HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-19-1997 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
August 19, 1997
The Augusta Commission convened at 2:05 p.m., Tuesday, August 19, 1997,
the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke,
Mays, Powell, Todd and Zetterberg, members of The Augusta Commission;
Also present were Ms. Morawski, Deputy Clerk of Commission; Mr. Oliver,
Administrator; and Mr. Wall, County Attorney.
THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND H.K. McKNIGHT.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any additions or deletions to the agenda?
CLERK: We have a request for two additions to the agenda. The first item
is to discuss increasing the retirement benefits for members of the 1949
Pension Plan and the second item is to approve format of final tax bill.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any deletions?
CLERK: No, sir.
MR. MAYS: I move we add those to the agenda.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MR. TODD: I'll agree to add Number 2, but I would only agree to add
Number 1 if it is received for information only. I was not able to come to the
meeting on Friday and I would like to be briefed on it before I take any
action to vote on anything. Everyone knows what the deadline is for getting
items on the agenda and I would like to know more about it.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, if I might in reference to Mr. Todd's question. I
don't think there has been any neglect by staff or anybody else to not have
the item on. I know that as late as Friday when we had the seminar over at
Augusta Tech where we were talking about pensions, but I think that the time
line where this was discussed and probably where this information came from,
even though I'm not a member of that particular committee that met, of which I
believe you, Mr. Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem and, of course, the Finance Chairman
was there that day, along with Mr. Oliver. But I think in the verbal
discussion, because of the length of time that this had been delayed it was
more or less suggested in that meeting --and I guess that gets back to one of
those things that may not be written in stone, but I think it was said in that
meeting that by this meeting it would be on the agenda for discussion, and
with that spirit of it is why I made the motion in order to do it. Now, I
don't think that -- I mean, the action on whatever we take may or may not even
be final today. Something may even be received as information. But I think as
far as the discussion on it, this is what did come out of that meeting, and I
stand to be corrected if that's not so.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mays is correct. We have promised the retirees that we
will hear their complaint today. We didn't say we will pass it or we will
vote it up or down, but we did say it would be on the agenda for this meeting.
And I would like to ask Mr. Todd if he would let it get on, but that's not
necessarily saying you have to vote for it either way, but get it on the
agenda so we can go ahead on and try to satisfy them.
MR. TODD: I'll accept to go on the agenda to accept as information only
a report from the -- or discussion from the retirees and staff, so if the
makers of the motion will accept that amendment I'll support that.
MR. MAYS: Are you finalizing the discussion in your amendment? That's
what it looks like. I mean, you can vote on whatever decision is voted on,
Moses, but what I'm saying is if we received it as information to hear and not
do anything, you know, you're making a motion, I think, prematurely. I mean,
you got to take action on some motion, but I think it's kind of one of those
things where you have a public hearing if you decide what you're going to do
and you bring people in to come and listen but you got a made-up mind of what
the decision is going to be. I think we've still got enough in the process to
hear it. As bad as I want to see it discussed, I'm kind of leery of tying my
hands to make a motion of what I know the decision is going to be prior to me
discussing it.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my position is that someone else's poor planning is
not necessarily my crisis. I'm looking at, I think, a negative recommendation
here from staff, and certainly I would like to be able to support something as
far as the retirees go. but putting it on the agenda today, I wouldn't be able
to support anything because I don't know --I need to be briefed on Friday's
meetings. I was out of town Friday. Friday wasn't a regular meeting, it was
a called meeting. It was a called meeting at a late date, within a few days
of it happening, and I don't like making decisions and not having all the
information, so that's my position.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising
your hand, please.
MR. TODD VOTES NO.
MOTION FAILS 8-1. [MR. POWELL OUT]
CLERK: On the Planning portion of the agenda, all of the items can be
considered as a consent agenda with the exception of Items 1, 7, 11, 16, and
17. [Item 2: Z-97-69 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that 'the petitioner shall
use the existing buildings' a petition from Harold I. Brown, Sr., on behalf of
Harold I. Brown, Sr, et. al., requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C
(One-family Residence) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on
the southwest corner of the intersection of Taylor Street and Seventh (7th)
Street (801-915 7th Street. Item 3: Z-97-71 - Request for concurrence
with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with the condition
that 'the petitioner shall comply with the Tree Ordinance' a petition from
Noel Schweers III, on behalf of W.F. Franke, Jr., et. al., requesting a
Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a funeral home as provided
for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (j) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the north right-of-way
line of Wheeler Road, 60 feet, more or less, east of a point where the
centerline of West Wheeler Parkway extended intersects the north right-of-way
line of Wheeler Road (3687 Wheeler Road). Item 4: Z-97-72 - Request for
concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition
from George Cohen, on behalf of Donna Griffin, requesting a Special Exception
for the purpose of establishing a telecommunication tower as provided for in
Section 26-1, Subparagraph (c) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on a Bearing N 25 38'35" W, and
being 347 feet, more or less, southeast of the southeast right-of-way line of
Gordon Highway, and also being 998 feet, more or less, west of the southwest
corner of the intersection of Craig Sims Parkway and Gordon Highway (2670
Gordon Highway). Item 5: Z-97-73 - Request for concurrence with the
decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from George Cohen,
on behalf of First Capital Income Properties, requesting a Special Exception
for the purpose of establishing a telecommunication tower as provided for in
Section 26-1, Subparagraph (c) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on a Bearing N 08 48'48" W, and
being 406 feet, more or less, southwest of a point located on the southwest
right-of-way line of Marks Church Road, and also being 460 feet, more or less,
northwest of a point where the centerline of Beaver Drive extended intersects
the southwest right-of-way line of Marks Church Road (3435 Wrightsboro Road).
Item 6: Z-97-74 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve a petition from George Cohen, on behalf of
Barry S. Blank, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing
a telecommunication tower as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (c) of
the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property
located on a Bearing N 23 26'09" W, and being 493 feet, more or less,
northwest of the northwest right-of-way line of Deans Bridge Road, and also
being 338 feet, more or less, northeast of the northeast corner of the
intersection of Murphey Road and Deans Bridge Road (2543 Deans Bridge Road).
Item 8: Z-97-78 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve a petition from Wendell Johnson, on behalf of
T. Gordon Bohler, requesting a change of zoning from Zone P-1 (Professional)
to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the northeast
corner of the intersection of Emmett Street and Cleveland Street (1631-33
Cleveland Street). Item 9: Z-97-79 - Request for concurrence with the
decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Ezra Hatcher,
on behalf of Mattie Hatcher, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C
(One-family Residence) to Zone R-MH (Mobile Home Residential) on property
located on the southeast right-of-way line of Willow Street, 282.7 feet
southwest of a point where the southwest right-of-way line of Hyde Street
intersects the southeast right-of-way line of Willow Street (2052 Willow
Street). Item 10: Z-97-80 - Request for concurrence with the decision of
the Planning Commission to approve with the condition that 'the petitioner
shall comply with the Tree Ordinance' a petition from Shirley H. Johnson
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1B (One-family Residence) to Zone B-
2 (General Business) on property located on the northwest corner of the
intersection of Gay Drive and Mike Padgett Highway (3207 and 3209 Mike Padgett
Highway). Item 12: Z-97-82 - Request for concurrence with the decision
of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Michael A. Graybill, on
behalf of Woodlawn Baptist Church, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-2
(Two-family Residence) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located
on the northwest right-of-way line of Chafee Avenue, 219 feet, more or less,
southwest of the southwest corner of the intersection of Walton Way and Chafee
Avenue (rear of 1556 Walton Way and also contains 916 Moore Avenue). Item
13: S-528-III - WALTON'S LANDING SUBDIVISION PHASE III - FINAL PLAT - Request
for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a
petition from James G. Swift & Associates, on behalf of Southern Specialty
Development Corp., requesting a Final Plat approval of Walton's Landing Phase
III. This phase is an extension of Walton's Landing located off the south
right-of-way of Willis Foreman Road and contains 62 lots. Item 14: S-547
- CASTLEBROOK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION - FINAL PLAT - Request for concurrence with
the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from H. Lawson
Graham, on behalf of Southern Land Co., requesting Final Plat approval of
Castlebrook Village Subdivision. This subdivision is located on the west side
of Alexander Drive, 844 feet, more or less, north of Washington Road and
contains 43 lots. Item 15: S-545 - SPENCER PLACE - FINAL PLAT - Request
for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a
petition from H. Lawson Graham, on behalf of Brooklyn Corp., requesting Final
Plat approval of Spencer Place Subdivision. This subdivision is located off
the east right-of-way of Bertram Road, mile north of Washington Road, and
2
contains 22 lots.]
MR. ZETTERBERG: So move.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Zetterberg's motion, let it be known
by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT]
CLERK: Item 1: Z-97-64 - Request for concurrence with the decision of
the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Carrick Inabnett, on behalf
of Raymond Barton III, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of
establishing a telecommunications tower as provided for in Section 26-1,
Subparagraph (c) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond
County, on property located on a Bearing S 20 00'50" E, being 34 feet, more or
less, south of the south right-of-way line of Scott Nixon Memorial Drive and
also being 294 feet, more or less, west of the southwest corner of the
intersection of McKnight Industrial Road and Scott Nixon Memorial Drive.
MR. ZETTERBERG: There's been a late development on this property and
there's a possibility that we would locate in a site that could be acceptable
to the telecommunications for Alltel and possibly to the homeowners in that
area. What I'd like to do is postpone this until the next meeting so that we
can fully explore the other options and we can end up with a win-win situation
for everybody.
