HomeMy WebLinkAboutRegular Commission Meeting April 15, 2014
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
APRIL 15, 2014
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., April 15, 2014, the Hon.
Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Lockett, Guilfoyle, Mason, D. Smith, Williams, Fennoy, Johnson,
Davis and G. Smith, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Absent: Hon. Jackson, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
The invocation was given by the Reverend Jim McCullough, Pastor, Woodlawn United
Methodist Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Pastor, thank you for that wonderful invocation. I have a little something for
you. Office of the Mayor. By these present be it known that Rev. Jim McCullough, Pastor,
Woodlawn United Methodist 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.
th
Given under my hand this 15 Day of April 2014. Deke Copenhaver, Mayor. (APPLAUSE)
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, on to the delegations.
The Clerk:
DELEGATIONS
A. Ms. Amanda Bryant, Georgia Regents University Summerville Campus regarding safety
issues at the intersection of Arsenal Blvd. & McDowell Street.
Mr. Mayor: And if you could keep it to five minutes, please, ma’am.
Ms. Bryant: Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners. My name is Amanda
Bryant. I’m the undergraduate president of Georgia Regents University Summerville Campus.
In the fall semester I had a student come to one of our meetings and approach us with a safety
concern crossing McDowell Street and Arsenal Blvd. There was no cross walk at that
intersection so it becomes a safety hazard when cars are flying down that intersection. There’s
also no sidewalk on Arsenal Street and there’s a large tree there so it’s also a safety hazard
because students are actually having to walk in the middle street and it’s very hard to see if
there’s any incoming cars. So we worked very hard trying to find out what we can do to make
that situation work and with the consolidation we actually made sure that we followed everything
possible to make sure we followed all the guidelines. So we’ve actually come up with petitions
and we have 388 signatures and we actually wrote a resolution. So I’ll read that resolution to
you. This is city 006-13-14 is a resolution to have the Augusta Richmond County Commission
add a crosswalk on McDowell Street and Arsenal Boulevard as a bylaw at the beginning of
Arsenal Boulevard and near McDowell Street. Sponsored by the Georgia Regents University
1
Undergraduate Student Government Association. Where is there is an overflow walk from
Summerville Campus at Georgia Regents University at the intersection of McDowell Street and
Arsenal Boulevard and whereas there is not a crosswalk located at that intersection which creates
a safety hazard for any Georgia Regents University students crossing the street on their way to
campus. And whereas the executive future growth of Georgia Regents University there will be
more pedestrians at that intersection. And whereas students walking from the (unintelligible)
from Summerville campus have to walk in the street with traffic because there is no sidewalk on
Arsenal Boulevard. And whereas that the trees along the side of McDowell Street is visible for
drivers along McDowell Street see if there are any pedestrians trying to cross the street.
Whereas the addition of a crosswalk at the intersection will draw attention to the fact that there
are potential pedestrians crossing at the intersection. Therefore let it be resolved that the
Augusta Richmond County Commission add a crosswalk on the McDowell Street and Arsenal
Boulevard as bylaw at the beginning on Arsenal Boulevard near McDowell Street. We actually
th
did this resolution not this past Friday but April 4 at our senate meeting and it passed
unanimously in our senate meeting. So you want to present this to you just as you know a
resolution on behalf of us hoping that you can take full consideration.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. Do we have any questions? Commissioner Davis.
Ms. Davis: (unintelligible) to put a face with an email. And I appreciate all that you do
here for the students. I didn’t know, is Steve Cassell available, but ---
Mr. Mayor: Yes, he’s in the corner of the room.
Ms. Davis: Steve, I know we’ve had some conversations about this as well. And we’re
talking about a crosswalk or are we just talking about painting lines? Is that what ya’ll are
actually requesting?
Ms. Bryant: Yes.
Ms. Davis: I know you’ve looked at that. There is a stop light not far from there of
course where you push a button. When you actually analyzed it, tell us what you --
Mr. Cassell: A crosswalk would be very difficult. Anything we put in there is going to
have to be ADA compliant. Right there around the intersection a crosswalk would actually line
up with a driveway for an apartment complex. So what we would do is look at maybe a
crosswalk further down the line (unintelligible) location. The ground unit around the intersection
will be a very expensive proposition, the storm drains, there’s all kinds of infrastructure. Plus
you’ve got the apartment complex right there so we will look at something maybe a little bit
further down the block. I’ve also got to put handicap ramps in and there’s a limited driveway in
there so it would be a major project.
Ms. Davis: The tree that you referenced is that on city property, Steve? You know I’m
not sure which street I’m not parked right there but I can’t, is it on the side of St. Mary’s Church
or the other side?
2
Mr. Cassell: Arsenal Avenue, that’s actually not a city street. Arsenal Avenue
(inaudible) so ---
Ms. Davis: That tree is ---
Mr. Cassell: (unintelligible) that’s actually below (unintelligible). McDowell Street
would (inaudible) but it actually belongs to the University.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Two things, Steve, I know you mentioned about
it’s difficult to put a crosswalk there because of the intersection and the driveway of the
apartment complex. How difficult would it be to maybe reroute it so that it will and then any
time church lets out (inaudible) and then if we do that when would be somewhat responsible the
university to create some type of assistance as they do that on another facility assisting with
crossing the road there as well. I know they have it down at Laney Walker and R.A. Dent for
th
people walking to the parking lot there to their cars at Laney stadium and they also have it at 15
Street across Laney Walker going across Central Street. So would there something we can do
and it would it be something that the university will have to do as well to meet the needs of those
who are crossing to make sure that people are safe?
Mr. Cassell: Yeah, they could do that. It would make it a little bit easier. As far as us
adding the cost we would be the ADA compliance plus we would have to remove several trees.
The key to having (unintelligible) cut pine trees, cut five or six trees on each side would have to
go so we get the appropriate signage (unintelligible). So we could look at it from both locations.
It’s going to be, it’s going to make it a little different out there. Really I have been out there
several times and I appreciate the concern (inaudible).
Mr. Johnson: And I know that that parking lot that you’re talking about and the driveway
I think the students, that’s for the overflow parking for the students, correct? Okay, so
(unintelligible).
Mr. Cassell: You have a wheelchair ramp basically going into the driveway.
Mr. Johnson: Well, you know, of course I talked to Ms. (inaudible) about that ---
Ms. Bryant: I’m not ---
Mr. Johnson: I mean Ms. Bryant about this (unintelligible) about that and of course I
understood, you know, their concerns about that. But I just think you know it’s better to be
proactive than, you know, reactive to the matter. So whatever can be done will probably ease
that and I think the university will probably look at this as an opportunity there to get this, you
know, if it needs to kind of assist the crossing if there is in fact people speeding up and down that
road and that can happen at times but I just wanted to let you come down and look at several
options to see what we can do.
3
Mr. Cassell: We’ll look at speeding in the area.
Mr. Johnson: Okay.
Mr. Cassell: I’ve got a guy who (unintelligible).
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Fennoy?
Mr. Fennoy: Yes, I have one question for Steve. Steve, how effective are pedestrian
crossings in an area like that? And if we can put one then it can have an impact would that area
be more stable with a pedestrian crossing?
Mr. Cassell: It’s difficult to tell. I mean I can’t speak for everybody (inaudible). Like I
said we can look at the intersection to see if it’s appropriate for a cross walk. I’ve been up here
six, seven hours out there a couple times and every morning I’ve been there, evening rush. I’ve
been there when school lets out to see the pedestrian activity out there. But like I said we’ll look
at it.
Mr. Fennoy: And, Ms. Bryant, I understand your concerns for the safety of the students
that walk through that area ---
Ms. Bryant: Right.
Mr. Fennoy: --- and hopefully staff will bring back a recommendation to the
Commission that will make that area safer for the students to cross. It may or may not be a
crosswalk but whatever he’s pretty good at what he does. So whatever he brings back I think
will be a ---
Ms. Bryant: We understand. And just like ya’ll I’m an elected official too from the
student body so I have to do what the student body asks me to do.
Mr. Mayor: Good one (unintelligible).
Ms. Bryant: But I did tell them, you know, I was here representing them and I gave
them, I told them that, you know, I was presenting you with this and that this is what presenting
you with this and that’s all I could do.
Mr. Mayor: Well and usually, you know, when people come and say well we work and
do whatever we can do within reason. So thank you all for being here today.
Ms. Bryant: Thank you. Would ya’ll like a copy of the resolution with the signatures?
The Clerk: I’ll take that.
4
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next delegation please.
The Clerk:
DELEGATIONSS
B. Mr. Craig Taylor, Communities for Veterans. RE: VA Housing-Charlie Norwood
Campus.
Mr. Mayor: And if you could keep it to five minutes too please, sir.
Mr. Taylor: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, thank you for this opportunity. I’m
Craig Taylor and I’m a staff member with Communities for Veterans. Our purpose is to provide
our sole purpose is to provide housing on VA Medical Center Campuses for a range of veterans
from homeless to adverse performance to disabled to senior veterans. We were awarded what’s
called an (unintelligible) lease on the Charlie Norwood VA Campus in two different processes.
One included a couple of buildings both historic and then the second one included a third
building. We have arranged for financing to start the work on one of the buildings which is
called Building 7 which will be a 20-unit community for transitional housing up to two years
under a VA Program called the Grant Per Diem Program. However in spite of significant efforts
we have not been able to get the final piece of the financing for the other two buildings. There is
a Georgia Department of Community Affairs tax credit application cycle which has a deadline of
th
June 5 and we are preparing to submit an application in that cycle for funding which would
include housing tax credits, or called low income housing tax credits on the one hand and also
because of the historic nature of the buildings it will include historic tax credits as well and some
funding from the VA to round out the programmatic funding. The population being served
would be some homeless vets, many vets who transition out of the domiciliary program already
housed on the VA campus, at risk veterans, senior veterans and veterans with disabilities. And
there will be 50 units in Building 76 a three story building that’s presently vacant and has been
for many, many years. And 28 units in Building 18 which is the building as you come on
through the main entrance of the campus, the first historic building on your right. It’s a rather
small building that actually faces Wrightsboro Road. We’ve been in front of you a number of
times so for those of you who have been on the Commission for some time you’re probably more
familiar with the project than you may want to be. We have been given the opportunity by the
VA to put together the financing over a five year period. We’re only two years into that five
year period so we have some time to make it work. It is extremely difficult given the interim
mixing of the Parks Department, the VA, the Treasury Department through tax credits, the state
of Georgia and so forth. A lot of moving parts are a very complicated deal. This is our best shot
at a fairly simple financing program but in order to be competitive and we have to compete with
other projects all over the state of Georgia we have to do a couple of things. And one of those is
to advise the broader community of what our intent is which is in part the purpose of this
meeting. And then secondly while it’s not a requirement it certainly would be a request is that
this body might pass yet again a resolution of support for this project. So Mr. Mayor and
Commissioners, that’s my purpose for being here.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Do we have any? Commissioner Lockett.
