HomeMy WebLinkAboutRegular Commission Meeting May 16, 2017
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
MAY 16, 2017
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., May 16, 2017, the Hon.
Hardie Davis, Jr., Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Jefferson, Guilfoyle, Sias, Frantom, M. Williams, Davis, Fennoy, D.
Williams, Hasan and Smith, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Mr. Mayor: Well, good afternoon, everybody. We are here to do the people’s business
and there’s a lot of stuff that we have before us today. I want to welcome you to your local
government. You are here at the people’s chamber Lee A. Beard Chamber and we’ve got a number
of quests who are here with us on today. And Ms. Bonner’s out but we have the distinguished
lady Ms. Nancy Morawski. The Chair recognizes Ms. Morawski.
The Clerk: Yes, sir, we would like to call on the Reverend James T. Said, Rector of St.
Augustine of Canterbury Episcopal Church who will give our invocation today. And after that
we’ll stand for the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
The invocation was given by The Reverend James T. Said, Rector, St. Augustine of
Canterbury Episcopal Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Reverend Said, if you would approach we want to one, thank you and
congratulate you on today for serving as our Chaplain. We want to thank you for your spiritual
guidance and civic leadership not just at St. Augustine Episcopal Church but in the community as
well, thank you.
Rev. Said: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Would you join me in congratulating him. (APPLAUSE)
ADDENDUM
30. Employee of the Month – May 2017
Ms. Norma Lee, Customer Services Program Manager, Augusta Utilities Department.
The Clerk: We would first like to recognize today and offer our congratulations to our
Employee of the Month for the May 2017, Ms. Norma Lee, the Customer Service Program
Manager for the Augusta Utilities Department. Norma, if you’d like to come down and join the
Mayor, Mr. Fennoy and any other utilities, Mr. Wiedmeier and any other employees who wish to
join them. And I’ll read the accolade for Ms. Lee. The Employee Recognition Committee has
selected Norma Lee as Augusta, Georgia’s Employee of the Month for May 2017. Norma Lee has
been a dedicated employee of Augusta Richmond County for almost 41 years. Since March 2012
she has continued to demonstrate her exceptional work ethic as a member of the Augusta Utilities
Department in the position of Customer Service Program Manager. She has consistently proven
1
her worth and succeeded in all of her endeavors. The Augusta Utilities Department has received
many compliments and much praise for her work and is delighted to have such a valuable employee
with the determination and urgency to go the extra mile. Some of Norma’s outstanding
contributions include assisting in the development and upgrade of the (unintelligible) software
projects, monitoring and tracking project milestones, providing regular facilitation of internal user
training classes, planning and initiating and managing assistance with IT projects and serving as
liaison between the business and technical sides of the projects as well as being a motivated team
leader she demonstrates enthusiasm and diligence in all she does. Augusta Utilities Customer
Service Division is proud to have Norma as part of the team and grateful for years of hard work
and dedication. Based on this nomination Norma’s outstanding contribution to the Augusta
Utilities Department and her service to Augusta, Georgia the Employee Recognition Committee
would appreciate you joining us in recognizing Norma as the May 2017 Employee of the Month.
Congratulations. (APPLAUSE)
Ms. Lee: I just thank you all and it’s an honor, and I really wasn’t expecting it. I’ve
enjoyed working with the Utilities and many aspects started out at the bottom and worked my way
up and I just enjoy my job or I’d be retired by now.
Mr. Mayor: Tom.
Mr. Wiedmeier: I’d just like to say that Norma is a joy to work with. She has the best
attitude and that’s a testimony. All her colleagues, would you stand. They work with her and
that’s every manager we have in customer service and I’m a little bit nervous about who’s driving
the train right now but, Norma, thank you for your service and your friendship.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Fennoy.
Mr. Fennoy: Yes, I just want to say congratulations and as Chair of Engineering, we
appreciate the great job that you do and all the city employees do for the City of Augusta.
Mr. Mayor: On behalf of all of our citizens, thank you for your service your labor of love
and we appreciate you being a part of Team One Augusta. Thank you. (APPLAUSE)
ADDENDUM
31. Recognition of the Delta Sigma Theta’s Delta Days in the City.
Mr. Mayor: We are delighted today to have with us the ladies of Delta Sigma Theta
Sorority Inc. Today is Delta Days in the City and we have I believe about 20 young ladies who
are with them that they are mentoring. We had an opportunity to chat with them. I’m going to ask
them to stand and then I’m going turn it over to Ms. Jackson. She’s going to address you. To
those who may not be aware of it Ms. Jackson is one of the distinguished ladies of Delta Sigma
Theta Sorority Inc., along with Takiyah Douse. They are part of the original divine nine. Ms.
Jackson.
Ms. Jackson: Yes, we are very pleased to have active and financial members of the Augusta
Alumni Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority here with us today. I am a life member of the
2
organization as are several of the ladies who are here with us and we just want to let you know that
Delta was founded on the idea of social and political action. One of our original actions upon
founding of the organization in 1913 was to get involved in the Women’s Suffragette Movement
even though black women couldn’t vote at the time and we still got out there to fight for other
women to have the right to vote so that is the founding of our organization. In carrying that out
we have Delta Days at the nation’s capital, Delta Days at the state capital, and Delta Days at the
city. The young ladies who are affiliated with the program have been mentored through our
organization. They had a chance today to go down to the Board of Education to take a tour of that
building. They walked throughout downtown and come down to the Municipal Building to see
local government at work. So, we’re just very pleased to have all of the ladies here with us. The
ladies in red, aren’t they just beautiful, and very pleased for the young ladies who have taken
advantage of this opportunity to join us. Thank you very much. (APPLAUSE)
ADDENDUM
29. Motion to approve the Final Draft of the Probation Services Order as changed by the
Probation Services Advisory Board. (Requested by the Mayor)
Mr. Mayor: All right, let me do one more thing before we move forward, Ms. Morawski.
All right at this time so we can go ahead and at least get it rolling, the Chair will entertain a motion
for unanimous consent to add an item to the agenda and that is a probation order.
Ms. Davis: So moved.
Mr. Frantom: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ve got a motion and a second. Voting.
Motion Passes 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you. All right, I want to thank everybody and we’ll take that up
at the regular agenda in fact they might even (inaudible).
The Clerk: Delegations?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
The Clerk:
DELEGATIONS
A. Mr. Derrick Partridge, Marks Demolition & Environmental Group regarding the re-
establishment of the city’s in-house demolition program. (Requested by Commissioner
Wayne Guilfoyle)
Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Partridge, if you’ll speak from there. If you’ll share, if you’ll
provide us with your name which we know but again for the record your name and your address.
3
Mr. Partridge: My name is Derrick Partridge. I reside at 4683 Fulcher Road in Hephzibah,
Georgia.
Mr. Mayor: Five minutes, sir.
Mr. Partridge: Mayor Davis and members of the Commission, I appreciate your time and
being able to speak in front of you and I thank you for the job that ya’ll do down here while we’re
out working and taking care of our business. I am employed by Marks Demolition and
Environmental as well as Marks Clearing and Grading. We run two companies out of one
operation out of one location. My mother and father-in-law William W. and Rosa Marks own the
business. They are no longer employed at the business; they are retired. Our business is 40 years
old, one of the oldest clearing and grading service businesses in the CSRA. Me and my wife and
my son and sister-in-law now run the operation the day to day operations in this business. We
have been doing business with the City of Augusta. We talked about that last night and we don’t
know it’s somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 to 20 years that we started doing demolition with
the city taking on city contracts. We’ve gotten very high regards and very high accolades ever
since we’ve been working with the city. There are a lot of, when you deal with demolition of
abandoned houses, there a lot of permits, a lot of rules and regulations EPD, EPA rules and
regulations, city regulations that we have to follow and to my knowledge we’ve never broken any
of those or have been cited for any violations and we just we pride ourselves in doing quality work
no matter what type of job we’re doing. Our work is not the finish work, you know when you
build a house or when you build a commercial building out we don’t see the finished product on
our side. You don’t see the beautiful buildings or the beautiful veneers or whatever. We start on
the beginning and a lot of people just overlook our work but we on the bottom we still take pride
in our work and strive to be very, very safe. And it came to our attention here recently through the
news media and the paper that the city was going to try to move demolition in-house of the blighted
buildings around Augusta in the CSRA area. And it was the reason for that as it was noted to me
was that it was going to be a cost savings to the City of Augusta in order to do that that they had
the infrastructure that you all have the infrastructure the equipment and the manpower to take on
this work. I find that a little bit hard to believe as we’ve been involved in these contracts and in
the bidding process for quite a few years and the business climate in Augusta is very, very
competitive in this area. There are probably ten to fifteen demolition contractors that call
themselves demolition contractors and do demolition work in various forms. There are four or
five large demolition companies in the area which kind of makes the workload few and far
between. Sometimes it can get very tight. The business climate in Augusta now the CSRA
everything’s on the upswing. There’s a lot of work going around and everybody’s very busy. So
it’s been said that I may be here trying to protect my job in Augusta. That’s not all true. What I
am trying to do is maybe protect the city from making a very bad decision and to go in this area.
I don’t see where there would be any cost savings whatsoever. The contracts that are let around
Augusta are very competitively priced. You all are getting a lot of bang for your buck on the
money that you pay out the demolition is very, very inexpensive around here. If you go into other
areas of our state, Atlanta or Columbus or anywhere else, we’ve worked in those other areas and
demolition prices are a lot higher so I don’t think you will be saving overall. The next point I’d
like to bring up is the liability that you would probably be putting Augusta Richmond County
under. When you deal with demolition you have to deal with asbestos. Asbestos as you know is
a cancer-causing agent and it has to be dealt with in an according way. For a long time we didn’t
4
even bid on city contracts because we could not handle asbestos. If you don’t handle asbestos in-
house you have to hire a third party. That brings me to a point where I don’t know how ya’ll are
going to handle that as Augusta Richmond County whether ya’ll are going to get your people
trained and certified to remove asbestos or whether you’re going to take it to a third party. Either
one of those items or either one of those ways to go it takes several years to get all your workers
certified. To get to be an abatement contractor we spent countless money sending our employees
to school and that is a yearly thing you have to recertified each and every year. Also in the nature
of these contracts in the City of Augusta because of the competitive nature here in Augusta, the
big four, big five demolition companies around have went to the steps of getting their people
certified and getting to be a licensed asbestos contractor and lot of times when we bid these
asbestos numbers into the contract we bid them at cost at a very low cost I might add. And so ---
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Partridge ---
Mr. Partridge: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: --- your time has expired.
