee's action per se that the contract that the bid recipient winner that would be
awarded to go to negotiations would be brought back to this Commission in order to be
voted on. Am I correct?
Mr. Wall: You are correct.
Mr. Mays: Okay. I think in that process, and if the motion includes that to be
done, I think that's where within the standards, and I think to get us to a point of where
you have performance standards regardless of who does this, I think those things are
good and they are professionally put in, regardless of who has [inaudible]. My main
concern of where we go with the contract deals with two to three areas. And I would say
this regardless of where it's going. I think you've got a situation, and I agree with Lee,
it's hard to back out of the deal with bid items when you're getting into $300,000 to
$400,000 at a time. You just can't. But I do think, though, that in the confines of the
contract, what got us into bringing this to a competitive stage in the very beginning, and
as you remember, Mr. Mayor, when we tried to get out for RFP's very early and we went
through this process that put us into a semi-subsidized position for a few months, this was
only prolonging a situation, as I stated, that we needed to get some stability in the
contract, allowing one firm to be able to work through this process, to know what was
going to be provided the citizens, and at the same time, to know from a work standpoint
where people were going to go to work, who they were going to work for, and that. I
think we've gotten to that. But I think two things need to be clear. And they need to be
spelled out when you deal with the contract. Now you've got performance standards that
will be placed in there. I think you've got to seriously deal with money standards.
Because if we're going to operate on the premise that we are going to hold to what
numbers are in a bid, when we open the bid, regardless of who wins the bid, that if you
hold to what's there, and what's on paper, then I think you have to hold equally to the
fact for the contract that is drawn, Mr. Wall, that whatever numbers are agreed on in the
contract, that we stay with those numbers. And I say that because I don't think we can
get into a point of backing up once we set numbers for this community. Now there may
be, God forbid, some unforeseen circumstance that we cannot imagine. That throws out a
lot of the rules out the window. But to a point on normal standards, if it's agreed to,
numbers in a contract, I think those contractual numbers must be adhered to. We cannot
get into business of what's going to take one company or the other one through the rest of
30
the year and go back, gentlemen, and add on to do this. Now I bring that up to say I
won't get into I told you so faction, but I'm the same little fellow -- I was a little dense
then, had a little more hair, but I said when we started this whole thing you cannot put a
price on a life, nor could you deal with the medical services. I knew when we started
several years ago, the numbers we put in, quite frankly, Houdini could not have worked
for them and lived through them and got through and made it in a deliverable fashion
unless we backed up and changed the numbers and put in a subsidy with it. What did we
end up doing? We ended up subsidizing. Now, hopefully, we get into a contract
whereby the subsidy will be adhered to with what's in the contract. The second thing that
I think must be done in the contract, I think, Mr. Mayor, is that we've said and the
Administrator just said about the importance of private business. If we're going to
separate government out of private business, then the contracts should also preclude the
government from being in any one of these folks' private business other than one. Ifthe
contract is given to Rural Metro because of the numbers that are in there and the final bid
process then we ought to be out of that business, other than the 911 business that they're
in with us. There should not be any provisions drawn up in a contract to whereby we
provide any assistance that in terms puts any competitor out of business. And that
shouldn't be by assumption. I agree with my colleague, Mr. Shepard. That's my unpaid
lawyer. That ought to be written in there and it ought to say that, it ought to spell it out.
And it ought to say that if we give it to one, we should not be in the business of trying to
go back and say a company does our 911 business. And therefore we want you to send
this particular company the private business because they need the help financially in
order to do it. Now that ought to be in that contract and I'm saying this to both of them.
I'm going to vote, Ulmer, for your motion that's out there. But if that contract comes
back and those provisions are not in there, because this was attempted to be done -- no
fault to the companies -- but it was floated around in the very beginning almost a year-
and-a-half ago that we get into this business, and that's why I was so adamant about us
being out of it, only to the point of dealing with the 911 message. We should not be in
either one y'all' s business, in the solicitation business of the government. Whether it's
you or whether it's you. That ain't our business. And we ought not attempt to be in it.
And I think that contract ought to spell that out very clearly. And if it doesn't say that in
it, I'm not going to vote for any contract. And I think, Jim, you know where I stand on
that. Cause number one, I think it's against Georgia law to do it. And I think this is
against the law to do it, it ought to be in the contract that we can't do it, and that ought to
be spelled out. So I think that's where the crux of it is and I can vote for that motion to
deal with that and I think that's the key, what goes into the contract and what comes
back, Mr. Mayor, to this Commission.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a couple of questions I want to ask
because things really have gotten confusing as far as in the beginning talking about the
final bid and whether we supposed to come back and also it's just been confusing of
whether one service is allowed to back out the amount of the emergency services. Are
we voting, will we be voting on the figures that we have as far as Gold Cross had the
figure of $1,194,096?
31
Mr. Mayor: I think, Mr. Hankerson, you're going to be voting on the bids that
were presented at the bid opening; is that not correct, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: That's correct.
Mr. Hankerson: The reason I asked is because Mr. Beard mentioned something
about that, whether we are allowing them to back out or back out on these figures. So it's
so confusing that I hear a lot of things that are being presented to me right now, paper,
paper from here and paper from there, that we should have done in committee meeting,
so we all would have been very clear of what we are doing and what we expect. This was
not -- I mean we are here trying to do some things now at the last minute that should have
been done in committee meetings where we can really get together and ask some
questions. I never abstained, I don't think, since I've been here, six, seven months, but
it's very, very confusing to me to give either one of these good companies, you know, my
support. And it's so confusing. No one has addressed today what would happen to these
employees. In the past we've discussed contracts and over the garbage service and we all
was concerned about the employees. But we have employees sitting here that don't know
whether they have a job tomorrow. And I'm very concerned about that. I'm very
concerned that it was brought up about the difference in the pay. How many employees
are involved? How many employees are in Gold Cross? How many employees are in
Rural Metro?
Mr. Doss: We have approximately 197 employees in our total operation.
Mr. Snider: We have approximately 120.
Mr. Hankerson: So my question is that if this contract was awarded to Gold
Cross, the change, what would happen to these employees or would we have adequate
amount of service to still maintain the same response time if we didn't have the
employees or where the employees going to come from? It takes [inaudible] in order to
operate the Augusta Richmond County, it takes a number of employees. Would that be
provided through Gold Cross? What would happen to these employees?
Mr. Snider: If Gold Cross receives the bid, then we would offer employment to
any of the Rural Metro employees that elected to come on.
Mr. Hankerson: Do you have an idea of how many job openings that will be?
And would the pay levels change?
Mr. Snider: Well, the pay level is a little misleading in that the hourly rate may
be a little different, but when you factor in overtime and various hourly shifts they are
going to really be sort of in line. I can't say exactly, but probably need 50+ employees.
And that's just a rough estimate.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay.
32
Mr. Mayor: Do I understand that if Gold Cross gets the bid then the employees of
Rural Metro will be at risk? If Rural Metro gets the bid, it's not going to affect the
employment at Gold Cross at all because you don't have the contract now; is that correct?
Mr. Snider: I would think so. I would think you're right.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Beard asked to be recognized.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to call for the question, but I would just like to
make a statement before that, and for the maker of the motion, Commissioner Bridges, I
wonder if he will accept that those contractual restraints that were mentioned by
Commissioner Mays be included and that the contract be brought back to this body
before any acceptance of that, and I'm doing that for the record person.
Mr. Bridges: I'd be happy to accept that if the seconder of the motion would
agree to it.
Mr. Boyles: Be happy to.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to that? All right. The motion will stand amended
then, Madame Clerk. The question has been called by Mr. Beard on the substitute motion
from Mr. Bridges to award the contract to Rural Metro.
Mr. Cheek: Can we have the motion reread, please, before we vote?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. We sure may. Madame Clerk, if you'll read that, please.
The Clerk: The motion was to award the ambulance contract for 2003 to Rural
Metro ambulance service contingent upon the contract being brought back to the
Commission for approval and acceptance of the contractual stipulations as stated by Mr.
Mays regarding performance standards and soliciting private calls regarding ambulance
calls.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
The Clerk: And they locked into the price [inaudible]. Is that what you said, for
the eight ambulances, Mr. Mays? I don't remember. [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: That will be hashed out when they bring the contract.
The Clerk: Hashed out.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All in favor the motion, the substitute motion, please vote
aye.
33
Mr. Williams: Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: Yes, sir?
Mr. Williams: I need to change my vote. I thought I voted no, but I voted yes. I
certainly need to change my vote.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: I thought, Mr. Williams, we had an epiphany down there.
(Laughter)
Mr. Williams: You had to have thought.
The Clerk: Okay, Mr. Williams, I cleared the board.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Williams vote No.
Motion carries 7-2.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, when do you anticipate the contract will be brought back
before us?
Mr. Kolb: As quickly as the County Attorney and Rural Metro can get together.
Mr. Mayor: Probably next month?
Mr. Kolb: [inaudible]
Mr. Boyles: Would I be in order to request a short recess?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. The Chair will declare a five minute recess.
(Recess)
The Clerk: There is an item on the agenda for deletion.
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
1. Approve authorizing the Internal Auditor to send a letter to area banks
asking them to identify all City accounts bearing City identification numbers.
(Requested by Commissioner Hankerson)
34
2. Motion to authorize conveyance of 948 Spruce Street to Richmond County
Land Bank Authority for its tax value (approximately $3200).
3. Approve receiving as information the FY 2001 Audited Financial Statements.
4. Approve recommendation to readopt the Car Allowance Policy of April 15,
1997. (Requested by the Administrator)
The Clerk: Item 4 was placed on the agenda in error. The Administrator
asked that this item be place on the August 6 agenda, and through oversight in the
Clerk's Office it was placed on this agenda, and we ask that that not be considered.
And also to delete Item 44, the appointment of Marshal Steve Smith to the
Community Mental Health Board. They asked that that be delayed.
Mr. Mayor: Did you say item number I on the consent agenda was deleted?
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to any of these additions or deletions from the
agenda? Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Item 30. Oh, no, I'm sorry.
Mr. Mayor: No objection heard.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, you said item number 4 is not being considered; is that
right?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
The Clerk: That should be off
Mr. Mayor: Should not be on the list at all.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: So items 1, 2 and 3 will be added. And item number 4 and 44 will be
deleted.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All right, ladies and gentlemen, we'll head to the consent agenda.
Gentlemen, what's your pleasure with respect to the consent agenda?
Mr. Cheek: Move to approve the consent agenda, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
35
Mr. Mayor: Second? We have a second. Would you pull any items?
Mr. Beard: 30.
Mr. Mayor: All right, number 30 for Mr. Beard.
Mr. Boyles: Item 21, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: 21 for Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Williams: 25 and 26, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: 25 and 26 for Mr. Williams. Any others?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, can we add item 2 from the addendum agenda to
the consent agenda?
Mr. Mayor: We can if you would like to amend the motion to include item
number 2 to the addendum agenda.
Mr. Cheek: That's correct, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to that?
The Clerk: You said item 2 and 3?
Mr. Cheek: Let's do 2 and 3.
Mr. Mayor: 2 and 3.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I need some clarification on item 17.
Mr. Mayor: 17, okay. So far we have pulled items numbers 17, 21, 25, 26, and
30. Any other items?
PLANNING:
1. Z-02-83 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Patrick Barnwell requesting a
Special Exception for the purpose of establishing an auto paint shop in a B-2
(General Business) zone, per Section 22-2 the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 2960 Old Tobacco Road
and contains .92 acres. (Tax Map 128 Parcel 8.1) DISTRICT 4
2. Z-02-84 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Toole Engineers, on behalf of Beulah
Grove Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of expanding
an existing church including day care services etc., per Section 26-1 (a) of the
36
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 1603, 1607, 1615 and 1617 Hunter Street and 1436, 1438 and
1440 Poplar Street containing approximately 2.2 acres and is part of Beulah Grove
Baptist Church which is located at 1434 Poplar Street. (Tax Map 58-2 Parcels 124,
125, 126, 128, 129, 120, 131, 132.01) DISTRICT 2
3. Z-02-85 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Jane S. Loren requesting a change of
zoning from Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone A (Agriculture) affecting
property located at 1977 Powell Road and contains approximately 0.5 acres. . (Tax
Map 65 Parcel 64) DISTRICT 3
4. Deleted from the consent agenda.
5. Z-02-87 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Nick Dickinson, Jr., on behalf of
Walter L. Shepeard Community Blood Center, requesting a change of zone from
Zone R-2 (Two-family Residential) to Zone P-1 (Professional) affecting property
located at 1325 and 1321 Emmett Street and 1336 Druid Park Avenue and
containing .68 acres. (Tax Map 45-4 Parcel 122 and part of Parcel 125.01)
DISTRICT 5
6. Z-02-89 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Joseph Cadle, on behalf of Frances
Cadle Normand requesting a change of zone from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone R-
lB (One-family Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property
located at 1607 Barton Chapel Road and containing .37 acres. (Tax Map 53 Parcel
57.1) DISTRICT 3
7. Z-02-91 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the stipulation that the property can only be
developed for residential or professional uses; a petition by ATC Development
Corp., on behalf of the estate of Vixie T. Heubel, requesting a change of zone from
Zone R-lA (One-family Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting
property located at 1051 Bertram Road and containing 3.5 acres. (Tax Map 12
Parcel 26.2) DISTRICT 7
8. Z-02-92- A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Frank K. Song requesting a change
of zone from Zone R-lA (One-family Residential) and B-1 (Neighborhood Business)
to B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 3251 Deans Bridge Rd. (Tax
Map 96 Parcel 8) DISTRICT 5
9. Z-02-93 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Celaine Huff, on behalf of FJC, LLC,
requesting a change of zone from Zone R-lB (One-family Residential) and Zone B-2
(General Business) to Zone LI (Light Industry) affecting property located at 1514
Crescent Drive and containing .63 acres. (Tax Map 41 Parcel 53) DISTRICT 3
10. FINAL PLAT - SUMMERFIELD, PHASE TWO - S-631-11 - A request
for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to
approve a petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of ATC
Development Corp., requesting final plat approval for Summerfield, Phase
Two. This development
37
contains 18 lots and is located on Summer Valley Way, adjacent to Summerfield,
Phase One.
11. FINAL PLAT - ST. MARKS TOWNHOMES, PHASE 2, SECTION 1 -
S- 633 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on
behalf ATC Development Corp., requesting final plat approval for St. Marks
Townhomes, Phase 2, Section 1. This development contains 33 lots and is
located on West Wheeler Road, south of Calypso Drive.)
PUBLIC SERVICES:
12. Motion to approve the purchase of two (2) multi-unit play systems for
McBean Park and Brookfield Park, referring to bid item #01-112 as approved by
the Augusta Commission on October 4, 2001, from Hasley Recreation and Design in
the amount of $60,000. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 8, 2002)
13. Motion to approve the authorization of Fire Department SPLOST Phase IV
funds in the amount of $76,278.16 to the Department of Recreation and Parks as
credit for expenses at McBean Park. (Approved by Public Services Committee July
8, 2002)
14. Motion to accept Georgia Department of Natural Resources - Environmental
Protection Division - Grant in the amount of $62,597.20 for the purpose of funding
the Scrap Tire/Solid Waste & Education Program. (Approved by Public Services
Committee July 8, 2002)
15. Motion to approve a request by Sung Chol Song to transfer the retail
package Liquor, Beer & Wine license used in connection with Frank's Package
Shop located at 3251 Deans Bridge Rd. to a new store being built at this address.
District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 8, 2002)
16. Motion to approve a request by Hud McTeer for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with McTeer Food & Fuel located at 1237
Gordon Hwy. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
July 8, 2002)
17. Motion to approve a request by Chin S. Pak for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Sunset Mini Mart located at 2925 Peach
Orchard Rd. District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
July 8, 2002)
18. Motion to approve Augusta Regional Airport to enter into a retainer
agreement with The LPA Group. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 8,
2002)
19. Motion to approve the amended lease agreement between the City of
Augusta and the Augusta Arsenal Soccer Club for the mutual installation of field
lighting for two fields at the Augusta Soccer Park. (Approved by Public Services
Committee July 8, 2002)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
20. Deleted from the consent agenda.
21. Deleted from the consent agenda
38
22. Motion to approve retirement of John Bennett under the 1977 Pension Plan.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee July 8, 2002)
23. Motion to approve retirement of Vera Jones under the 1977 Pension Plan.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee July 8, 2002
PUBLIC SAFETY:
24. Motion to approve Mutual Aid agreement between the Augusta Fire
Department and the Augusta Regional Airport Fire Department. (Approved by
Public Safety Committee July 8, 2002)
24A. Motion to approve Maintenance Renewal Agreements with TeamIA for the
Clerk of Court Real Estate and License & Inspection software application.