5
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Taylor, what type of organization are you
representing?
Mr. Taylor: Our organization is called Communities for Veterans and it’s a corporation
set up specifically to do these projects on the VA Medical Center campuses. And we have,
we’ve been selected by the VA. There were 38 projects that were put out there for public bid if
you will and we were selected on eight of them. We have closed one in Hinesville, IL on the
Hines VA Medical Center campus. We have three more approved, one in Kirkville, TX, one in
Vancouver, Washington and one in Chilipathy, OH. This project we’ll be applying for as well as
one in Dayton, OH and one in Helena, MT. So it’s a consortium of organizations with various
partners. Though the core organization is a for profit company intended to developing projects
but the consortium represents a number of non-profit organizations which would bring what are
called wraparound services to it. So in this case Hope House for women here in Augusta and
Affordable Housing Solutions, Serenity House are some of the non-profit groups which form the
umbrella of services that will be offered as well as the VA services.
Mr. Lockett: Well, I want to thank you very much for dealing with veterans. And I
know it’s difficult for many veterans in this day and age and I want to applaud you with what
you’re doing and I hope it’s going to be a great success. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Guilfoyle then Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Guilfoyle: I make a motion to support this.
Mr. Fennoy: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and seconded. Do we have a boiler
plate for when we, you say that we had passed resolutions for (unintelligible).
Mr. Taylor: I submitted a draft resolution to Ms. Bonner. It should be in your packet.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We got it. We have a motion that’s been made oh, Commissioner
Williams.
Mr. Williams: I’m support and I was going to make the same motion my colleague. I
just wanted to know the resolution was only just saying that we’re agreeing with that? That
wasn’t binding in any kind of way just a resolution of support is all you need.
Mr. Taylor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Okay, that’s all I have.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded.
Commissioners will know vote by the usual sign.
Motion Passes 9-0.
6
Mr. Taylor: Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Madam Clerk, on to the consent agenda please.
The Clerk: Yes, sir that would be items number 1-6.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have any additions to the consent agenda? Wayne, did you have
one?
Mr. Guilfoyle: Yeah let me see if the colleagues wouldn’t 7, 8 and 9?
Mr. D. Smith: No, sir, I object.
Mr. Mayor: Okay hearing, do we have oh, Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Mason: If it meets the will of the colleagues, number 11 on Public Safety.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any further additions? Hearing none do we have any items to be
pulled for discussion? Commissioner Williams.
PLANNING
3. Z-R-232 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Georgia Planning Commission to
approve a petition to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance by amending Section
28-A-5 (Telecommunication Tower-District Regulations) to require stealth towers in all
Residential and Professional zones.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to get some clarity on number three. I mean I’m not
opposed to it I need to know who what Planning and Zoning exactly how much of a backup the
director or somebody can tell me (unintelligible).
Mr. Mayor: I had received a call and I know that Sam Shepherd from AED oh, ATT is
here today as well regarding the, this has not gone through committee. They wanted to bring a
little more information as well but we’ll hear from Ms. Wilson first.
Ms. Wilson: (unintelligible)
Mr. Williams: I want to get some clarity from what Ms. Wilson has on what we’re doing
and how we will change the ordinance. How’s that affect why I mean, it wasn’t brought to
committee, right?
Ms. Wilson: What this is the first reading.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Why are we doing this?
7
Ms. Wilson: Well there has to be, I mean ordinance changes the process where there are
two readings. This is the first reading of the ordinance. It’ll come back to you in a more
formalized way. The Planning board heard this item at their last meeting. This amendment
came about because right now there are no provisions to provide stealth in certain areas and we
wanted to make sure that the property investments are protected by providing the ability for them
to not only to conveniently use that they be put in stealth mode. But you’ll see this back again.
This is the first reading.
Mr. Williams: Well and that hasn’t been a lot because as I was coming back because
when I got my agenda book I saw it but I just didn’t remember any of the conversation. I just
wanted to know a little bit more why this was going through it you know and that kind of stuff.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Ms. Wilson. Just real briefly, the intent of this ordinance is not
to allow telephone companies and other users to have built towers to build an ugly, unsightly
tower in the backyard of a neighborhood. Isn’t that what the intent is?
Ms. Wilson: That is the intent. Right now in certain zoning classifications they can go in
and put up towers to a certain height. And what we’re wanting to do is make sure that all the
residential zones as well professional zones that they are still allowed to do it but they are stealth
so that it’s not depreciating people’s property values because they’re looking at this horrible
looking tower in the neighborhood. So again the Planning board has reviewed this and it will
come back to you at the next meeting for (unintelligible).
Mr. D. Smith: And I’ve been contacted by several people in west Augusta in west
Augusta mainly shopping centers and neighborhoods and even though people put cell phone
towers in back of the shopping center that borders into a neighborhood like National Hills and
some of the others up there and so these neighborhoods are very concerned especially off
Washington Road, Wheeler Road and Skinner Mill Road where they’re, you know, and you
wake up the next morning and there’s an 80-foot tower in your back yard that’s 8-foot wide at
the bottom and six foot wide at the top. So that’s the intent to try to protect those folks.
Ms. Wilson: That’s right like I said it’s definitely helping at least help to protect the
property values that sometimes, not all the time, from a tower in their back yard so again this is
the first reading on this. You will get at your next meeting for a vote.
Mr. D. Smith: Ms. Wilson, I certainly want to thank you and your staff for working on
that because in the past I’ve had neighborhoods to call me and say hey, there’s a crew out here
putting a tower up and we don’t have any way to regulate that so I want to thank you and your
staff for the work done that. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Guilfoyle then Commissioner Lockett.
8
Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Wilson, last week I was at sitting on
Martintown Road at the Wife Saver and behind the property of Wife Saver there is a tower in
stealth mode. That is what you’re talking about.
Ms. Wilson: Well, that’s right. They do do different things to disguise it and in a lot of
cases people, they will add limbs to have it blend in with the surrounding nature. In other cases
they’ll do things to make sure, to at least not make it stand out.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Right.
Ms. Wilson: -- as much to hide it as to blend in.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Wilson, I’m a little confused on this issue.
I was a little leery on this agenda item you all wanted to go back to committee. You keep saying
this is the first reading. Is this the first of the first reading or is this actually, someone told me
early on that this agenda item here for some reason or another was to go back to committee.
Ms. Wilson: No, there’s a Planning Board or to another committee? These items are
fine. We had another item that was dealing with a sign ordinance and ---
Mr. Lockett: (unintelligible).
Ms. Wilson: --- and that is not on today’s agenda because it was to go back to do some
additional work on.
Mr. Lockett: So the intent all along was for this to be the first reading for this agenda
item.
Ms. Wilson: The intent for this agenda item that this is the first reading because it
requires two readings.
Mr. Lockett: Anyway it comes back for the second reading will that give us the
opportunity for debate or do you just come back with a second reading on consent agenda and
move on with it.
Mr. Wilson: Well, I mean hopefully, I can only, if there are any issues I would hope that
we can deal with them right now so we can take care of this which is why we have the two
readings.
Mr. Lockett: Why is this on if it’s going to be amended?
Ms. Wilson: Because right now the way the ordinance currently is written it only
requires that the (unintelligible) stealth up to a certain height. And this allows for that height to
9
be higher and it covers more zoning classifications. So that’s why it’s amended. Just like
everything else we’re starting to get a wide increase in activity not only from you rezoning which
you’ll see coming up as well as these antennas because people want to provide coverage as we
start grow. And in order to make sure that we are doing that in a manner that is not going to be
something that’s obtrusive when you’re going up a tree we’re recommending that they be put in
stealth mode.
Mr. Lockett: Okay the ones that we have now there are certain places they can be
located. Now when this is passed, if it’s passed, it will allow them to go much higher. Will the
same locations where we can place them now, will that be consistent or will that change also so
that Commissioner Smith don’t have one (unintelligible) in his back yard.
Ms. Wilson: Well the uh, as far as the location of them, they still have to come in and get
approval by the body. What this does basically is it gives, it even gives the cell phone companies
a little bit more volume so it keeps (unintelligible) talking to people in the neighborhood for
them to be able to say we’re definitely going to need a cell phone tower (unintelligible). But this
basically still covers the areas that were previously covered and then adds a couple more towers.
Mr. Lockett: Now what dimension to we have now compared to what we can anticipate
in the future as far as the towers are concerned?
Ms. Wilson: Dimensions from the standpoint of height or ---
Mr. Lockett: Height and width.
Ms. Wilson: As far as height and width I can’t answer that because that’s why we get
site plans in for each tower. Each tower company has a certain set of standards that they use
when they’re coming in to apply for a tower. That tower can be either something that is
developed as a standalone or they come in and they do a subdivision with land so it’s around you
know 10 x 10 or 20 x 20 or it can be on top of an existing structure. If you were driving around
in some places you see some church steeple for example or other venues that have towers on top
of them. Again we will commit to make sure those towers are stealth towers because you still
can see them.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. And I know Sam Shepherd you’re sitting in the audience from
AT&T. Did you want to add anything to this conversation or there will be a second reading.
Mr. Shepherd: (Inaudible).
Mr. Mayor: Okay, I’ll allow that.
Mr. Shepherd: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners.
Mr. Mayor: If you could keep it to five minutes, please.
10
Mr. Shepherd: I’m Sam Shepherd, Regional Director for AT&T. Actually here today
though I’m representing the Georgia Wireless Association coming to you somewhat hat in hand
because this took us a little by surprise when we noticed the agenda item this morning. In the
past (unintelligible) we’ll take the blame for that. We should’ve been following a little bit closer
than that. In the past we have worked with the city of Augusta as an organization that is on the
wireless carriers the tower providers as well (unintelligible) issues because we understand that
there is a balancing act in providing the coverage your citizenry wants as well as providing the
stealth mode that we’re talking about here today. We would appreciate an opportunity as the
Georgia Wireless Association to have time to review the ordinance change and to come before a
body, whether that is a committee or whether that is back in front of Planning and Zoning to
express from an engineering standpoint some of the pitfalls, if you will, to limiting towers.
There are some positives, there are some negatives to it. We just want to make sure that this
body is aware of each. So that is the request that we had and one of the reasons whether that is
committee or whether that is back in front of Planning and Zoning or however this body sees fit,
we just want to make sure that we have the opportunity again from a carrier and a tower provider
standpoint because like I said there are positives and negatives.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: I appreciate those comments and I give my question to the attorney. Do
we not do first and second reading first of all go through committee and then come to us so we
can publicize the first reading? How does that work because I’m really confused, Andrew.