Mr. Partridge: Okay, well, thank you for your time, thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Morawski.
The Clerk:
DELEGATIONS
B. Mr. Thompson, Thompson Wrecking Inc. regarding the re-establishment of the city’s in-
house demolition program. (Requested by Commissioner Wayne Guilfoyle)
Mr. Mayor: I don’t see him in the room, Ms. Morawski ---
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: --- I don’t see him in the room. Is there a representative from Thompson
Wrecking in the room? Okay, I don’t see Mr. Thompson in the room.
(Mr. Thompson did not appear before the Commission)
The Clerk:
DELEGATIONS
C. Administration Access and Demolition. (Requested by Commissioner Sammie Sias)
Mr. Mayor: Okay, all right is that a person?
Mr. Sias: Are you ready?
5
Mr. Mayor: I’m going to come back to you.
Mr. Sias: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: All right, let’s go to the next one.
The Clerk:
DELEGATIONS
D. Dexter Contracting and Hauling regarding the re-establishment of the city’s in-house
demolition program. (Requested by Commissioner Wayne Guilfoyle)
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a representative from Dexter Contracting and Hauling? Okay, all
right, Ms. Morawski, that is all that we have in terms of delegations we’re ready for the consent
agenda.
(A representative from Dexter Contracting and Hauling did not appear before the Commission)
The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1-24 and under the Planning portion of
the agenda I’ll read the Planning petition and if there is anyone who has an objection would you
please signify your objection by raising your hand.
Item 2: Is a request for concurrence with the Planning Commission to approve a petition
by Stacey P. Johnson requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to
Zone R2 (Two-family Residential) affecting property located at 790 Eve Street.
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to this Planning petition? None noted, Mr. Mayor.
And under the Public Services portion of the agenda I’ll read the alcohol application and if there
are any objectors would you please signify your objection by raising your hand.
Item 5: A request for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine License to be used
in connection with The Country Club Dance Hall and Saloon, LLC located at 2834 Washington
Road Ste. F. There will be Dance.
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to this alcohol petition? Don’t see any, Mr. Mayor.
So our consent agenda is items 1-24.
Mr. Mayor: All right, the Chair will entertain any motions to add or remove from the
th
consent agenda. The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 6.
Mr. Hasan: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull item number eight.
st
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 1.
Mr. Fennoy: I’d like to add number 26.
6
Mr. Mayor: Okay, all right with objections so 26 will be on the regular agenda. All right,
th
the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 9.
Mr. M. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull items 22 and 23. I don’t have a problem with
them but I do have a question also item 10 just to get some clarity.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, very good, very, good okay I think that’s great. All right, so I’d like to
add the Probation Order to the consent agenda as well. All right.
Ms. Davis: Move to approve.
Mr. Frantom: Second.
CONSENT AGENDA
PLANNING
1. Final Plat – Walker Hill, Phase 3-S-856-III – A request for concurrence with the Augusta
Georgia Planning Commission to approve a petition by James G. Swift and Associates, on
behalf of Prather Construction Company, requesting final plat approval for Walker Hill,
Phase 3. This residential subdivision is located on Walker Creek and Johnson Branch,
adjacent to Walker Hill, Phase 2 and contains 29 lots. DISTRICT 8
2. Z-17-15 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Georgia Planning Commission to
approve a petition by Stacey P. Johnson requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1Z (One-
family Residential) to Zone R-2 (Two-family Residential) affecting property containing 0.16
acres and known as 790 Eve Street. Tax Map 035-3-293-00-0 DISTRICT 1
3. ZA-R-248 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Georgia Planning Commission
to approve a request to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta Georgia
by adding Noise (Ordinance) to Section 2-Definitions, Section 4 – Off-Street Parking and
Loading, Section 21-B-1 (Neighborhood Business), Section 22-B-2 (General Business)
PUBLIC SERVICES
4. Motion to approve the National Recreation and Park Association’s (NRPA) grant for a
“Healthy Out-of-School Time Program” in the amount of $25,000.00. (Approved by Public
Services Committee May 9, 2017)
5. Motion to approve New Ownership Applications: A.N. 17-16: A request by Dwayne
Britton for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine License to be used in
connection with The Country Club Dance Hall and Saloon, LLC located at 2834 Washington
Road Ste. F. There will be Dance. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee May 9, 2017)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
6. Motion to approve a request from the District Attorney for the purchase of one Ford
Explorer using Forfeiture Funds from the District Attorney’s Office. Bid 16-185 (Approved
by Administrative Services Committee May 9, 2017)
7. Motion to approve a request from the Augusta Utilities Department – Fort Gordon
Division for 2 new pickup trucks and one SUV to accommodate recently added personnel to
their Fort Gordon contract. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 9, 2017)
7
9. Motion to approve Commission Notification Policy: approve a threshold of $20,000
personal injury, property loss, or extreme circumstance that will require prompt notification
to the Commission regarding an incident or situation to include process or notification such
as i.e. at the next: Executive Session, email blast, etc. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee May 9, 2017)
FINANCE
11. Motion to approve a request from the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office to move funds
($38,295.00) obtained from a 2017 sale of a Caterpillar Scraper. The agency intends to use
this funding to purchase a boat for the agency and other capital items. (Approved by Finance
Committee May 9, 2017)
12. Motion to approve agreement with Historic Augusta for funding as authorized in
SPLOST Phase VI. (Approved by Finance Committee May 9, 2017)
ENGINEERING SERVICES
13. Motion to approve contract with Cranston Engineering Group to provide services related
to Public Safety and FERC license for the Augusta Canal in the amount of $253,552.00.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 9, 2017)
14. Motion to approve the abandonment of an existing easement to Huntsman Pigments
Americas LLC. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 9, 2017)
15. Motion to authorize condemnation to acquire property in Fee Simple Interests (Parcel
087-2-188-00-0) – 132 Horton Drive. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 9,
2017)
16. Motion to authorize condemnation to acquire property in Fee Simple Interests (Parcel
087-4-081-00-0) – 2068 Willow Street. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May
9, 2017)
17. Motion to authorize condemnation to acquire property in Fee Simple Interests (Parcel
087-4-096-00-0) – 2026 Golden Rod Street. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
May 9, 2017)
18. Motion to authorize condemnation to acquire property in Fee Simple Interests (Parcel
087-4-109-00-0) – 2052 Golden Road Street. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
May 9, 2017)
19. Motion to authorize condemnation to acquire property in Fee Simple Interests (Parcel
087-4-138-00-0) – 2051 Leona Street. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 9,
2017)
20. Motion to approve establishing a subcommittee to review and recommend changes to the
city ordinance to establish a Streetlight District to include Commissioner Sammie Sias,
Augusta Engineering and the Planning & Development Departments. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee May 9, 2017)
21. Motion to approve rescinding the action of the Commission taken on April 18, 2017 and
approve the installation of six street lights on Tripps Court at a cost of $134.36 per year. This
is also to approve a new lighting tax district for the 13 lots associated with the above road.
Funding is available in the Street Lighting budget account #2760416105312310. (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee May 9, 2017)
8
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
24. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held May 2,
2017 and Legal Meeting held May 9, 2017.
ADDENDUM
29. Motion to approve the Final Draft of the Probation Services Order as changed by the
Probation Services Advisory Board. (Requested by the Mayor)
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got a motion and a second. Voting.
Motion Passes 10-0. \[Items 1-7, 9, 11-21- 24, 29\]
Mr. Mayor: All right we’re going to go to 28 first, Ms. Morawski.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
28. Approve the re-establish In-House Demolition Program in house within 60 days and use
contract services only for specialized needs as deemed necessary. (No recommendation by
Engineering Services Committee May 9, 2017
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 4.
Mr. Sias: Thank you, sir. Reference this agenda item first I want to clear up a couple of
things. We have been receiving briefings about our demolition program and the fact that there
have been many news reports about the fact that this program was not sustainable at the amount
of money we’ve been spending to do each one of our demolitions. So, in that fact in doing some
research about the equipment that was available that we could look at doing this in house, I also
requested some assistance and some information from our Administrator. So, let me get to the
heart, two hearts of this matter. Number one, this issue didn’t catch anybody off guard as has so
st
been stated. Number one, this agenda item came out on the 21 of April and it was my agenda
th
item and we talked about it on the 9 of May. Between that time, I got one phone call from one
Commissioner inquiring about that item, one. Secondly, if we’re looking at doing some ways to
save this city some money and that is what our employees and our staff are for here what they’re
for is to render us assistance if we need some information and that is what I did with the
Administrator. And I don’t need anybody’s permission to do that and I’ll continue to do that in
the future. It’s disturbing to me when we’re in public and we do our best to embarrass our staff
members. That’s very disturbing to me and I think it’s something that needs to end, as a matter of
fact I know it’s something that needs to end. Now we talk about liability with our In-House doing
any in-house demolition particularly using our inmates, but I haven’t heard that concern about
these inmates when they’re in the ditches and they’re doing they’re facing these snakes and all
kinds of other issues working on the side of the road and we know how dangerous working on the
side of the road is. So, when we’re talking about using them for demolition we have construction
crews and everything else that are made out of inmates that make up, the inmates make up these
crews. So the idea of using In-House Demolition is probably one of the better jobs that they could
have along with the other work that we expect and require them to do. And I have complete
9
understanding for business folks but the city is not here just to entertain and insure all business
people have a job. The purpose of this government is to serve the public and to serve the folks at
the best price that we as a governing body can have for our citizens and that’s one of the things
where we can support small business, where we can support any business we’ll be able to do that
if it’s economical and it’s within the scope of what we are doing. Now to ensure that we get these
blighted houses and all this blight that’s been around Augusta for a while, we need to have a
program that we can sustain and the present program is not going to be sustainable based on the
fees that we have. We have to find a more economical way to get it done so thereby I’m going to
make a motion, Mr. Mayor, that we establish a test in-house demolition program to remove the
remaining houses in the Hyde Park area and waive the landfill tipping fees during this test program.