MR. BEARD: I second that.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'd like to hear from the guy who brought it, Mr. Mayor.
MR. INABNETT: Thank you, Commissioner Brigham. Carrick Inabnett on
behalf of Alltel, for the record. I did speak with Commissioner Zetterberg
earlier and, as I indicated, on behalf of Alltel I needed to make a brief
statement on this matter. Alltel in the past, as the Commission is aware, has
very, I think, diligently and actively been willing to defer items in the
interest of working out problems with the residents. Most notably, I know on
the Sand Ridge site the Sand Ridge residents were able to do that
successfully, and I think we're about to be able to do that with Washington
Road residents as well. However, on this particular site, at least for
the record, Alltel is going to have to object to a deferral for a couple of
reasons, the first being that it is a heavy industrial zoning district, the
heaviest district usewise in the county, and we feel like in that context it's
in a perfect location. Secondly, as far as the actual usage out there, it's
used by a concrete plant right now which has heavy noise, industrial
facilities, concrete dust in the air, and there are also large power lines and
poles out there, so we feel like in the true strict usage that is an
industrial area as well. And I guess finally, we have deferred once back to
the Planning Commission and they re-recommended approval of this site. So for
those reasons we would respectfully object to that deferral. Thank you.
MR. BEARD: On the deferred site that Mr. Zetterberg has referenced to,
couldn't that be acceptable with Alltel?
MR. INABNETT: I think right now if this item is deferred -- it's
probably a little bit too early to tell exactly, but obviously if you defer us
we're going to go back and look at that.
MR. BEARD: Well, wouldn't it be better to do that since we have an
objection here by a number of residents on that?
MR. INABNETT: Well, it may very well be. On the other hand, it may be
lower elevation, meaning a higher lighted tower and a lattice design as
opposed to a single pole. There may be -- MR. BEARD: But in order for a
win-win situation for everybody I think this would probably be the best
effort, to at least give the opportunity to explore this site.
MR. TODD: In light of the fact that we just worked out a ordinance that
we're going to decide on today, do you think it would be in the best interest
of the Commission and all parties involved to defer for option of looking at
the other site, and also we'd have opportunity to deal with this under the new
ordinance versus the old ordinance.
MR. WALL: Well, I think that you've got to look at the application on
the basis of the zoning ordinance at the time that the application was made.
That's Georgia law. So as it stands right now, regardless of when you take
this item up you're going to have to look at it -- again, the status of the
law as it existed on the day that the application was made.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Zetterberg's motion to postpone, let
it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 7: Z-97-77 - Request for concurrence with the decision of
the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Tony Mulherin, on behalf of
Dorothy Hurst, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1B (One-family
Residence) to Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residence) on property located where
the southeast right-of-way line of Postell Court intersects the southwest
right-of-way line of Postell Drive (2902 Postell Court).
MS. HURST: Good afternoon, I'm Dorothy Hurst. I'm a licensed practical
nurse with over fourteen years experience, and I'm applying to be rezoned for
R-3B zoning so I can have several elderly ladies living in my home. I'm
approved for community care and I have to show that my home has been rezoned
in order for me to receive a payment of $1,100 per person. And I called a
Neighborhood Watch meeting, the letters that you have, informing the neighbors
on what I was doing as far as getting my home rezoned, and they was opposed to
me having my home rezoned. And the State pays $1,100 per person, and the
extra money for a extra person will allow me to -- for rent, mortgage payment
and et cetera, and I'm just asking for y'alls help on getting rezoned.
MR. TODD: I'd like to hear from Mr. Patty as far as any opposition at
the hearing and the reason for the staff's recommendation for denial.
MR. PATTY: Mr. Todd, this is a group personal care home. The smaller
personal care homes are allowed by special exception. This size personal care
home requires rezoning of the property, so what she's asking for is multiple-
family rezoning in a subdivision. We had multiple objectors to a commercial
rezoning at the front of this subdivision, and the signs were up, so the
people do know about it. We recommended denial because, you know,
[inaudible].
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we deny the rezoning for multiple-
family.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second Mr. Todd's motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any objectors? [None noted.]
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, when folks buy into subdivisions, they buy into
subdivisions because of the zoning, because it's away from light industrial,
commercial, neighborhood business in most cases, and multiple-family zoning.
Occasionally a subdivision is sited adjacent to a multiple zoning or a
multiple zoning apartment may be sited close to a subdivision, but certainly I
think that when we go in and change the zoning to multiple-family we have a
negative impact on those subdivisions that's involved. Now, if we were
talking about a personal care home where you're going up to five, I think that
would be a different issue. And I think that the petitioner can keep up to
three that's unrelated without having any zone change at all. I don't think
that we should do these type zones in these communities. We have a
comprehensive zoning plan and I think that we should follow that comprehensive
zoning plan, and that comprehensive zoning plan don't call for this type
change, and I'd appreciate my colleagues' support.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: How many are you able to keep under the present laws as
it stands? You might have said, but I missed it.
MS. HURST: Under the present zoning I can keep six residents.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: And you want to add one more?
MS. HURST: If I can get approval for the extra one I can be a community
care home provider, which will allow me to receive $1,100 per person instead
of $750 per person.
MR. HANDY: George, since she's already in business, can we put some kind
of stipulation on there that if we grant this license to her, that in event
that she cease from doing business this property revert back to what it was
originally so nobody else can come in there and put a multiple-family building
on that particular lot? Since she's already in business and still in the same
area, and she's not planning on going anywhere--I don't think she is anyway--
is that possible?
MR. PATTY: I would think you can put whatever conditions you saw fit to
put on it. It would be zoned multiple-family if you did that.
MR. HANDY: But, I mean, could we put a stipulation multiple-family only
for that particular time while she's running the business, that's all. Is
that reasonable what I'm asking?
MR. PATTY: I'd like to defer to your Attorney on that.
MR. WALL: Although you can add stipulations onto rezonings, I'm not sure
that you can carve out and do a special zoning just for this one person for
that use. I think that would fail.
MR. HANDY: So what are you saying?
MR. WALL: I'm saying no. I'm saying if you do it, I think that if
challenged it would fail. And by that I mean if later on -- if she were to
sell this property or if somebody wanted to come back at a later point in time
and use it for the same purpose, I'm saying that they would be allowed to do
so, because I think the restriction that you're attempting to put on there,
that it's only so good as she uses it, would be held invalid.
MR. HANDY: Well, Jim, we do that just about every day. We put
stipulations on businesses, and when they cease from what they're doing they
revert back to the original zoning. We've done that before. I'm asking
questions now.
MR. WALL: You have done reversion. If you want it to revert back to the
prior classification at such time as it ceases to be used for that, the
personal care home or whatever, I mean, that kind of restriction you can.
That's not what I understood you to be talking about.
MR. HANDY: That's what I was referring to, right. No, not carving out
anything special for anyone but being able to put it back like it was once she
ceased, like we've been doing.
MR. OLIVER: But here would be the issue that I would see it. If she
decided to sell the business as a going concern from herself to somebody else
and there was no interruption in the business, then I don't think the
reversionary zoning provision would prevail. If, however, she was in this
type business, decided to get out of the business, the house was not used for
a period of time, someone else came in to pick it up and to continue that type
of business, then we would probably be successful.
MR. HANDY: Right, but what I was asking, could all this be taken care of
at the beginning with her and she cannot walk out and leave the house if we
did this. I'm just asking a question right now. Is it possible?
MR. WALL: You can have a reversion in the zoning that at such time as it
ceases to be used for that purpose, that it would revert back, and that, in my
opinion, would be upheld. But if she were to sell to a different individual,
then it's going to remain being used for that purpose and that new owner could
continue to use it for that purpose. Likewise, in the event that it reverts
back and six months later somebody comes back in and asks for a rezoning for
the same use, you're going to be hard pressed to turn that down.
MR. HANDY: All my life I been going on faith anyway, so we're going to
go on faith today. I'm going to make a substitute motion to grant it. She's
already in business, she's only adding one more person, so I don't see a
difference. It would be different if she only had two or three people and
wanted to add six or seven to what she want to do. That's my reason.
MR. POWELL: I second the motion.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Patty, if we approve this spot zoning, how many
personal care homes in Richmond County that have six people are going to come
back and apply so they can have seven so they can raise their fees by $300 a
month?
MR. PATTY: Well, I'm just sitting here wondering the same thing. This
is new information to me. If this is true and there's a windfall for seven
versus six, then obviously we're going to be seeing a bunch of them.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: What is the maximum number of people they can have in a
R-3 residence?
MR. PATTY: Fifteen.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: So we're not talking about just going to seven, she can
actually raise it to fifteen.
MR. PATTY: Assuming they can meet the State standards for space and
bathrooms per person and that sort of thing.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: So what we're doing is we're opening the gate for a lot
of changes, not just this one, if we approve this, in your opinion?
MR. PATTY: Yes.