FINANCE COMMITTEE:
25. Deleted from the consent agenda.
26. Deleted from the consent agenda.
27. Motion to approve the refund to Thaddeus T. Meyers of 2000 taxes paid in
error in the amount of $278.34 on Map 58-1, Parcel 123. (Approved by Finance
Committee July 8, 2002)
28. Motion to deny request from Merle A. Goddard McFadden regarding refund
of property taxes for the year 1998. (Approved by Finance Committee July 8, 2002)
29. Motion to approve Georgia Department of Community Affairs' list of Fiscal
year 2003 Pass-Through Local Assistance Grant Awards for Augusta-Richmond
County. (Approved by Finance Committee July 8, 2002)
30. Deleted from the consent agenda.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
31. Motion to approve an Option for Right of Way between T. Davis Family
Properties, LLC, as owner, and Augusta, Georgia, for the following property for the
purchase price of $104,771.00: 10,181 square feet, more or less, of right-of-way and
3,525 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee July 8, 2002)
32. Motion to approve award of contract to Blair Construction in the amount of
$398,846.79 for construction of the Sherwood Drive Sanitary Sewer. (Funded by
Account Number 509043402-5425210/801 5003-545210) (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee July 8, 2002)
33. Motion to approve Greenspace Grant application for additional FY 02
funding. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 8, 2002)
34. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 86-3, Parcel 131,
which is owned by James Turner, for a right-of-way in connection with the
Bungalow Road Improvement Project, more particularly described as 736.53 square
feet, more or less, of right of way and 749.99 square feet, more or less, of temporary
construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 8, 2002)
35. Motion to authorize condemnation of the following property in connection
with the Morgan Road Improvement Project: 400 square feet, more or less of
permanent slope easement and 800 square feet, more or less, of temporary
construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 8, 2002)
39
36. Motion to approve request by Mr. Albert Abbott regarding reimbursement
of a street light charge for property he owns on Deans Bridge Road. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee July 8, 2002)
37. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 118, Parcel 29,
which is owned by Nan L. Mears, in connection with Morgan Road Improvement
Project, more particularly described as 1,839 square feet, more or less, of temporary
construction easement, plus one flowering crabapple tree. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee July 8, 2002)
38. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 12, Parcel 84,
which is owned by Ming F. Lin and Sundy F. Lin, for an easement in connection
with the Sherwood Sanitary Sewer Project, more particularly described as 1,650
square feet, more or less, of permanent utility easement and 2,504 square feet, more
or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee July 8, 2002)
39. Motion to award bid (Bid Item Number 02-093) for reworking the aerators
at Groundwater Treatment Plant #1 to the lowest responsive bidder, Deloach
Industries, in the amount of $33,950.00. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee July 8, 2002)
40. Motion to approve funding in the amount of $563,283.71 and execution of the
Contract Item Agreement for work to be performed on the water main relocation
on the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) Deans Bridge Road
Intersection Improvement Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
July 8, 2002)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
41. Motion to approve minutes of the July 3, 2002 minutes of the regular meeting
of the Commission.
Addendum Item 2. Motion to authorize conveyance of 948 Spruce Street to
Richmond County Land Bank Authority for its tax value (approximately $3200).
Addendum Item 3. Approve receiving as information the FY 2001 Audited
Financial Statements.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve the consent agenda. Madame Clerk,
do you need to read out any zoning petition or alcohol petitions before we vote on them?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Under the Planning portion of the agenda, the consent
agenda, if there are any objections to the planning petitions, would you please
signify your objection by raising your hand?
PLANNING:
1. Z-02-83 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Patrick Barnwell requesting a
Special Exception for the purpose of establishing an auto paint shop in a B-2
(General Business) zone, per Section 22-2 the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
40
Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 2960 Old Tobacco Road
and contains .92 acres. (Tax Map 128 Parcel 8.1) DISTRICT 4
2. Z-02-84 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Toole Engineers, on behalf of Beulah
Grove Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of expanding
an existing church including day care services etc., per Section 26-1 (a) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 1603, 1607, 1615 and 1617 Hunter Street and 1436, 1438 and
1440 Poplar Street containing approximately 2.2 acres and is part of Beulah Grove
Baptist Church which is located at 1434 Poplar Street. (Tax Map 58-2 Parcels 124,
125, 126, 128, 129, 120, 131, 132.01) DISTRICT 2
3. Z-02-85 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Jane S. Loren requesting a change of
zoning from Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone A (Agriculture) affecting
property located at 1977 Powell Road and contains approximately 0.5 acres. . (Tax
Map 65 Parcel 64) DISTRICT 3
4. Z-02-86 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Eugene Curry requesting a change of
zone from Zone R-lC (One-family Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood
Business) affecting property located at 1219 Twelfth Street and containing .23 acres.
(Tax map 46-4 Parcel 734) DISTRICT 2
5. Z-02-87 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Nick Dickinson, Jr., on behalf of
Walter L. Shepeard Community Blood Center, requesting a change of zone from
Zone R-2 (Two-family Residential) to Zone P-1 (Professional) affecting property
located at 1325 and 1321 Emmett Street and 1336 Druid Park Avenue and
containing .68 acres. (Tax Map 45-4 Parcel 122 and part of Parcel 125.01)
DISTRICT 5
6. Z-02-89 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Joseph Cadle, on behalf of Frances
Cadle Normand requesting a change of zone from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone R-
lB (One-family Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property
located at 1607 Barton Chapel Road and containing .37 acres. (Tax Map 53 Parcel
57.1) DISTRICT 3
7. Z-02-91 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the stipulation that the property can only be
developed for residential or professional uses; a petition by ATC Development
Corp., on behalf of the estate of Vixie T. Heubel, requesting a change of zone from
Zone R-lA (One-family Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting
property located at 1051 Bertram Road and containing 3.5 acres. (Tax Map 12
Parcel 26.2) DISTRICT 7
8. Z-02-92- A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Frank K. Song requesting a change
of zone from Zone R-lA (One-family Residential) and B-1 (Neighborhood Business)
to B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 3251 Deans Bridge Rd. (Tax
Map 96 Parcel 8) DISTRICT 5
41
9. Z-02-93 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Celaine Huff, on behalf of FJC, LLC,
requesting a change of zone from Zone R-lB (One-family Residential) and Zone B-2
(General Business) to Zone LI (Light Industry) affecting property located at 1514
Crescent Drive and containing .63 acres. (Tax Map 41 Parcel 53) DISTRICT 3
The Clerk: Are there any objections to those Planning petitions?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I asked to pull 17, but I was mistaken with that. I got the
clarification. I'd like to get the clarification on, I think it's number 4.
Mr. Mayor: Pull number 4?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. In lieu of 17, please.
Mr. Mayor: In lieu of 17?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead and take it up now.
Mr. Williams: It was added in with the consent.
The Clerk: Our alcohol petitions:
15. Motion to approve a request by Sung Chol Song to transfer the retail
package Liquor, Beer & Wine license used in connection with Frank's Package
Shop located at 3251 Deans Bridge Rd. to a new store being built at this address.
District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 8, 2002)
16. Motion to approve a request by Hud McTeer for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with McTeer Food & Fuel located at 1237
Gordon Hwy. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
July 8, 2002)
17. Motion to approve a request by Chin S. Pak for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Sunset Mini Mart located at 2925 Peach
Orchard Rd. District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
July 8, 2002)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions?
Mr. Mayor: None are indicated. So we'll move ahead with the vote now on the
consent agenda.
42
Mr. Mays: Was number 20 pulled?
Mr. Mayor: 20? No, sir. You like it pulled?
Mr. Mays: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Pull number 20. The items we have pulled, again, are 4, 20, 21, 25,
26 and 30. All in favor of the consent agenda minus those items please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0. [Items 1-3, 5-19, 22-24A, 27-29, 31-41, Addendum Items 2 and
3]
The Clerk:
4. Z-02-86 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Eugene Curry requesting a change of
zone from Zone R-lC (One-family Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood
Business) affecting property located at 1219 Twelfth Street and containing .23 acres
(Tax map 46-4 Parcel 734) DISTRICT 2
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty: This gentleman operates, currently operates a store in the same block,
which is the block of Iih Street just south of Laney-Walker. It's a small frame building.
And he wants to move up the block about three properties into a brick front, storefront
that's been operated as a barber shop in the past. But apparently this barber shop was
never zoned because the current zoning is residential and he, in order to move in there,
since it's been over two years since it was operated as a barber shop, he would have to
have the property rezoned and that's what he's asking for.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. That's what I needed to know, you know,
what transpired as far as the location and what they was doing there.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to make a motion?
Mr. Williams: Yes. I make a motion we approve it, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
43
\
The Clerk: Item 20?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma' am.
The Clerk:
20. Motion to authorize the Public Works and Engineering Department to hire
the Assistant County Engineer at a salary of $55,000 and to provide relocation costs
in an amount not to exceed $1,000. These costs reflect position requirements and
competitive Compensation for similar job levels. (Approved by Administrative
Services Committee July 8, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I heard, I sat in during the committee's hearing of this and
I don't really have a -- it was explained why it was done, the committee went through it.
But I was just wondering whether, Mr. Kolb or Mr. Wall, whether any, any policy is
going to be established on this for future guidelines in order to deal with how this is
going to come up. Because that was a question of Commissioners that it would give
different department heads some leeway into knowing what would happen. I know what
we've done in the case of department heads where this has been there, but I think
probably in terms of trying to land and be able to get somebody in, and I don't have a
problem with where this item is going, but I think at some point it needs to be a direct
line into what's there or either a different level of compensation or some type of other
[inaudible] to do it, and that's what I was wondering, if the Administrator had any
thoughts on this as to where this was going to go. Because, you know, it could be a
situation as to where you could get the 3rd, the 41 the 5th person in line in the department
and this could be common practice as to how you deal with it. And I'm satisfied with the
explanation that was given in this particular committee, even though I didn't have a vote
over there, but I'm just wondering whether something is going to be dealt with in the
future in terms of laying this out in order to do it, because it would help both the
committee, the Commission, and department heads [inaudible].
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, if I can respond. In short, the answer to your question is
yes, we will be bringing back a policy. However, it will probably be part of a
comprehensive policy on personnel and classification system.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Mays: The only thing I was going to say, I think it needs to be -- it can be a
part of anything, but it needs to be clearly defined if it's going to be a situation in terms
of how you deal with a dispensing of money. Because, you know, you get into all these
things about what's an accounting practice of it, what's to be given back, all these other
questions that pop up, and I'm just saying to a point that, that the people in recruiting,
whether, you know, if they're going outside of the local market of where they are to land
44
a person, then they need to have some leeway as to what they promise, and I think that
there needs to be some type of stand-alone policy in terms of -- that's just my personal
thought on it. What y'all mix it with, that's a different story. But it needs to be
something that's clear cut in terms of that level of money or some type of program to
where help somebody get in, then they owe it back. But y'all need to really seriously
deal with that to a point before they start stacking up on you. That's just my only, old
man's observance there.
Mr. Kolb: And it will be.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Also like Commissioner Mays said, in
committee we talked about this, and I've got a problem with when you going to
reimburse or when you going to give relocation monies or whatever you might call it,
why is it, if it costs somebody to move from California or Waynesboro, if you're an
Administrator or if you're Finance Director or if you a clerk, it costs you the same to
move as it costs anybody else. Why is it this one price and everybody else gets ten times
that? I mean when I say ten times that, I mean more than that. I've got a problem if you
going to use moving expenses, we're moving people, we're not herding cows or
anything, so if a person got to move from one relocation to another and we going to give
this, we ought, it ought to be uniform. I agree with what Mr. Mays said, we ought to
have something that says this is what the moving expense would be. I can remember
several different instances where we, we, we did moving expenses and it was move than
$1,000 but now we -- I don't understand that. So I guess that, that, that, that's my
question and I guess when the Administrator comes back with something, it will be
designated as to how we going to do this, because if Tommy Boyles moving to
Waynesboro, then I move, I don't -- Tommy shouldn't -- I mean he may have a bigger
house. I don't know where you live, Tommy, I'm in the ghetto over there, but I got just
as much stuff to move. And I need to move my stuff as well. And I just think if we
going to do this, let's do the same thing. Jim, go back to that ball you never brought back
now, we need to play with the same ball all the time. And that's all I'm saying.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have -- does anybody want to make a motion?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I'd just like to comment to this because I did mention this in
committee meeting, serving on Administrative Services Committee. I'm more concerned
about making very clear who we are going to give these extra compensations or -- well, I
guess I should say moving expense and so forth, too. We're down to an Assistant level
now and before I think it was department heads. I just want to make -- I want to have,
see a clear policy on who will be getting these. And my question also is in asking for this
today, this $1,000 in the moving expense, how does this affect the person? Is this
45
something that will prevent the person from coming or this is a tool that was needed, a
compensation that was needed in order for this person to come, for the moving expense,
Mr. Administrator, or just was something that would start a system that we ought to be
giving it to Assistants? Is this needed?
Mr. Kolb: I will defer this question to Mr. Michael Greene.
Mr. Mayor: Michael.
Mr. Greene: Commissioner Hankerson, the $1,000 figure came from the
[inaudible]. When the position was advertised, the minimum and maximum of the range
-- the range is supposed -- that's what's supposed to [inaudible] dollar amount. There
were three people who responded that met all the qualifications. Interviews were set up.
Prior to the interviews, one person accepted another job. The other two came here for
interviews. This individual scored the highest. His salary request, the $55,000 salary he
had asked for, that was the lowest request. The $1,000, that was his request. He had
asked for $1,000. That's where the figure came from. He had asked for assistance in
relocating to Augusta. So we didn't arbitrarily just pull out $1,000 and say well, we're
going to give you $1,000. That was in part of talking with the individual after the
selection was made, prior to it coming before the Commission with a request to employ
this person. It came before the Commission because it's I 0% above the entry? Yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. So I can understand that. So this is -- I mean it's more of
a compensation negotiation?
Mr. Greene: That's correct. Assist them in moving, relocating to Augusta.
Mr. Hankerson: Was the other employees offered that? Or they wasn't because
they didn't ask?
Mr. Greene: The request for salary was higher for the other individual. From the
other individual that was interviewed. They had requested a higher salary for them to
even come here, consider coming here.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. Well, I still say that, and I think I heard the Administrator
say he's working on a policy for this and I mentioned in the Administrative Services
Committee meeting that I'm not going to support any other additions to salaries and so
forth until we get a clear policy on who is supposed to be receiving moving expense, car
allowances or whatever. It should be a clear-cut policy that will be established in the
year 2002, so I don't want to later on have to go back and pull up no minutes and say it
was done and it wasn't done. I want to know and I want to see it in writing cause I'm
going to base my, my decisions on what I see, what is written. And that's my comment
on that. I hope that we get to that point so we won't keep just shifting back and forth on
this person gets this, the next person is offered something. But whatever tool is needed,
you know, for the negotiation of hiring employees, that they will be plainly stated and the
46
Administrator can use that, what's there, and not come back to us on something else that
could be confusing and unfair to other employees.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Hankerson. Do we have a motion on this item?
Item number 20.
Mr. Bridges: A motion to approve.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve and second. Further discussion? All in favor,
please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next item is number 21, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
21. Motion to approve Augusta-Richmond County Organizational Chart.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee July 8, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I sat in the Administrative Services
Committee but I would like to have a little more clarification. I'm not a member of that
committee but I would like to have a little bit more clarification on the intent of that that
Mr. Hornsby was in, I think, in that meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hornsby, if you can respond.
Mr. Hornsby: Certainly. The intent of it is in order to try to streamline and
further put some tweaks, if you will, to the organizational structure since consolidation.
This is basically the first full review and it's the first for this administration in trying to
put the tweaks to it. In that thing, what we saw when we looked at it, we saw that there
were basically three areas that are somewhat different. Also, the other item that we put
in, that was the item of the portfolio. And what departments report to what portfolio. But
the three basic changes, I guess, or changes that would amount to anything would be
those three initial changes as we indicated in the agenda item itself That was on Public
Works where the Print Shop was being moved basically from under Facilities
Maintenance under Purchasing. The other one, the other larger item was the matter that,
the relationship between Human Resources and Finance, and the idea there is that Risk
Management is a little more financial than Human Resources. But the compromise was
that those items that are personal in nature, the personal business of employees, should
stay in Human Resources. The rest of the function would go up under Finance. And I
might say to that end that we met with both Ms. Pelaez and Mr. Persaud. And we have
47
an agreement on how we think we can work it out. That's the only one, really that
[inaudible]. The other item that we had was the matter of Trees and Landscape. At
consolidation time, Trees and Landscape was a single department. The old city Trees and
Landscape Department. What we have proposed in this agenda item is that we place
Trees and Landscape up under Public Works. That individual would go over as Assistant
Director of Public Works and work from there. Also, we tried to make it a little easy in
that chart. You can see those that are constitutional, those departments that are
constitutional, those departments that are [inaudible], they would be up under and work.
Ifthat answers your question.
Mr. Boyles: Well, my concern is, and I guess I reached this concern after I talked
with Mr. Kolb one night. We were down here for a public hearing. We were talking
about Risk Management because we probably have a shortage of personnel there. The
positions that we probably ought to allocate to that. And that may have handicapped us a
little bit in getting some things done. But if you move it under Finance, what does it do?
I think there are three employees that would be moved under Human Resources, and
that's just a department that I'm concerned about because of my talking with Mr. Kolb,
and what may can happen there. I'm not quite sure of the advantage to the government or
to the efficiency of this government if we kind of break up our Risk Management
Department. Because it's so important, I think, to our overall citizenry.
Mr. Hornsby: I might want to defer to Mr. Kolb on the matter of being Risk
Management more of a financial -- would be concerned with finances. I think that's the
idea. That Risk Management has to do with money and therefore it's financial in nature
[inaudible]. Now to our credit, Mr. Persaud has had -- Risk Management was under his
direction in his former life. But -- and what we're talking about now is -- I can't tell you
about people, but we're talking about loss control and training and safety officer positions
perhaps changing. But again, like I said, we talked earlier and it's our consideration that
-- that's the three of us, we discussed that basically all of them will be up under Finance,
but eventually and as things go, because this was the hardest one, required more thinking
than the other departments to make a change in, to get over from Risk Management to
splitting those duties out. [inaudible] shift a whole department, that's it, it could work,
and it's been working.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, ifl may?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Kolb: Commissioner Boyles asked a very good question. However, how I
can respond to that is Risk Management is really the protection of the City's assets, and
when we talk about self insurance or liability, property maintenance, etc., those are
financially-related decisions that do not impact on Human Resources. There are some
Human Resource issues that are affected in Risk Management, but those functions will
continue to be carried out by the Human Resources Department in conjunction with Risk
Management. But it is my opinion in the organizational structure that when we start
48
talking about preserving and protecting the financial assets of the organization, that it is
more appropriately placed under the Finance Department rather than Human Resources.
Mr. Boyles: Let me ask, too, then where would the Director stay?
Mr. Kolb: The Director will report directly to the Finance Director.
Mr. Boyles: And then the other folks would move out into the Human Resources
Department?