Thank you.
Mr. Hasan: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We have a motion and a second. All right, there’s a lot more
debate that we’re going to have on this matter. All right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner
th
from the 8.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Mayor, thank you I’ve sat and listened to my colleague. I think the
whole point of my discussion last week to work as a team instead as individuals. There’s no way
that this body will succeed. Augusta has a lot to lose. I would like to thank Mr. Partridge for
coming up and speaking on behalf of the vendors but the, my colleagues where their mindset is if
a prisoner can clean a ditch they could demo a house. In the real world, businesswise, we have a
thing called Workman’s Comp. Workman’s Comp values each job, each trade on the exposure
and liability to any employee. To do landscaping, digging ditches, retention ponds is a 15%
exposure so every time a contractor makes a dollar, 15-cents of it goes to the insurance company
for exposure. Demolition is 30%, 30% exposure that doubles your liability and exposure to risk
of injury to said employee or prisoners. My challenge with using prisoners, one, is how do you
control it? If a prisoner does not want to work, what are you going to do? Put them back in jail
and grab another inmate? Two, who’s actually going to be responsible for this program? We’re
actually voting on something where we have nothing; there’s no plan. If we run out of money with
the $400,000 dollars we’re using right now, which department are we going to hold accountable?
We have the prison, the RCCI. We have Solid Waste; we also have the Rec Department and the
Administrator. Who is going to be the one that we could point the finger at when this program
does not succeed if the equipment that we use fails or gets damaged? Who is going to be
responsible? And probably the most important part as a citizen and taxpayer of Augusta who is
going to hold the liability because right now the gentleman that’s sitting in the back they’re holding
the liability the exposure to Augusta-Richmond County is very limited. But if you look at time
when it comes to construction time is money. Everybody probably had their house built. If you
had a contractor that took two years to build your house you paid the interest on that note until it
was completed. These gentlemen has it down pat to where it’s done in three or four days and when
that lots done, it’s cleaned and cleared, grass in grown, hay is put out. It’s one of the most
successful programs we have. And we’re always talking about using our Local Small Business
we are, we’ve got a good program. Now just to put a twist I do like the idea that Commissioner
Sias has put this on the agenda. We spend over a million dollars in grass cutting through our
Stormwater Program. Why don’t we utilize them prisoners instead of hiring subs to cut the grass.
10
If we want to save money and become feasible, economical, conservative, let’s do it that way.
Let’s save the money, let’s utilize that. But I do, you know I don’t know where this motion’s
going to go; there’s a motion to approve. My substitute motion was to be denied if I could get a
second.
Mr. G. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Ms. Morawski, you’ve got a substitute motion from the Commissioner
thth
from the 8 a second from the Commissioner from the 10. All right, okay just a moment okay
th
we’re going to go in this order. The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 9 and then the
th
Commissioner from the 5.
Mr. M. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m in support of some of this and some of it
I’m not. When you say re-establish and Nancy, me and you have been here a long time but I don’t
remember when we had an In-House Demolition Program. I do think the inmates can do some
work. We talked one time about building an animal shelter and we went to Atlanta and talked to
the Commissioner of Corrections there and they had professional incarcerated people there that
was professional carpenters and did all the professional work. They was just incarcerated and they
brought, they said they could bring those here to do the work because they were specialized in that.
And so I’ve got some issues when you ask someone who’s serving time to do certain things they’re
not capable of doing. There are some specialties but I think that there are some places around
Augusta. We’ve got some houses that’s been burnt down and the only thing remaining is the
chimneys and maybe some ashes they could be removed by inmate crews. But when you’re talking
about abatement and that type thing I’m a little bit leery, I’m a little bit unsure of how that would
happen. I do think we need to look at the fees that we’re pay on our own landfill and I asked the
question all the time why do we have to pay ourselves for water. You know we charge ourselves
for water at our local golf course. It’s our golf course and our water. I don’t pay myself for the
water I use in my car but then we paid ourselves at the landfill and that’s a cost that goes up as
well. I know, Donna, you’ve got numbers for all that and you know how to balance that out. I
stay in my lane. I don’t do that but I do think it’s something that we ought to look at doing some
on the small scale as far as stuff that’s being totally demolished where we get a piece of equipment
and going in and clean off a lot. Maybe remove some shrubs but we’ve got so many abandoned
properties that have been left alone for thousands of years probably around here and we’re not
going to get it overnight. We’re not going to do it. And we need to look at how we can do that
and rather than tear them down I mentioned Hyde Park has been evaluated and people moved out
of Hyde Park and we wanted to do some retention ponds and stuff over there and that’s one area.
But we don’t need to practice. I don’t think we need to practice on how to do it. I think if we’ve
got the expertise we can’t use a practice bill. We’ve got to go to work; we got to go in where the
work is called for. So, I said all that, Mr. Mayor, to say that I’d like to hear the pros and the cons
on how we’re going to do this versus just re-establishing a demolition program because if we re-
establish we’ve got to have a department head, we’ve got to have equipment, we’ve got to have
staff. We’ve got to have all those things go with that when you re-establish now. So, if that’s
what we’re going to do then somebody needs to help me out and understand how to re-establish is
going to come in before I say okay we’re going to do it.
11
Mr. Mayor: Yeah, I believe the gentleman knows of that what he speaks. All right, the
th
Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 5.
Mr. Jefferson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I pride myself on being a fair person and this is not
a perfect world, this is not a perfect recommendation. And where we are right now we’ve got
contractors doing the work and it’s said that we could possibly do it cheaper in-house. I’m not
totally sold on that but as fairness to the taxpayers, I think that is only fair since we are talking
about a 60-day period to look at it so it will be at end of 60 days proven whether we can handle
that or proven whether or not the professionals with the license, bond insurance and Workman’s
Compensation could do a better job for less. Also if this was a perfect world and a perfect
recommendation some 5 or 20 years ago when it was but out for bid it would’ve continued to stay
in-house. Now I’m reluctantly going to support a 60-day trial period so we could have the facts.
It could be proven up or down because I can’t tell you. I don’t have a crystal ball whether we are
on to something big or it’s pretty much the same as usual. I do have concerns for inmates once
their time is up and it’s like a revolving door and where we have professionals with 40, 50-years
of experience and this is their livelihood and this is what they specialize in to give us a product.
With all that being said I’m going to do like my friends from Missouri, the Show Me State. I’m
st
going to support this issue as far as the 60-day trial but on the 61 day I want something to show
me whether it was worth it or not.
Mr. Mayor: All right, so here’s our posture ---
Mr. Hasan: (Inaudible).
Mr. Mayor: --- I know I’ve got two of you down there. Commissioner Williams has asked
for some questions to be answered and I’m going to after I hear from these two Commissioners
th
I’m going to come back and since this your item Commissioner from the 4 I’m going to give you
an opportunity to respond to his questions but you’ll direct them to the Chair if you don’t mind,
st
okay? All right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 1.
Mr. Fennoy: Mr. Mayor, I have some concerns about this request and I guess one of my
concerns is if we re-establish a demolition program what department will that oversee that
program. Another one of my concerns is that this is supposed to be a cost saving project and I’d
like to do a comparison of what it would cost the city to do it as opposed to what it would cost the
way it’s been done now. I do know that I just got a printout where one company was awarded
almost $83,000 dollars to do approximately 20 homes. The same company was awarded almost
$80,000 dollars to do 19 homes so can we take down 40 houses for $160,000 dollars? I don’t
know. I do know that the I’ve seen some prisoners out at the Brigham Center build a shelter and
it was very professionally done and you couldn’t I mean unless you saw the prisoners out there
doing the work you wouldn’t know that this was work that was done by prisoners. So, I would
like to see this item go back to committee to have answers to some of the questions and concerns
I have that way I will be able to have some data to support whether I’m going to support it or not
support it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you so much that’s good. All right, the Chair recognizes the
th
Commissioner from the 6.
12
Mr. Hasan: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, let me share with the business owners as
well as the union representatives here how I got here on a personal level around this issue of In-
House Demolition. Looking back at it and trying it out because we’ve done it before and there’s
been no solid reason or different speculations as to why we brought it back in-house. But I’ve
talked to the Warden that was over it at the time, Warden Leverett. Had several phone calls with
him and he thought it would save the city some money. He thought it was more political in nature
as to why it broke done even though I’ve seen some other reasons saying well equipment was torn
up and those kinds of things but you know we just tore up two cars and we thought nothing of it.
That’s equipment too. But any way I talked other, I talked to Ms. Sams, had the very same data
that Commissioner Fennoy just shared with us to know how many hours had been let and what
have you so that means we’ve (unintelligible) about 35 to 40 homes that’s left out there. I went
out there last week and some of my colleagues can attest that I went out and I took pictures and I
shared it with pretty much everybody on the dais just last week when we was having this
conversation. But let me so let me go back to where I started. How did I get here to think that this
was pretty much something we should look at. Well, in 2015 if I’m not mistaken I do stand
correction and I apologize in advance because my intent is not to insult and not misrepresent
anybody. In 2015 I think, Environmental Services was able to give the city to get a demo program
started about $900,000 dollars. Was that 2015? 2015 and then there’s going to be $400,000
annually that the city would get as a result of that. Then in October of last year in preparing the
budget for 2017 Environmental Services needed us to raise the garbage fees. The Commission
chose not to do that by all rights, intents and purposes based on the policy they could’ve done that
without even the Commissioners’ consent but through the wisdom of the Director and the wisdom
of our Administrator they let the Commission waive on that decision and they chose not to do that.
Later on then as we began to talk about having a C&D Landfill we began to realize a lot of business
that goes to the landfill is going to whether it’s Columbia County or Aiken County. Richmond
County’s losing money at the landfill because business is leaving here; some businesses are leaving
and taking their waste other places. Also we realized that we lost a $300,000 dollar I won’t say
contract but I’ll say relationship with somebody here in Richmond County in terms of business
that was going to the landfill. Mr. Mayor, if you don’t mind I’d like to ask Ms. Morawski to ask
Ms. Natasha could they put this up here for a minute right here like I said.