MR. TODD: We're not changing a license so a person can add an additional
person so that person can receive $300 more, we're changing the zoning of this
community from one-family residential to multiple-family. We're giving this
person the right to go out and do construction on this one-family home to take
it up to the maximum for fifteen. And it is not the issue of not wanting the
petitioner to make money or not. If the petitioner wants to make money, wants
to take advantage of eleven or fifteen, I think the petitioner should move the
business where it's multiple-family or at least professional service or a
zoning where this person would qualify. The community, when they went
along with -- or this Board when we changed the zoning to special exception
for personal care home, we done it so we would be able to take care of senior
citizens to a limit that have no one to take care of them and at least afford
the opportunity for this person to keep more than three, to go to seven, and I
think we've asked enough of this community. It's time to, you know, go by the
comprehensive plan. I've worked over two years with Mr. Patty and we had
hearings and the communities told us what they wanted in that comprehensive
plan. We told them what would be in that comprehensive plan. We shouldn't
change that plan. You know, the supporters of that plan, it seems when it's
zoning in certain areas they're willing to deviate, but if someone want to put
just a regular personal care home in another community they're not willing to
deviate one inch. I want you to think about what you're doing. You're
changing your zoning from one-family residential to multiple-family, and that
is not right per the plan or per the citizens that it affect.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, we call for the question.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I have one question for the lady. What is the
maximum that you can put in there by the State code; do you know?
MS. HURST: As far as what, a personal care home or group home?
MR. POWELL: Well, what you're trying to do here.
MS. HURST: The maximum is fifteen.
MR. POWELL: And that's the State ordinance?
MS. HURST: Right. And my home at this time is seven because I just only
have enough space for seven.
MR. POWELL: Do you intend to go back to the State and try to reclassify
your home to where you can keep fifteen or are you trying to just add one?
MS. HURST: Just trying to add one.
MR. WALL: And that's the point that I think everybody needs to
understand. If she comes back and gets a building permit and expands the
home, then she can go up to fifteen. And then she ceases to use it, the next
person comes in, they're going to be able to have fifteen in there.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Substitute motion first, made by Mr. Handy, to approve.
All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand,
please.
MR. BEARD, MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE, MR. MAYS, MR. TODD &
MR. ZETTERBERG VOTE NO.
MOTION FAILS 7-3.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Back to the original motion, made by Mr. Todd, to deny.
All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand,
please.
MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. HANDY & MR. POWELL VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 7-3.
CLERK: Item 11: Z-97-81 - Request for concurrence with the decision of
the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Clyde McCaslin, on behalf of
Donald R. Greene, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to
Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the north right-of-way
line of Tobacco Road, 293 feet, more or less, east of the northeast corner of
the intersection of White Pine Court and Tobacco Road.
MR. FINDLAY: Gentlemen, I'm Jimmy Findlay, I represent the petitioner in
this case. Mr. Sconyers, gentlemen, this is a unique situation. What we are
trying to do here is professionally put in a daycare center. We're not trying
to put it in someone's subdivision, we're trying to put it in a unique part of
our community: a part of our community that I think most of us care for, most
of us have seen the development thereof, and most of us want to see prosper in
years to come. This piece of property we're talking about is
approximately a mile and a quarter from the intersection of Windsor Spring
Road and Tobacco Road traveling on Tobacco Road from Fort Gordon to our
airport. It's directly, probably we could say, in the middle of the area
which has not been developed. It is probably as far as five to six miles from
the heavy industry on the far end of Tobacco Road. Subdivisions do, in fact,
exist in this area. None of those subdivisions, since the widening of Tobacco
Road from what was a two-lane or a three-lane road into what's now a five-lane
road, have been developed since that widening. This piece of property is
adjacent to a subdivision known as the Ridge Forest Subdivision. It was
the recommendation of Planning and Zoning to turn this down because, as Mr.
Todd said, it did not meet the comprehensive zoning plan. Gentlemen, I don't
suggest to you that we're putting in what is truly known to you and I as B-1
in the strictest of senses. We're putting in what happens to fall into that
category of B-1, that is, a daycare center. It is no different than
professional zoning. Does it impact the people of the subdivision? I think
if it does anything, it enhances the value of their property. You say why.
Usually when you think of a daycare center you think of children. When you
think of children you think of subdivisions. The very subdivision from which
we expect to receive children is adjacent to this piece of property. Are we
going to do as this lady did and procure a piece of property in the
subdivision and, of course, expand a house? No, I suggest not to you.
Today I'm going to show to you a development plan which has been done by
Lawson Graham. Mr. Graham has spent a good bit of time developing this plan.
Not only this, but rolled up in this group of papers that I have before the
podium is Mr. Fred Sig's workup that's been done for architecture on this.
This is not a mom-and-pop operation that is going to be put together through
the sweat of the brow of two people. This is going to be overseen by the
Richmond County inspection department as to each and every nail that goes in,
it's going to be overseen by a lender who is going to lend money. The access
to and from the five-lane road will be overseen by the State of Georgia to
make sure that it is operational, that it will not impact the health and well-
being of the children who will be using it. Now, Mr. Wall, of course, is
probably as good an attorney as there is in this town, and he knows that there
are certain criteria. Sometimes people here may disagree with that. But we
use a certain criteria, and in this case the Bible, so to speak, or the book
that we look to is [inaudible] and it has about seven things in there that you
need to look at. Number one, it says look at how long a piece of property has
been a particular mode. In 1981, 1983, whenever the original comprehensive
act came up, it was just sort of put in there because it was a no-man's land.
Nobody cared what we did with this. It stayed in that posture. No one has
come along and said I can't wait to buy this piece of property to do something
to it. But with the development of South Richmond County -- I'm talking about
quality development. It's really high-end development. People want to put
something there to take care of South Richmond County. This piece of
property now is something that we need to look at. It's been in this posture,
that is, Agriculture, forever. I'm familiar with the property because the
estate of Johnny McDonald, a person who, in fact, ran for the seat that Mayor
Sconyers now holds, the Mayor of Augusta, once owned that piece of property.
His son-in-law was Mr. Richard Bowles, who took that under of name of McDonald
Georgia Builders and they sold it for $4,000 an acre. They sold it to the
people that developed the subdivision which is adjacent to it. Another
thing that we must look at -- and I remember Bob Daniels arguing this case
against Richard Dunstan right here in this room or a room adjacent to it, said
what is the financial impact on the person that owns this property as compared
to the detriment or the danger or the damage that would be done to the people
that are adjacent. Well, this piece of property for residential purposes is
worth absolutely nothing. Would you, in fact, put your children on a five-
lane highway and build a $132,000 house? I suggest not. But on the other
side of it, it went from $4,000 an acre -- and I'm somewhat of an expert on
property values closing real estate in South Richmond County, that this
property is worth no less than $30,000 in its posture as to being a daycare
center. Now, those are things that you have to weigh in making your
decision. Mr. Todd, of course, I don't suggest to you that you want to go
strictly by the letter of law as to the book, but, of course, I think this is
as much professional as anybody's dentist office. At eight o'clock in the
morning people come and they leave their children there, the most precious
thing that any of us have. And at six o'clock at night, by rules and
regulations of every daycare center, they pick them up. No different than
doctor so-and-so closing down his dental office at six o'clock at night, no
difference in him opening up at eight o'clock, and no different than providing
the people of South Richmond County with the finest of facilities that they
could want. Now, I think it failed on a technicality. And I have been in
property for twenty-five years and I have seen time and time again when you
give people in a neighborhood an opportunity to come and speak to get
something, they often speak against it. But what would they have us put
there? Would they like a bar? Would they like somebody with lights flashing
at night? It's on a five-lane highway, it's close to industry. When people
get off work at eleven o'clock at night, would it be convenient for them to
stop and have a beer on the way home? We are telling you that the First Union
National Bank or NationsBank of Georgia or whoever will make a loan on this
piece of property will not let us do anything except cause it to be created in
such a way as to comply with the laws of the State of Georgia, and for that
matter, to allow us to have a daycare center. So I think you should reverse
the decision that was made by Planning and Zoning and, in fact, allow them to
do what this piece of property is well suited for. Thank you.
MR. TODD: I'd like to hear from Mr. Patty on the staff recommendation
and whether there was any objectors and what their reasons.
MR. PATTY: We did have objectors to this. We got a petition with over
220 signatures from the immediate area in opposition to it. The comprehensive
plan proposed that this area of Tobacco Road between Windsor Spring and 25
remain residential. Now, granted it is a five-lane road and there would be
obviously considerations [inaudible]. This piece of property does back up to
a subdivision. There is no sewer at this time to this property. That's not
to say that would be prohibited. It could possibly be overcome with a septic
tank system or whatever. But when we weighed everything for and against it,
we came out with denial, and the Commission supported that.
MR. TODD: The present zoning, what can we put there on the present
zoning?
MR. PATTY: The present zoning is agricultural, and so basically a house.
It can be subdivided into lots.
MR. TODD: So this could be seen as a upgrade of zoning versus what it's
zoned now?
MR. PATTY: Well, it would definitely allow more intense use of the
property. It would increase the value of the property also if it were to be
rezoned.
MR. FINDLAY: May I respond? Mr. Patty correctly points out the fact
that it was the suggestion that it be denied, but George and I have talked
about property many times. Directly adjacent to this piece of property is a
piece of property which fronts in excess of 600 feet on Tobacco Road. It was
zoned by Mr. Richard Bowles in his lifetime. It is presently zoned B-2, but
with a caveat that it can only be used for B-1 purposes. Now, that would do
away with the necessity of a nightclub, et cetera, but they could certainly
put in laundries there, they could put in things such as -- well, I'll defer
to him as to that. So it's not as if this is the first venture into this
area that people or developers have attempted. In fact, it's been done.