Mr. Kolb: No. They will be moved under the Finance Department in the division
of Risk Management.
Mr. Hornsby: In other words, Risk Management becomes a division of Finance.
Mr. Boyles: The whole department moves under Finance?
Mr. Kolb: That is correct.
Mr. Hornsby: [inaudible]
Mr. Kolb: Just like Payroll now is under Finance and they work with Human
Resources, the same arrangement will be with Risk Management. We're just, in effect
we're pretty much just changing the reporting relationship.
Mr. Boyles: Okay. I probably had to call upon this department more since I've
been on the Commission than any other, so I think that's just an interest that I might have
[inaudible] judgment.
Mr. Kolb: And that can continue.
Mr. Boyles: I didn't micromanage. I called properly through Augusta Cares.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further, Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: No, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate it.
Mr. Mayor: I was not at the committee meeting, but there are a couple of issues
with the Mayor's Office. I just wanted to ask these questions. According to the chart on
page 2 in the backup, the Equal Opportunity Office is now under the Mayor. I don't
think that's the way that thing it set up. It's supposed to be under the Mayor and
Commission. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Hornsby: Should be Mayor and Commission.
49
Mr. Mayor: Well, it's just got it under Mayor, as a division of the Mayor's
Office.
Mr. Kolb: The reason being in most cases the Commission charges you with
supervising those employees.
Mr. Mayor: I don't think that's been the case. That's, that's not the case.
Mr. Kolb: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: That employee is supervised by 11 supervisors. And likewise, there
is a Municipal Court Division here in the Mayor's Office. I don't quite understand what
that is, either.
Mr. Kolb: I think we probably have made an error.
Mr. Mayor: I think so.
Mr. Hornsby: No, no, no, no, I think, Jim, I think you can explain it. I think we
have to have a Municipal Court, ifl'm not mistaken.
Mr. Wall: The charter has a provision that there has to be municipal [inaudible]
but it does not fall under the Mayor's Office.
Mr. Hornsby: I didn't know where to put it.
Mr. Wall: Okay. I understand. On page 1, directly across from the Mayor's
Office, you have the Municipal Court directly under the Mayor and Commission. You
also have the Equal Employment Office directly under the Mayor and Commission
[inaudible], etc.
Mr. Mayor: You've got conflicting charts here.
Mr. Wall: Yes, the Emergency Management is shown on the organizational chart
as being under the Mayor and Commission.
Mr. Mayor: But by statute, he's under the Mayor.
Mr. Wall: By statute it's under the Mayor. So I think page 1 needs to be revised.
Mr. Mayor: Right. I would ask that when this is approved that we delete the
Municipal Court function and the Equal Opportunity Office function from the Mayor's
Office and put it where it properly goes so those are managed correctly.
Mr. Wall: Emergency Management should come out form under the Mayor and
Commission on page 1.
50
Mr. Kolb: So noted. We'll make those corrects.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I'm going to go back to Risk Management again and the Safety
Officer's position being put in Finance. I just, I've got 25 years of experience with that
being a function of Human Resources and it being pro-active rather than pay the bill after
the injury. Is this going to in any conflict with our change in safety philosophy?
Mr. Kolb: No, it will not. In fact, I'm hoping that it will enhance it. In municipal
organizations, I am used to Risk Management, along with the safety function, being
under the Finance Department, rather than Human Resources. Traditionally, Human
Resource departments are understaffed in the municipal organization in their scope of
responsibility as it relates to grievance processing and other issues related to the
employees is much greater, because of the public nature of it. In terms of Risk
Management under Financial responsibility, as I said earlier, we have self insurance for
many of our programs, including workers' comp, high levels of deductions for our
building, etc., and those decisions are really best made in Finance as they are better able
to control and monitor claims and take a financial look at them, rather than from a
Human Resources perspective.
Mr. Cheek: My concern still remains the current safety program is one more --
being reactive instead of pro-active. Here again, I would like to see us get more into
preventing injuries than paying for them after they occur. That's my only concern about
it being in here, is that change in that particular philosophy. The significant amount of
savings to be had, not to mention the reduction in pain and suffering to our employees by
improving our safety reason is something that's paramount to this Commissioner.
Mr. Kolb: And I agree with you. I share your concern, your philosophy on that.
When you're talking about saving costs and looking at premiums and claims, etc., that is
a financial piece. It is part of collecting the data so that we can measure our
improvements in that area. So I think that the Finance Department is much better, is
more capable of performing that task than would be Human Resources.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you. No further questions.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, those things that you
mentioned in your office, plus what Commissioner Cheek had mentioned, I'm a little bit
confused. All those things come at our steps eventually as Commissioners and I think
maybe we may need to get with the Administrator and go through this before we vote on
-- I mean we're agreeing and disagreeing and agree to disagree up here, but I'm really
confused. I really don't know what I be voting for if I voted with this structure. I had a
copy of this and I looked at it, but it, it, it's conflicting now with the government structure
51
and the way we're set and I agree the Administrator may need to make some changes, but
I'd like to know what those changes is going be before I, before I vote. So I mean I don't
know about anybody else, but I think we need a little more time and we need to sit down
and talk about this and get among ourselves so we know exactly where we are and what
we're doing before we do anything?
Mr. Mayor: You want to make a motion to send it back to committee?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I make that motion if I can get a second.
Mr. Boyles: I second that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, motion and second to send it back to committee. Any further
discussion? All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, when it comes back to committee, can we have the
adjustments made in it that we discussed here?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, if you'll include the changes we talked about today when
it goes back to committee.
Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: We have a request from the Mayor Pro Tern, who has to leave for
another meeting, to move ahead and take up item number 30. Madame Clerk, if you'd
read that, please.
The Clerk:
30. Motion to authorize Augusta's membership in the Unified Development
Authority. (Approved by Finance Committee July 8, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, you asked this be pulled.
Mr. Beard: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. The item, I don't have a great deal of
problem with this, but it's been brought to my attention that a couple of people are
interested and I would be myself in just learning a little bit more about what we are
involved and the involvement here. And since that has been reflected here, I'm going to
make a motion that we deny this authorization at this time in this membership and
possibly it could be taken up at a later time, but at the [inaudible] time here, we deny this
until we have had further study on that.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
52
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second to deny this item. Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I would not recommend that
you would just outright deny it. If there are questions, I would be more than happy to
answer. There is no cost, nor any risk in joining the Regional Development Authority.
Basically, what it is, it provides another economic development tool that Augusta can use
in attracting and retaining businesses in this area. I understand that there may be some
concern as to what this really means, but I'm willing to answer the question, whatever
that is, because I have found absolutely zero risk in joining this association or this
authority and actually we have everything to gain by doing so. We are on the verge of
potentially attracting some very large businesses to Augusta, and to have this economic
development tool in our portfolio would give us a greater advantage and become more
competitive when trying to talk with perspective businesses.
Mr. Beard: I'm not solely objecting to this, and all I'm asking is that it be held up
until we can review it a little bit more. And I would be willing to send it back to Finance
Committee so it could be looked at again. That would be the alternative of this, but I
don't see the desire, need that we must do this today. So this is all I'm asking for, and it
seems like a simple little request to ask of that.
Mr. Kolb: Well, the word deny someone, you know, perked up my ears.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I'll put Mr. Beard's second motion in the form of
a substitute motion. Let's send it back to Finance Committee and have a little more
discussion about it there.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Further discussion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes. Mr. Mayor, sometimes during the course of discussion or the
lack of it, we maybe can miss a lot of things. I think not only probably would we like to
learn more about it and I think it's good that it's going back, but I think in going back it
doesn't need to just be discussed by us. And I'm glad to see the, the, my old friend, the
visibility of our new Chamber President in, in, in the audience today. So concerned, of
course the young lady next to you represents the Chamber real well and comes a lot. But
I say that in terms of arms that work with the government. That's the Chamber today.
But in terms of the Downtown Development Authority and the Economic Development
Authority, we, we've got other arms that I know are concerned about this issue, and in
fact, under the leadership of two different chairpersons. And I think the Development
Authority has, has spoken on this particular issue more than once, and I think not only do
we need to deal with digesting it, that it would be a good idea, whether it's in the form of
a workshop or in some fashion if the Administrator, before bringing this back to us,
would discuss with all the players that are involved. The Chamber, the Development
53
Authority, and this Commission, because what he may sell to us, if they're working on
something that's in conflict, then that's, that's why some thing in Augusta, to a point, just
don't get off the ground. And I use that old Carrie Mays philosophy, you know, it's
much better to plan with folk than it is planning for folk. Now, we, we, we've worked
with them very good in terms of settling a matter between Main Street and Downtown
Development just recently. That was a good thing. Three entities came together. This
Commission and those other two in settling a problem. But I think if we've got an
agency that we, we put people on, that work with -- our own Mr. Kuhlke represents us on
that body -- that if we're fixing to vote on something, the best thing we could be doing is
sending it back because obviously there are some players involved in other entities. It
may be when you bring everybody to the table that they all agree. But if I'm hearing to a
point that under the last two folk they've rejected it -- maybe the reason might be wrong,
but at least let's hear them. And I think you only do that by putting the same folk
representing the entities in the same room at the same time and you talk about it and then
you come out with a united effort. That's just my feeling on it, and I think in going back
it needs to not only be digested by us, but it needs to be digested by other folk who
represent us in many areas in terms of both business and finance and trying to do things
for the community. I don't think it's a thing of say, turning our nose down at any other
surrounding communities, but I think to get it out here in the first place without checking
with our own entities that we work with is what gets us into these lack of communication
deals in the very first place.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I have had an opportunity of
talking to all of the other economic development entities that our in Augusta, including
the Chamber, about this. The only one that had opposition to it was the Richmond
County Development Authority. And I did have a very and long, detailed conversation
with those entities asking for specific examples of the risks that they felt that we were
taking. I investigated all of those risks and found that they are acceptable. In fact, I don't
believe that there are risks in terms of the Development Authority. There is no charge, no
annual fee, we have a vote on the Authority, one just like any -- or two, two votes, just
like any other county. Nothing can be imposed upon Augusta against its will. Augusta
has to agree to participate in any project. And on the other side of that coin, there was
additional financial incentives for Augusta to be a part of this organization. So I see
absolutely no down side. I have not been confronted with any issue that involves the
Unified Development Authority that would make me think that we are taking a risk by
joining it, but just the opposite -- that there are positive benefits for us to become a
member.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I'm not really looking for a dog fight or World War III
today, and particularly with the Administrator. He has made my point for me. He
clearly said what he does not see and what he envisions and he has talked, the point being
that when you put everybody in the room together -- now if I'm getting calls from the
54
standpoint of at least one of those other agencies -- and you mentioned that. I represent a
District that goes from the river all the way to Tobacco Road, and a lot of entities that
that group is working on, particularly when other areas have turned their backs totally on
folk that I represent, that are bringing relief to blighted areas and are helping us to create
a renaissance and to do those things by the monies that they provide. Now I do have that
listening ear to deal with them. I'm not saying that there are any risks. It may even be a
good thing. But to a point being is that if you've got an agency who objects in the very
first place, then that means that rather than us being out here, even engaging in the
conversation, is why we need to be in the same room at the same time in the very first
place. And I have said that to them, just as I'm saying that to you. But I'm saying to a
point that when you have these types of confrontations, I'm still saying that you're
missing the point. That if you put those folk together and if you take a Commissioner,
too -- it doesn't have to be the whole body -- and take their representation, put it in a
room, sell the package, and say this is why I want to do it. And then that's how you get it
done, and you don't have these type of confrontations. But I just can't to a point ignore it
when I have business people who make that call. You're telling me, you know, what
happens there because I'll probably get calls tonight when some folk from some other
counties that this report -- when they hear and say why don't y'all want to be in operation
with us? You know, some things just need to be worked out before they get out here to a
point on this floor to where you are dealing with agencies that are trying to do things so
that everybody is selling off the page. And I think then it gives us the opportunity that if
you, particularly that represented us most of the time in those cases, Mr. Kolb, are selling
that package and you sell it to us, then we know what to say when those folk call to say,
hey, we're thoroughly behind our person because this is why, this is what's been done.
But if we're saying, you know, separate rooms, different studios, we'll never make a
song. It's just the fact that everybody's got a tune. But it doesn't mean that it's
harmonious. So that's the only point that I'm trying to make.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mays, if we send it back to Finance Committee, I could
amend my motion to have the Clerk notify the other entities and we'll converse
together about it. Would that not address it?
Mr. Mays: Actually [inaudible] my unpaid attorney. [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: With the consent of the body I'll so amend my motion.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to that? None heard. I would just encourage that we
move along with this post haste because what we have on the table here is a $500 per new
job tax credit that a prospective business can get. And right now this community is
talking to a truck part manufacturing company which could bring 1,000 jobs here. That's
a half million dollars in an incentive that we cannot take advantage of unless we do this.
So I would just ask that if the body could please expedite this and let's move it along as
55
quickly as we can, consistent with the desire to bring the other organizations into the
discussions.
Mr. Mays: I ask, Mr. Mayor, then, if part of the body that's turned that down
twice, we got a Commissioner that represents us on there and they've done that in that
manner, then why would there -- is there something in it that we're not seeing that they
are seeing or is there some ulterior motive in it to do that? I mean what you've said is
fine, and that's good, and on the surface that sounds, you know, I see where you're
coming from with it. But to a point if you've got a body where we've got people from all
areas of this community in business factions that represent, including our own
Commissioner who sits over there, and if they have been against this on two occasions, I
think when you had Mr. Osborne along with Mr. Walker to a point of why there is an
objection, I just think that if Steve's motion solves it best, then let's get everybody in
there and then find out why.
Mr. Mayor: Absolutely.
Mr. Mays: Okay. Have no problem with that.
Mr. Mayor: You say last time I talked to Mr. Osborne, he was in favor of it, so --
but everybody will have a chance to talk about it under the motion that's on the floor. So
let's move along. And I'm just saying let's not delay the discussions. Let's keep the
thing moving.
Mr. Mays: No, I'm not saying that, either, but to a point -- and when I said that
about him personally, I meant under the administration there. When you've had two
different forms of leadership that has been voted on on two different occasions.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Williams: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. Any further debate? All in favor,
please vote aye.
(Mr. Colclough leaves the meeting before the vote is taken)
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: That will take us back to item number 25, Madame Clerk.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, we can take 25 and 26 together, if you want to. I just
need some clarification.
56
Mr. Mayor: We certainly can do that. 25 and 26. You want to read the captions,
please, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: And then we'll --
The Clerk:
25. Motion to approve the acquisition of one (1) Mechanical Sweeper for The
Public Works Department-Maintenance Division from Tractor and Equipment
Company of Augusta, Georgia for $105,009.00 (Lowest bid offer on Bid 02-108).
(Approved by Finance Committee July 8, 2002)
26. Motion to approve the acquisition of two (2) Articulated Boom Mowers for
the Public Works Department-Maintenance Division from Adams Equipment
Company of White Plains, Georgia for $95,564.00 (Lowest Bid offer on Bid 02-109).
(Approved by Finance Committee July 8, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Item 25 I was concerned about the
sweeper that I hadn't seen in a long time in Augusta Richmond County and I'm not
saying we don't need one, but my first question is are we replacing a sweeper now or
how long have we been without a sweeper and why hasn't it been sweeping?
Mr. Speaker: This is to replace a '95 model Urban for inner-city type sweeper.
There are four available. They are sweeping. The one that we're replacing is in the shop
now. It has only a 60% reliability factor right now and it shows all kinds of signs of just
wearing right out. They are sweeping, sir. I see them out every morning.
Mr. Williams: Well, what side of town are you on when you see them?
Mr. Speaker: Well, I see them leave the shop. Let me just say this. I see them
fill up at the hydrant and then I see them take off on their way, and every now and then I
bump into one.
Mr. Williams: Okay, I got some folks in District 2 hadn't seen a sweeper
probably in 20 years and there are streets out there that need to be swept. I'm just
concerned about whether we replacing anything and where will we be using those
sweepers. And if that's a new machine, once that machine gets here -- I'm going to vote
for the motion but I think we need to kind of use it all around and not just one area. Now
you did mention downtown. You say we have how many? Four of these?
Mr. Speaker: This type.
Mr. Williams: This type?
57
h
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: You got three [inaudible]?
Mr. Speaker: One thing I did, one thing I did learn after the meeting, because in
order to effectively use any street sweeper, and basically there are two types. One is for
inner-city that you buy which you need a lot of dexterity with how you can move it
around and so forth. Then there is another which we said was used, we would use in the
suburban areas. But all sweepers require basically a curb.
Mr. Williams: Okay. And I can agree with that. I can identify with that. But on
some of them curbing that we got in the inner city, on the other side of Laney Walker,
down there Iih Street we talked about, in that area, we, we got four of these sweepers
and we fixing to purchase a new one. I'm going to vote for the new one. Are we
planning to use them all over this city or are we just basically --
Mr. Speaker: Sir, I have to defer that to the Public Works operations.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Well, I'll take it up with them, then. I'm going to support
your motion, I just wanted to know if we were replacing any [inaudible].
Mr. Speaker: All of these would be replacement. In order to get one new, you
have to give one up old. The one you give up old is either not working or it's really in
bad shape.
Mr. Williams: And the same thing with 26; is that right?
Mr. Speaker: That's correct, sir.
Mr. Williams: We're giving up some?
Mr. Speaker: They're all replacements. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: All replacements? Okay. That's all I wanted to know, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: We'll go to Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I'll be very brief Just from the citizens of the 61
District, too, do in fact have curbing in their neighborhoods, we would like to see a street
sweeper out in our neighborhoods occasionally, too.
Mr. Shepard: I move to approve.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
58
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve items 25 and 26. Been seconded. Further
discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: That should take us to item number 42, Madame Clerk, if I've not
lost count.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES:
42. Consider reconsideration of previous request to rewrite, reclassify and
realign positions in GIS mapping section to reflect changes in nature of job brought
about by updated technology and computer assisted mass appraisal (CAMA)
system. (No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee July 8, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Whose item is this?