Mr. Mayor: I hate to do this ---
Mr. Hasan: Mr. Mayor I, go ahead.
Mr. Mayor: --- hold on again I’m being very respectful. I want to let everybody have the
debate but right now I’m questioning the germanous of the stuff you’re talking about the issue at
hand.
Mr. Hasan: Well, let me wrap it up then, let me wrap it up.
Mr. Mayor: So Commissioner that ---
Mr. Hasan: Here’s my point, Mr. Mayor.
13
Mr. Mayor: --- I want to give you all the time but I want you to come back to the issue at
hand and that is demolition.
Mr. Hasan: It is demolition okay, it’s demolition.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Hasan: When you look at here ---
Mr. Mayor: I’m giving you a carrot ---
Mr. Hasan: --- I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor: --- I’m going to give you a carrot and I’m hoping you’re going to tie this slide
into how you’re going to pay for it.
Mr. Hasan: Yes, sir, and that’s exactly where I’m going, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Hasan: With all the figures that I’ve put out there and all this money that’s kind of
being escaping out of Augusta Richmond County by way of the landfill, and you look at when we
had a presentation that was presented to us in March of this year that the Commission needed to
take action to waive all these additional fees. What this says to me at the end of the day the
question comes to me, Mr. Mayor, can we continue to sustain Environmental Services if we do not
raise these fees, if we do not take out a bond for $2.5 million dollars, can they continue to give us
the $400,000 dollars? That’s my question. That’s the real question here so are we tied to this to
do that? So I’m looking at a way that we’re going to have to, can this sustain itself and if it’s not
going to sustain itself that’s how we got here. Now if it can sustain itself I’m fine but if it's going
to take us to automatically raise these fees because I find it very ironic that one year you give me
$400,000 dollars and the next year I need to raise my garbage fees and I need to do all these other
things that we’ve got money bleeding everywhere. So do I need to raise all these fees here? Do I
need to take on Page 21 of the very same presentation where it says $2.5 million dollars needed
for the current list to do a 500-year, a 5-year backlog for annual demo cost of $400,000 dollars?
So my question is to bring it back to home my question is to continue, to continue for the
government to get $400,000 dollars from Environmental Services for demolition purposes, is it, is
this going to be a requirement, can we do it without bonding in the $5 million-dollar bond to a $2.5
million-dollar bond or raising these fees can we continue to do it?
Mr. Mayor: Well, that’s an excellent question and I’m going to leave that up to each and
every one to determine for themselves in just a moment. All right, we’re going to come back down
th.
here to, I’m going to come to the Commissioner from the 4 He’s going to respond to the Chair
th
about the questions that the Commissioner from the 9 asked.
Mr. Sias: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Mayor, one let me say one thing about, we have a
ton dilapidated houses in Augusta. Now we’ve been looking at these houses for years. We had a
14
program, we have a program going now and my colleague said it very well, we can’t sustain it.
But I will say this. I’m not going to fight with folks in the area that has these houses. Now if we
want to sit down and talk about it further that’s fine with me, but I’ll tell you we have these
dilapidated structures in some very key areas throughout Augusta. It’s up to us if we want to get
rid of them. If we don’t then I’m okay with that because I have one vote and my one vote says
that we can’t sustain this program that’s saving my colleague outline. Now as far as the basic
structure we have a construction crew that’s in the Recreation Department. There’s an advisor for
that construction crew, there’s an inmate supervisor that’s with that crew. That’s it. We also have
other sets of crews. We have inmates that go out and use various landscaping equipment, we have
construction folks so it’s not that simple. We said 60-days to put together a program. My colleague
from the 6th was saying test it for 60 days. The idea was to establish it in 60 days. But if that’s
not the will on this body to save that money and just keep spending and we’ll just keep having
dilapidated houses, I ain’t going to fight you over it. It’s my proposal that we have a program that
we can sustain. We have inmates, the system is able to get inmates with professional skills to come
in here to do this kind of work but if we don’t have the will for it I’m okay with that. I really
th
appreciate my colleague from the 6 laying out the financial equity of it but that is what we have
been briefed on. So, Mr. Mayor, I’m done, thank you. We have a motion we know we’re ready
to vote on it I’m ready, we have two motions really.
Mr. Mayor: We’re going to get back to that point, we’re going still a little bit more debate.
th
All right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 8, well, before I come to you, were
your questions answered?
Mr. M. Williams: I don’t know (unintelligible).
th
Mr. Mayor: Okay all right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 8.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Mayor, I’m so grateful we’re able to have this dialog today about this
one subject. I think there’s some missing numbers going on when it comes to dollars. We worry
about saving a dollar by doing an in-house program. We fund it by $400,000 dollars but the
missing piece of the puzzle which I don’t think anybody’s grasping if we bring this in-house, the
fees for the dumpster charge that we’re going to bring to the landfill I assume, which assume gets
me in trouble every now and then, is going to be free. We won’t charge the city in order to make
the program look better. But out of $400,000 dollars $150,000 of it comes back in fees from the
same vendors that we use to demolish our houses. So in actuality the $150,000 is not per se is
going to be a savings. Now we reached out or I didn’t, my colleagues reached out to the Warden
to the other prisons on using inmate labor. My challenge is this. Why didn’t reach out to
Columbus, Athens, Savannah these other big cities who actually has the same program that we do?
We outsourced demolition. They have been successful no different that Augusta Richmond
County has been successful in this one program. Again time is money and I did not know if the
Administrator with her information if she had any of our colleagues received any information in
regarding to this program that Commissioner Sias and Commissioner Hasan has been working on.
Madam Administrator, has anybody received any information from your office in regards to this?
Mr. Mayor: All right, so direct your questions to the Chair.
15
Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, sir, I’m sorry, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, state your question.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Madam Administrator, has anybody received information from your office
in regards to this?
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Administrator.
Ms. Jackson: No, sir.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay all right, Ms. Morawski, here’s where we are. Here’s our posture. We
have a substitute motion to deny with a proper second. That is the motion that is before us we’re
going to take this matter up. We’re voting on the substitute that is to deny. All those in favor will
vote yea and those opposed will vote no.
Ms. Davis, Mr. Frantom, Mr. Guilfoyle, Mr. M. Williams and Mr. G. Smith vote Yes.
Mr. D. Williams, Mr. Sias, Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Hasan vote No.
Mr. Fennoy abstains.
Motion Fails 5-4-1.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, all right that motion has failed. We’re now back to the main motion.
Mr. Sias: Point of Clarity, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Hold on, just hold on. All right, there’s been a lot of debate about this matter.
Mr. Sias: This is not (unintelligible) just clarity.
Mr. Mayor: I’m going to come to you in just a second. There’s been a lot of debate about
this conversation. The thing that still concerns me today is that last year the same time we started
talking about demolition. One of the few times I weighed in on this to the Commissioner from the
thth
6 and the Commissioner from the 4 I stated at that time that if we were going to tackle this we
needed to rethink our strategy in terms of community redevelopment. I understand the test case is
Hyde Park but we’ve got vacant, abandoned, dilapidated properties in more than Hyde Park. And
if we’re not going to have a complete conversation about how we redevelop those properties once
we clear that land then we’re having an incomplete conversation. We also talked about how we
could repurpose our Community Development Block Grant dollars for this express purpose as
opposed to raising tipping fees, battery fees and everything else and I still to this moment have not
heard any conversation about how we’re going to do that. That again is an identified federal source
of money that we wouldn’t have to go into General Fund dollars, we wouldn’t have to go into
Enterprise Fund dollars and to this moment I still have not heard that, Commissioner Williams,
about utilizing those for the express purpose of putting together a complete strategy about our
vacant, abandoned and dilapidated properties and that concerns me greatly. It does because we’re
16
taking a stab at something and that’s at best a stab as opposed to us being able to cut a full slice of
meat and serve everybody steaks. I’m not sure that’s the highest and best use of what we’re trying
to do. Now you have a motion in front of you. The Chair’s going to recognize the Commissioner
th
from the 4 again as I said ya’ll wanted to debate it I’m going to give you an opportunity to but to
this moment since last year I’ve not heard a single thing in terms of how we address that in a
complete way to include the redevelopment part of it and so once I tear it down and I’ve got grass
out there I guess we’re going to come back and start cutting grass. So, that’s all I’m going to say
th
about that. The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 4 to clarify. Again, we have a
motion in front of us and if you want to clarify it.
Mr. Sias: The motion was to not the one on screen that was a new motion made to establish
a test in-house demolition program to remove the remaining houses in Hyde Park and waive the
landfill tipping fees during this test program ---
Mr. Mayor: That is correct.
Mr. Sias: --- that is a clarification of the motion.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir (inaudible) and we have a proper second to that. All right, the Chair
st
recognizes the Commissioner from the 1.
Mr. Fennoy: Mr. Mayor, I think most of my colleagues would agree that since the
implementation of the demolition program a lot of the structures that were taken down in 2015 up
until now were taken down in District 1 and District 2. The neighbors that had originally called
complaining about these structures and the fact that they need to come down are now calling
because the grass is so high that they have snakes and rabbits and coons and possums and squirrels
and they don’t feel safe letting their grandkids or kids go out in the neighborhood and play. I’ve
always said that demolition is only 50% of the problem and in order to eradicate the problem when
we take something down we need to put something in its place. And again that area has not been
addressed but that’s been my position all along. But my question, Mr. Mayor, is that the substitute
motion failed. If this motion, the primary motion doesn’t go anywhere, can there be another
substitute motion or another motion to address this issue?
Mr. Mayor: So, you know, here’s our posture. We have a motion the Commissioner from
th
the 4 has clarified it, it has a second. If that motion were to fail, here’s what I and again
assumption is always the lowest form of living. Here’s what I would anticipate would happen. I
would anticipate that you’re probably going to put something on a committee agenda that says
we’re going to go and we’re going to work on a complete plan for eradication of blighted, vacant
and abandoned properties to include a redevelopment plan for specific areas.
Mr. Fennoy: (unintelligible).
Mr. Mayor: I am ---
Mr. Fennoy: Okay.