Directly across the street there's a piece of property that's presently zoned
R-3B and it has a provision that it wouldn't be developed into high-density
with first not having sewer. We can put in a 5,000 gallon septic tank to take
care of the uses and the needs of the children who are there. To not do this
would be literally the taking of a piece of property from a person without
fair and reasonable compensation. Thank you. Any questions?
MR. POWELL: I move that we concur with the Planning and Zoning board.
MR. BRIDGES: I second.
MR. TODD: I'd like to make a substitute motion that we approve it under
the conditions that we're upgrading the zoning and it's going to the best use.
MR. FINDLAY: Although that is still before and a second hasn't been
received on it, before -- Mr. Sconyers, may I comment on one thing. We would
certainly buffer the back piece of this piece of property. This piece of
property extends back 260 feet, if my recollection is correct, from its
location from what is a 150-foot public right-of-way, the largest public
right-of-way in all of Richmond County. We would certainly buffer the last 35
feet or thereabouts, or whatever Mr. Patty's office says, so as to prevent the
people in the adjacent subdivision from being impacted by a parking lot or
something similar thereto.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'll second it for discussion.
MR. TODD: I certainly appreciate the consideration and the criteria that
Planning and Zoning used, but I think this is a opportunity to upgrade zoning.
With agriculture the property owner if they wanted to could put a mobile home
in there. With agriculture the property owner probably could put goats on it
and we would have one heck of a fight in the courts. I'm not sure that we
would win this one in the courts if we deny it. I understand the need of
the residents there of not having just anything sited. I don't know whether
they knew that we were talking about a daycare center. I know there were some
efforts to put -- it may be a different piece of property, but adjacent there
a storage -- a mini storage or whatever buildings in there, and that was
opposed. I think that we're probably getting the best that we're going to get
out of going from agriculture to some type use of this property where it
blends in and works with the school and the community, and that's why I speak
in support of approving --overturning the recommendation of the Planning and
Zoning.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Patty said there was 200 people that signed a
petition opposed to this and I was just wondering if there was anybody here
opposed to it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any objectors today?
MR. FINDLAY: Gentlemen, if I may. I'm always somewhat --not amused and
not disturbed, but you gentlemen have sat on this body long enough to know
that oftentimes we can get our cousins who live in Sacramento to sign a
petition. Petitions are not those kind of things that really allow us to
discuss intelligently with people their real and true objections. If you
allow us to put this diamond out there, we might enhance all South Augusta.
If we ride today out Deans Bridge Road and we see what I consider to be the
downward departure of businesses, I think we ought to take and hug the
opportunity to spend $250,000 adjacent to neighborhoods as opposed to setting
it aside because of a technicality as to where this piece of property falls
in. If it had fallen and we had put it into a professional section of our
code, would that have made it better? I think it may have made it more
tolerable and easier for you to have voted, but I truly think this is one of
the best things we can do to let the people of Tobacco Road know that we care
about them, we care about their children. We know that they are producing,
that the wives go and work in the offices of Augusta, that the husbands work
in the Fort of Augusta or in the industry of Augusta, and they too need
quality places to put their children and not somebody down the street who's
going to take care of them and possibly not be regulated by a state or a local
government in doing that. And I beseech each of you to reconsider if you're
considering voting against what I consider to be one of the nicest
opportunities you can have today. Thank you.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Substitute motion first, made by Mr. Todd. Would you
read the motion, please, ma'am?
CLERK: Yes, sir. The substitute motion made by Mr. Todd, seconded by
Mr. Henry Brigham, was to approve the petition.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MR. BEARD, MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. HANDY, MR. MAYS & MR. POWELL
VOTE NO.
MOTION FAILS 6-4.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Go back to the original motion, made by Mr. Powell, to
deny. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion?
MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE, MR. TODD & MR. ZETTERBERG VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 6-4.
CLERK: Item 16: Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to adopt the amended Zoning Ordinance.
MR. ZETTERBERG: So move.
MR. TODD: Second.
MR. PATTY: Gentlemen, if I could mention one thing. We got a letter
from the Canal Authority yesterday that questioned one section of the
ordinance, and that is Section 25-C that we had asked to delete because we
don't think it's fair to one particular property owner. And they would like
some time to look at that, and I would ask you to go along with that and
approve it with the exception of the deletion of 25-C, which is posting signs
on River Watch.
MR. BEARD: We don't have that, do we? I mean, it's not in the book.
MR. PATTY: What you've got is a list of all the changes right here, with
a summary of what each of them are.
MR. TODD: Wasn't the existing ordinance on River Watch no signs?
MR. PATTY: Yes, that's what it says, no signs.
MR. TODD: And that's what we're keeping it in this, no signs?
MR. PATTY: Yeah. We've got a special sign control district that covers
most of River Watch; in fact, it covers all of it except the areas that are
zoned residential. And we felt that this ordinance that says no signs needs
to be removed from the book simply because the Brandenburg property, which at
some point they're going to want to develop it and they're going to want
signs, and this ordinance says he can't have any signs, so at some point we're
going to need to change it.
MR. TODD: Are we willing to do away with the no sign ordinance
throughout Richmond County? I don't want to tailor something in the ordinance
just for a individual.
MR. PATTY: That's what this is, it's just within 1,500 feet of the
centerline of River Watch that says no signs -- no signs visible within 1,500
feet of the centerline of River Watch.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I don't have that in front of me either, Mr. Patty. I-
520, does this ordinance cover 520 also? There's been some talk about the
signs out there or not having the signs out there.
MR. PATTY: We do have that designated as a sign control district, which
means no off-premises advertising or no billboards.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Nothing in this document addresses that.
MR. PATTY: No. We're not asking you to change that, we're simply asking
you, because of the reservations the Canal Authority has expressed, to not act
on this River Watch sign provision at this time.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: If a group wants to come to you or come to the right
persons and talk about 520 over around South Augusta and that sort of thing of
changing that, would we go through this same process or could we amend this to
talk about -- what should we or they do?
MR. PATTY: The sign control provisions of the zoning ordinance allow
designation of certain areas that have certain unique qualities as basically
limited sign areas, in a nutshell. And that area has been designated, which
means that there can't be any billboards; the sign height is regulated, 25
feet; the number of signs, one per property; the size of a sign is regulated,
the type of lighting and that sort of thing. I-520 has been designated as one
of those sign control areas. The way to change that would be to petition the
Planning Commission to remove that designation. But that's not what we're
talking about right now.
MAYOR SCONYERS: So, George, you want to pull out that specific number?
MR. PATTY: Yeah, I would like for you to -- because of the request of
the Canal Authority, I'd like for you to pull out Section 25-C, which we had
recommended be deleted from the ordinance, and I anticipate bringing that back
to you at a later time after they've had time to look at it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg, would you agree to do that in your
motion?
MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes, I modify my motion to coincide with what Mr. Patty
said.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to withdraw my second and give the
opportunity to someone that can agree with it to second it.
MR. KUHLKE: I'll second.
MR. BEARD: I just got possibly two things, and maybe I've overlooked it,
but I didn't see that in the book. And if we're going to [inaudible] we're
supposed to have a copy of that ordinance. I'm not sure I understand all of
the ramifications of what you're saying at this point. My question is, I
haven't seen this ordinance and I don't think I could vote on it at this time
until I've seen it.
MR. BRIDGES: George, the section you're wanting to pull out -- I've got
this, it was in the mailbox and I just looked at it today. You're wanting to
pull out Section 25-C. According to that, this is a no-sign ordinance, and
your recommendation is to delete the no-sign ordinance, and now you want to
pull out the deletion. What's going to be left when we pull this out, that's
what I'm asking.
MR. PATTY: It's going to be just like it is now.
MR. BRIDGES: So it'll be a no-sign ordinance now until you come back to
us?
MR. PATTY: Right, until we give the Canal Authority a chance to look at
it. It falls under their purview and I feel like that would be the proper
thing to do.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, first off, I hadn't seen this, I'm like
several others on here, I knew it was coming, but it wasn't forwarded to us.
The second thing is I know the people in this area that's along River Watch
would not want the no-sign ordinance lifted, so I don't have a bit of a
problem with supporting it as is. My question is, is there any other no-sign
ordinances that's been passed that we're changing now?
MR. PATTY: No, there are no other no-sign ordinances.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: What other major changes are you asking us to -- since
some of us haven't seen it.
MR. PATTY: If you'd like, I'll be happy to go through this. Okay, I'm
just going to go through this quickly and hit the highlights. Under
definitions, we're changing the definition of a mobile home to conform to the
DCA and HUD standards. Those definitions are consistent in both of those.
We're not making any other changes related to mobile homes except the
definition, and that way if we get in a legal situation I think we'll be in a
better position than we are today. Building setbacks, right now the minimum
setback for a building is 25 feet from a roadway, and that causes a lot of
problems, aesthetic problems, and it also causes problems --we have to acquire
a right-of-way. We're recommending that that be changed from 25 to 30 feet on
minor streets and from 25 to 40 feet on all other streets. Right now curb
cuts are permitted within 25 feet of an intersection, we're recommending that
be changed to 50. Curb cuts can be 25 feet apart, we're recommending that be
changed to 50 except in residential zones where it's not practical to do that.
We're dealing with a lot of inconsistencies between the old city
regulations and the old county regulations. One example of that is fences.