Mr. MacKenzie: The process for any kind ordinance amendment is that it has to go
through two readings and unless it has an effective date otherwise it becomes effective upon
passage of the second reading. The way you can deal with this is we can either forward it to
committee for further discussion to allow additional information to be brought to the
Commission/committee cycle and to start the first reading on the next Commission cycle. Or
you could do the first reading today and then information could still be brought up at the next
committee cycle and if the Commission did not approve it at the second reading, then it will not
be effective.
Mr. Mayor: So it could pass today but still it could be placed for discussion on the
committee meeting to where all the information, pertinent information will be at the present time
(unintelligible) and discussed.
Mr. MacKenzie: That’s correct. And then if there were changes that were made to it
then it would start the process over with a new draft that would still go through two readings.
Mr. Williams: Do you understand ---
Mr. Mayor: I’m trying to formulate a motion that gets us to that point. Commissioner
Mason.
11
Mr. Mason: Yes, I just wanted to definitely get some clarity from what was just said
there. And I’m hearing you say, Mr. Mayor, that if it passes today it will still go to committee.
First of all what committee would it go to because this came from the Planning Commission.
And then secondly, you know, generally speaking if something passed today it doesn’t
automatically go to committee so we just have to if we’re going to do that then include that into a
motion somehow so I guess my first question is what committee are we talking about that it
would go to?
Mr. Mayor: I would say Public Services. Mr. MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: I think that would be perfectly fine, Public Services.
Mr. Mayor: So would you, Commissioner Mason, we’re working together here to make
a motion to approve the first reading and to add an agenda item to Public Services, I’m just let
the, to discuss this in order to obtain more information.
Mr. Mason:
Well, it almost seems counterproductive to approve it if we’re going to go
So what I’ll probably do is say let’s send it to committee and
through committee to discuss it.
have a discussion and bring it back.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Is that in the form of a motion?
Mr. Mason: Okay. Yes, Ms. Davis.
Ms. Davis: Ms. Wilson, will this delay anything if we did this because I want to hear
more discussion as well.
Ms. Wilson: Basically we could send it back to committee. I just wanted to note that we
did advertise this. This is going to the Planning Commission who made the recommendation
whether you decide to send it to committee or not. That’s fine. When it does go as it doesn’t
provide any protection the reason if we’re doing a huge amendment that I felt adversely would
not be wireless telecommunication folks then we would’ve had a need for additional dialogue.
But this is kind of a minor addendum to what we currently have with regards to adding a couple
of districts that would require them to put that in stealth mode. So we’re open to whatever the
wish of the board is but just know that right now in some cases we don’t have the ability to
require that they place them in stealth mode when go in. And this would come back for a second
reading by the way.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Smith.
Mr. D. Smith: My question will be for Mr. Shepherd. Mr. Shepherd, if we agree to do
this and send it back to committee to have more discussion could you speak to the wireless
communications people and have them put a moratorium on building any new towers so we
12
don’t have them rushing out tomorrow trying to build a tower. That would be in conflict with
what we’re trying to do.
Mr. Shepherd: (Inaudible). And you know there is a process that we still have to go
through to be, you know, to work through all that. And we will be glad to do that. I will send it
to the Georgia Wireless Association that covers all wireless towers and providers as well,
wireless carriers just letting them know what your wishes are so that we won’t, you know, do
something, you know, that you’re not (inaudible).
Mr. D. Smith: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor, I had my hand up.
Mr. Mayor: Oh, Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you. I agree with my colleague Commissioner Mason. We don’t
want to delay this thing but at the same time it would help us if we knew what we were voting
for. And I think if it went to our next committee cycle and then came back up for the first
reading that would give us ample time to those saying we didn’t were not able to fully
comprehend during the committee meeting it would at least give us time to absorb it. But I just
couldn’t see today during the first reading (inaudible) access and even the presenters are not that
highly encouraged about doing it today anyway. So if we can do it, send it to committee without
it causing any undue hardship that would be my recommendation.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded.
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Motion Passes 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: And now, Ladies and Gentlemen, I do need a motion to approve the rest of
the consent agenda.
Mr. Guilfoyle: So moved.
Mr. Mason: Second.
CONSENT AGENDA
PLANNING
1. Assignment of Memorial Road name of Lorena Gandy Way.
2. ZA-R-231 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Georgia Planning Commission
to approve a petition to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance by adding a new
section, Section 25-F, Professional Office Park District Classification, and for other
purposes.
13
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
4. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular and Special Called meetings held April 1,
2014.
APPOINTMENTS
5. Motion to approve the appointment of Ms. Betty Reece to the Transit Citizens Advisory
Board representing District 4.
6. Motion to approve the appointment of Terrance R. Howard to the Historic Preservation
Commission (HPC) due to the resignation of Mike Russell representing District 8.
PUBLIC SAFETY
11. Approve Technology Assessment of Recreation Community Centers.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. If there’s no
further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Motion Passes 9-0. [Items 1, 2, 4-6, 11]
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, on to the regular agenda please.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
PUBLIC SERVICES
7. Request the Augusta Commission approve the bid selection and contract between
Augusta Regional Airport and Reeves Construction, Inc. for the repairs of the Credit Card
Lot Project as approved by the Augusta Aviation Commission at their February 27, 2014
Meeting. (Bid 14-121)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. LeTellier.
Mr. LeTellier: Mr. Mayor, this is the, this is the replacement of the rental car radio lot.
We’re returning it back to the revenue services as a long term credit card lot.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, gentlemen. Commissioner Smith.
Mr. D. Smith: Mr. LeTellier, in the backup that was supplied to us, it said that ya’ll
intend to return this parking lot service to public parking. Is that going to be free public parking
areas or is it going to be for a charge?
Mr. LeTellier: No, sir, it will be paid parking
Mr. D. Smith: It will be paid parking. And this went through procurement and Ms. Sams
went along with your folks handling that.
Mr. LeTellier: Yes, sir.
14
Mr. D. Smith: Okay. That was my only question whether it was going to be free public
parking or it was going to be charged.
Mr. LeTellier: No, it’s actually it would be credit card only.
Mr. Guilfoyle: So moved.
Mr. Lockett: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. If there’s no oh,
Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: (Unintelligible). How do you get credit card only (unintelligible). I mean
you’ve got parking. I mean I never heard of credit card only parking. You got to have a sign
that says credit card only?
Mr. LeTellier: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: So if someone goes in there and don’t have a credit card ---
Mr. LeTellier: It won’t give you a ticket until you insert your credit card. And it’ll be,
there’ll be signage. So if you know if you misread it you can back out and go to another lot.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Fennoy out.
Motion Passes 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item please.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVICES
8. Request the Augusta Commission approve the Airport Customer Facility Charge (CFC)
Amendment to Ordinance 7449 as approved by the Augusta Aviation Commission at their
March 27, 2014 meeting.
Mr. Guilfoyle: So moved.
Mr. G. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Commissioner Smith then Commissioner
Lockett.
Mr. D. Smith: I appreciate Mr. Guilfoyle working with me on this. Mr. LeTellier, I just
got three questions. On the analysis part of the packet we got it said that ya’ll entered into a
15
contract with a consulting firm that specializes in airport rental car contracts. And it said upon
reviewing them and the ordinance the consulting (unintelligible) extremely restrictive nature of
the ordinances design for CFC funds. Can you elaborate on what the restrictions are the, your
consulting is so upset about?
Mr. LeTellier: I wouldn’t say they were upset. They (unintelligible) what the advice was
the use of the funds was restrictive to the point that they felt that if we had some sort of national
emergency like 9-11 that and we, you know, let’s say for instance the CSRA is basically shut
down and we did not have the ability to generate revenue that we would need to continue to
make payroll and expenses and debt service and this language would loosen that ordinance up
enough for the Aviation Commission and this Commission to agree to use those funds in
emergencies to cover debt service and expenses. So I thought, we all thought that was a fairly
compelling reason to come back and ask you to amend this.
Mr. D. Smith: The other question I had is currently who gets the funding now? Ya’ll are
using it for what purpose now?
Mr. LeTellier: This is, we collect the funding and its restricted because then it goes into a
separate fund that is used for the support of the rental car industry whether it be a ready car basis,
we’ve been talking with the car rentals about developing a joint use facility for maintenance and
washing and that sort of thing. So there, actually there’s a parking lot that you just approved is
funded out of that. You know, so it’s anything that has been used or will be used for car rental
concessions.
Mr. D. Smith: Maybe I didn’t get, maybe something Mr. Guilfoyle didn’t give me the
whole thing here I’m trying to, but the amendment I received as it reads it only changes one
word it looks like to me unless he chose to give me something different.
Mr. LeTellier: There are several changes although they’re minor. It just in the first
section it takes up the language that says “or entitled to receive for sale” and that’s referring to
car rentals. But we wanted to do is make sure that they didn’t, it wasn’t so restrictive that they
felt that entitled to that money to, you know, to the exclusion of everything else that you may
want to do in an emergency. But certainly the intent of, excuse me, the intent of this ordinance is
to use it and apply it for car rental or related issues. But you shouldn’t in our opinion you
shouldn’t be restricted from using it in an emergency for something else.
Mr. D. Smith: Who would designate whether it was an emergency use or not? Would
that be the Airport Commission or would that be this Commission?
Mr. LeTellier: Both, both. It would be collaboration. I mean it would be pretty severe. I
mean we’d have collaboration with the Finance Directors. I mean if we couldn’t make debt
service or we couldn’t make payroll we’d be looking for funds. And so it would be a
collaboration and then, you know, say we come to both Commissions.
Mr. D. Smith: Okay that was all of the questions I had. Thank you.
16
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Along that same line if there if there was an emergency such as that
(unintelligible) wouldn’t both bodies get together and say you can’t make payroll (unintelligible)
or whatever. If it came to such an emergency, I’m just I mean because I’ve got some when it
comes to this amendment stuff when you allow that contract.
Mr. LeTellier: Sir, I think that calls for a legal opinion. I’m not sure I just know what
our attorneys advised us. So I don’t know if you can make a change after the fact or not but ---
Mr. Williams: In lieu of the emergency’s waiting I’m sure you can make a change
(unintelligible). I’m going to get my favorite attorney over here to give me some legal advice.
Mr. MacKenzie: Sure, I’d be happy to address that. Yes, there is the ability to in the
event of an emergency to suspend the enforcement code provisions. However it would be a
more conservative approach to do that in advance of an emergency such as being done here so
there’s not subject to a claim for an injunction or something like that where you’re already
dealing with an emergency and having to deal with that. It is more conservative to do this in
advance. And also lets the parties know that it can be used for another purpose so that they’re
not likely to file a claim when you actually have an emergency.
Mr. Williams: Well, I mean we’ve dealt with automobile insurance and you know you’re
driving down I-20 and you know I can understand that but such as this I mean it don’t add up to
me but (inaudible).
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. If there’s
no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor, I recognized ---
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Move to approve.
Mr. Mayor: I thought we already had a motion.
Mr. Lockett: See that’s what happened. You didn’t recognize me.