Mr. Speaker: It's mine, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Get the Clerk to pass those out and then we'll start the
presentation.
Mr. Reece: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, appreciate you letting me
come before you about this matter. I know you've got a lot on your plate and I've been
told I'm one of several that has this discrepancy. But I just thought I'd bring it to you so
we could get a vote on it. I have four or five clerks in my office in one section, and I
have two vacancies in that particular section. I have difference in salaries. I passed out --
we'll start with the one, we'll take both --
Mr. Mayor: When you say both of them, you mean item 43 also?
Mr. Reece: 42 and 43.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
43. Consider reconsideration of previous request to upgrade Records Clerk II,
S/G 38 to Records Clerk II, S/G 40; upgrade Records Clerk I, S/G 39 Clerk I S/G
41; upgrade Account Clerk II, S/G 39 to Accounting Clerk II, S/G 40; upgrade
Accounting Clerk I, S/G 40 to Accounting Clerk I, S/G 41. (No recommendation
from Administrative Services Committee July 8, 2002)
Mr. Reece: 42 is the GIS, and that's the second sheet that you have before you.
I've listed the people, the parties there for the three draftsmen. These positions used to be
drafts people. Draftspersons. They ink maps using Leroy sets and stuff of that nature.
59
Due to technology, we've gone into GIS mapping. We use IT and it requires a lot more
sophisticating, sophistication, and we've got new PC's and the people are being trained
by IT to put in this new Art View system so we can better serve our taxpayers. The three
positions there that you see at the top, that is based on the salary schedules that y'all
approved to be effective August of this year with the pay grades and longevity, extended
out to the right hand side. As you can see, with the asterisks, those are above the new entry-
levels. What I'm requesting for these [inaudible] below, the person at the top is the lead
draftsperson, GIS mapper. The second person is basically the same with efficiency, and
the third person is the one that's only been in the position about a year-and-a-half I've
asked to be able to have grades I, II, and III, and I'm requesting two of those be at II and
one at III. The III would be the person who has been on the shortest period of time. Currently
the person with the longevity in that department is making the mid range. If you would
look up at the top. Putting it this way, it puts the person who is the lead draftsperson in there a
GIS Specialist would be at the top and then the second person under her. And then the
third lady would be in the GIS position III. And as they go along, in the request that
I've gone through with HR, after another 12 months of tenure, we would have the position
there, we would come back and if that person has performed under the standards we set, then
we could come back and request that person be elevated up. In any event, if these
positions become available, vacant, we would have that option of hiring someone out of a
technical school that has GIS capabilities at a high grade or start at a lower grade for
someone who had to be trained. The second grouping, of the clerks, as you can see
[inaudible] set out, and that's on the front page. And presently I have two new clerks that
I've hired, and I have two vacancies. Out of the two clerks I just hired and the two
vacancies, I have three different salary schedules for three different job descriptions that
are brought about by different administrations. What I'm asking is to equalize those job
descriptions. The same capability. And I've worked with HR on that, that we would put
them, after being in place for 12 months probation plus 12 months in the position, then we
would [inaudible] Clerk II up to Clerk I. Also, our clerks are not like normal clerks in your
organization. The job descriptions require them to go to school and be certified by the
Department of Revenue, State of Georgia, because we deal with your digest. We
spend approximately $1,000 on each clerk. I've lost two clerks for
better paying positions, just more money. We have spent money to go out and to educate
them, get them certified in their position, and then we lose them. I believe by equalizing
this, the current schedules here, we would have a better quality of employee, and I know
it would help the morale in my organization, and I ask that you give me a favorable
report. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: I'd like to ask a couple of questions before we open it up for
discussion.
Mr. Reece: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mayor: Number one, I'd like to ask Human Resources, do you concur in this,
Brenda? What's your recommendation with respect to this? Sonny mentioned that y'all
worked on this.
60
Ms. Pelaez: We had worked on it, he is correct in that, Mr. Mayor and members
of the Commission. The answer in part is yes and no I concur. Yes, I concur that the
changes need to be made. No, I don't concur that they need to be made at this point in
time. I kind of feel in the interest of fairness they should be made in conjunction with all
the other reclassifications.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Sonny, let me ask you this. I received a copy of a letter
from you to the Revenue Department concerning our digest. You wanted an extension to
I believe September 15th for our digest. And then I received a second letter from you to
the Revenue Department asking for an extension to October 15th for our digest. Is that
correct?
Mr. Reece: That's correct.
Mr. Mayor: Are these positions directly related to the completion of our digest?
We can't keep pushing that thing back indefinitely. We need to get the taxes collected.
Mr. Reece: Every position in my office is required to get the digest out. And as
we speak now, they are working on that.
Mr. Mayor: Is this impacting the completion of the digest?
Mr. Reece: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Sonny, I go back to committee and I told you the same thing I tell
you now. Every department head in this government can come and make the same
argument that you're making now. And I'm in support 100%. We talked about that but
we've got to stay with what we're doing. You know we got to treat everybody with that
same ball that Jim won't bring. And if, if, if, if that study comes back and those people
who say they need it -- the Mayor mentioned earlier about -- I think Mr. Mayor
mentioned about the tax base, maybe someone else, maybe when the library people was
here, that our tax base is the lowest in, in probably the state. We don't have the funds
right now. I mean we don't have the money. We trying to do some things and I see some
changes in this government. But at this time I can't support doing something for your
group who is very important. I mean I think every part of this government is important.
But until we get that study back, I can't do anything until we get that study back and put
all the apples in the same barrel and let's take them out then and do what we can.
Hopefully that will be very, very soon and that come back, I think August is the time for
the raise to come about, and we be able to do some things with those grades. But I just
think every department could make that same argument you making, and I think you
ought to be commended for standing up for your people. But --
Mr. Reece: Thank you, Mr. Williams. And I'm still going to stand here, ifl may.
61
Mr. Williams: I understand.
Mr. Reece: I appreciate your forthrightness about this. I beg to disagree with you
a little bit. When you have four people with four different job descriptions all doing the
same job, and I'm trying to put those in the same position so that they would all be
making the same amount of money, and it would be beneficial, I think, to the
organization.
Mr. Williams: Well, and, and, and I'm glad you want to do it because I agree
with what you're saying. You're talking about four different administrations. That's
what we do. We react to some things then later on down the road we got to do something
else. And if we react to it now and the pay grade come about, and then we going to be in
the same position we're in, we've been in for the last four administrations. But I mean, I
just think we, we need to be fair with everybody. Ifwe do something now ahead of the
game, then we going end up next year or year after that saying it's unfair.
Mr. Reece: This is what I'm asking for, Mr. Williams. And based on the pay
grades that you've already adopted.
Mr. Williams: I understand and we going to do it on the pay grade we already
adopted when this study comes back for everybody. I mean that, that's what I can vote. I
support your people. I tell people all the time, we need to pay people, we need to get a
day's work for a day's pay. I mean, I, I, I'm a stickler with that. But I can't sit here and
support because next week, if any department head is the type department head they
ought to be, ought to be right behind you. And that's going to create a snowball effect.
I'm sorry.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Just briefly. Sonny, I have a tendency to say no in
the past, but you just mentioned something as you stood there that I think that we could
give this as an emergency, and the question that the Mayor asked would it impact the
digest? And if it is, if you're correct in that, I think we all up here have to take another
look at that, and we have to deem that as an emergency. In that case, I can support you in
this. Because if we don't have the people down there to do, I mean you're the one that --
kind of the engine of this government. And the impact and the funds that are coming in.
So I think it's necessary. If this is delaying you in the digest, and that's what you said
now, you stood there and it's on record, I can support you in that.
Mr. Reece: That's right.
Mr. Mayor: Want to make a motion, Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: There are a couple of other hands up.
62
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Shepard and then we're coming down to the other end
of the table.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Reece, and I'll make a motion in just a second. I notice this
financial impact statement is blank. What's the financial impact of all this?
Mr. Reece: The part I gave you on the initial, on your original packet, will have
$4,045 impact for the GIS mappers.
Mr. Mayor: Is that the remainder of this year or annually?
Mr. Reece: That would be an annual impact.
Mr. Shepard: I move approval.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second we approve. Mr. Hankerson? That's to approve
both. Okay, go ahead.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. My question is I know that this has come before us
several times, and I was just concerned, Mr. Reece, why -- was not this included in the
pay scale and the reclassification that first came up? Because I notice that you were very
concerned. Were you left out, your employees left out of something? That's the reason
you're so concerned about this being passed now?
Mr. Reece: The concern, Mr. Hankerson, is the fact that I need people in there to
be able to perform the duties that we have to in our office to get everything done. And
I've got three different pay scales with four different job descriptions --
Mr. Hankerson: I understand. I understand. I understand that.
Mr. Reece: That's the concern.
Mr. Hankerson: You have a concern. Understand my question.
Mr. Reece: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: I understand you have a major problem.
Mr. Reece: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: But my, my question is, it's coming up before the
reclassification, and I notice -- I mean you spoke. I've heard you speaking about this,
that you're so interested. Were you left out of the reclassification that your employees
would have been included? Or what?
63
Mr. Reece: I think the clerical portion is included in the study that HR has. Is
that correct, Brenda?
Ms. Pelaez: All of it.
Mr. Reece: All of it's in there?
Mr. Hankerson: It would have corrected this and will correct this? Okay. Cause
then another point that I have, I notice, I remember discussing this in the past and we
have approved some other pay increases and I remember the question. I had some
concerns about it. The question was asked and the Administrator said that there will be
more coming. Am I right? So that means that this is not the end. It may be some more
coming before the reclassification is done. Now I just want us to be consistent about it.
Not take this man serious and then somebody else come it's more serious. Because I
think he already calls, the Administrator already called for all the emergency-type
increases to be brought forward. Now we need to know what they expect, what is
coming forward the next time. I haven't heard the Administrator say anything about this
process and it says to me that he's in agreement because that's -- I mean Mr. Reece is
bringing it forth. So what, what do you say about it, Mr. Kolb? Some more, I heard you
say some more is coming. Is this concern, is this request here, there's some problems
here. Is it something that need to be taken care of now? Or is something that the
employees can live with or such a morale in the department? IfI had -- if it was left up to
me, I would give this man here a raise for fighting for his employees the way he's
fighting for them. And that's just left up to me cause he's definitely fighting for them. It
keep coming up. So we need to resolve this. And if others are coming up, and we going
to vote on them one-by-one, we need to be fair about all of them.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, not at your specific direction
but there was some concern that if we did the reclassifications and there were some
emergencies that we would bring them back to you. We have done that. I am not sure if
we have more in the hopper, if any, and how much it would cost, but I believe the ones
that were immediately a problem you have already dealt with. With respect to Mr.
Reece's request, I think Ms. Pelaez stated it correctly. We are recommending the
reclassification as proposed. In terms of whether or not it can wait, I guess I really don't
have an opinion. That's really up to the Commission. I'm understanding by detailed
discussions with Mr. Reece that there are some reasons that we do not really want to talk
about in an open forum that we ought to consider seriously this request. So we're
bringing it to you, or Mr. Reece is bringing it to you for your disposal and consideration.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, do you concur that this is needed to get the digest out?
Mr. Kolb: I have no opinion one way or another. I don't have knowledge of that.
64
Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Kolb said he's not sure. Not sure don't mean that
it's not coming and it's like it could, it could not be. But I'm reminded of the little boy
that kept hollering about the wolf And he kept hollering and kept hollering and finally
he needed somebody and nobody showed up. We talking about now whether, asking Mr.
Reece whether or not this is emergency, and if it is, you know, I understand all of that.
But this is a tough decision to make. I want to support the people down, downstairs, and
I just can't see this being an emergency. Had it been an emergency, we wouldn't have
had to ask Mr. Reece if it was an emergency, we would have known about it, about
what's going on downstairs. Now I know we, we going to set a precedent here and this
happen and then somebody else going to come up and next thing you know everybody
going to be coming up with emergencies. It's going to be like the little boy hollering
wolf I just can't support it. We are close to the end of the road. The study ought to be
back soon. And I'm asking you to ask your people to wait.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Briefly, Mr. Mayor. We've heard this about the study coming back
and so forth. Now we've dealt with it on several different departments. What I don't
want to see happen is when we come back and our study is validated for reclassification,
it's got to be within the will of this Commission to enact that as swiftly as possible, or
that will be a tremendous downer on the morale of this work force.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to ask when do we expect the
study to be back?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I'm hoping within the next
30 days. We received -- she's here?
Mr. Mayor: She's right here. Brenda?
Ms. Pelaez: Always here, sir. I met with them on Tuesday of this week. I have a
deadline to get all of the information to him in terms of policies and procedures by the
26th of this month. A final report will be given to you, Mr. Mayor, on August 15th_
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Is this going, is this study that you're going to do, is it going to affect
and look at every individual employee classification in this government or are we only
looking at our salary scale that we adopted a month or so ago for August I st7 Is that
going to take care of 90% of the problem or a great percentage of it and people like
65
these? I can understand if you've got four people doing the same job, each paid a
different salary. Am I reading it right, Sonny?
Mr. Reece: Yes, sir.
Mr. Boyles: I understand from experience before how that can disrupt the morale
of a department.
Ms. Pelaez: Right. Let me answer and try to do it in just short term. What we
have here really is confusion of what we need done. You have what is called a
realignment of duties, and you have what is called a reclassification. A realignment of
duties is really what is needed in Mr. Reece's office. A reclassification is where you look
at, for instance, your engineers and say because the market is saying, the market has
moved such that that higher class should be moved to another grade. A realignment of
duties is where you look at someone's job duties and the job duties no longer reflect the
position description that they are in.
Mr. Boyles: Excuse me, is this study going to look at realignment of duties?
Ms. Pelaez: The study on a long-term basis is going to do both. It's going to put
in a place a process by which you do that. Therefore, you won't continue to have coming
before you every time you turn around a request to reclassify a position. There will be
certain steps that have to be undergone to review, actual prior to an annual basis to make
sure that we are keeping up with what individuals are performing in their duties. Now I
can't say that every position is going to be reviewed with this reclassification. No, sir,
that's not the case. But on a long-term basis with implementation of the policy, there will
be a review of all of the positions.
Mr. Boyles: What Mr. Reece is asking for, do you feel like that will be pretty
much in line with the realignment that's going to come?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes.
Mr. Boyles: He's asking for it 30 days early.
Ms. Pelaez: Well, let me say this. I would, after further information that we
need, I, I still need to kind of sit down and see exactly what we're talking about when we
say we have three different people doing three different things. And then when you look
at what's actually being proposed, the changes aren't that great considering what the
emergency that's being proposed to you. I'm really a little concerned that maybe we
haven't accurately corrected what the problem is, so that's why I also ask him let's wait
and make sure that we have a true system and we take a review of everything that we've
done, as opposed to coming now and we have an emergency and then having to come
back with a reclassification [inaudible] and say oh, by the way, we need to change some
of the ones that you previously approved.
66
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Reece, would 30 days make a difference?
Mr. Reece: Yes, sir, it would. [inaudible] hold off hiring two people.
Mr. Boyles: Because you've got vacant positions?
Mr. Reece: I've got two vacant positions. And as you're well aware, with your
history, if I go and bring them in at three different salary levels, I'm going to have -- it
just wouldn't be nice.
Mr. Boyles: Be a catastrophe.
Mr. Reece: Well, I'll keep it vacant.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor. My question is, I guess, to, to the Administrator and
maybe the Attorney can answer this. I don't like doors that get opened and then they are
not closed. Now is there something that we need to -- cause y'all cracked that door down
there a minute ago. I'm sitting up here and I'm hearing that something -- is there
something that possibly needs to be discussed about personnel in executive session in
reference to this? Because the door that was cracked was that there is something that
wouldn't be said out here. Now when I hear something like that, that only relates to
litigation or personnel. Now if you got a personnel matter that we need to discuss, then
you need to state that you need a personnel matter, or we need to resolve it up or down
out here. But I don't think we need to discuss it and leave it open and hanging in a
general, open, public meeting if there is something that we wouldn't say out here. Now if
there is something we wouldn't say out here, I assume under the, under that auspices that
we're talking about, legitimate items that fall under the auspices of personnel. Now do
we need to do that or do we not need to do that or [inaudible] door [inaudible]?
Mr. Wall: Can we defer this action until after the legal meeting? Postpone it.
Mr. Mayor: We certainly can. It will take a motion to table it and we'll bring it
back up after legal.
Mr. Kolb: Which is what I would recommend.
Mr. Cheek: I make a motion to table.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to table.
67
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: We'll pull it off the table until after our legal meeting. Sonny, you
need to stick around a little longer.
APPOINTMENTS:
44. Deleted from the agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Item number 44, we've removed that from the agenda. That takes us
to item number 45, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
45. Consider the reappointment of Mr. John Fleming to the Indigent Defense
Tripartite Committee for a three-year term.
Mr. Shepard:Iso move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 48.
The Clerk:
ATTORNEY:
48. Discuss rescinding the Commission's June 21 approval of section 9A (District
8) of Solid Waste Collection Phase II -Change Order #2. (Requested by
Commissioner Bridges)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank y'all for considering this
proposal. I don't know if you remember, but when we had a special called meeting we
added looks like five sections during that meeting, which my understanding at the time
the purpose was to get rid of pockets in areas of Augusta that did not have the garbage
service that the Commissioners there felt wanted it. The problem is that first item, 9A,
68
hthat actually falls in the 81 District. I didn't request that be on there. What it actually
does is create a pocket that does have the service in my District. And I had talked with
some in the area that was drawn out by Public Works to be included. There's one
established neighborhood in there that I have had some calls for people that want it. But
I've also talked with people before in some of the other areas that included in that
section, and a lot of flagpole lots in there that don't want it, after this came up, and I
didn't realize until after the vote that it was in District 8 because I had not requested it be
on there. I made some quick calls and the sentiment seems to be the same thing. The
very best I can say is that in there that's drawn out, there is no consensus of the people in
there to have the city garbage service, so -- as Murphy's Law would have it, one of the
independent, truly independent haulers that we have would be included in the city
service, and there's really not many independent haulers left doing this service. So I
would request that we rescind just Section 9A, which is District 8, and I know y'all are
getting tired of seeing this on the agenda in regards to garbage service. I promise you I
will not put any item out of school in regards to adding garbage service on any agenda.