Currently in the county fences are allowed to eight feet in height, in the
city they're only allowed six feet in height. We're recommending that in
agricultural zones fences of eight feet in height be allowed. In other zones
fences in setback areas, required yard areas, be limited to six feet with the
exception, that being in front of the setback areas, that the height be
limited to four feet. In a professional zone we've got a limit of the
size of three square feet on a sign. We don't feel like that's realistic. We
want to increase that to twelve square feet. We've got a change in how we deal
with signage, two major changes. One has to do with portable signs. We've
got different regs in the city versus the county. We're recommending that you
basically adopt the county version of that except within the urban service
district. We want to leave one provision intact that's there now, and that is
that a portable sign can only be in existence for thirty days out of any six-
month period. Now, we're not recommending that that be extended into the
county, but we're recommending that that continue to be in effect in the city.
As far as billboards and off-premises outdoor advertising signs, in the
old city the minimum size sign that had to conform to the space requirement of
750 feet on the same side of the road, 300 foot radius, the minimum size was
100 feet, in the county it was only 32 square feet. That left a gap that the
junior billboards fell into and basically allowed them to proliferate in the
city. In the county that required them to fit in the same spacing
requirements for other off-premises signs or billboards. We're recommending
that we go with the county version of that where the minimum size sign to have
to meet the billboard spacing requirements is 32 square feet. That will
prevent the junior billboards, as they're called, from coming into the county
on the same basis that they're in the city now.
MR. BEARD: I'm sorry to interrupt. It appears to me that -- you know, I
haven't seen either one of these ordinances that are listed here. Is there
any time limit that we must do this today or could we have an opportunity to
read over these prior to voting on them?
MR. PATTY: The only provision in this that I feel some urgency to deal
with is the telecommunication ordinance, and it's actually a section of the
zoning ordinance -- proposes a section in the zoning ordinance. Now, as you
see on your agenda, I've got it on here separately. Of course, frankly I
anticipated this might happen, and I think what you can do --you know, it's
your decision to go ahead and postpone acting on this until the next meeting
or whatever, but I do think the next item, which is the telecommunication
ordinance, I would like to see you act on that today.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to withdraw my motion.
MR. BEARD: I move that we postpone Item 16 until we have had an
opportunity to review it and read it.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MR. TODD: The changing of the definition of mobile homes, was this
something that was worked out with a special committee that included the
industry, Planning and Zoning, and residents or folks from community
associations?
MR. PATTY: The definition that I'm recommending that you adopt is the
definition that's in the HUD rules and the Department of Community Affair
rules. It's verbatim. It's not actually much of a change. I mean, I don't
see where it would have any substance as far as what -- it would not allow
anything that's not allowed now or would not prohibit anything that's
prohibited now, but it would be making us consistent with the HUD and DCA
definition, which could have some legal implications.
MR. TODD: If a home burned down on Henry Street and I wanted to put a
manufactured home on Henry Street, would I be able to do it under this
definition change?
MR. PATTY: There's no substantial difference between the definitions
[inaudible].
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion to postpone, let it
be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 17: Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to adopt a Telecommuni-cation Ordinance.
MR. PATTY: Gentlemen, this is the ordinance that you commissioned a
committee to meet and hammer out one, and we did. It was a combination of
citizens that had an interest in this, industry folks, and county folks. And
I think we prepared a good ordinance that provides protection for residential
areas and encourages -- I don't want to use the word force, but encourages
[inaudible] and stays within the law -- the federal telecommunication law. I
don't know that everybody on that committee is happy with it. I think there
are sections that I might disagree with somewhat and I know there are sections
that the industry folks disagree with somewhat, but I think it's a good
compromise and I would like to see you adopt it today.
MR. HANDY: Move for approval.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MR. TODD: This was worked out with the committee; right?
MR. PATTY: Yes, sir.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I just have a question for Mr. Wall. If it was voted on
today and there would be all the towers that were -- from this day on for
consideration. None of the ones -- for instance, the one that was agenda item
number one. That's what -- you need this property because the tower sits on
industrial property right across the street from residential property.
MR. WALL: Well, I'm not sure I understand the question. The existing
uses would continue. We've got a nonconforming use provision in the
ordinance, so those that are in existence would continue as nonconforming
uses. The one that came up before, in my opinion, you've got to apply the
ordinance as it existed prior to this, which is the special use criteria,
insofar as considering that one. From this point on, the others that come
down would be governed by this ordinance now.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to thank the citizens and the
Planning and Zoning people and everybody else that worked on this committee.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. All in favor of Mr. Handy's
motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We had a request to put two additions to the agenda. We
need a motion now to put those on.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll so move after having a conversation with my
colleague, Mr. Handy.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it be
known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 1 of the addendum agenda is to discuss increasing the
retirement benefits for members of the 1949 Pension Plan.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Mayor, for over a year now we have been trying to get an
increase in our pension. And we got a actuary back, and at the time the
actuary came back our pension plan as of the first of the year was worth $59
million, and as of two weeks ago when we had the pension committee it was
reported to us that our pension plan now is worth $66 million since the first
of the year, an increase of $7 million. If you was to give each and every one
that's retired, except those that got the ten-year retirement, if you was to
give them a $2,000 across-the-board raise it would amount to $266,000, about a
quarter of a million dollars approximately. And just think, we made $7 million
since the first of the year. And if you was to give a $3,000 across-the-board
raise it would be 399,000. Now, if you say you can't give it to one
without the other, you could give $2,000 across the board to everybody that's
retired and it would be $338,000 -- no, everyone that's retired would be 507,
and if you was to give it to just 133 people that's retired that didn't get
that ten-year increase it would be 338,000. No, I got it mixed up. The 133
that didn't get the ten-year retirement, if you give $3,000 it would be 399.
If you give a $2,000 raise across the board it would be 266,000. So we are
asking you at this time to give our pensioners an increase. We have people
that's retired that's on the poverty level. We have people that's only
drawing two, three, and four thousand dollars a year. And certainly our
pension can stand it, and we certainly would appreciate you acting on it
today.
MR. TODD: I have a question for Mr. Baker. When is the last time you
had a cost-of-living?
MR. BAKER: Usually we have a cost-of-living once a year, and that's in
April, and it's anywhere from -- it's been anywhere from three to five percent
in the last ten years, I think.
SPEAKER: This year it was two and three-quarter percent.
MR. BAKER: And that's annually that we receive the cost-of-living
increase unless it falls below two percent, I think.
MR. OLIVER: Based on the change of the consumer price index, not to
exceed five percent.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear from the Administrator on
his recommendation.
MR. OLIVER: We asked the actuary to look at a number of things, as we
discussed Friday. One of the things that I think needs to be remembered is
that when you get into a pension plan, that a pension plan is a contract
between the employer and the employee and retired employees to provide a level
of benefits that you're contractually obligated to. As mentioned Friday, this
particular pension plan omits certain language. So consequently, anything
that you do for this pension plan will be from this day forward and will be
irrevocable, so consequently, anything that's done needs to be done and done
very carefully. As described Friday, because this plan is not subject to
social security, therefore, unless people that participated in this pension
plan had other outside employment, the people collecting pensions are not
subject to Medicare and Medicaid and are not eligible for that insurance.
Consequently, based on the county's insurance requirement, we are paying
approximately $6,000 for dependent coverage, family coverage, for people
within this plan where we're paying about less than one-third that for others
that are subject to that. If you'll look at the percent of benefit under this
plan, the percentage of benefit under this plan is approximately the same as
the other plans. Additionally, I would note we are paying out
approximately $1 million a year in insurance benefits for people in the 1949
pension plan. Those monies are not currently accounted for. If we account
for those -- we asked the actuary to run five scenarios. One was a 20 percent
across-the-board increase, excluding people that took the early retirement
out, not considering any of the impact of the insurance part, that is
actuarily unsound. That means that this body and this government would have
to contribute additional money to this pension plan during an already tight
budget process to make this plan work. We also asked the actuary to look
at two percent times the number of years of service. And, again, somebody
that had taken the early out, that would be zero the way the definitions work.
Again, that is actuarily unsound, meaning that we would have to make a
contribution of roughly a quarter of a million dollars a year for some period
of time, and the actuarial numbers are tricky. There were three other options
that were looked at, and I'm prepared to go into those if you desire. Again,
however, none of them took into account the insurance aspect. Specifically,
if we take into account the insurance aspect, which we believe would be
appropriate, then actuarily this plan is not capable of supporting an increase
at this point in time.
MR. TODD: I'd like to hear those other options.
MR. OLIVER: The other option was -- and I would like to make a note
here. Please remember that while people are here participating in this plan,
if you do vote to provide an increase, that there will be different people
that have many differing perspectives. For example, if you do one and a half
percent times the number of years a person has been retired, a person that's
been retired for 20 years is going to be very happy. If you ask the same
person who is currently working for us that hasn't yet retired what they think
of that, they are not going to think very highly of it, and the reason is
because they're going to get nothing. So you've got people on this particular
item that have a number of perspectives in which they're coming for you and
their motivation is going to depend upon the approach, and that you've got to
be careful of because there is, frankly, no one method that's going to make
everyone happy. The three other scenarios we looked at were three and a
half percent across the board excluding the early outs, a flat two and a half
percent for all, and a one and a half percent times the number of years
retired. Again, I would caution that any of those particular options would
not benefit -- and I can give you the number. We currently have in the 1949
plan 187 active employees and 170 retired employees. So while the majority of
the 170 employees would be somewhat happy, it would work to the detriment of
the 187 active employees because none of the proposals that have been
discussed would provide them any increase in benefit.
MR. BRIDGES: Randy, these last three, are they actuarily sound?
MR. OLIVER: They are actuarily sound.