Mr. Williams vote No.
Motion Passes 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, on to the next agenda item.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVICES
17
9. Request the approval of the bid and contract between the Augusta Regional Airport and
Intercontinental Services (ICS) Inc. for Custodial Services as approved by the Augusta
Aviation Commission at their March 27, 2014 Meeting(RFP 14-110)
.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. My one question is this a local firm that is doing this?
Mr. LeTellier: I’m unfamiliar with Sewanee, Georgia so I don’t know how far that is
from Augusta.
Mr. Williams: Can someone share why wouldn’t you have a local and I don’t want to
give preference but there are already custodians that work around here. Certainly we ought to be
able to find a --
Mr. LeTellier: Commissioner, this was bid, in the packet you have a, you have bid tab
sheet. If I can just find it, I can’t recall how many different bidders, there were four bidders.
This was, had been through an evaluation process with the Procurement Department and this was
deemed to be the best qualified.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sams?
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir, Mr. Commissioner.
Mr. Williams: It’s just me again, Ms. Sams. I’m just worried about local participation
and why wasn’t there someone locally that can do custodial work and we got to go all the way to
Sewanee, Georgia to get someone to do the local work. We don’t have anyone here closer than
that?
Ms. Sams: Mr. Commissioner, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, of course there would be
some persons who would be qualified here in Augusta to do such work but the issue becomes
that they are private and did they submit an RFP or did they submit a bid on the project. And as
it relates to the person who presents it on this project, unfortunately there wasn’t any local
participation on it.
Mr. Williams: How was it advertised?
Ms. Sams: It was advertised as we normally advertise for 30 days and we held a pre-bid
conference on this particular project. And when I’m looking at the list of persons that we sent
notifications to there would be about, about 24 persons that we sent this notification to directly.
We also advertised on the ---
Mr. Williams: That’s not, my next question would be how long will this contract be in
existence?
Ms. Sams: One year.
18
Mr. Williams: I mean I got no problem with your process, anybody applying, for one
year they’ve got time to come back.
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Smith.
Mr. D. Smith: Let me ask her a question. Thank you.
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir.
Mr. D. Smith: Ms. Sams, this continues to crop up. You know we want to try and help
our local vendors and I don’t have a dog in the fight but what I’m concerned about is that we
have, why can’t we get local, more local participation? What is the problem? I mean and I
know that’s probably a hard question but I’m asking for a simple answer
Ms. Sams: Actually, sir, it’s not a hard question ---
Mr. D. Smith: Okay.
Ms. Sams: --- actually for Augusta, Georgia as we relate to local participation as it
relates to procurement matters and the letting of purchase orders you’re looking at right around
68-72% in all purchase orders let for the city. Now when we’re looking at our participation in
accordance to the Local Small Business area, that area requires recertification and small
businesses are not registering through that office. So you will see a decline or a very low
percentage of participation as it relates to local business participation because they’re not
registering with that office.
Mr. D. Smith: You know, it’s just disappointing in this city that we have here’s an
example of a contract that doesn’t require a set of, you know, a special set of skills or a special
set of tools or a special deal and yet we don’t have anybody locally that can get that contract.
And that’s just disheartening to me. That’s just my thought.
Ms. Sams: We’re asking you as Commissioners, as the Mayor, to assist us when we are
having outreach programs to include local small businesses and other persons in this area. But I
do need to caution you in that the city of Augusta has a race and gender neutral program that we
have to be concerned about and be very cautious of. I am a minority. I am the Procurement
Director. I am a person that’s interested in local businesses participation, local small business
participation. I’m interested in that just as you are but then there are laws that prohibit it and I’m
sure that some of you as Commissioners have that as a concern. And you’ve spoken to me
earlier about ways to be inclusive but those ways should come through the local small business
office as opposed to the Procurement office because under the Procurement office we’re talking
about a race and gender neutral program. Now we will work to make anything happen that we
can because of regulations but do be very cautious of the two regulations that govern both
offices.
19
Mr. D. Smith: So when I went with you to Julian Smith that was an effort that your
office procurement put on. Is that correct?
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir, trying to get local business to participate in the project.
Mr. D. Smith: And that was, but that was not done by DBE, that was done by
Procurement, is that right?
Ms. Sams: It was done by the Procurement office and the two companies that were
involved in that particular debrief I think debrief, the one that you came to ---
Mr. D. Smith: The one that I came to.
Ms. Sams: --- put on by the Procurement office. Yes, sir.
Mr. D. Smith: Okay thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, can we get a motion on this one?
Mr. Williams: So moved.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been properly seconded. Commissioner Smith, did
you want to say something.
Mr. G. Smith: No, that’s okay.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Motion Passes 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item please.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
10. An update from the Interim Administrator regarding identifying a funding source to
fund Disparity Study, related IT programs and approve same being done. (Requested by
Commissioner Marion Williams)
Mr. Mayor: Madam Administrator.
Mr. Williams: Ms. Allen, it’s on you.
20
Ms. Allen: Okay Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, as I informed you at the last
meeting we have identified I’ve spoken with Ms. Gentry and we’re looking at an estimated
$100,000 dollars that will be at least be spent in 2014 in order to proceed with the Disparity
Study. Because the Disparity Study is still a little questionable, however, she did not estimate
that we will need more than $100,000 dollars in 2014 so we should be good in 2014 and any
additional funds will have to be requested in 2014.
Mr. Williams: So moved.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: So moved (unintelligible).
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second?
Mr. Johnson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Commissioner
Mason.
Mr. Mason: Ms. Allen, I just want some clarity because you said the amount was
questionable. What do you mean by that exactly?
Ms. Allen: And I apologize. The question was the range. Until she actually submits the
proposal out there, you’re really not sure what the actual cost is going to be. There’s an estimate
and Ms. Gentry could probably speak to that more so than I could. But there’s an estimated cost
that she’s looking at in the range from one hundred so thousand to four hundred something
thousand as it relates to the actual study. So we don’t really know the actual cost until, you
know, we actually get a sponsor for it.
Mr. Mason: Okay because (inaudible).
Ms. Allen: And I apologize for that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Smith on this side and then Commissioner Fennoy
and then Commissioner Donnie Smith.
Mr. Grady Smith: Would you please tell me when was the last Disparity Study done and
how much did it cost?
Ms. Allen: I thought (unintelligible) 2008, half a million dollars and that’s half a million
dollars in 2008.
Mr. G. Smith: What have you done with that study?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Gentry.
21
Ms. Gentry: Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners. Your question again?
Mr. G. Smith: You know the study in 2008 and since then what have we done with that
study?
Ms. Gentry: We’ve done several things. The first thing we did was we looked at our
Procurement Department’s processes and procedures. There was some recommendations based
on the study that was done. We implemented the Local Small Business Program. What we have
not done was, what we have not done was put together a program to correct the minority
identified in the study. The reason behind that is because up to this point we’ve been told by our
attorney that we had to go back to the courts in order to implement such a program. That’s why
we currently have a race gender neutral program. As of October of last year we were told that by
our Attorney General Counsel that we could create a program given that we follow the federal
law that has been established by our court system. So right now what we’re asking with this is
just to approve the funding for us for the software so that the IT Department and I can start
soliciting companies. One of the things that you all charged us with is talking with Collette Holt.
And one of the things that she indicated right now we’re manually collecting date. There’s no
real time and with having the software what it would do is make it much easier to conduct the
Disparity Study.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to continue? You have the time.
Mr. G. Smith: Also if we can’t find the money in the budget next year what happens to
the $100,000 dollars if we don’t spend that?
Ms. Gentry: Well, Commissioner, we’re not asking you to spend anything now except
for the software, okay. What we’re asking for right now today you’ve already approved, this
body has approved the DBE Department to put together an RFQ to go out for the Disparity
Study. We’re in the process of, we’ve completed that we will be submitting that to Procurement.
What we’re asking for today is authorization to solicit, first of all find a funding source in which
Ms. Allen has indicated she has but to solicit going out and looking at companies to provide the
software to us. Once we submit the RFP’s they come in we’ll come back to this body and that
time we’ll be able to say do you want to go ahead and conduct the study or you don’t.
Mr. G. Smith: Well, let me ask you this. Now you all haven’t completed the 2008 study
right?
Ms. Gentry: Excuse me?
Mr. G. Smith: You’re not complete yet with the 2008 study, right?
Ms. Gentry: That’s correct, we’re not complete.
22
Mr. G. Smith: So you want go ahead and start another study. Why don’t finish one and
then go to the next and maybe that way we can help Ms. Holt to get back into the budget and
stop being constantly in the minus column.
Ms. Gentry: This body charged the Law Department and the DBE Department to meet
with Collette Holt. I came back, the Law Department and I came back with recommendations.
The recommendation was to establish a minority program with women to correct the
discrimination identified in the study. In addition to that Ms. Holt explained to us that this study
has a shelf life and eventually if we create a program we would need to have that data to back up
continuously moving forward with recommendations from the new study.
Mr. G. Smith: Okay, I just think we ought to finish one thing before we jump into
another especially when you’re talking about $100,000 dollars of the taxpayer’ money. And I’m
up here as a taxpayer and I want to say I want to see some results. And I’m not (inaudible) but
we need to start somewhere. We started but we hadn’t finished the one thing before we get into
another.
Ms. Gentry: Ever since 2008, Commissioner, I’ve come before you even new ones
coming on this Commission. I’ve shared with you that the study’s out there. We need to move
forward. It has been brought to your attention every year and I’m forever coming back up. I
think Commissioner Lockett at one point had meetings. Commissioner Hatney, I mean for the
last five years we’ve done our due diligence but it takes six votes to move anything.
Mr. G. Smith: I understand that but I’m just saying that I mean I think we’ve got some
disparity in the pay raises and everything around here and that seems like that’s ones of the
issues so we got to choose our priorities and see where we can spend our taxpayer’s dollars.
Ms. Gentry: I understand.
Mr. G. Smith: Thank you, ma’am.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Fennoy then Commissioner Donnie Smith.
Mr. Fennoy: Ms. Gentry.
Ms. Gentry: Yes, sir.
Mr. Fennoy: If we have a program that addresses race and gender issues vendors doing
business with the city and the city is following that program whatever it is, is there a need to do a
Disparity Study?
Ms. Gentry: Yes, sir, it would be. Your study data and that’s the reason why we got in
trouble with the last law suit is because the data the statistical data is only good for a shelf life.
Nine times out of ten you’re looking at five to seven years. At the end of five to seven years you
should, the city should have collected data based on the program that has been implemented.
The problem with us is that we did the study but we never implemented a program to correct the
23
discrimination identified in the study. And what you have charged the Law Department and
myself with after meeting with Ms. Holt she put together a program, allow it to go back through
Ms. Holt so that she can insure that it meets the strict scrutiny of the letter of the law. So that’s
where we are as it relates to the program. And again that has to come back before this body once
legal and Ms. Holt has approved it.