17
th
Mr. Mayor: --- I know that the Commissioner from the 9 has been spending a great deal
of time on the Wrightsboro Road area along with Ms. Jackson and others and the churches that are
in that corridor. They’ve been working diligently to put together a real strategy for not only tearing
them down but community redevelopment and that’s something that’s been a focus of his right in
the heart of your district but in the heart of his super district. So, you know, that’s probably what
will happen but I don’t know much. I’m just thinking out loud.
Mr. Fennoy: So do I make a substitute motion now or wait?
Mr. Mayor: Well, I don’t think you need to if what I anticipate is going to happen.
Mr. Hasan: Mr. Mayor, let me have a final comment if you don’t mind.
Mr. Mayor: I don’t mind ---
Mr. Hasan: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: --- all right, I think they want to go ahead and vote.
Mr. Hasan: Okay but let me say one thing, Mr. Mayor. My whole point is that when you’re
talking about what Commissioner Fennoy just mentioned I concur and I think all of us agree that
we do need a comprehensive plan. But when you talk about the properties that have been torn
down the money in Hyde Park is, not a single penny of the $400,000 dollars is being used. The
money for Hyde Park in my mind should be money from the SPLOST VI and SPLOST VII to
create the retention pond. That money being used for demo purposes I don’t understand why
because of the relocation purposes and everything else so I wouldn’t think that would be any of
the $400,000 dollars. So whatever’s there should be business as usual so I don’t see why we would
be using that money based on everything when it belongs to us and based on what our intent was
in the Hyde Park area. So to me it wouldn’t impact our $400,000 dollars. Now I may be wrong
but I don’t see how we should be using any money from the $400,000 dollars in Hyde Park.
Mr. Mayor: All right okay, so all right ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Mayor, call for the question please.
Mr. Mayor: --- all right, voting.
Mr. D. Williams, Mr. Sias, Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Hasan vote Yes.
Ms. Davis, Mr. Frantom, Mr. Guilfoyle and Mr. Smith vote No.
Mr. M. Williams and Mr. Fennoy abstain.
Motion Fails 4-4-2.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Madam Administrator, is it not true that there is already a
th
subcommittee that the Commissioner from the 9 has that’s working on a specific area targeting
this issue?
18
Ms. Jackson: The Abandoned Building Task Force I believe is what you’re referring to
that Commissioner Marion Williams has led. That has focused on the Bethlehem neighborhood
with the idea that we would first go through and do cleanups but later try to engage with the
neighbors, churches and other institutions in the area to come up with redevelopment plans for that
area also including strict code enforcement and so forth which our Planning and Marshal’s
Departments have been very aggressive with over the last several months.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll come back to this one before we leave today. All right, Ms.
Morawski, we’ll go from top to bottom, item number eight.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
8. Motion to approve the proposal received from A&D Painting, Inc. to paint the Riverwalk
railing. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 9, 2017)
Mr. Hasan: Mr. Mayor, I had that pulled.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Hasan, you pulled this?
Mr. Hasan: Yes, ma’am.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, go ahead.
Mr. Hasan: Yes, Madam Chair. The reason I pulled this because it has the word proposal
there and I’d like for somebody to give me some insight on what the prices look like because at
this point we’re only approving a proposal so where does it go from here.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Douse, would you want to speak to this?
Ms. Douse: Good afternoon ---
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Good afternoon.
Ms. Douse: --- this was a Request for Proposals which means that the vendor would have
had to give us their proposal according to the specifications that we submitted. And the price that
came back was $136,650.000. Is that what you’re?
Mr. Hasan: Yes, that’s the first leg of it. So just say for instance if the proposal’s accepted
where does it, if it passes today what happens from here?
Ms. Douse: Then the work would commence.
Mr. Hasan: So when, does the contract does not come back before us or anything or does
it go to the Administrator or anybody get the contract?
19
Ms. Douse: We would then write the contract for the work to begin.
Mr. Hasan: Okay, so does the contract come back for approval?
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: You mean after the contract (inaudible).
Mr. Hasan: Yes, after it’s put together.
Ms. Douse: It would go to the Mayor’s desk for approval.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Which is the, okay that’s the standard process, is that correct, Mr.
MacKenzie or Madam Administrator.
Mr. MacKenzie: That’s correct.
Mr. Hasan: Well, let me just, I’m going to kind of leave it now because it’s not on the
agenda here and I’ll put it back on the agenda. This is from the Handbook of Georgia County
Commissioners Carl Vinson Institute this is Edition 5. And this is not against Ms. Douse or
anybody this is just something for my colleagues and I’m going to shut it down after that I’m not
going through I just want to read this into the record. It says written contracts entered into the
minutes with certain exceptions any contract entered by the County Commission must be in
writing, approved by the county governing authority in a meeting and entered into official minutes.
Any modifications or amendments to an existing contract must also be in writing and entered into
the minutes. So I don’t see how we get around not having contracts come before us and not entered
into the minutes. I’m through Madam Chair, thank you, ma’am.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, I’ve got a few hands Commissioner Frantom and Guilfoyle
and then Williams.
Mr. Frantom: Thank you, Ms. Chair. I’d like to hear from Ms. Douse on who the
contractors that put in bids and how it was selected, the $136,000 was selected if you don’t mind
Ms. Chair, Madam Chair.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Absolutely. Ms. Douse, you might want to stay up here for just a
few more minutes.
th
Ms. Douse: Yes, ma’am. We submitted a bid that was due on March 28 and we had three
bidders that bid on this project. However, two of the three were deemed non-compliant thus
leaving us with the company of A&D Painting, Inc.
Mr. Frantom: And why was the local non-compliant?
Ms. Douse: Due to the bidders not satisfying the good faith efforts for the Local Small
Business Opportunity Program.
20
Mr. Frantom: So that program determined who won the bid even though this bid was a lot
less, I’ve been told.
Ms. Douse: No, sir. That program determined who was compliant and then because we
only had three bidders with two of them being non-compliant that only left us with one compliant
bidder.
Mr. Frantom: Okay, I’m very concerned that the local bid was much less from what I’ve
been told. You haven’t stated the figures. I think I might have even read this in the newspaper and
we didn’t choose them based on what you said because the of the small business initiative, they’re
not compliant. And we’re costing taxpayers’ money on bids because of that. It’s very concerning.
This is the second or third time we’ve had this happen in the last three months and the fact that all
the documents that Commissioner Hasan talked about not being in here like a typical a typical bid
that we have are always in here, the supporting documents. I’m not going to support this today
and I really think that we need to go back to bids because to have a local bid that much less
significant and we go with someone from out of town is very concerning to me and I think the
taxpayers wouldn’t want us to approve this. So, thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. Ms. Douse, as far as the non-compliant for
the other two bidders that they did not have a good faith, all of us up here as stewards of the
taxpayers’ dollar, the program that we use as far as the Compliance Department is old and outdated.
It’d probably be good if we could ask the Administrator as well as staff to let’s look at this program
that we have for the Local Small Business. Let’s see what we could do to improve it to make it
more vendor friendly I guess you would call it because at this moment right now at this bid of what
is it one hundred and thirty-eight what is it ---
The Clerk: One hundred and thirty-six.
Mr. Guilfoyle: --- $136,000 and the other two vendors don’t have a clue but I know it was
close to half that amount and it was local businesses, the people who actually pay taxes here and
employs the citizens here but we’re willing to pay double because they wasn’t underneath the good
faith compliance. If we was to go buy a car, wouldn’t we look for the best deal possible? Wouldn’t
we rather stick with somebody local? Do have any, Madam Administrator do you have any
suggestions on how we can look at ---
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: What’s that?
Mr. Guilfoyle: --- he said that you called me.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Uh-hmm, I’m just trying to ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: Madam Administrator, can you take, I’m not directing, can you take time
to look at what program that we have underneath the LSBOP because it is actually costing us as
taxpayers and we’ve all been local vendors friendly, we’ve been trying to attract business here.
21
Now for this one instance where the good faith effort it actually cost us twice the amount so can
you happen to look at that and see what could be fixed, changed, corrected or adjusted.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: All right and also, I do want to us to remember just as now that we’re
talking contracts because you have to stay consistent with what we ask for every single RFP,
correct? And so, we just have that a couple of issues recently because the contract wasn’t in
compliance, not necessarily the good faith but it was like checking a box or filling our information.
So, we have to probably have to look at this big picture too not just the good faith but because
we’ve had these issues and we keeping saying like Commissioner Fennoy sometimes we follow
the policy. But with the contracts that’s what we keep hearing that this all has to be consistently
either denied or accepted. I just want us to remember that. But Madam Administrator, if you want
to.
Ms. Jackson: To respond to your question, sir, I certainly don’t mind being a part of an
effort to review those policies but I do want to remind you that those policies are administered
through the Compliance Department, Compliance Office Ms. Kelly Irving would be I think the
appropriate person to take the lead in reviewing those policies. But if you need me or other
members of our staff to be a part of that process we certainly wouldn’t mind being a part of it.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Or have somebody that specializes in that field just to look at it. If you
could give us a list or Ms. Kelly Irving could give us a list over these past six months of how many
bids actually failed through the good faith or non-compliant to give us an idea exactly if this is a
problem or this is not a problem. I’m not attacking it, it just gives us a snapshot on how this bid
process is going.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: I think what might be a good thing to do is in committee have that
as an agenda item underneath the compliant, the yeah Ms. Irving’s department not necessarily
coming through Ms. Douse. So that would be a good committee, right now you know the agenda
item’s talking about this one proposal ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: Right.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: --- so let’s keep the conversation to that. And I think, Commissioner
Guilfoyle, there has been other issues with these contracts being denied or accepted that we want
to make sure we’re still approving of all of our policies.
Mr. Guilfoyle: I appreciate the solution toom Mayor Pro Tem.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Marion Williams.
Mr. M. Williams: Thank you, Ms. Mayor Pro Tem. A couple of things. First of all the
record keeping or the contract keeping. The contract and hopefully I understand myself everything
that Nancy does or Ms. Bonner does is verbatim minutes is kept at a point when these contracts
come through. Then they’re formalized but there are records to say we voted on these contracts.
We didn’t actually see the wording but the way it’s understood that they’re approved through us
then they put them together. Now if we need to change that it’s one thing but I need my lawyer to
22
step up and say amen or that’s right or something which ever one comes to him. But if that’s the
way the contract works, Mr. Andrew?