MR. BRIDGES: Can I ask a question, Mr. Oscar? Have y'all had I guess a
pension plan member meeting and arrived at this consensus by vote, or how has
your proposal been arrived at?
MR. BAKER: In discussing the pension plan with many members, and not
all, but many members that's retired, we felt like asking for either a $2,000
across-the-board raise to everybody, which would be fair -- and nobody would
get less money, everybody would get the same. And if you give $2,000 across-
the-board raise to all the people that didn't get the ten-year early
retirement it would only be $266,000. And if you gave it the $2,000 across-
the-board raise to everyone, even the ones that got the ten years, it would
only be 338,000. And our pension plan since the first of the year --I can't
express this enough, that our pension plan since the first of the year has
made $7 million, and that was reported to you in the pension committee.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Oscar, that was before the stock market went down 240
points the other day.
MR. BAKER: That still would give you plenty of money to act on. And
it's going back up. It dropped here about two or three months ago, but it
skyrocketed again.
MR. OLIVER: A couple of things that I would like to elaborate on a point
that Mr. Baker made. If you gave a person $2,000, unless it's a one-time
amount, this amount would continue, $2,000 every year for the rest of the
people that participate in this plan's life. Additionally, it would be
inflated by whatever the cost of living is. So consequently, assuming the
worst case, which as an actuary you do, you would assume that 2,000 this year
would translate into $2,100 next year, which would translate into $2,100 times
1.05 percent the following year. So the other thing I would again like to
point out is while this plan would make the people that are currently retired
happy, it does not do anything for the people that are active employees at
this particular point; so, therefore, their perspective could be quite
different.
MR. BAKER: Our pension plan in the last few years has gained about $25
million, in just the last few years, and it's escalating all the time.
MR. TODD: My question is for Mr. Wall. I guess one of the things that -
- in discussion with Mr. Beard a little earlier I stated to him that I thought
that one of the things the former city done right was the higher-risk
investment of the '49 pension plan, and so certainly I compliment him on that.
But let's say that in rolling the dice then or now, if we take a licking on
it and we have a deficit, who is to make up that deficit to make sure that the
retirees draw their check every month?
MR. WALL: This government and the taxpayers. I mean, this is a -- you
are committing to pay them this amount and the future retirees this amount
until the last retiree is gone.
MR. TODD: And I guess, Mr. Mayor, to Mr. Oliver, would the actuary
account of the three percent, two percent, or one and a half percent, was that
projecting that our returns or dividends on investment remain the same, our
success rate is the same, or that with no additional risk in investment?
MR. OLIVER: There's no such thing as no additional risk short of buying
government-backed securities, and if you buy government-based securities the
rates double. The actuary assumed an eight percent rate of return. If that
rate of return is seven and a half it comes up short. If it's eight and a
half it does well. During the last several years that's been -- I mean, we
have done far better than that. The other thing for the Commission's
consideration is that while -- we have to remember whatever you do with this
pension plan, whether we have any legal obligation to do this or not, it could
well be the case that you're going to have every additional pensioner that we
have under any other plan that's going to come in and want the same treatment.
And I would note that we have one plan that is literally bankrupt, which is
being funded out of the General Fund. So consequently, you may wish to think
about what you're going to tell -- if you take an action here, what you're
going to tell other pensioners when they come in and would ask for the same
level of benefit. Financially I would say, however, the '45 plan is in the
best shape. It's in better shape than the '49. It's a much smaller plan,
however.
SPEAKER: Can I ask a question please, Randy? Can you tell me the
figures that it cost our '49 pension plan to give this last group that retired
from the Fire Department in the city -- what did it cost the '49 pension plan
to give all those people those ten years out of our pension plan that it
didn't cost the taxpayers anything? This was put in by the people that
worked. I know my husband worked thirty years with the Fire Department and
retired and he brings home -- we live on about $1,000 a month. We need a
raise. These people that retired and got the ten years, I know that it
was a part of trying to oust them out of their jobs, get some of the old ones
off -- out of being firemen, police or whatever job they had, but I don't
think it's fair to take one set group of men or women or whoever it was that
retired and give them ten years out of a pension plan that didn't belong to
anybody except the people that put the money in there. We weren't asked that
we favored giving them ten years and we haven't been asked anything about any
committee, been brought before any committee about the pension plan or
anything. That's our money. It's our forefathers and anybody else that put
money in there, people that's passed on that never drew a dime. My daddy was
one of them.
MR. OLIVER: Well, there were contributions made by both the employee and
the city.
SPEAKER: I think most of the money, if you'll go back and look at the
records, most of the money that was put into that '49 pension plan was put
there by the people who worked and put their five percent in every payday.
And I think that it's just terrible that the city people that were working,
especially the firemen and the police that worked for the low salary that they
worked for, that nobody ever worked to give them a decent raise or a decent
salary for putting their life on the line every day that they went to work,
and I ask you men here today to do the right thing and give us a raise.
MR. BAKER: I'd like to make one more statement. Mr. Oliver talks about
the city contribution to our pension plan. The law says that our pension plan
-- the only money can be taken out of our pension is for the administrative
cost and the cost to give increases in our pension plan for the benefit of the
pensioners.
MR. HANDY: I talked to Mr. Todd and was able to get this on the floor,
but we've had a lot of discussion here, and a decision is going to have to be
made. And we are in the process now of giving all of our employees one and a
half percent. I don't know whether that equal up to what they're talking
about there, but I would like to put in the form of a motion that whatever
they get, that it be equal to what our employees are getting, and that will be
a start. And then on top of that, I heard Mr. Oliver mention two or three
times in different meetings that we are paying the insurance for the
dependents and all. Whatever it takes to get them up with where we are so no
one [inaudible] contributing something for one plan and not the other, then we
should be able to work out the situation. But they are in need for a
raise based on their opinion. Based on our Administrator's opinion, the only
thing that is sound is the last scenario that he gave us. Well, we need to
decide one of the scenarios we're going to give, do something for the
pensioners. And then if it's not right, then they will know that we tried to
do something for them, but not to exceed what we are doing for all the other
employees that we have. Now, I don't know what that is, I don't know how much
money that will be, but I could live with that if the Administrator will
accept that and try to figure out how much money that's going to cost.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I ask the maker of the motion before I second it,
is it my understanding of the motion that the $1 million that is being paid in
insurance from General Fund would now come from the pension plan?
MR. HANDY: That's what I had said for the Administrator to look at that.
And if that's what he's saying, that they need to pay their insurance like we
do or whatever, so we can get it straight and get everybody on the same level.
SPEAKER: We can't afford that. We can't afford to pay $135 a month for
insurance when we're only getting $1,000.
MR. OLIVER: We would give you the increase to do that. It would have no
net effect on -- SPEAKER: Well, if you give us an increase and then take
it away from us, then what are we going to have?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to second the motion with the
understanding that that's what the maker of the motion is saying, that the
retirees' insurance will be paid out of the retirees' insurance plan. And I
guess we need a ruling from the County Attorney whether that's legal or not.
If it's not legal it'll be null and voided, but I second the motion.
SPEAKER: What I'm saying is we need a cost-of-living raise above what
you're going to be taking back from us. Like I said, my husband brings home
about $1,000 from his retirement. You cannot live on that. I had to go back
to work after having a serious lung surgery, and I don't make that much money.
And between the two of us we're almost on the poverty line, and we still have
an 18-year-old child at home that we have to help and send to college. And if
you make us pay $135 a month for our insurance and then give us a little bit
of raise, that's going to take it back. What we are here for today is for you
to give us a cost-of-living raise of $2,000 or whatever the pension plan can
afford and then keep our insurance down so we can afford to pay it. It
just so happens that my husband never paid in any social security, so all he's
going to have when he turns 65 --he's not going to have any Medicare. I'm
going to have some Medicare, but he's not. And from what I was told when he
retired is that if he died before I did, that I could still take his insurance
at a low premium. Well, that's going to have to stand because I won't get any
retirement. I'm not on his retirement plan, so I'll have to have a low
premium in order to even exist. I think you need to take that into
consideration.
MR. OLIVER: As I understand what Commissioner Handy said, and I can't
answer this minute whether it's actuarily sound, it'll take probably at least
two weeks to figure it out, but it would be a one and a half percent across-
the-board one-time increase that'll stay there and then everything else
applies consistent with our employees; plus, take the insurance out of the
pension plan, but increase the amount that the pensioner gets by the amount of
the insurance so they lose no real dollars.
MR. HANDY: Right, that's what I wanted.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, we had a pension
attorney appear at the meeting Friday and he said you could not take any
benefits away from the '49 and the '45 pension act, and the insurance is part
of our plan because it was voted on by the pension committee to give us our
insurance. The city and county is paying for fifty-something people under the
defunct pension plans that's been bankrupt for forty or fifty years. You're
paying for other people's pension, the insurance, and the pension attorney
said you could not take it away from us. So you cannot take it out of our
pension plan. Thank you.
MR. BRIDGES: Jim, what's your comments?
MR. WALL: Well, the only comment I'm going to make is that I think that
whatever y'all do today is going to be direction for us to draw up an
ordinance. I mean, whatever change is made will have to be adopted under the
home rule provisions. You're going to have to advertise it, you've got to
have the two readings of the ordinance. So what I'm listening for out of the
motion will be the direction as far as how any such ordinance has to be
prepared. The principle of law that Mr. Baker referred to is correct, and
I think that's the thing that both Mr. Oliver and Mr. Baker are pointing out.