Mr. Fennoy: Okay and I guess my next question is to Andrew.
Mr. MacKenzie: Yes, sir.
Mr. Fennoy: You kept the, I mean you kept the Disparity Study from moving forward? I
mean, I mean I think that’s what I’m hearing.
Mr. MacKenzie: Let me try to clarify. Absolutely not. I made no attempt whatsoever to
keep the Disparity Study from moving forward. In fact every recommendation that I recall
regarding the Disparity Study that this body needs to procure another one you kind of need to
procure one that’s commissioned on a regular basis if you even consider having a race and
gender conscience program. If the evidence supports that you need that and that’s just a
rendition of the state of the law. I will try to clarify one statement that Ms. Gentry indicated and
that is (unintelligible) regarding the history of whether or not there’s need to go back to the court
to have the court order lifted. I don’t recall ever having a position that would require us to go
back to the court and have the court order lifted because that’s perfectly spelled out in both 2007
court order and 2011 court order that this body can go and implement in another program as long
as it is reported by a recent Disparity Study. There’s always been the ability to do that just as she
mentioned it’s not been the political will to move forward with a program like that. The
concerns that we have now are the data’s old. We need to get more updated data. There is an
interim plan which is it can be a narrowly tailored program relying on the whole data that we
could move forward with getting in place now until we get the results from the new study. But
my recommendation is that this body will need to get a Disparity Study both now and continue
this way in the future. And I would recommend that be done during the budgeting time to have
every year some money allocated towards that because it can be pretty expensive. (Inaudible) a
little bit every year in the budget then when the time comes good you’ve got the money there as
something for the government to do. Usually statistical evidence shows you typically recover
more from having a program by having better prices on some of your procurements
(unintelligible).
Mr. Fennoy: Now and I guess the agenda item says an update from the Interim
Administrator regarding identifying a funding source to fund the Disparity Study. Is that what
we’re doing? Have we done that or have we identified the funding source for the IT program as
it relates to the Disparity Study?
Ms. Allen: My understanding, Commissioner Fennoy, is that this money was going to be
allocated for the Disparity Study.
Mr. Fennoy: Okay.
24
Ms. Allen: And then maybe it’s a misunderstanding on my part but from what I can, it
would be the Disparity Study.
Mr. Fennoy: Okay and we’re talking about $100,000 dollars for the Disparity Study ---
Ms. Allen: No, sir, that was to start. Like she said we went out for bid or what have you
and there is (unintelligible) amount when that information comes back. But there’s a range from,
you know, an estimated range that she has that she thinks we can start the project off. That will
not prevent us from continuing with the project as approved by the Commission.
Mr. Fennoy: Okay, I’m confused. And what I’m confused about is, you know, if the
Disparity Study in 2008 cost a half a million dollars and now we’re going to spend a maximum
of $100,000 for the Disparity Study?
Ms. Allen: No sir, no. It depends on the information Ms. Gentry gets back. I mean I’m
assuming they’re going email ARC or Ms. Gentry that the details of the bid process may not
have to be as involved as the original because now we have a basis to start with. So it might not
be as costly.
Mr. Fennoy: Okay now and my last question that there was a piece of IT or a computing
program that was recommended that we get I think it was by the Carl Vinson Institute.
Ms. Allen: Not the ---
Mr. Fennoy: That wasn’t it?
Ms. Allen: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: I’ll give you another two minutes.
Ms. Allen: I think Ms. Gentry has seen, has poked into other agencies that we utilize for
software applications. But she’s going to get with Information Technology to look at what can
actually, you know, here and get the pricing on that. I would estimate that cost to be $100,000
dollars, no, sir.
Mr. Fennoy: Okay.
Ms. Gentry: This body charged the Law Department and myself to meet with Ms. Holt in
order to identify how do we move forward since we have kept the Disparity Study on the shelf
for such a long time. One of Ms. Holt’s recommendations was to go ahead develop a minority
program to correct the discrimination identified in the study. That was number one. Number
two recommendation was to purchase software because what we’re doing if you remember since
2008 we didn’t really start collecting, well, we solicit to collect data but there was nothing
mandated in our procurement documentation to mandate people or companies provide the data. I
think Mr. Williams had a problem with that when we tried to look at all of the information. So
as of 2013 we’re getting the data on every procurement that this body approved but it’s being
25
done manually. What Ms. Holt recommendation is number two was to purchase software and
having the software it’s going to do just as General Counsel has indicated. It’s going to have real
time. We’ll to get the information a lot faster, it will be more accurate. In addition to that the
third thing was to do a Disparity Study. So once we bring in and what I’ve done now is put
together the RFQ for the study. It’s going to go to Procurement, follow the normal procurement
processes and procedures. Once we get that information back which will tell me the price, how
much it’s going to cost and bring it back to this body.
Mr. Fennoy: My last question. Where are we on number one? What exactly is the
recommendation?
Ms. Gentry: The first recommendation?
Mr. Fennoy: Yes.
Ms. Gentry: I put the information together. I will be forwarding it to Mr. MacKenzie for
his legal review. He requested to review the program before we submit it to Collette Holt.
Mr. Fennoy: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay and just for clarity and then I’ll get Commissioner Smith and then I
think Commissioner Guilfoyle had his hand up then Commissioner Williams. I think the
confusion is what exactly and just to make sure that the maker of the motion if this is what your
motion was, what exactly are we approving today? And, Ms. Allen, you had your ---
Ms. Allen: Based on what was previously provided to us the cost of the software can
range from $30 - $40,000 dollars. And the previously, John Wainwright, who conducted the first
Disparity Study gave an estimate of $625 - $675,000. After Ms. Gentry spoke to Collette Holt
she said another company can provide the same services at $50,000 to $175,000 for the study.
Therefore that’s why the estimate of $100,000 to get us started on this process was identified. So
I hope that clarified it. It takes care of what was started but keep in mind depending on the cost
of the software, we’re not expecting it to be any more than $30 - $40,000 dollars and the,
whichever vendor or whatever selected for the Disparity Study is going to determine how much
the total cost is.
Mr. Mayor: So just for clarity and for the clarity for my good friend Commissioner
Williams, Commissioner Williams, your motion was to approve up to $100,000 dollars to begin
this process by pursuing these two initiatives. Correct?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Smith then Commissioner Guilfoyle then
Commissioner Williams.
Mr. D. Smith: There seems to be a great deal of monies from, we’re talking $675 down
here and all this kind of stuff and that agenda item is very confusing. So let me ask would this be
26
a better solution that once you have put out an RFP or an RFQ or whatever it is you’re going to
use, Ms. Sams, to get these items done then bring us back a price and let us approve it then. But
you’re asking us to write a check for something that we don’t really know what the, you’re
asking us to sign a blank check. And so wouldn’t it be better to present us an RFP or an RFQ
which are some factual numbers and not just ask us to write a blank check on a motion. Ms.
Sams?
Ms. Gentry: No, sir. What we’re asking is for you to give us the authority to go out with
the RFQ or RFP and bring that dollar amount back to you.
Mr. D. Smith: Well, that’s not what this motion says. This motion says ---
Ms. Gentry: Well ---
Mr. D. Smith: --- for us to fund this and that’s, clearly that’s not ---
Ms. Gentry: We needed to have at least some of the money for the software first thing.
So the $100,000 dollars that we found, I mean that our Administrator found is going to help pay
for the software and any price that we incur in working with Ms. Collette Holt. In addition to
that the RFQ has to come back and then we’ll come back to this body. You’re not signing a
blank check for us.
Mr. D. Smith: I want to hear from Ms. Sams.
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sams.
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir.
Mr. D. Smith: Can you try to clarify this for me why we’re, why we’re wanting money
up front when in my mind we should be asking for sending an RFP or RFQ out first. So can you
tell me where the Procurement Department would stand with this? Yes, ma’am, you’re on the
hot seat.
Ms. Sams: For this particular item for the Procurement Director to make a decision, it
will be outside of this particular agenda item. It will be outside of this particular agenda item
because for me before we will go out for a Disparity Study or to go out for software this
Procurement Director professionally thinks that there are parts of the IFAS System that could
address most of this. So I think we need to do an assessment of what is needed in order to reach
the minimum requirements in accordance to the court order. For me when I read, when I read
the court order the court order did not say we could not start a program as it relates to DBE
participation. We had to be very careful and the program that we have now as it relates to DBE
participation the federal program if Augusta were to decide to follow those rules and regulations
we can of course come up with a true program that will address some of our disparities as it
relates to contractors. We’ve done a Disparity Study; the Disparity Study specifically identified
27
areas that we need to address. There were departments that were involved who address some of
those issues and all of the work and the data that we received and put together has too been
sitting on our shelves waiting for that next phase. And I think for this Procurement Director the
time that we spent gathering that information legally that we could use to address some of the
disparities of Augusta not implemented. So that means that if you receive a new Disparity Study
what is going to happen is the Procurement Department and all the other departments that
participated will now have to go back and redo the work that we’ve done. That work included
the unbundling of contracts the, we have to go back seven years and collect data and put it in a
certain format that will address issues as it related to the courts whether the Procurement
Department did that. And working with all of the departments in Richmond County we did that.
So we were just waiting for that next phase to happen and unfortunately for whatever reason it
could’ve been that office was not staffed properly, it was under budget. Whatever the reason
was we didn’t reach the second stage where all that information was supposed to come together
and we were to work in unison to make this happen. So if you want a recommendation from this
Procurement Director I think what we should do as a recommendation would be to look at what
we have, identify the areas of weakness, look at the timeline of the old Disparity Study and I
think we have some time left, address the issues that are out there and (unintelligible).
Mr. D. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I just have one follow up question and this is for Ms.
Sams. I’ve heard a lot of conversation about Ms. Holt and legal. And I’ve heard a lot of
conversation about Ms. Gentry and legal and yet the group that is charged with procuring
services that this government needs, I’ve not heard about ya’ll being involved in these
conversations.
Ms. Sams: We are involved in it.
Mr. D. Smith: To me wouldn’t you have to be in the decision making process or adding
some information to this because ya’ll are the end users of this?
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Commissioner, it’s challenging to me in the middle
of situations but for us as the Procurement Department we have to address issues as it relates to
the legal entity of every department of Augusta Richmond County and at the end of the day
we’re held liable for whatever happens. So being what the city calls the expert person when we
are in court to have challenges, that person is me. So that forces me to know the rules and
regulations for most, for all the monies, the $800 million dollars that comes through the city this
lady here is responsible for as it relates to the procurement of those things. As it relates to the
DBE office I wish we had another vehicle in which we can use to address the issue and make the
procurement part of that easier because when I see you talking about local DBE’s, local
businesses all of that starts in that office. So if we don’t have registered vendors, if we don’t
have the programs set up where we can address the issues as it relates to funding then that’s a
disconnect from the whole department. So I think here we need to look at where we are, address
our inadequacies, put something in place and then make a determination of what our next step
will be. I’m not saying that Ms. Gentry is at fault, I’m not saying the Law Department is at fault,
but the vehicle that we used in the past is simply one that was not, did not get us where we need
to be.