Mr. MacKenzie: This issue came up in the last committee discussion as well and currently
the way the process generally works there’s a wide range of different kinds of contracts okay, so
that’s one thing. It depends on what kind of contract it is. For a contract like this one there’s a
draft of the contract typically included in the procurement code, the terms are already in the
procurement itself. When procurement is awarded those terms are included but the contract’s not
actually put together yet because it comes to you all for approval. But a draft of it and the language
is typically included in the procurement document. And what happens is the Commission approves
it and the staff goes out and gets the signatures from the other party. It’s already been approved
by the Commission, gets the signature of the other party and it goes through the normal process
for approval depending on how many people have to approve it a lot of them go through the
Administrator’s office to get their signature first and then it goes to the Mayor’s office and
ultimately ends up in the Clerk’s office. The Clerk’s office is always the final stop as she’s the
official custodian of the record. She keeps the original documents and keeps the originals if copies
are there then those come back to the various departments. Sometimes there’s duplicate originals
that involves a different government and there’s a little bit different of a process.
Mr. M. Williams: Okay, so I was right again, thank you, Andrew. The other issue is
compliance. We have struggled to get a Compliance Officer in place to make sure that people are
meeting the requirements that this body put together. And when a local or small business don’t
meet that then they’re really ruling themselves out. Now I’m not going to speak for Ms. Irving
she’s over here but I want her to come up if I can, Mr. Mayor, Madam Pro Tem.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s fine but let’s do remember I think we’re going to have a lot
more conversations about compliance and contracts but not necessarily under this agenda item.
Mr. M. Williams: Okay, I agree, ma’am, what I was just saying was that we have had this
come up several times lately but for so long it went by for years and we had nobody to address it.
It went like it wasn’t even a part of it. Now it’s a part of the fiber now and when it comes up we
have to look at that and say hey, just look at how many done got away so to speak is a good term
or got by or how you want to look at it because we didn’t have it in place but now that’s in place.
Now my question is because I can’t support this my question is why are we paying $135,000
dollars to paint the rails around the river that are going to give us some history if we keep it. If we
just maintain it but if you sandblast it I guess into the water that’s going to affect the river in some
kind of way now unless they’ve got a catchall that they can wrap over the thing to catch all of that
sand and paint that’s going to go into the river. I need to know if I can support it how that’s going
to happen. I think our history ought to so we built Riverwalk when it was, Nancy, when we built
the Riverwalk, Sylvia Cooper was down there but we could’ve said that’s history from the time
we built it and this is the wear and the tear because it’s still fiber but it don’t look like it did when
they put it down there.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Before you can approve this you want to be ensured the company
can make sure that there’s not going to be any detriment to the river.
23
Mr. M. Williams: I want to make sure that the river’s not going to be affected.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m not sure who would be the best to answer that, Madam
Administrator or Ms. Douse, as far as the contract of what they would actually the scope of what
they’d be doing. Ms. Douse, could you answer that?
Ms. Douse: The scope of services were written in the specification of the bid which stated
that it had to be and I’m trying to find the exact place for it now, but it does state within the bid
documents that excuse me, the service shall be sandblasted to a commercial blast so that all oil,
grease, dirt, rust is removed as well as cannot be deposited within the river according to EPD
guidelines. So all of that is stated within the, within the specifications that went out for bid as well
as the contract that our Attorney spoke to earlier.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, Commissioner Williams.
Mr. M. Williams: Ms. Mayor Pro Tem, is this going to be removed, taken off the property
and done and brought back, is that what I’m hearing?
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Douse.
Ms. Douse: It wasn’t specified that they have to remove it as long as they do not allow the
debris to go into the river.
Mr. M. Williams: Well, Ms. Douse, I’ll be down there when they go to sandblast it ---
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, Commissioner Sias.
Mr. Williams: --- I need to see this. I need to see how this is going to work.
Mr. Sias: Yes, ma’am, I have a, thank you, Ms. Mayor Pro Tem, I want to go back to what
our Attorney was saying. And we’re not splitting hairs it’s just a matter of what we call
responsibility. When we approve a bid proposal just say we were to approve this today the contract
doesn’t come back to us for review. But six months from now if somebody walks up here they
say we approved the contract, am I correct in that with a yes or a no?
Mr. MacKenzie: That’s correct.
Mr. Sias: Then technically we only approved the proposal. The contract could’ve said
they could run goats up and down the river and then they’ll say we approved it. I’m not mad about
it; what I’m trying to understand is we are getting credit for approving contracts that we actually
didn’t, we only approved the proposal or that this one won the bid. Now I’ve seen some contracts.
The question and I hope according to what we discussed that we get back to that process not
necessarily today but to understand that tell me if you approve this proposal you’re approving a
contract unseen and be ready to live with it, if you tell me that then I’ll know. But if I see six
months from now somebody comes up here which is famous for doing ya’ll approved this and I’m
saying did I really do that? Thank you (inaudible).
24
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Approve the proposal, I understand. Commissioner Fennoy.
Mr. Fennoy: Yes. You know I think that our Procurement Department has done an
outstanding job because she goes by the rules. And as long as everybody is playing by the same
rules you know regardless of what the bid is if everybody is playing by the same rules then the
playing field is level and it’s equal. But if information is required of a vendor and they don’t
include that information and they are disqualified then regardless of whether they are the low
bidder they didn’t follow the rules. Now, Commissioner Guilfoyle, I know that you’ve probably
done contracts with state and federal and even the regular business people but they have rules that
you go by and if you don’t submit a bid and don’t sign it then they may disqualify, I don’t know
what the rules are, but they may disqualify you. So, my thing is long as all vendors know what
the rules are then when they submit their proposal then they should follow what the proposal asks
for. And I’ve got one question for the Attorney.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay.
Mr. Fennoy: Andrew, is there a difference in the language in a contract is that different
from the, if it’s the same thing is this going to be any different from the proposal?
Mr. MacKenzie: It depends on the type of procurement it is. If it’s an RFP that requires
you to negotiate some of the terms to get the final contract price because it wasn’t a fixed price bid
then you’re going to negotiate that. That couldn’t be in the proposed contract because it was
designed to be negotiated and possibly other terms too depending upon the kind of procurement it
is. If it’s an invitation to bid the price is fixed, the draft contract’s included in the RFP then there’s
nothing else to negotiate. When it gets approved by the Commission it is the very contract that
was in the RFP I mean in the ITB.
Mr. Fennoy: Well and my last question.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay.
Mr. Fennoy: Is there a possibility that the proposal that we have for A&D Painting that the
contract is going to be any different? It could be.
Mr. MacKenzie: If the contract is in the procurement documents then it is the contract that
would be approved. That way we put their name in it, put their address in it and a notice of contact
all the blanks would have to be filled in but it would be the same contract that was in the RFP
document. Also, in the contract it integrates all of the documents that were in the RFP itself so
that’s also technically part of the contract.
Mr. Fennoy: Okay, I’m through.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Williams and then let’s take a vote
on that.
25
Mr. D. Williams: Madam Mayor Pro Tem, may I call Ms. Kelly up to the lectern?
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Sure.
Mr. D. Williams: Ms. Kelly. Yes, ma’am, did you review this bid?
Ms. Irving: Yes, along with my team Mr. Gerald Jefferson, our DBE Officer.
Mr. D. Williams: Were the bids found to be in order?
Ms. Irving: The bids came in and there were three of them and we evaluated them for local
small business responsiveness in addition to compliance.
Mr. D. Williams: Did all three of them provide?
Ms. Irving: They provided information and the two that were deemed non-compliant they
failed to complete the necessary paperwork for responsiveness in addition to compliance. Those
two did not meet the goal.
Mr. D. Williams: Did they, were they notified?
Ms. Irving: We provide information to the owner/department in addition to Procurement.
Mr. D. Williams: Okay and it’s common practice that if a bid does not meet the
requirements and qualifications they are non-compliant?
Ms. Irving: That is correct, sir.
Mr. D. Williams: Thank you, why are we wasting our time?
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: All right and, Commissioner Guilfoyle, this is your third time so
quickly please and let’s take a vote ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: Actually it’s my second time.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: --- second time. Okay, please quickly.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem Davis. I do want to clarify one thing about
this. Commissioner Fennoy Geri Sams has one of the best reputations in the State of Georgia. She
has whopped me so many times up here on the floor, I’ve got the ultimate respect for her. But
what we’re talking about is two different departments and the two different departments we’re
speaking about one is Procurement which is correct, the second one is the Compliance Department
that it could throw out a bid or approve a bid. And these two did not have the good faith effort is
where I’m questioning. We have when our Compliance Director came in to Augusta as the
Director she had our process already in place to follow and what I’m trying to do is look at it to
see if it’s antiquated, old and see what we could do to improve it. This one bid right here is costing,
26
you have the numbers is it double what we’re paying than the bid to lower I don’t have a clue but
you see it. But this is continually happening it’s habitual, getting to the point and I would like to
see like I had told the Administrator if we could get a snapshot over these past six months how
many bids have actually been rejected from the Compliant Department. People already have to
fill out all the paperwork for the Procurement. Now they have to fill out all the paperwork for the
Compliance Department in order to succeed. But I understand Mr. Dennis Williams he asked all
the correct questions but I would just want to clarify I’m talking about two different departments
in order for a vendor to come in and place a bid within Augusta-Richmond County. Either one
department can kick you out or both departments could kick you out. That’s where I was trying
to get to. Thank you.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay ya’ll ---
Mr. Hasan: I haven’t said anything.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: --- Commissioner Sias, I know but ---
Mr. Hasan: Yes, ma’am ---
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: --- I’d like to wrap this up.
Mr. Hasan: --- 30 seconds, 30 seconds. Based on that and I just got back and I apologize
but based on what I heard Commissioner Guilfoyle just mention I think it’s unfair just to do the
Compliance Department. You should do the Procurement Department as well because both of
them with a basis for non-compliance both of them get a true snapshot of it. Because if you do it
just on the Compliance Department you’re looking at what was kicked out just because of a lack
of minority participation and that’s not fair to the process if you want to, do both of them that
would be my recommendation.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Do I have a motion?
Mr. Fennoy: Motion to approve.