Once you make this increase it's there, you're not going to be able to take
it back. Once you make this change increasing the benefits, whatever it might
be, it's there and you're not going to be able to take it back. If the value
of the pension plan drops as time goes along, as there are more people who
retire under that plan and the cost increases, you've got that obligation and
you're not going to be able to take it back from anyone. Therefore, I caution
you, whatever you do, you need to get a statement from the actuary that it can
be done and that it's actuarily sound.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I think what we need to do is come up with several
actuarily sound provisions; survey all members, both retired and active, of
the '49 plan and find out what is the feeling of the majority of people that
are actually covered under the plan. And if it's actuarily sound, at that
point I'd be willing to entertain it. But until we can find an actuarily
sound that we've got complete consensus on, not only from the retirees but
from the active employees, because we're talking about everybody in the
pension plan here, not just one group or another group. And I think that that
needs to be done first. Because this pension plan, from my understanding,
in 1988 only had assets of, what, $29 million? And that the balance of the
$50 million since then has mainly come from the investment policy of the
pension committee, not from the retirees, not from the active employees, and
it's been because we've had a very successful stock market. Now, that can
change at any given time. We all know this. Most of the people here that are
retired lived through the '30s, they very well remember when the stock market
wasn't worth anything. So whatever changes we make, we got to make that are
actuarily sound, otherwise we are charging -- the current taxpayers of this
government is going to make up the difference to this commitment, and that's
why I can't support anything that's not actuarily sound that a majority of the
participants has not agreed to.
MR. BAKER: Did y'all take that in consideration when you give the 1.5 --
the cent and a half every year after thirty years or the ten-year early
retirement?
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I think while the motion that's on the floor has
some good intentions, and I really believe it was made by the Mayor Pro Tem in
the utmost of sincerity of trying to get somewhere with it, I have a serious
problem with what I feel is an indirect penalty slap in reference to the
insurance, and I'll get to that in just a minute. But, one, right or wrong, I
think as long as this thing has existed probably some clarity, and I would say
more on government's part than anybody else, we are addressing this now
probably more in an open fashion from our side than we have before. It has
been the retirees that have put forth the effort to come up and try to
basically I think out of just plain sheer need the fact of bringing this to
our attention. Many of them --and I can say this probably better than anybody
else because I've sat on this side of the aisle longer than anybody else in
this room, and I maybe haven't been here on earth as long as everybody else,
but I've sat on this side longer. And some of the people that you see in
talking about their numbers actually are on maybe the upper side of what's
being received. There are some that are receiving probably fifty percent less
than what some of the numbers that have been quoted and stated in this room.
Which if that does not put you in a poverty level situation, I don't know what
is. But I think when we -- let's play Jeopardy for just a moment. We've
talked about the investment. One, you wouldn't be able to bid in the final
round of Jeopardy if you didn't have any money. That's the first thing. So
whatever has been invested upon, and while I applaud the folks who handle the
money for doing a good job with it, there would have been nothing to invest if
there had not been a contribution from the very beginning, so I think that
ought to be understood. I think the second thing that should be putting out
is that we talk about those people who are going to ask for something
different. Well, everybody who walks out of this room and goes out to the
parking lot to get in somebody's car can't get in if they don't have the keys.
You got to have the keys to your own car. As I said many times, every mule
has to carry its own backpack. I think it's a very simple situation as it
relates to money. If it does not have it, then no one can make that argument
about it. You may set guidelines, and the simple guidelines can be if yours
will not afford what is there in the market, then it cannot be drawn upon
unless you're going to take some other type of contribution from government
and make it, and I doubt seriously if that's going to be made. And I don't
think that they want to place this city in any type of serious operation that
would cause a deficit. But I think when you start talking about shifting
that level of the insurance burden, that's an easier thing that's said than
done. Because, number one, they are a part of that group and what we receive
in that group in terms of being able to put those folks together and numbers
of group insurance, they will not be able to do that if handed that money on
an individual basis. Now, if they are going to be -- and I think really
if you're saying, well, all right, we're just swapping it out and it's going
to be a washout, then leave it where it is. If you're not leaving it where it
is, then you are -- whether intended or not, you're doing some serious harm.
Because the age limit many times -- and I can speak to this firsthand from
both parents who are deceased who suffered catastrophic illnesses at the age
of 47. You can get mighty broke in a short period of time with health
expenses. They will not be able to cover that if handed to them even if they
went out --and I doubt seriously they could get 100 percent or even 75 percent
agreement of those retirees to come together and to form one private situation
to deal with insurance. That's just not going to happen. So what you're
basically doing, you're saying take this money, leave; we then put together a
insurance group that has people who are the better health perspective, of a
younger age; thus, what you're doing, you're casting off -- whether you know
it or not, you're casting them off basically into a wilderness situation,
because most of them will not be able to deal with that insurance as they deal
with it now. And I think the motion on the floor, I think every intention
is good within there to do that, but I think it's going to have the terribly
wrong results of what you're going to end up with with insurance. In fact, as
far as doing that, I think it's more drastic than in doing nothing with the
average dollars because that insurance, the multiplier effect in it, and
particularly for those who may not be eligible for other items but are
basically stuck within the retirement plan situation, that have never paid
into social security, they are going to be caught between more than a rock and
a hard place. So I would hope that if you're going to do it, I would rather
you, quite frankly -- and I had hoped by this time we'd be coming to make a
positive vote. But in fairness to them, I'd rather see us in a way not make a
decision today, try and deal with the money sides of it, leave this insurance
situation alone, because that is a terrible mistake in terms of where you're
going with it. Giving them that money is almost like people, for
instance, maybe who have retired from military where -- we experience it every
day in funeral service where it's not mandatory that people keep GI insurance.
Many times people are glad to get away from it, not knowing that when they
walk away they can't get it, not only for the same rate but, also, they may
develop an illness six months from then that makes them ineligible to do it.
So giving the money, I think, does not give them the proper guidance and
confidence that we should be expending as the true trustees of where that
pension is. So if we're going to do it, let's take it back, try and deal with
the money, Mr. Administrator, but I think on the insurance level, I think we
definitely need to leave that one alone.
MR. OLIVER: Let me make a clarification, Mr. Mays, so that you
understand. In the lady's example over here that was $1,000 a month, what we
would propose would be to increase the benefit to 1,200 and then take the 200
insurance out. It would not eliminate them being able to get the insurance.
MR. MAYS: But, now, who would pay that? Would they be given that in
hand or would -- and we pay it as a deductible? It stays in if we're going to
give the insurance, or are we going to give it to them? Because, see, the
money value for them being outside of that system does not go as far as their
being within the system and being protected.
MR. OLIVER: They're going to be in the system.
MR. MAYS: Within the system, then I don't have an argument. But in
terms of giving it to them -- and I'm not saying that we know better what to
do with somebody else's money, but from the standpoint of their being
protected and remaining in the group plan on a mandatory basis of where they
are there, I think they're a lot better off than they are being handed that
money, and that's the main thing I want to see is that they are staying in
that insurance plan.
MR. BAKER: I'd like to say one thing again, that our --your pension
attorney that you had out there Friday at Augusta Tech told you that you could
not take anything away from us. And if you take any part of that -- do away
with anything besides what the insurance is now, you are taking away from us,
and the attorney said you could not do it.
MR. HANDY: I did not say anything about taking any pensioners out of the
payment. I did not say about taking the money -- giving them the money to pay
their own insurance. I merely was saying that the money that they invested,
that they can afford to pay the insurance out of that extra money. That's what
it's coming out of, not to take them out of the plan, not to give them any
money that they got to go out and buy their own insurance. I did not say
that. I don't think that was in my motion, and you can ask the Clerk down
there to read back what I said. I never said anything about giving them extra
money and take them out of the plan.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, a couple of things. Mr. Baker has referred to
the early retirement that we did back last year, and to me that's a separate
issue all together. We did that, we made that decision, it was a conscious
decision. We made the decision and we went through with it, we're through
with it. What you're talking about and everybody here that's interested in an
increase in the retirement plan is something that's going to go on and on and
on. And contrary to what Mr. Brigham just said, we're not just talking about
it's going to be at the expense of existing taxpayers but the future taxpayers
in this community. What I'd like to do is this, because I think this
thing needs to be put to bed: I'd like to make a motion that we defer any
action on this for two weeks, that we direct the Administrator and the
Director of Finance to develop a plan whereby we can or cannot make an
increase to this plan, and whatever he comes back to us with is actuarily
sound. And if it isn't and we can't afford to give an increase to this plan,
we don't give an increase. But within two weeks, at our next meeting if
that's enough time -- [end of Tape 1] -- and if we can afford to do it. If we
can't, then your recommendation would be that we can't do anything. But I
will go along with my colleague, Mr. Mays, don't mess with the insurance.
We're already doing that now.
MR. OLIVER: But what I would suggest is when you say two weeks, that
really only gives us a week by the time the agenda is out. It's going to take
four weeks.
MR. KUHLKE: Four weeks from today, and then maybe you can come back to
us with a recommendation. And I think the judgment of this Commission has got
to be that it's actuarily sound for us to move forward.
MR. OLIVER: How do you want to address the fact that different people at
different positions in the pension plan have varying and different needs?
MR. KUHLKE: I would say this, I don't know whether --you've indicated
that a survey is not the appropriate way to do it, but within that -- MR.
OLIVER: Well, we can do a survey, but clearly you couldn't even get the
survey results back in four weeks.