28
Mr. D. Smith: My last question, Mr. Mayor. Would it help if we had in the past Mr.
Lockett under his Administrative Services has done a really good job in forming work studies
and when we redid that mixed thing we had a subcommittee, would it help it we formed a
subcommittee to try to find, made of this Commissioners, the DBE office and somebody from
your office and the legal team to try to solve this problem because for two years now I’ve heard
about this.
Mr. Mayor: I’ll give you two minutes.
Mr. D. Smith: No, that’s it.
Ms. Sams: It’s not that big. I don’t think we need a subcommittee formed to formulate a
committee to just do the right thing and to get that program up and get it started. I think there are
some directors that you need to make but it’s not so big that there needs to be a subcommittee to
make those decisions. The court order is very specific; the rules and regulations that govern that
process are very accurate and it’s just a matter of sitting down, looking at what our shortfalls are
and address them in moving forward.
Mr. D. Smith: Thank you for your technical expertise.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Guilfoyle then Commissioner Williams then Commissioner
Grady Smith.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Ms. Gentry, can I have you come up please?
Ms. Gentry: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Gentry.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Since this agenda item came up there’s a lot of information that’s being
tossed on both sides of the aisle. You have been the DBE Director since 2008?
Ms. Gentry: Coordinator.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Coordinator, I’m sorry about that.
Ms. Gentry: 2004.
Mr. Guilfoyle: 2004. Ms. Sams had mentioned the word registered vendors. How many
since 2004, ten years ago how many registered vendors does the DBE program have at this time?
Ms. Gentry: Currently the program has changed. When we first started it, it was based
on minority and you had to be a minority or females. When the program was enjoined we had to
cease that. It took about two years for the Commission to approve the local small business
program. Right now we currently have 56 vendors. And the reason the number is so low is
because we require, this Commission approved the program. In the program we required ten
29
years of taxes. Individuals as a small business owner sometimes file their taxes with their
family, they don’t want to disclose that. We tried doing a number of things. I have, you all have
appointed an advisory board that meets with me once a month and we have scratched our heads
trying to figure out how can we get that number increased. It’s not lack of effort; I also partner
with Ms. Sams. Anytime she has a function I have my own function twice a year. I attend and
go out speaking engagements so it’s not from lack of effort.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Comparable to other cities how do other cities rank compared to our 56,
(unintelligible) a year (inaudible).
Ms. Gentry: Atlanta has a booming program. Savnnanh. I’m in communications with
my counterparts in almost every state. Some of the states are having problems and some are not.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Savannah, for example, how many is there in that program?
Ms. Gentry: Well, Savannah is in the process of revamping so I was not able to find that
out.
Mr. Guilfoyle: I hear my colleagues all the time as well as I think it comes from
everybody on this board we want, you know, small business, we want local business we want
participation. And I know that you’re actually governed by this body but I don’t know if this
body ever gave you direction on goals set forth for anything. As far as communication I think
(unintelligible) as far as the direction from this body to you what the expectations are as far as
your position. I don’t think you ever received that since 2004.
Ms. Gentry: My job description has always been the direction that I have been instructed
to take for various from this body.
Mr. Guilfoyle: (Inaudible) define the last item this body told you to do. What direction
has the body told you to do?
Ms. Gentry: To go out and put together the, to go out and put together the RFQ along
with, go ahead and put the program together so that legal can review it and it can go back to
Collette Holt. You’ve given the directions. I understand Commissioner Smith’s concern but in
order to put anything or to submit anything to procurement you’ve got to have a funding source.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay in your words earlier when you was speaking I think that
Commissioner Smith you said you corrected Procurement. How did you correct Procurement?
Ms. Gentry: I didn’t correct Procurement. I indicated that our Disparity Study made
recommendations to our Procurement Department. One of the things that they indicated was to
streamline their process in terms of the documentations, the bid documentations. Our Disparity
Study gave recommendations. We just did not, the body did not move forward with all the
recommendations that the study provided.
30
Mr. Guilfoyle: But under the procedure instead of, you know, funding $100,000 dollars
why don’t we procure the information that you need for IT (inaudible) collaboration with IT to
make the Disparity Study to where (unintelligible) cost where you actually I think we’re going to
be funding money before anything is procured. Is that correct? You’re asking for money up
front.
Ms. Gentry: Again anytime making, Ms. Sams can correct me, but you have to have a
funding source if you’re going to put something on IFAS. I have no funding source right now.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Ms. Sams ---
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Guilfoyle: --- can Procurement have it without having a budget stream just to see
the cost?
Ms. Sams: Well, the first thing that Procurement does is ask for a funding source before
we put it out for bid because it’s kind of useless to put something out for bid if you don’t have a
funding source (unintelligible) estimated cost. But as it relates to some of the issues that Ms.
Gentry identified and I know I’m kind of going from what you said we need to be very clear
about the Disparity Study. The Disparity Study identified some things that needed to or
happened in the Procurement office and throughout the city of Augusta and I’ll go back to what
we said initially. Those things that were identified in the Disparity Study Augusta addressed and
it was currently sitting on the Procurement office shelf waiting for the next phase where it’s
incorporated into a program that works and addresses issues as the standards of federal
government and local gender participation gender and race participation in our process. We
don’t, how did we get there? Good question and that’s something that we’ve been throwing
around in the Procurement office for a while and it has been very difficult for us. We get there
by strengthening the DBE office. We get there by addressing the Augusta Richmond County
code called 10D. It’s well written, it also makes an evaluation of the program. That’s
(unintelligible) of Augusta Richmond County, well Augusta Georgia’s code and we just need the
courage and the strength to enforce what’s already written. And I think it will be to the city’s
advantage to enforce the code called 10D. It outlines the programs, there are other
municipalities that have such DBE offices. They’re working and they’re working because
they’ve taken steps to strengthen their DBE offices.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner, are you done?
Mr. Guilfoyle: No, I just wanted to ask Commissioner Williams ---
Mr. Mayor: Do you want another two minutes?
Mr. Guilfoyle: It won’t take but half a minute, sir. Commissioner Williams, I would ask
that, there’s a lot of information on this and I think there will be a lot more that’s obtained from
our directors and coordinators. If you would kindly, it’s up to you to send it back to committee
because we’re having great dialogue right now.
31
Mr. Williams: If I can ---
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: --- Mr. Mayor, I’m going to take (unintelligible) from some of my
colleagues penalize my two minutes. I took my watch off because I was listening to the Director
and the other Commissioners to make sure I got the same amount of time.
Mr. Mayor: I time it based on, based on how long the Commissioner is speaking when
the department director comes on and how long.
Mr. Williams: I understand but I’ve been hearing and I’ve been listening to all of this
conversation and Mr. Andrew said something back last year I think about we could go ahead and
implement a plan and I said to him and I, we’ve been going through this back and forth back and
forth and we never submit a plan. He said that the court would stop us but there’s some things
we need to do. The Disparity Study sat on the shelf for five years and we’ve been trying to pull
it off (unintelligible) and then we start to play around with it and never been able to get it moved
forward for whatever reason. Now we’re talking about a funding source to approve, the motion
was to approve $100,000 dollars last thing we voted on at the last meeting we voted against that.
This is the sixth, seventh maybe the tenth time we voted against it. We keep saying we want to
move forward what we want to get worked out but we have not done those things. Mr. Andrew
also said that the Commission has not got serious enough to do anything about this study. For
five years it sat on the shelf and nobody said anything. But I heard from you we didn’t have the
support but it still should’ve been on the floor. Somebody should have been at least talking
about it because it affects a lot of people in this community. So I don’t know the process like
Ms. Sams knows and I don’t know what Ms. Gentry knows but I do know that the study needs to
be addressed and one of the ways it can be addressed and if it takes the IT stuff to go in on top of
that we need to start somewhere. Ms. Sams did say you got to have a funding source before we
got out there and get information you got to have a funding source. So I think the same thing
that happened that happened ---
Mr. Mayor: I’ll give you another two.
Mr. Williams: --- I need four more. I did, the same thing happened the other week I
expect it will happen today, Mr. Mayor, I don’t think we’re going to support it. I don’t think it
was $10.00 dollars that’s no $100,000 dollars if it was $10.00 it’s not going to go anywhere. It’s
going to be on this agenda every time I sit down here because it don’t make sense to have to
spend $500,000 dollars and let it sit on the shelf then we did the study, we didn’t do nothing with
it. You’ve got the study. And your attorney who have not said a word yet now say you got to
continue to do a study because you ain’t got the follow up documents. We need to know if the
discrimination still exists so you have to continue. He also said that the next study would not be
as costly because we did start somewhere. But we ain’t, that probably went out the window
when that came in. I mean it probably went because we don’t know nothing about all that. We
lost our understanding that. My motion is to give her, to approve the $100,000 dollars to get the
32
IT stuff that we need and get the stuff implemented and bring it back to this body but the
$100,000 dollars ain’t going to do it. That’s still my motion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Smith and then Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. G. Smith: (unintelligible).
Mr. Mayor: Would you?
Mr. G. Smith: (unintelligible). Any way about five and a half years ago we did this
study. What’s changed since? Who’s going to answer that?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Gentry.
Ms. Gentry? Commissioner, what changed was we developed a Local Small Business
Program that’s a race gender neutral. We also implemented in 2013 a mandate that every bid
that comes through this body over $100,000 dollars are required to have percentage polls. Those
polls are generated based on federal guidelines looking at availability within Augusta Richmond
County as well as the census data. So we have implemented a program. I think a couple of the
Commissioners was concerned about the contract that let earlier today. We solicit the vendors,
we bring them to the table. Ms. Sams’ office, she’s soliciting them. We are soliciting them and
informing them. Every bid that comes across my desk the first thing I do I read the
specifications, identify if any of the fifty that can qualify what they can’t qualify but they can be
a sub we contact them and provide them the information to them. So it’s not from a lack of
effort.
Mr. G. Smith: So, I’m going to tell you I’m in the construction business. Believe me I
get hammered about once a week by certain contractors in this town. They feel like they’re not
going to waste their time (unintelligible) but I’d like to if I can (unintelligible) maybe we need to
get together and discuss this and get it on the table and don’t spend any money and make sure
we’re spending dollars that’s going to the right place versus five and a half years ago we spent
$100,000 dollars and we’re still waiting on this guy or this person to do this, this and this. I’ve
been down that road before because I get it done to me. But the thing about it is we finally start
holding people accountable for what they’re going to do what they say they’re going to do. You
know that’s the way I think. Don’t tell me something and you turn around and do something
else, all right? Show me the money. What do we get for it? That’s all I’m (unintelligible). And
now we want to give $100,000 more dollars. I’d like to be on Mr. Williams’ payroll; I’ll tell you
I need an increase. I need the Disparity Study in my hand. You’re not treating me fair, I need a
raise. But anyway I think we need to be accountable for what we’re studying for, what we’re
paying for. Let’s get some people to the table that wants to bid. Let’s take care of business.