The only time I would consider it would be every two years when we do the bids, and I
would only do it then before -- I've learned this from Mr. Mays -- if you're going to do
something that may be controversial, you better hold a public meeting or get some feeling
from the folks out there first. And I would certainly want to hold a public meeting in any
section of District 8 before added garbage service. So I make the motion that we
rescind Section 9A from that proposal.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor, then please vote aye.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, clarification.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Williams: I can support the motion. All I need to know is this going to
eliminate District 8 altogether as far as garbage service? I mean is there a pocket?
Because I can't see doing one area and then you know -- so is that going to eliminate
your District as a whole for garbage service? How is that going to work?
Mr. Bridges: Under my old District lines, which is when I ran -- of course the
lines have changed as a result now. But I added three voting precincts in that took effect
in July. That was from Lumpkin Road back to Phinizy Road. And the people -- I let the
people vote on that. I mean we sent out ballots in the water bills. They voted on it. It
was 2 to I they wanted it. So we did add those areas in District 8, but that's the only
areas I've requested be added in District 8.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I'm in support. Just trying to get some clarification. What
do we do if [inaudible] residents says that District 8 has got garbage over -- with the new
lines and then ten more areas on the other side of District 8 says we want it? I mean
69
they're taxpayers and it's in their District, are we going to come back and say we're
going to put it over there for those ten?
Mr. Bridges: I certainly wouldn't recommend that and I have no -- I do not intend
on adding any, extending the mandatory garbage service to any area other than every two
years when we do the bid. That would possibly be the only time.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I just wanted to get that clear.
Mr. Mayor: That's all right. We'll go ahead and proceed with the vote. All in
favor of the motion to rescind this, please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Bridges. That takes us to item number 49.
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS:
49. Discuss department responses to citizens' request(s). (Deferred from the
Commission's July 2, 2002 meeting)
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, this is an item that I had put on last time and asked it to
be deferred. And I would ask simply that three case studies be studied by the
Administrator and his Deputies, for the idea that we improve our response time. I want to
cite to you three instances that were heavily involving some Commissioners and I think
the Mayor in one case, and we seem to be doing a lot of talking, a lot of communicating,
a lot of emailing, but we are not getting the action taken to resolve the problem. And I
know there are certain concerns. We just can't go out and do work on private property
and that's a violation of the law, but still I think we need in terms of looking toward our
goals of excellence in service, total quality, whatever, we need to focus on doing some of
the base things that really impact our citizens and we need to do it in a more responsible
and more rapid fashion. And I'll cite to the Administrator and his Deputies three cases
and I'll be happy to give you their phone numbers and what-not. But I know there is Mr.
James Lowe, who happens to live right where Bel Air Hills Subdivision/Flagler Road
goes off Bel Air Road, was simply trying to get a load of gravel and a release, in
exchange for that, seemed to go through a tortured exercise to get communications back
and forth between all the necessary offices involved. I know I was involved, the Mayor
was involved in that particular case. And there are others that we need to look at. And
I'm not trying to, here again, George, cast blame on any of the departments involved, but
I'm trying to say we really need to try to work out a better way of moving these things
through the system, because a lot of our citizens judge us on whether we get potholes
filled, whether we get the yard cleaned up from the eviction, whether we get the sofa
70
removed from the right-of-way. And the sofa in the right-of-way is I think is an area -- I
failed to tell Mr. Beard beforehand, but it was where the 3rd District abuts the 1st District
on Battle Row. Some of our haulers just ignore their duties to pick up some of the large,
bulky trash. I know I had to make calls. Ms. Bailey is still hoping to get the cemetery
cleaned off next to her house on Battle Row. I rode by there today. That's something
that's been pending for a while and I know these things have to be researched, but we've
cleaned in there before, George, and we need to just tighten up our response times on
some of these things. I know the case that Mr. Williams and I were interested in was at
1429 Heard Avenue, I think. I would ride in there on the way to work, going out of the
way, Mr. Mayor, and there was just a God-awful mess of dispossessed possessions from
the curbing back to the front door of that house and it stayed for several weeks. I'm
hoping that these are not the norm for the way we're handling our complaints. I hope
they're the aberration, the exception. But I think we need to look at these exceptions
because they attracted the attention of at least two Commissioners and the Mayor and
others, and I know one thing we've had the opportunity to do -- I don't know, I've tried
to do it from time to time -- we've had email access to some of our department heads so
we could send our requests in and not have them all choke up through the department
heads, and all of a sudden I'm on the website recently and the ability to contact the
management by email has vanished. So I think we need to try to do less emailing and
calling amongst ourselves and do more to try to expedite these requests. They're within
policy. They're not changing policy. They're just basic things like let's fill the potholes
and when they have filled them quickly I've tried to dash off some response to the
appropriate department saying hey, thank you for getting this done faster. But in these
three cases, we just seemed to get all wrapped up in our internal communication, the
coordination from the department heads. You know, we talk about a seminar in
September where we talk about excellence in government. We need to get back to doing
the small things well. This is the philosophy that Mayor Guiliani, several of y'all went
up to see after 9-11, implemented before anyone thought there would be a catastrophe
like 9-11, to try to do the simple things well in New York City. He improved the public
safety, he improved the appearance of the city. And you know, I think we talk about
excellence, we've got to talk about doing these base functions of government better to the
satisfaction of our citizens, and if any of you others have some cases that you want to
direct to the Administrator for investigation, I hope you do this because if this is the
norm, we need to change that. If it's an exception, if it's an aberration, I can understand
it. And oftentimes knowing business and practice, we can't always get to everything
when we want to get to it, but nevertheless we need to have some prioritization and some
to do list where we take care of these concerns, and I had hoped they didn't have to rise
all the way to the Commission level, but they bounced around for some time in Augusta
Care, it just bounces in the internal workings of this government, and I just don't think
that's acceptable. It is something we could do a better job of, George, and I just want
these case studies looked in. I want improvement. I'm looking at taking these
experiences and improving. I remember the Town Tavern used to have a sign inside that
said if our service and food are good, tell other; if it's not, tell us. Of course, they're out
of business, but I've always thought it was a darn good philosophy and I've quoted it in a
letter that I'll tell you about in another time, to one of my favorite agencies, but that's -- I
don't think that needs to be a motion but I think some of you share my concerns. I've
71
talked with Commissioner Boyles about that kind of thing. And just getting down to the
basics and trying to cut out some of this back and forth and going on and getting done is
what I want done. I mean it's not high faluting philosophy, I mean it's just basic, down --
basic government I O 1. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. Let me just touch and two points then
we'll go to Mr. Beard. We had a meeting this past Monday with the vice president from
Inland Services. We've been getting an exorbitant number of complaints about stuff not
being picked up in the service areas. So we trust that immediate improvements are being
made there. Fred Russell is continuing to monitor that. Likewise, I missed the email on
there, too, Mr. Shepard. I called IT and they had taken the email directory off our
website because people were using it to send junk mail and virus into our system. And so
they're exploring now putting it back up and having it password protected so the City
employees can get into it and the Commissioners can get into it and use that service.
Because that's something I did use and discovered it missing one day. So having said
that, let's go to Mr. Beard and then we'll go to Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Beard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. While I agree with most of what
Commissioner Shepard has said, and I know that we all can do improvements here, and I
think we are trying to do that. I just want to mention two things, that Administrative
Services established a committee to look into just what he's been talking about. We have
had a lot of debris. And especially say from the Gordon Highway back to the river. And
we hope that they will come up with something at our next Administrative Services
Committee meeting that we can utilize. My second point would be that we have to keep
in mind, though, that we cut our budget quite substantially at the beginning of the year,
and I think we are reaping the benefit of those cuts and it's in a negative aspect. And I
know that our people out there, they're doing the best we can at this point, and we must
remember that, you know, you kind of get what you pay for. And we don't, I know we
should fix potholes, we should clean the lots, but I think we can go throughout this entire
city, and especially from the Gordon Highway back here, and we are finding a lot of
debris on the road side, the lots are growing up, and I just don't think with the cuts that
we've made we have the personnel to do that. So you know, we have to kind of look at
this in both ways. So I hope next week, at Administrative Services, they bring some
recommendations back here, that we can do to enhance our area. I hope we remember
this conversation and support it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, did you want to respond to Commissioner Shepard's
comment or you want to hear from everybody else first? Okay, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: While we're looking at the response to citizens' requests, I'm going
to bring this up. I can go into a lot more detail perhaps in the Engineering Services
Committee meeting upcoming. Two years ago we had comments about a problem in our
canal. It was given to the department heads and the Canal Authority and they played the
[inaudible] and pointed to everybody else. Over there the other day I saw another three
or four cubic yards of bank gone where the trees had fallen over and taken the undercut
area, and that water is under the road. 60% of the city's water is about to take a left turn.
72
The problem again, while we're looking at handling requests and expediting or taking
care of them through to completion, is there is a tremendous tendency for someone to
defer a problem, to say oh, that's the DOT or that's federal or whoever, and never make
contact or see it through to conclusion. We've got an overall process problem in that area
that needs to be addressed and resolved, and I'll be happy to assist any way I can. But
that is a systemic problem that needs to be worked out.
Mr. Mayor: Some of these problems involve maintenance crews and what-not,
but others are just a matter of communication. That was the situation with the guy with
the gravel.
Mr. Shepard: That's my point. If l could speak to that.
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: It's not a matter of budget with that case. It was just -- the action
required was very low cost, but the amount of bureaucratic effort to authorize that action
was inordinate, and therein lies the expense which, in my opinion, if we could cut it out,
we could make the budget and we could get the service performed and move on. It's the
inordinate amount of bureaucratic work that had to go forth to dump a load of gravel, for
heaven's sake.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: And again, I'm going to go back to another case, a Mr. Smalls in
[inaudible], we just solved. We probably spent more delaying and not doing, in man
hours not doing what we promised we'd do than actually following through with it.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, your point is well taken, and
I'm hearing what you're saying. We have already -- I have been concerned about the
process that we use for complaints, as Commissioner Shepard knows. We have
investigated looking at some computer systems in order to help us in that area. However,
at this point in time, we have not found one that is cost-effective for us to implement at
this time. However, that does not help us in terms of this issue in trying to respond to it.
So what we're doing is we are now beginning to benchmark each and every department
in the various complaint categories to see where we are now, in term of our response
time. And we will begin the process of setting what we believe is a realistic goal each
month for the response and the completion of various complaints that the various
departments get. And we will begin reporting that information to the Commission, rather
than you seeing each and every individual complaint in your particular District. You'll
also see how we're responding to complaints, and also city-wide. So we're starting that
process. Hopefully by next month we'll be able to give you those statistics, as well as
administrative regulations that we will be implementing throughout the organization.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, would it be, would it be possible for you, when you bring
the budget for next year back to us, that you bring an option to implement the city stat
73
program so we can see some hard numbers on that? Mr. Shepard has mentioned that
before. We were involved in a conference call with the people from Baltimore. Mayor
O'Malley has done a wonderful job with that program up there. And if you could put
some numbers to it, so we could have that option out there when we look at the budget, it
might help us set some priorities with respect to dealing with these issues and
benchmarking.
Mr. Kolb: If I'm not mistaken, I think we've already given you the number. It
was somewhere in the neighborhood of $5 million.
Mr. Mayor: Well, see if there is a Volkswagen version of that.
Mr. Kolb: And that's what we're attempting to do. We've been pretty much to
date unsuccessful.
Mr. Mayor: We'll pay it out of the assessor's office. (Laughter) He's already
left. Okay, anything further on that item? We'll move ahead then to item number 50.
The Clerk:
50. Discuss sewer situation at 508 Hillwood Circle (Mr. Robert Peek). (Deferred
from the Commission's July 2, 2002 meeting).
Mr. Mayor: Who's got that item?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I do. I was looking for Mr. Peek. I talked to him a
couple of days ago, I think since we're meeting on Thursday my schedule's off I think it
was Monday afternoon.
Mr. Wall: We are having some discussions with him and negotiations. We
expected to hear back from him. We' 11 follow up with that and if we can just defer it, I
hope that we'll get it resolved.
Mr. Mayor: Do you think it can be resolved administratively, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: I'm hoping that it can, yes.
Mr. Mayor: Can you give us a report back at our next meeting?
Mr. Wall: I can.
Mr. Mayor: How about that, Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: That's sufficient.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let's do that. Okay, the next item is 51.
74
The Clerk:
51. Receive as information the Order of Appointment of Hugh M. Hadden as a
part-time judge of the Juvenile Court of the Augusta Judicial Circuit. (Requested by
Attorney Wall)
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: We have one item on the addendum agenda. And that's item number
1.
The Clerk:
Addendum Item 1. Approve authorizing the Internal Auditor to send a letter to
area banks asking them to identify all City accounts bearing City identification
numbers. (Requested by Commissioner Hankerson)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm concerned about our accounts that
we may have out there unauthorized and no knowledge of I think it's a good time that
we identify those accounts, if there are any. I'd like to put it in the form of a motion
that we do authorize the Internal Auditor to send a letter to all area banks asking
them to identify all accounts bearing City identification numbers and also that when
this report returns, that the Finance Department, Mr. Persaud, will forward to the
Commissioners the report indicating if there are any unauthorized accounts and
indicate those accounts, persons and departments opening the accounts.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: I might add that we did this when we discovered the one account that
is in the Grand Jury report, and our auditor, Cherry Bekaert and Holland, did not find
any, but it doesn't hurt to do this periodically and I think it's appropriate to do this, Mr.
Hankerson. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.
75
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, I'd just like to add also that we do it every couple of years
anyway through our internal auditor.
Mr. Mayor: We will await the report, then, if this passes. Any further
discussion? All in favor, please vote aye with your green light.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to Mr. Wall.
52. LEGAL MEETING.
• Discuss real estate.
• Discuss pending litigation.
Mr. Wall: Request legal meeting to discuss a real estate matter, pending
litigation, as well as personnel.
Mr. Mayor: Any other items for that agenda?
Mr. Bridges: What about item 54, Mr. Mayor? We going to take that up after we
have the legal?
Mr. Wall: Yes.
Mr. Bridges: All right.
Mr. Mayor: That's personnel. Do we have a motion and second?
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection? We'll recess into legal session.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 8-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
53. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meeting Act.
Mr. Mayor: We need a motion to authorize the Mayor to sign the affidavit.
Mr. Cheek: I so move.
76
Mr. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: We have items number 42 and 43 which were pulled off the
table now for consideration. Gentlemen, what's your pleasure?
Mr. Bridges: I move approval.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve. Been seconded. 42 and 43. Discussion? All in
favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 54.
54. Consider amendments to the Augusta-Richmond County Code, Title 6,
Section 1.
Mr. Wall: I would ask that you adopt the ordinance amending Title 6,
Chapter 1of the Augusta Richmond County Code and waive second reading.
Mr. Cheek: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Hankerson votes No on the Ordinance.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor: With him voting no, we don't have unanimous consent for the
second reading.
Mr. Hankerson: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, you'll agree to waiving the second reading but you'll
vote no on the ordinance; is that correct?
77
Mr. Hankerson: Right.
Mr. Mayor: Correct? Okay. Record a no vote for Mr. Hankerson. Any other
business? If not, we'll entertain a motion to adjourn. We are adjourned without
objection.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
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 Augusta Richmond County Commission
held on July 18, 2002.
Clerk of Commission
$1,330,000.00 2006
$1,330,000.00 2007
$1,330,000.00 2008
$1,250,000.00 2009
$1,200,000.00 2010
$1,200,000.00 2011
$1,200,000.00 2012
$1,200,000.00 2013
$1,110,000.00 2014
$1,100,000.00 2015
$1,080,000.00 2016
$13,330,000.00
$80,000.00
$50,000.00
$90,000.00
$10,000.00
$20,000.00
$250,000.00
Posted October 30, 2012 09:04 pm - Updated October 31, 2012 01:52 am
By
Summer Moore
Staff Writer
Gold Cross seeks primary ambulance license for Augusta-
Richmond County
Gold Cross ambulance service is trying to position itself to run 911 calls in Augusta
without a contract with the city, according to Richmond County Fire Chief Chris James.
On Thursday, the East Central Georgia EMS Council will discuss a letter from Gold
Cross requesting that it become the primary zone provider in the area, a standing the
company currently shares with the Augusta-Richmond County Fire Department.
If Gold Cross were the primary provider, Augusta’s 911 center would have to send
emergency calls to it whether or not it has a contract with the city, James said.
“Gold Cross would have no reason to have a contract with us if this goes through,” said
Jody Smitherman, of the city’s law department. “It will eliminate Augusta, Ga.’s ability to
make any decisions in regard to its EMS service.”
James has requested the council put off a decision until a February meeting to give the
department adequate time to respond. A zoning subcommittee will meet Thursday and
make a recommendation to the full council. A decision will be shared with the Georgia
Department of Public Health, said Gary Pinard, the zoning chairman and Screven
County’s EMS coordinator.
“The situation in Augusta-Richmond County is unique,” said Nancy Nydam, of the public
health department, in an e-mail. “They are the only county with zone co-providers. This
means that Gold Cross and Augusta Fire currently cover all of Richmond County. If
Gold Cross were to become the sole zone provider, they would not need a contract to
answer 911 calls. Whether Gold Cross has a contract with the city, or it doesn’t, the 911
calls go to the zone provider.”
In August, Gold Cross owner Bo Pounds said he was pursuing ideas on how to run his
business in Richmond County without a contract with the city.