Mr. D. Williams: Second.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, we have a motion and a second, please vote.
Mr. Frantom and Mr. Guilfoyle vote No.
Mr. M. Williams abstains.
Motion Passes 7-2-1.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Morawski ---
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
27
Mr. Mayor: --- you know this was a very important matter. I remember Mr. Brazzell the
th
walk we took June the 10 last year to survey that area. I was down there this weekend, Sylvia,
on Saturday after the walk and in fact went on Sunday again after brunch and I think everybody in
this room if you took a stroll down there John would tell you they need to be repaired and it needs
to happen like yesterday.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY
10. Motion to approve County Capacity Agreement for state inmates being housed in the
Richmond County Correctional Institution from July 1, 2017 until June 20, 2018. (Approved
by Public Safety Committee May 9, 2017)
th
Mr. Mayor: All right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 9 and Mr. Joseph.
Mr. M. Williams: I just need to ask Warden Joseph a question. I know this is a routine
contract that we do ---
Warden Joseph: Yes, sir.
Mr. M. Williams: --- but my question was there any specialties workers. With all of this
talk we had about in-house I’m, you know we had this conversation years ago about professional
inmates being transported to Augusta to do a particular job. So this is not about a particular job
this is just about the normal routine we do with inmates.
Warden Joseph: Yes, sir.
Mr. M. Williams: Okay, so moved, Mr. Mayor, to approve. I mean I just wanted to
make sure that that wasn’t something that happened, that was all.
Mr. Frantom: Second.
st
Mr. Mayor: All right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 1.
Mr. Fennoy: Yes, Warden, since the city has adopted Ban the Box Program then I would
encourage some of the inmates once they’re released and they have completed their probationary
period to apply for assuming we get an In-House Demolition Program to apply for a job with the
city.
Warden Joseph: Yes, sir.
Mr. Fennoy: Thank you, have a job fair.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a proper second. Voting.
Motion Passes 10-0.
28
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
22. Motion to approve RFQ #16-259: Sewer Rehabilitation Program for Utilities Department
in the amount of $1,000,000.00 execution by North American Pipeline Management, Inc.;
SAK Construction, LLC and RDJE, Inc. as qualified and selected contractors. (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee May 9, 2017)
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 9.
Mr. M. Williams: Mr. Mayor, 22 and 23 in my opinion are companion questions. My
question applies to both of those and my question to Ms. Kelly Irving whether or not these contracts
whether they were 5-year contracts or whatever. Have they had the same scrutiny that we just
talked about previously with the Local Small Business participation?
Ms. Irving: When an owner/department put out a procurement they have a choice of
making it either a Request for Proposal or Invitation for Bid or a Request for Qualification. The
Invitation for Bid and the Request for Proposal are both evaluated if they’re over $100,000 dollars
for the Local Small Business Opportunity Program Participation Program. If an owner/department
elects to choose a Request for Qualification, our department based on Augusta, Georgia
Procurement Code does not evaluate that contract for Local Small Business Opportunity Program
Participation because it is the goal for the owner/department to qualify eligible vendors to then
turn around and come back and then put out RFP’s for those short-listed qualified vendors to bid
at the short list. So RFQ does not go through the Local Small Business Opportunity Program
evaluation.
Mr. M. Williams: Well, we’ve got double standards then it sounds like to me. If we hold
one company or one group to this it’s still taxpayers’ money. In fact Utilities probably got more
than anybody else got; I keep telling Tom that all the time. So how can we require for one entity
or one business to come in and apply and make sure they meet those standards but then we let a
million-dollar contract, and I mean I’m just talking to you but I mean I don’t understand ---
Mr. Fennoy: (unintelligible) Gold Cross.
Mr. M. Williams: --- how we missed anybody whether it be a cross an x it don’t make no
difference.
Mr. Fennoy: You supported it.
Mr. M. Williams: I’m still supporting it; I still support it but that’s two different services
now. And if you want to talk about Gold Cross put it back on the agenda and we’ll talk about that.
I’m asking a question and if you’ve got an answer, give it to me. If you ain’t got nothing, shut up.
Mr. Mayor: Okay all right, all right, Commissioner, you still have the floor.
29
Mr. M. Williams: Ms. Irving, can you explain in any more detail?
Ms. Irving: To respond to your question this is a matter of this wonderful board evaluating
in collaboration with owner/departments and the Procurement Department an appropriate response
to solicitation for qualified vendors.
Mr. M. Williams: Okay, well I just know to do a little bit something different when I vote
for these contracts from now on.
Ms. Irving: Thank you.
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 4.
Mr. Sias: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Irving, let me ask something just to see if I can kind
of understand what you said just a moment ago. If an RFQ goes out, you don’t evaluate that but
when it comes back for the actual bid itself you evaluate it. So in this case, you correct me if I’m
wrong, once this RFQ goes out for qualification then once they come back and now it’s sent out
for bid itself that’s two separate processes. Let me just, if the Chair don’t mind, I’ll say, Mr.
Wiedmeier, did I say that correctly?
Mr. Wiedmeier: Yes. I expect this will work like our Task Order Contractors which this
agenda item is for approval of the pool of qualified contractors. And from within that pool we will
bid the work at which time Ms. Irving gets involved and establishes the goals based on what we’re
bidding.
Mr. Sias: So this if I may continue, so this was just step one, and then step two will be
where Ms. Irving gets into this very same bid, correct?
Mr. Wiedmeier: Right.
Mr. Sias: Is that correct, Ms. Irving?
Ms. Irving: That is correct.
Mr. Sias: Okay, thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay all right, I’m going to pose this question to Tom. The RFQ Request for
Qualifications that we have that’s been requested to be approved, who sets the dollar amount for
that?
Mr. Wiedmeier: I do.
Mr. Mayor: And you set that dollar amount based on what criteria?
Mr. Wiedmeier: Just a budget amount that we might do in the next year to 18 months.
30
Mr. Mayor: And is this a not to exceed amount? Is this an amount that again I’ve got three
contractors here, North American, SAK and RDJE, and so is this one-million allocated across all
three? Who determines that?
Mr. Wiedmeier: There’s a, the one-million establishes the budget for the whole program.
This will, the work that will be bid will be in much smaller increments. This is essentially a way
to expedite the work and to let this in smaller junks. So we will bid this work for the next 18
months or until we hit our million-dollar budget.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, and what if I don’t need to spend the million-dollars.
Mr. Wiedmeier: Then we won’t.
Mr. Mayor: How will this body know that you didn’t spend a million dollars?
Mr. Wiedmeier: I suppose that if we chose that that million dollars is kind of, I don’t know
if it’s truly encumbered but it’s set aside in our budget and not available for us. So, if we ever
decided we did not want to use this program any more we would, I don’t know, that’s a good
question.
Mr. Mayor: I’ve got one better for you. The concern, Tom, the concern Ms. Geri Sams
and I know you’re not in the room, the concern that this body has is that they’re being asked on an
on-going basis to approve substantial dollar amounts that in their mind their level of oversight has
been mitigated or diminished because as you just indicated you set the amount and you then
distribute that based on work that you in turn allocate. And I don’t believe that it’s a desire of any
member of this body to determine what work gets done and what work doesn’t get done. But I do
believe that in their desire to be good fiscal stewards of taxpayer resources, there is an ongoing
concern that every time a motion to approve an RFQ in the amount of a million dollars shows up
once that happens there are no controls as you have just indicated about whether or not I spend
less than or I spend the full amount. That is a grave concern, Tom, that I’ve heard in the two years
four months and 16 days that I’ve been here. And your responses give further pause to that. That’s
the very heart of what Commissioner Williams is trying to get to. And as you’ve just indicated
you determine that you want to spend a million dollars. You then determine that as you do the
work between now and fiscal year 2018 whether all of that gets spent or it doesn’t and so I want
you to start thinking through that because you’re going to hear this question again.
Mr. Wiedmeier: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. M. Williams: Point of Clarity, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. M. Williams: Tom, my question was one of these was a five-year contract, is that
right?
31
Mr. Wiedmeier: Right.
Mr. M. Williams: Okay I just wanted, and I mean that makes sense to me to see how we
strain on gnats and swallow camels but ---
Mr. Mayor: Yeah, so again, Ms. Jackson, or for anyone who’s thinking or believing that
th
the Commissioner from the 9 is trying to micromanage he is absolutely is not trying to
micromanage. This is a real question and this is a question that has been back and forth again as
long as I’ve been here and it ain’t long that we’ve got to have a better answer for moving forward.
Mr. Frantom: Motion to approve.
Ms. Davis: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Voting.
Mr. Fennoy: Are we voting on 22 and 23?
Mr. Mayor: Just 22.
Mr. M. Williams votes No.
Motion Passes 9-1.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
23. Motion to approve Annual Budget for Program Management. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee May 9, 2017)
Mr. Mayor: All right, same questions ---
Mr. M. Williams: Same questions ---
Mr. Mayor: --- different day.
Mr. M. Williams: The agenda item the same questions we had the debate already.
Mr. Sias: Move to approve.
Mr. Frantom: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion and a second. The Chair recognizes the
st
Commissioner from the 1 for a question.
Mr. Fennoy: Mr. Mayor, is the Utilities Department the only that utilizes this process?
32
Mr. Mayor: I can’t answer that. The Chair recognizes the Administrator.
Ms. Jackson: I believe that’s the case, sir. I think they’re the only department with a
program manager so to speak that operates in this capacity.
Mr. Fennoy: And going back to 22 that process, is that the Utilities Department the only
one that utilizes that process?
Ms. Jackson: Yes, number two, in response to the question of about number 22, yes, the
Engineering Department does have several contractors that you’ve approved contracts for bids for
to provide the various services under the Stormwater Program, landscaping, construction and
maintenance, repair, etc. etc. so there are contractors that participate in rehab of our infrastructure
for the Engineering Department. However, in terms of program management under 23 I think
Utilities is the only one that does that.
Mr. Fennoy: Okay and if we have another ice storm, would the processes that’s been used
in 22 be used in case of an ice storm?
Ms. Jackson: Actually in case of emergencies I believe during the first few months that I
was here the Fire and Emergency Management Department came through with contracts for firms
to provide debris removal and such services in the event of an emergency following the procedures
that FEMA outlined for us.