Whatever you need to do that, I’ll help you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion that’s oh, Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know I believe if I’m not mistaken that
funding mechanism has been identified. I think the Administrator acted (unintelligible). But you
33
know we can beat around the bush on this Disparity Study and we can talk about what it’s done
and what it could’ve done and so forth. But the fact is the entire time of this Commission we’ve
been talking about the Disparity Study. We’ve been talking about doing something with the
2008 version before the five years was up and now we’re in 2014 we’re still talking about it.
We’re still trying to kick the can down the road. What kind of message are we sending to those
people that bothered to come to our meetings and watch us on TV and or read about us in the
papers? This is something that has to be done and I know somebody said well this should be part
of the budget but it couldn’t have been part of budget because we’ve had several budgets during
the course of the period of time that we’ve been talking about it. And I sure for one would not
want to be a part of a governing body or should I say this government discriminating in any form
whatsoever. This is 2014. If it was 1941 it might be a different story but I think we are better
than that and I would hope that all of us up here would act as intelligent professionals and do
what’s right. I understand the fact that money is limited but I think if a viable funding source can
be derived I think we need to go on and do what’s necessary instead of always saying those
things we don’t want to support we need more study, we don’t have the money. That song is old.
Let’s sing a new tune. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you. We have a motion that’s been made and properly
seconded. Madam Clerk, for clarity could you read back that motion?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Mayor, could I put a substitute motion in please?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you so much. I’d like to task the Procurement Director to procure
these two items without a funding source and come back before this body.
Mr. Lockett: Second.
Mr. Guilfoyle: (unintelligible).
Mr. Mayor: A substitute motion has been made and properly seconded. Commissioner
Williams I’ll give you one more minute because I’ve recognized you two times.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Didn’t the Procurement Director just tell us they
have to have a funding source before they do anything? I mean that’s what I thought I heard. Is
that what you said?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sams.
Ms. Sams: That’s exactly what you heard or what in my discussion with the
Commissioner. He wanted to just go out and test the market and see what was available to see
what we could get back. The only danger in that is people would not take the RFP as serious as
we would have liked to have had without a funding source but often times we go out for bid we
34
will secure quotation for, we’ve talked in confidence about possibly submitting to us a dollar
amount to come up with what exactly we need, what exactly we want. In this case if you as
Commissioners would just give us an opportunity to get with Ms. Gentry because she is unclear
about what she needs at this point. And we could be in a better place in putting together a sound
RFQ or RFP. That would make a difference; that would give us a true cause and a true value.
We can do it to just simply say how much money that we would need or we can do an RFP and I
you know when we were talking Mr., the Commissioner and I we were just looking for
alternatives and we asked if we had ever gone out and just secured prices for just as doing an
analysis. We can’t do that. But in order for you to go out as an official solicitation from
Augusta, Georgia you would need a funding source.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Mason: Yes, the primary motion and the secondary motion, neither one of them
would match what you just said just now in terms of getting with Ms. Gentry and really
determining what is that you really need. I don’t know what we do in that particular case
because right now I can’t believe (unintelligible) either one of them because it doesn’t match
what she said.
Mr. Mayor: If the maker of the substitute motion would like to amend his motion to
include that. Ms. Sams.
Ms. Sams: There needs to be some clarity. And I can say that because nothing brought
before you today even on your motion was clear. So therefore we need to get some clarity in
what Ms. Gentry needs. We need to also clarify from a procurement perspective we have a
system currently in place called IFAS that can probably give Ms. Gentry some of what she
needs. So we need to go and look at what we don’t have to pay for in house and separate that
from what she needs that the system does not offer. And I think in order to get even to that level
we need a conversation with Ms. Gentry to say I need A, B, C, and D and if the city can perform
B, C and D then that’s no charge because there hasn’t been a real conversation. We need to have
a real conversation on what we actually need.
Mr. Mayor: And would the maker of the motion then you have about a minute left.
Commissioner Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: I hope the maker of the agenda item won’t have a problem with tasking
the directors and coordinators to come together before we actually procure this (unintelligible)
for clarity.
Mr. Williams: I don’t have a problem with that, Mr. Guilfoyle. What I do have a
problem with the last almost ten years we hadn’t talked in house. The Commission ain’t got to
get with the directors to the department heads to say well hey because if you were in a car and
you can relate to this and I had some expertise and you needed some you would come and say to
me I think if I knew something to assist you with whatever you’re doing. Now I’m really upset
when I hear about we need to have a conversation for something that‘s been going on for at least
35
ten years. We done spent $500,000 dollars and we had not talked among ourselves. Let’s say
look we can do it on the first but we can’t do it on the second.
Ms. Sams: Okay ---
Mr. Williams: When we got to get a (unintelligible) there’s something wrong, Ms. Sams.
Ms. Sams: --- Mr. Commissioner ---
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner, that one minute’s up.
Ms. Sams: --- all right if I could explain to you. That Disparity Study has been out here
for some time and even though the Disparity Study has been out there for some time I don’t, I
did not mean to say that there has not been any conversation because certainly there has been
some communication. And there has been some communication from both a legal standpoint
because we were under a court order. There has been some communication because as from a
procurement perspective there are laws that govern both processes. So therefore the
Procurement Department had to talk to the DBE office, had to talk to IT. Now what I’m stating
here is that now is the tailored part that the court is saying we have to do. The narrowly tailored
part has not been performed in accordance to how we would like it. And I want to say that so
when the news media prints it, it won’t appear to be in violation of the court order because that’s
not what I’m saying. I’m saying we could’ve done a better job. I’m saying that when we started
out with the Disparity Study when it was let that even the DBE office was not, it was the funding
source or they were not given the, they were not given the employees that it took to put the
program together. So as of 2014 as Procurement Director there has been some communication
but from where we stand today we need to look at where we are, we need to determine the steps
that we need to take because we still have data in the Procurement Department and in other
departments that hasn’t been touched because we’re waiting for the gap that hasn’t been filled.
Unfortunately that gap is from the DBE office. It may not be a direct reflection on Ms. Gentry
but we have got to evaluate where we are and move forward. And my suggestion for that is that
there be some conversation between the departments to get us where we need to be.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a substitute motion and a second. Madam Clerk, for the
point of clarity if you could read back the substitute motion.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. The substitute motion as amended by Mr. Guilfoyle was to task Ms.
Sams and Ms. Gentry to meet together to see where they are in this process and determine what
steps need to be taken to move forward with it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Guilfoyle, I’ll recognize you for one more minute.
Mr. Guilfoyle: I realize this. I just wanted to make sure we have a time frame on that.
Ms. Gentry, Ms. Sams give me an idea. I don’t want to say ---
Mr. Mayor: Thirty days, would that be adequate?
36
Mr. Guilfoyle: (inaudible).
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Ms. Sams: Well, the Procurement Department needs to be 45 because right now we are
working with FEMA and GEMA on some things that take priority. We note that this is a
priority, Mr. Commissioner Williams, and we but we have to pay particular attention to the court
order and the Augusta Code 10D before we, we don’t want to jump into it very quickly in any
case.
Mr. Mayor: Forty-five days.
Ms. Sams: Forty-five days would be good for us.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Sounds good to me.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioners will now vote ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: Does that include legal?
Mr. Mayor: Yes. Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign of voting.
Motion Passes 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, on to the final agenda item.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATOR
12. Approve the projects to be funded by SPLOST VII as recommended by the
Engineering Department.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Ladson.
Mr. Ladson: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission I guess this is kind of giving
us a timeline on SPLOST VII, how we came to the amount and the actual projects. Initially we
had it was $378 million dollars for the projects that we have. And those projects were reduced
down to about $40 million dollars that was needed for these (unintelligible) and $40 million
dollars was increased to $50 million dollars. The $40 million dollars for, at that point what we
did was looked at the projects and looked at the price that would be the projects that I needed,
ones that were critical from a safety issue and also the projects that were ongoing projects that
were funded in a previous SPLOST. And we looked at issues such as (unintelligible). We’ve got
a new program in there to replace corrugated metal pipes. As you know that this is where we’re
having problems like that all over the county. It’s an ongoing everyday kind of thing. So these
are the things that we actually looked at and this is how we came up with the project list. These
are on the additional project list (intelligible) funding the projects. However to get to the $50
37
million dollars we did use the projects, the 35 projects that’s (unintelligible). These, this is with
(unintelligible) that analysis, looked at these projects that (unintelligible). That’s pretty much
where we’re at.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: How much money or how many projects, how much money initially was
needed to take (unintelligible)?
Mr. Ladson: We actually what we did was we prioritized the projects and if we needed
anything as it relates to infrastructures, if they’re under $378 million dollars (unintelligible).
Mr. Williams: How did you get down to the amount you got now, the $50 million?
Mr. Ladson: We looked at prior, like I said we prioritized the projects. Some of the
projects actually had including the funding process the ones that we usually have. So to get to
the $50 million dollars some of these projects we had to, we took some funds off of basically the
other projects. So some of these project projections (unintelligible) they may not be
(unintelligible).
Mr. Williams: Okay, if they’re not for the funding and we started them, that’s like
starting to pave a road and you have the asphalt but you don’t have no money to resurface it. So
if you started it I mean how can we even ---
Mr. Ladson: We’ve done it in the past. I mean we done everything that was requested
and what you’ve done with this let me use as an example that it’s east Augusta. East Augusta is
basically, that’s basically a $20 million dollar project. So what we’ve done and we do this on
numerous projects what we’ve done is split it up into different phases. And East Augusta for
example has eight different phases. So we completed the first phase, the second phase is under
construction. I think they actually have a notice to proceed so they should be putting everything
out there probably this week. The third that was $4 million dollars, four to five million dollars
that we actually had and like I said this is a $20 million dollar project. So what we’re, I mean
what, this is just to keep the project going.
Mr. Williams: I understand. Which one Commissioner did you talk to about this project
that they thought or that they think was important in their area that they thought there was a need
for what you come up with these figures?
Mr. Ladson: I didn’t have any conversation with (inaudible).
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Ladson: But let me mention this. We based this on what’s is (inaudible) but like I
said Wrightsboro Road from Highland to Marks Church Road. That’s a safety issue because the
road is sinking in. Those are the things we’re looking at.