“We don’t need it,” he said.
Gold Cross’ letter, dated July 25, was stamped as delivered to Lawanna Mercer-Cobb,
the program director of the Georgia Office of EMS for Augusta’s region, on Aug. 6.
James learned of the letter’s existence Oct. 19, he said.
In the letter, Gold Cross CEO Vince Brogdon said, “Augusta Fire has repeatedly failed
to staff at least one of its two licensed ambulances,” which is the minimum allowed to
keep the ambulance license.
James said he was not aware of the rule until a month after he became chief and
Mercer-Cobb told him of it. That day, March 1, he began staffing its Rescue 1
ambulance full time.
During the seven years Gold Cross and the city have shared the ambulance license, the
Georgia Department of Public Health has never received a complaint about the fire
department’s ambulances being out of service, Nydam said.
Brogdon says in the letter that “Gold Cross does not believe that a zone provider who
staffs just one ambulance in a county with a population and call volume found in
Richmond County should be considered a co-zone provider.”
Richmond County has always held the license and subcontracted the calls, Smitherman
said. She said other area counties work the same way.
“If they were concerned, they should have brought this up seven years ago,” she said.
In fact, she argued, having the dual zones means Augusta has access to two extra
ambulances, the fire department’s Rescue 1 and 2.
Columbia County lost its primary zone provider status and has not been able to get it
back, James said.
Smitherman said she and James will argue that the committee is not allowed to change
zoning until certain steps are taken, including having a local member on the zoning
committee.
The situation is scary, James said.
“They are taking the citizen’s voice out of the equation,” he said.
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION
CHAMBER JULY
26, 2005
Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:45 p.m., Tuesday, July 26,
2005, the Honorable Willie Mays, III, Interim Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Grantham, Williams, Beard, Cheek and
Boyles, members of Augusta-Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hons. Sims and Colclough, members of Augusta-Richmond County
Commission.
Also Present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; Fred Russell, Administrator; Lena
Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
(Quorum not present)
Mr. Mayor: We're sorry we can't officially start just yet because we're waiting to
get at least one more Commissioner in the building where we'll have a quorum, so I
wanted to let you know why we were not starting at our appointed time. I say that
particularly to my young people that are here today from "Camp Fix-It." You know
when the school bell rings you all have to have a note in order to get in. And I might to
establish some new and different rules on meeting days as well. We'll see how they
work. But we're glad to have everybody here today and we hope momentarily we'll be
able to start. We are going to go ahead on and improvise a little bit.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: What we're going to do at this time-obviously we cannot take any
official action on any votes because of the quorum. There are some items in terms of
presentations that we can do. But first we're going to - I don't think Dr. Joyner is here in
the audience, from Broadway. I am going to ask one of our own, our Commissioner
from District 5, Rev. Bobby Hankerson, to give our invocation for today. Afterwards,
our young people from "Camp Fix-It" which is the official governmental class of "Camp
Fix- It"-they were here the other day and I think we had two or three people running for
mayor in that class that were in there, so I definitely don't want to overlook them. And
they had some great things to say about challenges for government. So they are here
today back to answer part of that. So if you would at this time, everyone stand, let us
give our attention to Rev. Hankerson for our invocation and then we will have our
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
The invocation was given by Rev. Bobby Hankerson.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
I
will still have adequately taken care of the business of the people of this city. So Madame
Clerk, I just wanted to say that for the Commissioners. Mr. Shepard has been very helpful
in working with that. I was sorry I had to disappoint him yesterday in pulling it off but it
would have been just too much in order to handle in that length of time because of the
time frame of moving the regular Commission meeting. So we have item 42 and if you
would go ahead, Madame Clerk, and read that caption and that, quite frankly, is going to be
our last item for the day.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY:
42. Report on EMS RFP 05-082. (Referred from July 11 Public Safety
Committee meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, are you going to make the staff statement? I want to
recognize Commissioner Williams and I want to get it on the floor from staff and then
we'll go to the Commissioner.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor-
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I can [inaudible] just a little bit here. After our
Public Safety meeting we came out of Public Safety with no recommendation so the staff
don't have a recommendation to make I don't believe. I did want to make one while I
was speaking. But I'll yield and let Mr. Russell if he's got something to add. But there
wasn't nothing that we came out of Public Safety after a long discussion. But we did get
some things cleared, some clarification came about after a long meeting and I'm willing
to make a recommendation when that time come.
Mr. Mayor: My reason for asking staff is that you all did not make a decision in
that meeting, but there originally was a staff recommendation period, that it come forth in
order for you all to discuss, but no decision was made on it. And you're correct. But
staffing had come out, whether it's procurement or administrator, however they want to
speak to that in order to do it. I'm just trying to get that clear from what y'all started with
on yesterday. You are correct. It is business with no decision. But I think something
needs to get on the floor either from where you all started in the beginning yesterday or if
you want to go from that point, but I have-and I'll go ahead and state this while the
administrator is in sidebar. There are some questions I believe that we need to take under
consideration, that being if we are planning to move forward, depending upon what this
Commission decides, there are some things that are going to have to be dealt with or at
least I think this full Commission needs to hear in legal as it refers to the process of
procurement at some point in time. Now you all don't have to abide by that because you
can vote with your six votes to do whatever you need to do. But as the presiding officer I
49
50
need to at least say that in public to a point that that needs to be done. And if we're going
to try and not deal with legal until another day then that's a decision we can make at that
point in time. Commissioner Williams, you had your hand up first. The Chair recognizes
you.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In discussion on yesterday with our
Public Safety meeting, those things we talked about, we did get I think those things
cleared up as to what we went out for, and what we was going to be judged on. And it
was stated through our procurement process, Ms. Sams, we went out for RFP and there
was some dilemma as to what we went out for bid process or RFP. And it was
determined that's what we [inaudible]. I hadn't said much about that Hawaii trip but
during that Hawaii trip I told you we had many, many classes, we sat on many, many
seminars and this same discussion came up about what you apply, what you went out for
in the beginning. So it was [inaudible] yesterday and I'm ready to make a motion if
that's in order. I don't want to do anything that's out of order. But it was clarified. I
don't think we need to hold the attorney up or none of this Commissioners any longer by
going into any legal process to find out [inaudible] we did that clear on yesterday.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair is open.
Mr. Williams: I make a motion, Mr. Mayor, that we award the ambulance
contract to Gold Cross Ambulance Service for the next year for Augusta-Richmond
County.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: There is a motion and a second to get that on the floor. Is there
discussion on the motion that's on the floor? To my left or to my right? The Chair
recognizes Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, if I could ask Commissioner Williams to clarify his
motion. I know they've had hours of discussion, I participated in part of that and listened
in [inaudible] on the balance. But the question I would ask is does the motion move that
we accept their second offer of 900 or so or are you motioning that we accept their
original offer?
Mr. Williams: I'm motioning that we accept their offer. We went back and
they were judged on the RPF and they was awarded on the RFP. And then the
pricing got in there and that's when things got crazy and started. So now naturally
you as the Administrator, I mean to award the bid. We got two, I guess we can go
from. But it was awarded on the RFP, winning that, and then when the pricing
came in, throwed [inaudible]. My motion is to accept that company for the
ambulance provider of Augusta-Richmond County for the next 12 months
beginning the end of this year. So which one of those agreement, I guess the lesser
51
price naturally is what I would think you would want to do as administrator. But
with those factors that was brought out in the meeting, the dispatching side of it, the
tracking location that is already included in there that will provide, along with the
screen to go in our regular 9-1-1 system now so we can see where the system is,
along with the building. Those came out to be lesser price than what we would have
to do if we [inaudible]. I made sure yesterday we talked about, whether we pricing
or we RFP'ing and that's my motion.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. That answers my question.
Mr. Mayor: Questions?
Mr. Hankerson: I'm not quite clear. Am I voting on a price, too?
Mr. Williams: No, we're voting on who we want to award the contract to. And
the RFP went out and it came back in where Gold Cross won the RFP. The pricing came
in later. That's like going down to Mr. Hines' soup store, you buy the soup, then you ask
about the price once you put it on. You find the soup. My question is that we been
hassling this thing around over and over and over. We want to make sure we wasn't
violating anything. And that was the clarification. Because when the pricing came in it
[inaudible] and one was higher and one was lower but bottom line came out that if we
added those amenities to make it what it should be, the pricing going to be really, really
compet1t1ve. And after winning the RPF, I'm making the motion, it came out of
committee with no recommendation because we didn't get to a stalemate but after
everything was clarified and brought to the table we sent it to full Commission without
any recommendations. But as Public Safety Chairman this is the recommendation that
I'm making.
Mr. Mayor: Being no further discussion, all in favor of the motion will do so by
the usual sign.
Mr. Grantham out.
Motion carries 6-0.
Mr. Mayor: That was our last regular item?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. The Chair will entertain a motion we adjourn.
52
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
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 July 26, 2005.
Clerk of Commission
1
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
JUNE 4, 2013
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 5:00 p.m., June 4, 2013, the Hone.
Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Lockett, Guilfoyle, Mason, G. Smith, Williams, Fennoy, Johnson,
Jackson, Davis and D. Smith, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Mr. Mayor: I'll call the meeting to order. And I'd like to call on Dr. Kevin Steele, Pastor
of National Hills Baptist Church for our invocation. Please stand.
The invocation was given by Dr. Kevin Steele, Pastor, National Hills Baptist Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Pastor. And I have something for you if you could please come
forward. Office of the Mayor. By these present be it known that Dr. Kevin Steele, Pastor,
National Hills Baptist Church is Chaplain of the Day. For his civic and spiritual guidance
demonstrated throughout the community serves as an example for all of the faith community.
Given under my hand this 4th of June 2013. Deke Copenhaver, Mayor. (APPLAUSE)
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, on to the delegations.
The Clerk:
DELEGATIONS
A. Mr. Henry Coward regarding dilapidated property located at 1125 Carrie Street.
Mr. Mayor: And if you could keep it to five minutes, please, sir.
Mr. Coward: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Good evening Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, board, I come
today on behalf of the Friendly Church of God-Christ regarding the property that is dilapidated.
And we submitted a request for assistance in entertaining a disposition of that property. And
we're pretty satisfied. There's an official annual notification that is published that has some
guidelines there and we're pretty satisfied with the intentions or the conjunctions of what is
projected to happen with the dilapidated property (inaudible). So this notification came out or
was published after we had submitted the request for this agenda item so we still wanted to come
to the meeting to address the matter. Any questions for me?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Fennoy.
Mr. Fennoy: Yes, Mr. ---
Mr. Coward: Henry Coward.
2
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, agenda item number 47.
The Clerk: Forty-seven to, motion to repeal the RFP for the ambulance service and
discuss the RFP process.
Mr. Jackson: So moved.
Mr. Lockett: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that's been properly seconded. Do we have any further
discussion? Commissioner Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, I wanted to ask Chief James a couple of items about the bid process.
Mr. Mayor: Chief
Mr. Guilfoyle: Chief James on January 28, 2013 you interviewed with WRDW and you
stated the company has met the contract guidelines. The minimum amount of ambulances is the
problem. Do you recall that? My question is does the RFP state anything about the amount of
ambulances to qualify for this bid.
Chief James: The RFP states that whoever the vendors are that will be assigned for this
RFP will give us a systems status management that will include the minimum number of
ambulances that they will provide. We didn't tell them specifically you will give us this many
ambulances. We told the companies that will be bidding on this process to evaluate our city, to
evaluate how they would run an ambulance and then they would propose to us what their
minimum number of ambulances would be.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay. So the bid is written that you have to all you have to have is a state
license to qualify to bid this package, ambulatory state license?
Chief James: I mean to my knowledge any company that applies for the ambulance bid
would have to be, have a State of Georgia Ambulance License.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, so there's no qualifications necessary. Would that be true to say?
Chief James: The qualifications being what's in the RFP.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Ifthey, their experience ---
Chief James: (unintelligible)
Mr. Guilfoyle: --- are they licensed, EMT qualified? Clarify that, sir.
3
Chief James: In the RFP it tells you that you have to have EMT' s. It tells you whether
you have to have paramedics or EMT' s riding on the units. That's state requirements as well.
As far as what, if you have an ambulance service that the ambulance is going to transport
patients that you have to have at least a basic EMT and one other EMT that's hired in that level
either intermediate, advanced or paramedic.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, so also ---
Chief James: Those would be state requirements.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay. Also underneath the state requirements the ambulance could be a
1975 as long it has less than 250,000 miles versus what we have now. Is that correct?
Chief James: I don't know that the state requires you to have a specific year of
ambulance on it.
Mr. Guilfoyle: It could not be more that forty years old. That's scary.
Chief James: I'm not, what the state requires I'm not sure.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Is there a clause in the BID that dictates the amount that an ambulance
could charge, sir?
Chief James: No.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, so an ambulance could charge to the $2,500 plus additional
procedures that was done with no respect to cost?
Chief James: That would come in is that they would present that cost thing when they
presented their request for proposal. When they presented their proposal they would list those
costs in there and then as you looked at the different companies that presented their proposals
that would be part of the selection process.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay. The BID is also asking to provide all Workman Comp claims for
the last three years it states in there. Is that correct?
Chief James: Yeah, that was a legal question as to why that was in there.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Under the federal law HIPPA this is not allowed and I guess our legal
staff could respond to that.
Chief James: Yes.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Andrew, would you be kind enough to respond to that please?
Mr. MacKenzie: What was the question?
4
Mr. Guilfoyle: The BID is asking to provide all the Workman's Comp claims for the last
three years for potential bidders. Under the federal law HIPPA this is not allowed.
Mr. MacKenzie: Are you saying the RFP requires them to give a claims history?
Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, sir.
Mr. MacKenzie: I don't see that this is, the claims history itself I don't think would be
barred from release on HIPPA Any specific data might be relating to individuals who have
medical information to be protected. But usually that's done to get an idea of whether or not
there's high claims with respect to the employees.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Wouldn't it be better to ask for a MOD rate?
Mr. MacKenzie: A what?
Mr. Guilfoyle: A MOD rate. Any time that you have workman's comp i.e., owners
companies if you have a high claim history your MOD rate goes up to where you actually pay
more.
Mr. MacKenzie: That could've probably been done. Itjust wasn't on this one.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, sir. That's enough for me. Thank you, Chief James.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Mason then Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I see Fred's walking around. I hope he's listening
at the same time.
Mr. Russell: Yeah, go ahead.
Mr. Mason: Oh, okay. At the end of the day I mean I don't know where we're going
with this but contractually speaking and the Attorney too Mr. Mayor, the previous or the current
contract speaks to the RFP and being notified one way or the other of an intent of this
government which to my understanding at this point we met that. Is that correct?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mason: Okay, so now as a result of this what does that do legally to, to the contract
currently which is supposed to have notification which was done. But is repealed. Does this
nullify all that and then what goes along with all that. Somebody explain that me.
Mr. MacKenzie: Sure, I'd be happy to try. A lot of this could be, there actually were
some different motions made at various levels on several agendas. The answer to the first
question is this doesn't have any impact on the notice that was given. It was my understanding
5
that notice was given to terminate the contract. But the specific item in front of you now is just
to repeal the current RFP process and service. It would be my recommendation if it was the
intent of the Commission to see about continuing with the current vendor that we've already sent
the notice to. It would be to maybe freeze or put a hold on the current RFP process and instruct
the Administrator to negotiation with the existing vendor and come back with a proposal to
continue services with the same vendor. That would address both the legal issue which would
you know if the Commission agreed then you would withdraw the notice of termination. But
that's not currently in this motion.
Mr. Mason: Okay, so as a follow up, Mr. Mayor, if I can finish. Two things one, what
would be the legitimate reasoning for that. What would be utilized for that? And then two, as
we move through this process and I'm looking at this motion you're talking about discussing
RFP process okay so we're going to stop and discuss it and then what exactly? I mean so I mean
I don't know where we're going with what I'm viewing here so.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: If I can attempt to (unintelligible) to what I believe the intent of the motion
Mr. Mason: But can you first excuse me, can you first discuss what would be a
legitimate reason for even ---
Mr. Russell: At this point in the process and stop me if I'm wrong, Andrew, but if the
Commission's uneasy with moving forward with this process that's all the legitimate reason that
you need. I would suggest that you suspend the process and instruct me to negotiate with the
current provider to determine if there is a potential of continuing forward if that's the will of the
body. That gives me the most advantageous position to deal from. If you do away with the
process then we're sort of negotiating in the dark and I have no follow up there. I think you need
to put me in a position where I have some opportunity to be able to negotiate and not just listen
to what they want to provide. So I think if that's the will of the body I don't think you need a
reason. I think you could make that determination.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner ---
Mr. Russell: I would like to be placed in a position of some level playing field ---
Mr. Mayor: --- Commissioner Smith then Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. D. Smith: Yes, sir, I'd like to make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor, is that we
instruct the Administrator to start the RFP process and enter into negotiations with the
current provider to continue to provide service. That's my substitute motion.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a substitute motion and a second. Commissioner Lockett.
6
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think if we stop in the middle of the stream
we're not going to be able to realize if what other companies could possibly offer that might be
better than what we have at a more reasonable price. One would think that if we continue with
the RFP process that would give us an opportunity to not only look at this particular company
but look at those other companies that interested. And if this company has the best offer well I
wouldn't be reluctant at all to vote for it. What we're trying to do is get the best for this
community in service and cost. I mean I think that's what it's all about. And about a month ago
this body voted unanimously that any contact in excess of a million dollars we would go out for
an RFP. So now are we, why are we talking about changing now, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Smith, you had?
Mr. D. Smith: Yes, sir, just for a point of clarification. The motion should be
suspend the RFP process.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion that's been properly seconded. If there is no
further discussion Commissioners will now vote by ---
Mr. Lockett: Roll call, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion that's been properly seconded. If there's no
further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the substitute fashion in a roll call vote.
Mr. Lockett: What is the substitute motion?