Mr. Fennoy: Okay and I was in Atlanta a couple of days ago and I-85 just opened back up.
And some of the residents wanted to know how they was able to get this work done so fast. And
I just assumed that they had on-call people to do that work rather than try to bid that work out
because if they had bidded that work out they would still be going through the process. So we
have basically the same thing in order in case of.
Ms. Jackson: We have on-call contractors for some services, yes. I’m not sure for instance
with the road like that I’m not sure we have an on-call contractor to cover that but we do have on-
call contracts for various routines as well as emergencies services.
Mr. Fennoy: Okay.
th
Mr. Mayor: All right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 8.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, in reply to my colleague the way they
fixed 85 was the state actually had gave the contractor a $3 million-dollar incentive for it to be
done by a certain amount of time. And the gentleman was on the news yesterday oh I would love
to be on the news getting $3 million extra dollars for doing a job. But this here is the annual budget
that we have been doing for quite some time. It breaks down what each of the contractors do. The
1576 hours that’s the 40-hours a week, 52-weeks out of the year and it breaks it down but it’s done
annually, comes before us. I don’t know if there’s a motion to approve but there is, all right, a
motion, good.
33
Mr. Mayor: A motion and a second.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, sir.
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 9 to close the argument.
Mr. M. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I just want to you know we heard all this about in-house
demolition. Why don’t we hire somebody to run this program versus these millions of dollars I
keep hearing and keep voting on or keep, what’s I know Utilities is totally different but I know
they’re an enterprise and sit off to themselves but we just got through talking about saving money.
That’s what we all up here debate about so why don’t we hire a programmer to do this work versus
paying these contractors for five years and come back and, I mean I don’t understand how we do
certain things. I can’t support it; I’m not voting for it. You’ve got enough votes to get it anyway
but you ain’t going to get mine.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ve got a motion and a proper second. Voting. All right, it’s
getting late in the evening. Time to go home.
Mr. M. Williams votes No.
Mr. Sias out.
Motion Passes 8-1.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
25. Discuss the Commission’s travel training budget. (Requested by Commissioner Bill
Fennoy.
st
Mr. Mayor: All right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 1.
Mr. Fennoy: Yes, I’m requesting that this item be deleted at this particular time.
Ms. Davis: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ve got a motion and a second to delete the item. Voting.
Mr. Sias out.
Motion Passes 9-0.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
26. Discuss and approve recommendations from Housing & Community Development to
repurpose the return of Housing Opportunities for Persons with Aids (HOPWA) funding
(765,176.32) from HopeHealth, Inc.
34
Mr. Mayor: All right, the Chair recognizes H&D Director Welcher.
Mr. Frantom: I pulled this item ---
Mr. Mayor: You pulled it?
Mr. Frantom: --- yeah and I have ---
Mr. Mayor: It’s on the regular agenda.
Mr. Frantom: -- oh, you’re right, my bad.
Ms. Jackson: Somebody has to add it to the consent.
Mr. Mayor: That didn’t happen; it’s on the regular agenda. All right, so they tried to add
th
it. It was on the regular agenda. All right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 7.
Mr. Frantom: I got my answer about why the program was funding the South
Carolina program $200,000 so motion to approve.
Mr. Sias: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ve got a motion and a second. Voting.
Motion Passes 10-0.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
27. Discuss the proposed Augusta Dragway/Drag Strip. (No recommendation from
Administrative Services Committee May 9, 2017)
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 6.
Mr. Hasan: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I’d like to say to my colleagues as of last
week this being on the agenda myself and one of my colleagues had an opportunity to sit down
with two business persons last week who showed an interest in this drag strip. Not only did they
show an interest in possibly being a business partner with the City of Augusta a potential business
partner but also expressing that they had the capabilities to build the racetrack. We had a great
conversation. We’re not attempting to negotiate for the city just trying to get a feel for them to try
to see how serious they are about it before we turn it over to this body or to the Administrator’s
office or whoever we need to turn it over to. It was a great conversation. One of those persons
contacted me again this morning as a follow up just of a general conversation and so we’re excited
to say there’s a real interest out there from business persons. Also this morning I was able to make
contact with another gentleman who has a relationship with a couple of people who has racetracks.
35
They’re also looking at Augusta. We had a great conversation this morning and they shared a lot
of information with me. I’m anticipating a call back from them before the week is out. They say
they have the capacity as well to build a racetrack. And so I just wanted to let you all know for
the record there are people who seem to be interested in it. As I heard last week and probably just
from the way it was on the agenda I do understand your concerns about us not necessarily building
it and I will be honest with you I’m personally not opposed to us building it because we are talking
about General Fund money. But as a result of where this conversation is going people who have
made contact thus far seem to be persons or business persons who has the potential to build the
facility themselves so I think that we’re excited about that. So with that being said, Mr. Mayor, I
would like to say is ask the Clerk’s Office to for the record give my colleagues just the 2006 Study.
We don’t plan to fund another study thus far that was very clear, just to look at that information
we had from 2006 and pass it on to my colleagues because right now business persons are making
contact. So in the form of a motion just would like ask the Clerk’s Office to pass on from the
agenda book for my colleague the 2006 study on the racetrack.
Mr. Sias: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ve got a motion and a second and that is to ---
Mr. Hasan: The racetrack to put it in the agenda book for my colleagues to take a look at
it.
Mr. Mayor: --- okay all right, okay hold on everybody, we got just a little bit more debate.
st
The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 1.
Mr. Fennoy: Would it be appropriate to add to Mr. Hasan’s motion to receive what he just
gave us as information.
Mr. Mayor: I think that’s certainly appropriate.
Mr. Hasan: I don’t have a problem with that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right, so we’ll receive this as information and, Ms. Morawski, the Clerk’s
Office will provide everyone with a copy of the 2006 study as they’re able to access them.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
th
Mr. Mayor: All right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 8.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, Mr. Mayor, and I know I’ve got to go through the Chair to I know that
from what Commissioner Hasan said he’s been having dialogue with potential investors which is
great. Has there been any discussion where this location is going to be or any idea on the process
to just generality is because this when you brought this up a couple of weeks ago I started getting
phone calls. Because from out there on Highway 56 it started, it’s kind of like an apartment in
Goshen when we revived that and it was actually the developer actually put in high-end apartments.
36
But this racetrack is actually generating a lot of discussion out there in District 8 and I don’t what
to tell them.
Mr. Hasan: That they can attend the racetrack. That’s what you’re asking, are they excited
about it coming?
Mr. Guilfoyle: No, they’re not excited about it coming, sir.
Mr. Hasan: Okay I didn’t know, you didn’t say so.
Mr. Guilfoyle: I like that but I was just wondering.
Mr. Hasan: Mr. Mayor, can I respond to the question?
Mr. Mayor: Well, I’m waiting for him to finish first.
Mr. Hasan: Okay, I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner are you finished?
Mr. Guilfoyle: Yeah, I was just waiting for a reply so I could tell the constituents.
th
Mr. Mayor: All right, I’m going to recognize the Commissioner from the 6 and direct
your response to the Chair.
Mr. Hasan: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, this issue when it came to the floor the
Commissioner came with no location in mind. It came as a conversation to start the study around
the racetrack this item came from the agenda in that manner.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Commissioner.
Mr. Mayor: Hold on everybody, hold on, hold on. The Chair recognizes the Commissioner
th
from the 9.
Mr. M. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I didn’t want to weigh in on this. I’ve been trying to just sit
back but you know you’re talking about economic development, You’re talking about the study
we did in 2006 that said that it would generate over $30 million dollars for an area like this. Then
we I’m hearing from my colleagues saying there’s somebody concerned about noise. We would
not put a racetrack on a main highway where they put the race on the river that affects both states
South Carolina and Georgia, nobody says anything about that. So I’ve got a problem with someone
who’s not educated enough about racing to think we’re going to put it in their back yard where
they can’t have a barbeque. That’s crazy. If somebody called me like that, I would really have
some words for them but I’m a little bit concerned about how we can think about monies and
drawing money in and not knowing as big as this county is we’ve got several places we could find
to put a facility like this that’s going to generate not just money in economic development but
businesses for the south side of this county. Commissioner Guilfoyle is in the extreme county side
37
and if you can’t find a place out there in the extreme county side then we need to forget about it.
But let me say this in my closing remarks is there’s several different cities that have a racetrack
that’s generating a lot of economic development for them. Now we heard last year or the last time
we talked about this from Carolina they said they wasn’t making no money. How can you stay in
business 50 years and they ain’t making no money? Something is wrong with that picture; it don’t
look good. So, I appreciate Commissioner Hasan putting it on because I said I wasn’t going to say
a word but we’ve got to be smart enough to understand that there is a great opportunity for us to
do something here and take it off the backs of the taxpayer versus putting it on the backs of the
taxpayer.
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 10.
Mr. G. Smith: Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. You know it’s funny ---
Mr. M. Williams: Pull you mike down, Grady.
Mr. G. Smith: --- I was involved with that racetrack ---
Mr. M. Williams: Pull your mike down, Grady.
Mr. G. Smith: --- yeah I was involved in that racetrack out there. I used to go out there and
cook hotdogs for all those race drivers on Saturday morning and everything. But the main thing
out there they built a what a Le Mans, Watkins Glen what do you call that Marion that road course
---
Mr. M. Williams: (inaudible).
Mr. G. Smith: --- that’s how Talladega got started in ’68 out there now. The thing once
they find out we’re building a road course that don’t go here in this area and they put Talladega
over there where it is. Last week it was on TV or the week before last dog gone they’re making
some money; that place was packed. But the thing is location is a key thing and you put it right
over there on I-20 but you know it’s something good to look at. I think people especially down in
this area of the country are pretty big on drag racing and the NASCAR race but that’s the reason
why old Talladega got built. And I turned around and let my brother go for his first race in 1969
and but ever since then they’ve been climbing the pole.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’re going to receive this as information and the Clerk’s Office
will distribute copies of the 2006 racetrack study. There being no further business before us, I
think we can go home. This meeting is adjourned.
\[MEETING ADJOURNED\]
Nancy Morawski
Deputy Clerk of Commission
38
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
May 16, 2017.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
39