38
Mr. Williams: Those would be an emergency situation to me but you mentioned about
east Augusta and we done put money into east Augusta probably as many times as any other
road in Augusta and it still got some issues with it. Now whether we spent the money right
because the last time I asked the question is this going to stop it. Is this enough, is this going to
do it and I was told like always yes. And now we know we got some serious issues down there
and need to be addressed but you know ---
Mr. Ladson: I’m not sure what ---
Mr. Williams: Nothing else, Mr. Ladson. Let it go. Let it go.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Ladson, well let me just say this. The first
problem that I had with this initially was that of course it came out in January sometime when
you put the initial list out $370 million or so and then February 27 came out a list and the vote
th
was taken on the 28 which didn’t show this as to be determined that was voted on. And of
course when we came back in March I read that there wasn’t a list there and I saw no priority and
don’t know where’s the money going to go and that sort of thing. So I made those comments
th
and those are some real issues that I had. So now on April 5 we receive an email from the
Interim Administrator with this list now that we have in front of us for the $50 million. And one
of the issues I had on the previous list for about $370 million there was about $80 million that
thth
was going into the east Augusta, Laney Walker, 10, 11 12 street area. And when you add it
all up from ---
Mr. Ladson: (unintelligible).
Mr. Mason: --- all of that. But now when I see the list that’s been approved or you want
to be approved I see $500,000 for east Augusta roadways, Marion Homes and then $500,000 for
(unintelligible) Albany Street so it’s only like one million out of $50 million dollars. Now as I
looked at the minutes from when the meeting was taking place on the vote and Commissioner
Guilfoyle wanted to add the extra $10 million to assist Commissioner Fennoy in his district but I
don’t see this coming into his district with this list right here because I only see this one million.
Heck, I’d be willing to give up one million from a Peach Orchard sidewalk to deal with those
drainage down there in east Augusta that hasn’t been taken care of so I really don’t understand
you know how this all came into play. Now I also heard you say about the priority. But even
though money’s been spent there was other monies supposed to go to east Augusta that never got
there too. So if we continue with you know what’s a priority what’s shown already we may
never get to ---
Mr. Mayor: I’ll give you two more.
Mr. Mason: --- thank you Mr. Mayor, we may never get to that point. I’m hoping that
that’s not the case but I just see a drastic difference between, you know, what we’re around about
$80 million which includes like I said Laney Walker area going into east Augusta. But I don’t
see that and I’m looking at these numbers, see that all there. I don’t see that on here on the new
39
one. And that was a lot of money that was, that you said was needed but I don’t see that on this
particular one. As a matter of fact like I said I only see one million of the fifty million when you
ask for another ten to be added on and it wasn’t added on but it wasn’t added on to address
locations that Bill Fennoy brought up in the minutes of the meeting I’m looking at. I don’t get
that so how do you explain that?
Mr. Ladson: Okay to answer the question about the sidewalk that’s an area that’s in
there. That project should be, that’s an area that should be, the project should be Tobacco Road
resurfacing and sidewalk project.
Mr. Mason: Are there any other areas in here (inaudible).
Mr. Ladson: That’s it. Well, I had my list and then the list (inaudible).
Mr. Mason: That’s one of the problems I had. I mean wondering what we because we’re
asked to approve projects that need funding. I thought we got this one. I don’t know what
you’re looking at there but ---
Mr. Ladson: That’s the only project that’s on the list (unintelligible) $50 million dollars.
Mr. Mason: So do you recall the conversation when Mr. Guilfoyle was saying he wanted
to add another $10 million to Engineering so that we could help assist with the issues that Bill
Fennoy was bringing up? Do you recall that?
Mr. Ladson: Well, these are pretty much the same projects and the only difference is that
we added more money on to it. The issue with the $40 million dollars that you, when you talk
about $40 million dollars each one of these projects, the majority of them are not fully funded. I
can see your point so to even add ten more million dollars that’s not a significant difference all
together.
Mr. Mason: I get that.
Mr. Ladson: So when you, there’s going to be a big difference if you want $378 million
dollars, ten million dollars, fifty million dollars (inaudible).
Mr. Mason: I don’t think that’s a point of contention. What I do feel though is for
instance if you go to C26 which was $4,500,000 which is what you initially asked for then it
dropped all the way to only $500,000. Four million is gone right off the bat off an area that’s
one of the highest needs in the city versus, I’m not saying Monte Sano is not important but that’s
$3 million there and their piping and grading is great compared to you know what I’m talking
about down in east Augusta. So I’m just using that as an example.
Mr. Ladson: I think, like I said I think the drop came from $378 million dollars. They
came from $378 million dollars down to $50 million dollars so there was a drop in every project.
And what I also wanted to say too this is a drainage project. So what we’re actually looking at
40
also with the stormwater utility you can probably add some of the funding (unintelligible)
stormwater (unintelligible).
Mr. Mason: Sounds like you’re counting the chickens before, starting to count the eggs
before they hatch.
Mr. Ladson: I understand but ---
Mr. Mason: And so the other areas continue to be left behind.
Mr. Mayor: I’ll give you one more.
Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. That’s just a point that I’m going to say it always
seems to be the same area that’s left out. You’ve got (inaudible) use it if you think we don’t
know what’s going to happen with the storm water. We just know we’ve got a huge problem in
east Augusta with the flooding the rusting pipes and so forth we do know that. There’s no two
ways about it. What is $500,000 dollars going to do to the big picture of what we’ve got going
on down in east Augusta? Well, if I add it up I mean what is that going to do? Is that going to
alleviate all of the other problems there? I know $50 million is needed but what are you really
going to do with that because half of that is probably going to be used for some type of design
service or something like that.
Mr. Ladson: No, in the as far as the design, the design has actually been completed and
part of the eight (unintelligible) area down in as far as with the $500,000 dollars and basically a
million dollars in that area. So like I said we’re looking at storm water as the way of getting the
majority of the funding for that if you know if you can’t get it through SPLOST.
Mr. Mason: (Inaudible) in that area that you previously asked for (unintelligible).
Mr. Ladson: Yeah but if asked, if I asked for $20 million dollars that’s only half of your
$50 million dollars and we still have major projects what I consider priority projects for safety
issues, Berckman Road and Wrightsboro Road those I mean right now that’s (unintelligible).
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith.
Mr. D. Smith: He answered my question. Abie, you were just going to try to move from
the drainage problems into the stormwater fee if that passed. Is that what the intent was?
Mr. Ladson: (Unintelligible) the stormwater fee and you also could use the, even if we
get a million dollars (unintelligible) and we’re also getting some funds from the discretionary
and if the stormwater passes, we will get funds from that. So anywhere we can get some funds,
but you have to understand that the Engineering Department doesn’t make that decision.
Mr. D. Smith: All right.
Mr. Ladson: (Inaudible).
41
Mr. D. Smith: Motion to approve.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Commissioner
Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ladson, you mentioned somewhat if we
use the (unintelligible) SPLOST VII what is the status of the TSPLOST?
Mr. Ladson: As far as how many projects ---
Mr. Lockett: As far as collections for one. How does it look and when are we going to
see some results?
Mr. Ladson: Well, collection is down right now; however we’re on schedule as far as
construction design. Right now we have about there’s about three or four projects that already
been bidded (unintelligible). By the end of the year we should have about ten projects left
(unintelligible). 77% of our projects will be constructed or be under construction in Phase One.
And after Phase One (unintelligible).
Mr. Lockett: When we voted to advance the Berckman Road I don’t recall that you were
given a dollar amount. And whatever that dollar amount was, is it still the same or has it
changed?
Mr. Ladson: You mean the dollar amount for ---
Mr. Lockett: The project itself.
Mr. Ladson: No, the dollar amount for Berckman Road is still the same (unintelligible).
Mr. Lockett: How much?
Mr. Ladson: I think it was right at about $14 million dollars.
Mr. Lockett: And it’s still there. It hadn’t changed.
Mr. Ladson: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Fennoy.
Mr. Cassell: For clarity Berckman Road’s actually two projects. The road widening and
the bridge project. The total for the bridge is about three and a half million and I think the road’s
about $15 million.
42
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Fennoy.
Mr. Fennoy: Mr. Ladson, are these projects negotiable?
Mr. Ladson: Uh, I mean it’s (unintelligible).
Mr. Fennoy: And the reason I asked that question because, I mean, from East Boundary
all the way back to South Carolina (inaudible) and I know that it’s going to take a lot of money
to get accomplished but a million dollars, I mean half a million for east to Marion Homes, well,
it’s not going to get it. And when I, I mean you have people every time, it rained last week. I
mean yesterday they flooded. They had water coming in their homes. And I understand the
stormwater fee and how that will impact the project but it was my understanding that the
additional $10 million of the original total was $40 million. And we’ve got I think Donnie or
Wayne, one of you all talking about the additional $10 million (unintelligible) and I said fine. So
I mean ---
Mr. Ladson: We can definitely, I mean can shut the project, I mean take the monies off
the other projects. What I do want to say that the additional $10 million dollars even with the
$40 million that we have I mean the $40 million wasn’t near enough for the projects
(unintelligible). Even if you add $10 million dollars it still won’t be projects put (unintelligible).
When you’re dealing with infrastructure, you know, five, ten million dollars, not a whole lot of
money. I mean let’s just take Windsor Spring Road for example. Phase Four of Windsor Spring
Road and Phase Five of Windsor Spring Road itself that’s a $50 million dollar project just that
road.
Mr. Fennoy: Okay so you’ve been in several meetings with me and you’ve been down to
Eastview and Marion Homes and I was (unintelligible) based on your observations, what area
would you say is most in need?
Mr. Ladson: When it comes down to the drainage?
Mr. Fennoy: Or infrastructure.
Mr. Ladson: In my opinion that’s all over the county. I mean I can go into every district.
I mean it’s I mean each district’s got their own problems. The unique thing about Augusta is that
you have urban areas, suburban areas and all that and they’ve all got their own problems they’ve
got their own issues I mean especially after it rains.
Mr. Fennoy: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a substitute motion that we take this back to
committee.
Mr. Mason: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Is that good with you, Mr. Ladson?
Mr. Ladson: Yes, sir.
43
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a substitute motion that’s been made and properly seconded
to bring this back to committee. Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote
by the substitute sign of voting.
Mr. Fennoy, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Mason, Mr. Lockett and Mr. Williams vote Yes.
Ms. Davis, Mr. D. Smith, Mr. Guilfoyle and Mr. G. Smith vote No.
Motion Fails 5-4.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, I’d like to respectfully request that this item be placed on the
next Engineering Services agenda.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Oh, excuse me. We have a primary motion on the floor to approve.
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Ms. Davis, Mr. D. Smith, Mr. Guilfoyle and Mr. G. Smith vote Yes.
Mr. Fennoy, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Mason, Mr. Lockett and Mr. Williams vote No.
Motion Fails 4-5.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, I make that request again. If there’s no further business to
come before the body we stand adjourned.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Nancy Morawski
Deputy 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
April 14, 2014.
__________________________________
Clerk of Commission
44
45