Mr. Mason: (inaudible) substitute motion please.
The Clerk: The ---
Mr. Mayor: Please repeat.
The Clerk: The substitute motion was to suspend the RFP process and to task the
Administrator with negotiating with the current provider to continue to provide service. Okay,
Ms. Davis?
Ms. Davis: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Fennoy.
Mr. Fennoy: No.
The Clerk: Mr. Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Could you please say that motion again?
7
The Clerk: It was to suspend the RFP process and to task the Administrator with
negotiating with the current provider to continue to provide service.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Jackson.
Mr. Jackson: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: No.
The Clerk: Mr. Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: No.
The Clerk: Mr. Mason.
Mr. Mason: No.
The Clerk: Mr. Donnie Smith.
Mr. D. Smith: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Grady Smith.
Mr. G. Smith: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Motion Passes 6-4.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item please.
The Clerk:
July 15,2005
ltdSrrz s0 Snnf
Geri A. Sams
Procurerne,nt Director
AugustalRichmond County
530 Gree,ne Streel Room 605
Augustq Georgia 3091I
Dear Ms. Srms:
As you are aware, the AugustalRichmond County Procrueinent Department has
complatod its review ofproposals, &om two aobulance companies, to provide
Emergarcy 9l I senrices. Iluring the Public Safcty Comrnittee meeting conducted
Mondan July l l, 2005, American Medical Respouse (AllR) was recorlmended as the
vendor to provide Emerge,ncy 9l I prehospital care and transportation sei:vices to the
citizc,ns of AugustatRichmoad County, Georgia
Based on the article that appeared in tho Augusta Chronicle, dated Monday, July l l,
?t5, by Sylvia Cooper (see attached), it appcars that thcre are questions Ae poUti"
Safety Committee has regarding whether or not AMR can provide the senrices at the
proggsed subsidy alrPlq of $400,000 p€r year and whether or not AMR's charges aretoo high. To that end, I'd like to preseot the following inforrration for you to toitward to
the Committ@, as peflnitted by the procure,meot rules/regulations, to aidress these
questions.
I. Subrldv Reouert
AMR is tho nation's largest provider of ambulance senrices. Cunently
located in 34 states with ova 260 Operating Units, AIVIR is positiond as the
cotrntry's leadiag expert in EMS systcm design and implerneotation. AMR's
experieirce and resources allow trs to confgure EMS syatems, based on
expectations of thc community, to lower the burde,u on the ta.rpayer, anddeferring the cost to the *ACTUAL" userr of the anbulance,"rui.r.
Therofore, there is a fine balance between subsidy requireme,lrts and charges
assessod to patieots.
It is important to note two critical issues in your decision making...
3539 Church Struct, Ctrrk*on, G
Phonc 1A*29&4044
l. AI\,IR has never wavered in its subsidy request. Gold cross Ambulance
initially reguested $1.9 million in rubsidy. That is $1.5 million more than
AMR per annum. Over the coume of the contact term (one year, plus
two, one year renewals), that oquates to 4.5 million dollars in additional
tax payer burdon. As a community parkrer, it is AMR's desire to work
with governmmt to reduce the taxpayerburden...not INCREASE the
burde,n.
2. In renegotiations, Gold cross has reduced its zubsidy request to $9g0,000
per year. This is still $580,000 more than AIvIR's request. Additionally, it
begs the questioq "why did Gold cross request more subsi$t thanwos
actually required to nn the 9l I service based on the RFp criterion?,,
Gold Cross' auraded rubsidy request is based on BELAXS(G the
standards as stipulated in thc RFP. AMR does not agree wifu rchxing the
standards, but holds firm the position that Augusta/Richmond countlrwill
indeed have a first class 9l I EMs spterr based oa your require,ments.
Averase Paden! Ch+rqe (UreT.{'eer -.chqqllto,fhe oadents)
As per the requirements of the RFP, AMR submitted a charge schedule for
sqvic€s rendered. while in theory these charges may appear to be higher
thao those proposed by Gold crcss, the real question is, i'who pays foi the
seirrices provided?"
This question is necessarybecause the majority of the users of ambulance
senrice have insuraoce, includingbutnot limited to Medicare and Medicaid.
For examplg patieirts who have eith€r Medicare aod/or Medicaid, while billed
for serniccs rendered, do not have to pay for the complete bill. These two
entities have nrledrcgulatioos that govenr ambulance billing practices.
Thougb the bill must reflcct senrices reirdc,rd Mcdicarerlvledicaid will only
reimbursc an asrbulance company for the "Allowed" anount, which tends io
be considerably lees than thc total billad amount. The ambulance sernice is
governed as to what can be billed to.the us€r of the senrice, if they accept
reimburscmenupaymart &om the itururaoc.c carrier. Thercforg there ar"
typically contractual writeoft that occur.
Those userg of the anrbulanco scrnicc that have tro i$,urance are the ones most
affoctcd. Typically, citizcos choosc aot to havc insurance based on two
reasour. Firsf they are wealthy enough to not require insurance or secondly,
&oy are not ablc to afford insurance. Eitha,r one of these reasorur places tho
'
sitizen into tho category of a "Private payer.',
Again the private pay6 is biled the same ar aryotre else who requires
aobulance senico. Thoso that arc abl€, tcod to pay their bills, responsibly.
+Sl"olry withprivatc paycrs to facilitate pa)@€nt schedules that are ruly'\rin/win" for bo& parties. Thosc unable to pay their bius will go tbrough a
detailed collectior^process. However, if bills are not pai4 then they are
typically written off to ..bad debt.,
lt is AMR's anallsis of the paycr Mix for AugustarRichmond county,
Georgia that has try* our chargc schedule and subsidy request. egain, it isAMR's contention that ttre taxpayer should not be burdenedwittr palrng for
the anrbulance senrice insomuch as it should be the responsibility oftfrJ**t
of the senrice.
Gold cross' asse,rtion that AMR wi[ charge private payrng patients $735 percall is absolutely incorrect! charges wil 6e assessed based on what isrp$red to appropriately carc for each aod everypatient. The average pa6ent
charge submitted for the RFp is $735. By definition, some ambulrn . -
Eansports that require aggressive intsrveotion strategies may have a higherpatie,ni chargg while othgrs may be less than S735.
+I,IR is very excited about thepossibility of becoming your arnbulance provider.
As ruch' wc wclcomc tha opportunity to moet with thJProcurerncnt Dep-arhneart
and Public safety committoe on July 2s,zaos. I personally commit to'answering
all yotr questions with the desire ofbuilding
".oh'd relationship founded oa tusi
resqgct, and most importantly, your confidence in AMR's ability to provide highqualityprehospital care and transportation s€ryicos to our citize,ns. AMR hasalready dcuronstrated this to the selcction comtnittee and looks forward towhning the confidence of the public safety cornmittee as well.
Pleasc feel free to contact mcshould you bave aoy questions regarding the issuestq!{ in tho July I l, 2005 Public safoty cornmitiee-meeting. I can be reached at(678) 49t-2e76.
Sincerely,
&&L
Breot H. Dioking
Director of Openations
Attachmeot
I (lr9\,, Cll(ttrrr ltll\rD VyII,f rJf.fy}l|Lrf L
False alarm flnes wln support
By lyMr Goopor lSitallWdter
Mo*lry, July 11,2005
Auguat &wutowu bruines dirtrict is a stq closer to hevmg r htro alrrm ordinaacc.
Tho city commifllon'l public-rafcty committco votcd Mon&y to rcnd thc propocod ordinaacc to thc ftrlt coomission rvith areomcodrtion for rpprornt.
ltc ordioaocc to cnclc doum or hlto 6rG rnd roority rlrtur in 6c donnto*n arus, rpccificrlly et 6o Ricbmond Slrnmit rllsrhco6, wrspomcodod by tho coomiuion'c Dowutowu Advirory prncl
ltoproporcd ordiruco hrsds oumcn of propcrtict whcro lto darmr origindo. Whou two such elarms havo occurrcd in tho gsmo locatioawiftin 12 celoo&r monbr, &c ormor-or pinm rcrponriblo ror &c riroeiiil wouH bo bill€d $00. Bach Edditional frlsc al,n wi6ia 6et2'Eod pc.iod *tuld gmrto rnotcrltoo cre{a If 6o pcodti wirc ,iot eao *itt io a"yr, fi;"td 6.*r. to t3oo.
Proot ryokcuun Brad owcor told-thc conmittco !p p.oot ir tsying to ndro 6o summit owncm rcrponriblc for maintriniag sccruity oftho buildins rad.satnilS rupoutibility for 6o problim"
F.ltG duE cdk to tho summit hrvc ev-ctaged.onc e dey ia thelnrlJr{r. Orvot 3ai$ oo Iuly 4, ancrgcncy pctsonncl wcrc dispabhcdtbn fivctiner &ning 24houn, rccardinglo intcrin iunuuitp i:tiiriowaawilir.
Mr. wiuil tsid it co3ts bcnrcco tt00 rnd $1,000 to dicparch muldplc rmitr to r csll. Thc ordiaance would hclp thc firc dcprrhcot hE !8id.
EncSoosy 9l I Dircctor Phil Wr$on tsid hbc &rE uc r pmblom tbet a!od! to bc.ddr63cd Hc said moct othcr cities hsvc o(din&ccsin phcq nuny of thcm rtictcr rhr' tho ono bcing propoccd t6r Arryr*e
CqarilioncrAndy Chcck raid for tho commirsion todo nohiry ir cortiry lql city ripificant moncy. Hc gaid that whilc playiag golftuccody rt thc Riycr Club oolf Courrc hc heud four alarmr o al surnntiwboo lmijcocy t itr a* astrt"hod to Afro iirid ftotouait tuunevaihblo for rtrl cocrgoociot, Lo raid"
Allowrnca would bc medc for alarmr that arc tiggcred by rtormr.
Ino6a rctioo Monden 6c adnrinishativc gcrviccr conmincc rpprovod r t20,000 aonual raisc for probato Judgc Issac Jollcs, boosting his!.hrybSl0r,000rycrr.
JtdSo lollo raid hc war rcquceting the nisc bccsrs of an incrc$€ oa &c dcmradr for rcryiccl on thc court bccauo of an rgingFpubdoo.
Tho pmbatofu5o condrstr 25 19 30 hcinsl I wcclc ud rcrpon& to &cqucot uryoat rcquccb to commit poplo with martat illacsr ordirordat b rndl hal6 hcilfty.
'I find tbet I mut rpcod cxtoodod bun cach day rad mray houn moat wcy wockod at tbo offico in ordcr to mcct thc cuneat aud manyfurodr of 6ir cqnq'hc nid"
Jttd3c Jolla prcrouEd commigioncrr with information mowing fut [iibb County payr iB probatc judgo gt27,g52 and Cbatham Conntyprn iE jrdgo moro ^'an t95,0fi) a ycar.
ffiffisffi#frHffi *.o.rryh,Fqn cm{si.ii:roqriisi :;
ffimffiffi#sn:'.ffiffiffi
6rgco* But of 6o rnrwoc ir ,6* thc coqroy eug*
legdfuf.lp Sld$gcl cxmGr Bo Pqodl At {0 crllrfiGr
5 Eilltor b 6oac D.tid in rdditim o ir city trrb.idy,ldrS fu trine peycrr, tLo co4cny wolrts
OoqO$e6f-ilndy ehlols.dq;jmffi*i€daialbould,ioceq&gieel Mcdicd'r lo-w Hd bccluo tho gwaraot &ould not bcolDrdtzry'rnmrlrtrca &fvKlo ttr Fivttc pryEa
"ed6ilS.f{lqt tspod to noc c l0 ..rq. Iuly 2j rt tto MunhiD.l BuildloS to i$bcs dircur rno rpbutaaco lccvico coobact
Ako, comnissioncn qrecd to bcgitr ioplcocntittS thc Augrutr Judiciel Circuit cerc mrm8emcot ryrhm by rpptoving fudisg to hi. onacrrc m!Ds8!r, o6co rpro rnd
Thc duticr of threc surrcnt clcrlt ri€ wil bc shifrcd to ceto mrl.8cocot, c/hich wiU src.ta a four-pcrron casc meoagcmcot divicion
R.ect Sylvt Coopor rt (70Q t23-322t or rylvLcoolnr@rnFrtrcLroniclacon.
WLrtNcrt:
Tho frll Aryua Comnrirrion will conridcr tho ordiranco to fno propcrty ocfllco xAo htvc &oqucot frlso alarmr rt tho July 26Eocdn&
Ftut tioTwldry, J.ly & n6 il*,,/ffd ,dl'sn altho Attggd. Ctuontc*,
/lE-a,)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
REF:
Por dirootivo of tho Safoty Committcc, Addcuduu No. 3 (Trb l) was issued July 12, 2005. Inrcsponso' the two procpectivc offerorl, American Modical Recpouso (trb 2) aoa Cjon Cross (fab
3), Qye providod thcir reponse in a timely manaer. Ploaso rsviow the ettacbod information which isptovidcd to cfariffjht swo!rclorals rooclvod laitially bgforc tho schcdutcd mccting with bothofforors rchodulcd for Monday, tuly 25,2005 rt l0:@ Lm.
{s9 attachod ia copy of a lcttcr roccivod &om Amorisan Mcdioal Rcsponsc datod July lS, 2005Qt ll in rcsponso to an artiolo that appoarcd in thc Augusta Chrcnicic, datcd Monday July I l,2005 by Sylvia Coopcr.
I wish to cdl pw attolrtion to ARC Code, Article 6, l-1&44 (g) Rcguest for proposals whenhrndling thir information and whcn quoctioning tho proepoctivc ofrcrors ou thic iatc:
"In ondudlng dkcaodottt wlth lhc p*tons tabulfrhg thc pruposats, therc shall bc nodlscbsuru of any kforaotton dacvedlroa tlu otharfcrsoic talntung proposals,,.
E-qt intEim, should 1ou have any quortiorr or co[conu, ploarc do not hesitato to coatact mc atQ06)82t.2422.
GAS/bc
cc: Fred Rurccll
David Ponaud
Attachmont
xooa 6os - 53o.&roc ffffi-*gd. uor"
%&*d" t, @&,
MEMORANDT'M
July 19,2@5
Mopr WillianE H. Mayl,III
Augruta Board of Commigiou
Gori A. Sams
Ambulence Sorvlcc RfP 0$082
&r rstoE dc btd uotllcedou
coyERflHEilr More r{ews I IIdGiG@nt -:7| | lGffiiiili{Effi-Vl I eortor
CornmiEee Si\res C'old Chs Augusta Eh,IS z.)ne
ly Sur.o l,lccord
Strff Ulrltc!
Thun&y, April 3, 2ol4
Gold Cross EMS won an administrative victory over Augusta Fire Department on Thursday when a regional
committee voted to give the ambulance company exclusive access to Augusta calls for emertency medical
Gold Cross CEO Vince Brogdon said the company "appreciates the vote" and promised service levels wouldn't
decline. However, a critic of the company's performance, south Augusta neighborhood activist Sammie Sias,
called it "a bad deal for the city" that leaves Autusta with no local EMS oversight.
A four-member zoning committee of the East Central Georgia EMS Council took little time to vote 2-r to give the
zone to Gold Cross, with members Courtney Terwilliger and Delores Moore voting in favor and Tommy l4lolfe
opposed. Chairman John Graham did not vote.
The committee vote marks a turning point in Gold Cross' nearly two-year push to become sole provider in
Augusta-Richmond County, after serving as "co-zone provider" with the city since former city administrator Fred
Russell requested Gold Cross be included in a shared arrangement in zoo5.
Fire Chief Chris James raised issues around the same time about the city's self-renewing eontract with Cold
Cross, which he said lacked suf6cient controls to ensure the Martinez-based company was performing its duties.
It prompted the Augusta Commission to terminate the contract and put the service out for bids, but :
i$$smissioners a few months later changed their minds and told Russell to negotiate a new contract with the O iffi ;--;;.":i.,;;:*:;:::-:-:;;.;ffi-i' ,r-r
;ffi:lrul,l'::T::i;::,:HTJ.::il:#"1:L*'J"r1T#::lT[';ffi;t'J::rt:,11:T::',;:# !
the zone to the city, which has two ambulances, but counts the contracted serices toward its ability to cover
Augusta.
Represented by former govemor Roy Barnes, Gold Cross won an appeal from the state, which ordered the council
to reconsider its nonbinding decision to give Augusta the zone using the criteria of economy, efficiency and the
benefit to public welfare.
State Director of Health Protection Patrick O'Neal also instructed the panel to carefully consider conflicts of
interest among its members, who include former and current Gold Cross employees and city employees with
vested interests.
The small group voting Thursday said no conflicts existed. Terrvilliger, the EMS director in Emanuel County,
acknowledged Gold Cross is a cor?orate sponsor of the Georgia EMS .{.ssociation, over which he is president, and
the eompany at one time donated $ZSo in used equipment to Emanuel County.
Before the vote, Terwilliger said EMS companies such as Gold Cross "achieve excellence" in emergency care
independently of county commissions.
"As much as I like my county commission, they don't know that much about ambulances," he said.
The determination requires approval by the full couneil, which meets May r, but if Gold Cross gets the zone, it
could terminate the contract with Augusta and run EMS service according to its proposal to the council.
AILGd if Gold Crosr codd prcrride tbc rcnice without itr annual $r.o8 million eity subsidy, Bmgdon seid
probably not. 'It would be very difficult to make it without a rukidn'he said.
Commissioners reached Thursday, including Alvin Mason and Donnie Smith, said they will wait until the full
council votes to decide what to do next.
httn://chronicle.aususta.con/news/sovernmentJ20l4-04-A3/committee-eives-eold-cross-auc... 8l6DA$
LdStrz s0 8tlnf
July 15,2005
Geri A. Sams
Proctrernent Director
AugustafRichmoud County
530 Greene Street, Room 605
Aug':stq Georgia 3091I
Dear Ms. Sams:
As you are awarg the AugustalRicbmond County procurcment Deparhent has
coaopleted its review ofproposals, from two ambulance companies, to provide
Emergorcy 9t I seirrices. During the hrblic Safety Committee meeting conducted
Monday, July 11, 2005, American Mdical Responso (AMR) was recommended as the
vendor to provide Emergency 911 prehospital caro aod tansportation sernices to the
citizelrs of Augusta/Richmoud Couoty, Georgia
Based on the article that appeared in the Augwta Chroniclg dated Mondan July l l,
?Q5, Uy SyMa Cooper (see atiached), it appears that there arc questions the Public
Safety Committee has regardiry whethcr or not AMR can provide the smrices at the
proposed subsidy amouot of $4(D,CI0 per yoar and whether or not AMR's charges are
too high. To that end, I'd like to present the following information for you to forward to
the Committ@, as p€nnitted by the procure,ment rutes/regulations, to address thesequestions.
I. SuFrldv Reouert
AI\,IR is the nation's largest provider of ambulaoce senrices. Cunently
located in 34 states with over 260 Operating Units, AMR is positiond as the
oountry's leading expert in EMS systcm design aud implomentation AMR,g
experieirce and resources allow us to configure EMS systems, based on
expeotatiogs of the to lower the burdeo on the taxpayer, anddefcrring the cost to the *AcruAL" us€(s of the asrbulance r"*ir..
Therefore, there is a fine balance baween subsidy reguiremeirts and charges
assessod to patiots.
It is important to note trro oritical issues in your decision making...
3539 Church Strcct Ctarkrton, GA
P'tronc trc+29+4014
l. AMR has oever wavered in its subsidy request. Gold Cross Ambulance
initially reErested Sl.9 million in subsidy. That is $1.5 million more than
AIVIR p€r annum. Ove, the coune of the contact tenn (one year, plus
two, one year reoewals), that oquates to 4.5 million dollars in additional
tax payer burden" As a commtuity partrer, it is AMR's desire to work
with government to reduce the taxpayer burden...not TNeREASE the
burden.
2. In reiregotiations, Gold cross has reduced its subsidy request to $9g0,000
per year. This is still $580,000 more than AIvIR's request. Additionally, it
begs the question, *why drd Gald cross request more subsi$t than was
actually required to nn the 9Il senrice based on the wp criterion'\"
Gold Cross' amended subsidy request is based on BE!;s the
standards as stipulated in the RFP. AMR does not agree with relaxing thc
standards, but holds firm theposition that AugustalRicbmond countywill
indecd have a first class 9l I EMs system based on your requirements.
Averaqe Pa$ent Chsrqq-(Urc[.Teer -,chqqer.to tFe Oaden6)
As per the requircments of the RIP, AMR submitted a charge schedule for
sernices rendered. while in theory theso charges may appear to be higher
than those Foposed by Gold cross, the real question is, "who pays foi ttre
seryices provided?'
This question is aecessarybccause the majority of the users of ambulance
s€n/ic€ have insuaoee, including but not timited to Medicare and Medicaid.
For examplo, patients who have either Medicare andlor Medicaid, while billed
for s€n/ics rendcred" do not have to pay for the complete bill. These two
e,lrtities have rulcs/regulations that govem anbulance billing practices.
Though thc bill must rcflect s€ndces rendcred" Medicaretvledicaid will only
reimburce an ambulancc company for the "Allowed' amoun! which tends L
be considorably lees than thc total bi[cd amount. The ambulancc sernice is
governed as to what can be billed to the us€r of tho se,lvice, if they acce,pt
reimburseme,nupalment from tha insurancc carricr. Thersforc, tho. ,i
typically contactual writeoft that occur.
Those users of the ambulance scnricc that have no instrraace are the ones mostaffectd. Tpicalln citiz€ns chooscnot to havc insurance based on hro
r€asour. First, thcy arc wcalthy enough to not require insurance or secondly,
they arc not abla to afford insurance. Either one of these reasoru plaoes the
'
sitiz€n into the catcgory of a "private payetr "
Aglil the private paycr is billed the same an anyotre erse who requires
ambulance service. Thoso that aro able t€od to pay their bills, responsibly.
llg't oIry withprivatc paycrs to facilitate palment schedules that are trgly'\rin/win" for both parties. Tboso unablc to pay their bills will go through a
detailed collection procsrs. However, if bius are not pai( then they aretypically writtqr off to'bad debt.,
It is AMR's analysis of thc paysr Mix for Augusta/Richmond county,Gorgia that has try* our charge schedule and subsidy request. ngain, it isAMR'g contention that the taxpayer should not be buraeneAwith pafrng for
the aurbulance service insomuoh as it should be the responsibility of6J*.rt
of thc senrice.
Gold cross' asse,rtion that AMR wi[ charge private paylng patieots $735 per
call is absolutely incorreetl chargw wil 6e assessed based on what is
requircd to appropiately care for eae,h and every patient. The average patient
charge submitted for the RFp is $735. By definiti-on, some ambul*L -
hansports that require aggressive intervention strategies may have a higher
patie,nt charge, while othgrs may be less than $735.
4l,IR is ver,' excited about the possibility of becoming your arnbulance provider.As zuch' wa wolcomc thc opportunity to moct with thJProcgrement Dcp-artuent
and Public Saf€ty Committos on July 25, 2005. I personally oommit to'answering
all yow questions with the desire of building a solid relationship fopnded on tlst]resqfq and most importantly, your confidence in AMR's ability to provide highquality preiospital care and ransportatiou s€ryic€s to our citizens. AMR has -
already deinonstrated this to the selcction comnittee and looks forward to
winning the confidence of the Public safety cornmittee as well.
Pleasc feel frcc to contact_meshould you have any questions regarding the issucygS T-E 4y t l, 2005 Public safery comnitiec meeting. I can be reached at(6781 491-2976.
Sincerely,
tucL
Breot H. Dierking
Director of Opcrations
Attaohment
r rll.Jv (rrclrrlr lrlr\rlJ yy.tr,r Dul,I,LrrL
False alarm llnes wln support
By tyMr Gooprr I &tttWtht
Montlry, July 11, 2005
Augustrb dowuaowl.bruincoc dictsict ir a stq cloccr to having e hlso.lsrm ordirsocc.
Tbc city commirrion'l public-refcty cornnrittcc votod Moaday to rd thc proposcd ordiaaacc to thc full commissior $,ith arccommcodrtion for rpprovrl.
Tlc ordinrncc to cnct< dourn oa <o frc rad rocurity elrrml in 6c doc,ltoc/tr arca, rpocific.lly rt rho Riclmond slmmit q]srhco6, nflsrocmcodcd by tho commiuion's tlowntowu Advirory prncl
Ttoprcporcd ordinsmo brg?s owuer ofpropcttia wlcrc rho qluur origimto. Whon two ruch alarms havo occgncd in 6o ssee locttionwi&in 12 cslcodarmon6q 6c ocmcr-orpindrrc4oribto fore;!rc;6;;d; bc billcd il00. Each additio'l frtsc ahrn wi6h 6el2'EodPaiod would gcocntc rnotcritoo ctlia reopcorttf wil fotp"ii *im 30[i.r, x;;"Id i;**r, ro t300.
Procl rpokcrmra Brrd Owcor toldltc ooomitlco 6c pacl ir trying to Ddrc &o Summit ownclr rqporuiblc for mainainiog sccruity ofeo buildtry rnd rsruninS rllpoDribility for 6c proU;m.
Fdlc 'lrm cdk to thc suntnit have av-crrgod.oner de.y ir thclrr!-Mr. Owcor rai4 Ou Iuly 4, €mcrgcoqr pcnxlnncl wcc disprthod
Mr. wi[b ssid it corts bctwe€o $t00 rad 31,000 to dieptch auldptc rmiB to a cetl. Thc ordiaancc would hclp tho firc dcprrocaq hc !tid.
Emcaucy 9l I Dircctor Phil Wuson reid fe&o alermr uc e pmbloo fut ncedl to bc addrcsscd. Ho seid most othcr cities bsve odin rc€ginphco, Eray of 6co rtriciler rlnn tho ooo bcingprqoccd nireralute
C*qr"tq*4"dy Chcclc raid for tho comnirion todo nohiry ir coting qr city rfnificont moucy. Hc ssid thst whilc pleyiag go11'rccoady rt thc Rivg Qlub Oolf Coune' hc hcud four alermr to G Sumntimcu hJ:oocy uuitr 8r! diryatchod to Atr";j.[d A;cuult rrpuorvaihblo for rcrl colr3rociot, ho raid"
Atlowrnccr would bc medc forelarmr that rrc tiggcred by rtormr.
h.othcr rctig Modan &c rdminiraative scrvics committ€c approvcd t g20,000 aanual raisc for probatc Judgc Isasc Jollcs, boosting hisnlrrybtl05,000rycrr.
Jttd3c Jollcr raid ho wrr rcquc*ing thc nilo bocuuc of rn in$rrsc * 5s dcmeodr for rcrvico on rhe oogrt bccaruo of an egingeopubdoo.
Th ptobcbffio coductr 25 lg 30 hcaringl e wcdc rd rcrpondr to fuqucat uryoat rcquGcb to aomnit poplo with mcotrl illncsr ordirorda b r mcaod hcdti hcility.
'I foo F.tl.q*t tPcod cxtoodod hotrn crch day rnd anoy houn oort wcy wockcod at tho offfco in ordcr to mcet tho cureot rod maaydoodr of 6ir outtr ho rdd"
Id3o Jollo prtrcotcd commirrioncrr wi6 information rbowing 6at Iiibb County pays iB probatc judg oNl27,g52and Charham Countypryr it judfo morc thrn $95,0fl) a ycor.
ffiffid$ffiSiffiffi@ ' c*ortr!{rnereosnqi* :;
r mbddy of lt9 uilltq.rfiSfunery.,pmHx_tu ru+gt0t00$itrrmporcrieri6ic{:uoE E@ eun'illEuls DDlIt3i dnttlrl rc alqpm.irtrincd wi6 dffifu rllDoaia tuilrit
-Trnno0'-
lohg frr Ffne pqru* &o coqmy
rvioc.u furcort Brrt of rhc rnrwor ir .6* thc ryny 6uf*
hFE{Eg-{fu &Sld(hocr ermca Bo Dudr At 10 cdLfilr
h"tlilS SI.5 iifilliod b ftio p.dGotr in d6tim o ib city $b.idy;
f-tgis$ Mcdiedt lo.,v Hd locnuc th govcomcot &ould not bc
flncd o noc d 10 r.'rr. July 2j d ec Mehhl Buitd& to lEtblr dilqrrr rto rgbtrhaco lcoho c@tsrcl ,
Ako, commissiorcn agrccd to bcgi! implcmcotin8 6c Au3rutr Judiciel Cfucuit caac menrgcocnt lyEt@ by rpptoviry f,nding to hirc onocuG mrorSos, ofEoorpu rnd equipmoat
Thc drrti'of threo q'rcnt rccrrtrricr wilr bc rhiftod gs c8* mrnrgc',,rro! uaich wilr crceio r fo.r-pcrroo oaso mroegcmcot division
Rrrct Sylvh Coopcr rt g0O t23{?2t or rylvtr-cootr,rr0rr[nrtrctronlclacon.
WLrtNcrt:
Thofirll AryurtrCommirrioo will conridcrtho ordinaacc to filopropcdy owncc cAohsvo fuqgcot AL€ slsrru st th€ July 26mdry
Ftoratttcr,.egay, J,ly lZ M gt/,f,,ltl .dirDo dttc Awr,dt Cfumh*l
--Trmnws-
%81*d"-4 @ffi,
MEMORANDUM
July 19,2@5
Malor Williams H. Mayc, III
Augurta Board of Commiriou
Geri A. Sams
Ambuhnce Sorvlcc Rfp 0$032
DATE:
'TO:
FROM:
REF:
Por dirootivo of tho sefoty committoc, Addoodum No. 3 (teb l) was issucd July 12, 2005. Inrcsponso, tho two prorpoctive offcrors, Aurerican Modical Responsc (Irb 2) and Gold Cross (fab3), 4Yu Providod thoir rorpouso itr a timely matruer, Ploaso rwisw tba attach& information which isprovidcd b clErtfylc- Yot.p_olals roosivod tnitially boforc tbo schcdulcd mccting wirh bothofroors rchodulcd forMonday, July25,200j rt l0:OOLn.
AIso attachod ir copy of a lcttor rocoivcd from Amorioaa Mcdical Rosponsc datcd July l5,2oO5Cf{ 11 in rosponoc to an articlc th* eppoarod in thc Augusta Cbronicic, dstcd t tonaay, July I l,2005 by Sylvia Coopc,r.
I *ith to cdl yourattontion to ARC Codc, Article 6, l-10-44 (g) Rcqucst for proposals whenhandling thir information and whcn quotioning tho procpcctivi ofrcrors on this iatc:
"fn coudadhtS dlscatsloas wlth thc p*rons cabntahq thc ptoposals, lherc sholl bc nodltclosuto of ary lnforaadon derrvadlron ttu othafiwoic tionwt gproposors,.
I1 qt intqiE, thould 1ou have aoy quortionr ot concsnrr, plcgc do uot hcsitratc to contact mc at(706)82r.2422.
OASAc
sc: Pred Rrucoll
David Pcrrud
Attachmo,nt
Xoon 605 - Igo &ernrt
,oey s21-2anffffi-3ga. uort,
** cbidnotlicedou
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
Probation Services Department
Department:
Department:
Caption:Discuss Probation Services Department. (Requested by
Commissioner Ben Hasan)
Background:
Analysis:
Financial Impact:
Alternatives:
Recommendation:
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Cover Memo
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
MACH Academy
Department:
Department:
Caption:Motion to approve a request for $25,000 for MACH Academy to
support the services they provide to our community youth. (No
recommendation from Finance Committee January 31, 2017)
Background:
Analysis:
Financial Impact:
Alternatives:
Recommendation:
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Cover Memo
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
Augusta Economic Development Authority
Department:
Department:
Caption:Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Bill Hollingsworth to
the Economic Development Authority to replace Mr. Michael
Schepis. (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Mary Davis and
Commissioner Grady Smith)
Background:
Analysis:
Financial Impact:
Alternatives:
Recommendation:
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Cover Memo
UPDATE: 11/15/19
NAME OF BOARD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF RICHMOND COUNTY
MEMBER TERM APPOINTED EXPIRATION
W. Butch Gallop 4-yr. 11/15/16 6/03/19
Remer Brinson 4-yr. l0/08/08 6/03/11
Pat Schaffer 4-yr. 10/07/08 6/03/11
Ulmer Bridges 4-yr. 10/07/08 6/03/11
Terry Elam 4 yr. 9/06/05 6/03/09
Michael Schepis 4 yr. 9/06/05 6/03/09
Brenda Bonner 4 yr. 9/06/05 6/03/09
Steven Kendrick 4 yr. 5/05/15 6/03/17
Henry Ingram 4 yr. 9/06/05 6/03/09
Executive Director: Walter Sprouse, (706) 821-1321
Attorney: Robert C. Hagler (706) 724-0171
Meeting Date: Third Wednesday of each month at 10:00 A.M
Where: Augusta Economic Development Authority
Historic Enterprise Mill, Suite 560, 1450 Greene Street Augusta, GA
30901
Created: Pursuant to O.C.G.A. 36-62-04
TALENT BANK INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE
TO BE COMPLETED BY PERSONS DESIRING TO VOLUNTEER THEIR SERVICES ON
THE_________________________ AUTHORITY, BOARD OR COMMISSION FOR AUGUSTA, GEORGIA
NOTE: ANY INFORMATION ENTERED ON THIS QUESTIONNAIRE WOULD BECOME PUBLIC INFORMATION UPON
YOUR SUBMISSION/APPOINTMENT.
******************************************************************************************************************************************
EMAIL ADDRESS:
DATE:
1. NAME:
HOME PHONE: BUS. PHONE:
2. HOME ADDRESS:
STREET COUNTY STATE ZIP
3. DATE OF BIRTH: SEX: MALE FEMALE
4. REGISTERED VOTER: YES NO
5. VOTING DISTRICT
6. MARITAL STATUS: SINGLE MARRIED SEPARATED
ENGAGED DIVORCED
7. EDUCATION: HIGH SCHOOL
COLLEGE
8. RELATIVES WORKING FOR THE COUNTY:
9. OCCUPATION:
10. RACE: WHITE AFRICAN-AMERICAN ASIAN AMERICAN
SPANISH SURNAMED AMERICAN INDIAN OTHER (specify)
11. LIST BOARDS YOU PRESENTLY SERVE ON:
1.
2.
3.
12. LIST ANY AREA IN WHICH YOU HAVE A PARTICULAR INTEREST OR EXPERTISE.
Rev. 6-2016
Lena Bonner
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Commissioner Mary Davis
Thursday, February 02,20L7 8:19 AM
Lena Bonner; Natasha L. McFarley
Agenda Tuesday, feb. 7
Lena, please put on the agenda from Grady Smith and me, to appoint Bill Hollingsworth to the
Economic Development Authority to replace Michael schepis. Thanks!
Sent from my iPhone
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
This e-mail contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you
are not the named addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify
the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail
from your system. The City of Augusta accepts no liability for the content of this e-mail or for the
consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provided, unless that information is
subsequently confirmed in writing. Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of
the author and do not necessarily represent those of the City of Augusta. E-mail transmissions cannot
be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therifore does not accept liability
for any errors or omissions in the content of this message which arise as a result of the e--iil
transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard copy version.
AED:ro4.r
Commission Meeting Agenda
2/7/2017 2:00 PM
Affidavit
Department:
Department:
Caption:Motion to approve execution by the Mayor of the affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meeting Act.
Background:
Analysis:
Financial Impact:
Alternatives:
Recommendation:
Funds are Available
in the Following
Accounts:
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Cover Memo