MR. KUHLKE: How about a public meeting with participants in this plan?
MR. OLIVER: If we can borrow the sheriff's vest, that'd be fine. As I
say, people are going to have different perspectives, and I don't think when
you reach the end of that meeting you're going to have a consensus on that.
Obviously people that have not yet retired would like to say accrue at the
rate of three percent per year. That would be something that would be
desirable to them. The people that are previously retired won't think that
that's a great plan at all.
MR. KUHLKE: Well, I go back to what this Commission --the action they
took as far as raises as far as the existing employees, and I believe that we
put a three and a half percent in a pot. Everybody this year got a one and a
half percent raise; am I correct?
MR. OLIVER: That is correct.
MR. KUHLKE: Okay. I believe I heard a gentleman over here saying that
the pension plan got two and a half percent this year and that the rest of
those funds are at the discretion of the department head as to who gets
raises. Some people will, some people won't based on performance. But from
my standpoint, even though the base may be low, that the pensioners in the '45
plan are getting a higher raise than existing employees within county
government.
MR. OLIVER: I agree with that.
MR. BAKER: Y'all gave five percent to them, didn't you?
MR. BRIDGES: I'll second the motion.
MR. BAKER: I'd like to ask that question, though.
MR. KUHLKE: No, sir, we did not give five percent. We put three and a
half percent in a pot. We gave one and a half percent to every employee and
two percent went to the pot to be used at the discretion of the department
head.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll be very brief. You know, it's been said that
there is no contribution from the taxpayers in the '45 plan. I don't know
what the million dollars that we pay a year for insurance is, but certainly it
could be considered as a contribution even though in previous City Council
somewhere along the line voted to give the insurance. And I understand the
difference in not having Social Security or being qualified for Medicare or
Medicaid, et cetera, and would have a need for insurance. In seconding the
motion that Mr. Handy made, the intent -- and I don't think the motion will
read that we intended you to pay out of your pocket but we would pay it from
the retirement pension plan. And I know there is a debate as far as Mr.
Baker go on what we can legally do, but I haven't heard that from Mr. Wall
that we cannot do that under any circumstances. But the bottom line is that
I'm not going to take a action here today or at any other time that is going
to burden future taxpayers and present taxpayers. I'm not going to do it.
I'm not going to do anything that's going to bust the budget and cause a tax
increase. That's the bottom line. Now, if we can do it without doing that,
Mr. Mayor, then I will give consideration to that. When I come in here today
I didn't want to deal with this issue because I hadn't had the opportunity to
be briefed on it. Well, I guess I've been briefed now. I've heard Mr.
Baker's side, I've heard the Administrator's side. We're still probably no
closer than we would be if we hadn't dealt with the issue at all, but I guess
this is what this is about, debate, and we've had that today. But the bottom
line is, as far as I see it, that we do make a contribution, and that
contribution is in the name of the insurance that we pay, and that insurance
is approximately, my understanding, a million dollars a year.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Wall, can they take anything away from our insurance?
MR. WALL: What cannot happen is we cannot take away from the pension
plan any benefit that you have under the pension fund. The insurance is being
paid for -- 90 percent of the premium is being paid for out of the General
Fund. The proposal that is being discussed is for the insurance premium to be
paid for out of the pension fund. Arguably, that is an increase in benefit to
y'all because that is something that currently -- that is something that the
pension fund is currently not providing to you that could be paid for out of
the pension fund.
MR. BAKER: That's taking away from us.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Oliver, are you comfortable with the times right now
on getting back -- four weeks will give you enough time?
MR. OLIVER: The hard part is going to be that -- it's basically going to
mean that within three weeks we're going to have to hold a public meeting and
come back with some results. I think that time frame is extremely tight by the
time we have the public meeting.
MAYOR SCONYERS: What would you like?
MR. OLIVER: I think it's going to take -- I'd be comfortable with six
weeks.
MR. BRIDGES: Why is it our responsibility to hold a meeting? Wouldn't
that be the members of the pension plan? Wouldn't they be responsible for
holding the meeting and coming up with a consensus of what they -- what the
present and past employees want to do?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the last I remember, we're still the trustees
of the plan and I think we ought to be the one conducting the meeting.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Exactly. Six weeks, Randy?
MR. OLIVER: Yeah. We'll set it up.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: As a retiree myself, I sympathize and want to help
wherever possible to the retirees. And I would hope that Mr. Kuhlke would
allow somebody from the board, Mr. Baker or somebody to be on that committee
so it wouldn't appear that we are still planning for somebody rather than
trying to plan with them. I think if we come up and make this grandiose plan
and they come back and still don't agree with it, I think we are back at
square one although we have the right to vote on it.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Brigham, I'll leave that to the discretion of Mr. Oliver
if he wants that. In my opinion, we have one responsibility and one
responsibility only, and that is can we afford to give the '49 pension plan an
increase, and the only way we can do that is to make sure that it is actuarily
sound that we can do that. And, very frankly, the only way you can do that is
by working with a firm to give us that information, so from that standpoint I
don't see where Mr. Baker would contribute anything.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I said Mr. Baker or someone from the group.
MR. KUHLKE: Is any member of the group an actuary?
SPEAKER: No, sir, but I can get one of them that could be close to it.
MR. KUHLKE: You are, Mr. Baker?
MR. BAKER: No, sir. I couldn't be of any benefit to you about an
actuary. The only thing we've ever asked, and you know we've been to many
meetings. If our pension plan is actuarily sound and can give us an increase
in our pension, do it. If it's not, don't do it. But don't bother our
insurance. I'm glad you brought that up, because the pension attorney said
you couldn't do it because that is one of our benefits as being retired and
that has been given to us.
MR. KUHLKE: Well, the big thing that the attorney told me was that any
change -- any increase we make in this plan is irrevocable. That means for a
long time.
MR. WALL: Mr. Baker, currently y'all are paying ten percent of the
insurance premium out of your pocket, and if the pension -- MR. BAKER:
Yes, sir. That was what was voted on by the pension committee.
MR. WALL: Yes, sir. And if the pension paid a hundred percent of your
premium so that you didn't pay ten percent out of your pocket, isn't that an
increased benefit to you?
MR. BAKER: Not if it comes out of our pension. Because y'all are paying
other people's insurance. You are paying for fifty-something people that the
plan is bankrupt. You're paying for theirs, you're paying for all the
employees that works for the city and county now, and you're paying for these
other pension plans, and why -- don't cast us out and take the money out of
our pension plan.
MR. WALL: We're not casting you out, we're giving you an additional ten
percent that you're currently not receiving. I's coming out of your pocket,
and it would be paid for you is what we're suggesting.
MR. BAKER: We don't want that. You'd take that ninety percent, that'd
be a benefit to the city and county and not to us. I mean, that's just plain
arithmetic.
MR. POWELL: Call for the question, Mr. Chairman.
MAYOR SCONYERS: It's coming right now. Substitute motion made by Mr.
Kuhlke. All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your
hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 2 on the addendum agenda is to approve the format of the
final tax bill.
MR. KUHLKE: I so move.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it
be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Under the Finance portion of the agenda, Items 19 through 25 were
all approved in the Finance Committee on August the 11th, with the exception
of 24, which was approved in Finance on July 28th. [Item 19: Motion to
approve the authorization to use Merchant Bank Card Services at the Tennis
Center and Golf Course to receive credit cards. Item 20: Motion to
approve the request from Nancy H. Bonner (Information Technology) to purchase
10 years 0 months prior year service in the 1977 Pension Plan. Item 21:
Motion to approve the 1996 Annual Financial Statements and related documents
prepared by Serotta, Maddox, Evans and Company. Item 22: Motion to
approve Ordinance adopting Titles 1 and 2 of the Augusta-Richmond County Code
- First Reading. Item 23: Motion to approve Quit-Claim Deed to clear
title on property located at 718 Crawford Avenue. Item 24: Motion to
approve the extension of the Ryder Maintenance Agreement through December 31,
1997 and to rebid contract for an effective date of 1/1/98. Item 25:
Motion to approve the request from Augusta/CSRA Habitat for Humanity for
reimbursement of the building permit and inspections fees for house built in
June 1997 and waiver of future building permit and inspection fees.]
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, we bring this to you in the form of a consent
agenda.
MR. BEARD: Second.
MR. HANDY: I just want to know, what was 18?
MR. OLIVER: 18 was one that was to refund a late payment regarding
taxes. I got a communication from the Tax Commissioner's Office. They did
not believe that the facts --they were not at the committee meeting, they
didn't believe that the facts were represented properly in the agenda item,
they requested that it be pulled, and it will go back to committee.
MR. HANDY: One other item I see on Number 24. That is to go to December
the 31st of this year and then to go out for rebid all over again? That's the
city and the county -- MR. OLIVER: That is correct. It's everything.
It will include utilities, it will include Transit, it will include all
vehicles for the consolidated government. It's scheduled to go out the first
part of next month and we will get it back in October. The RFP is almost
ready.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Under the Administrative Services portion, Items 26 and 27 were
both approved in the Administrative Services Committee on August 11th.
[Item 26: Motion to approve extension of deadline for closing of sale of Olde
Town properties under agreement with Olde Town Associates, L.P., The Richman
Group of Georgia, Inc., and the White Oak Real Estate Development Corp.
Item 27: Motion to approve resolution authorizing transferral of Short Term
Work Program (STWP) for 1997 through 2001 be reviewed by the RDC and Georgia
Department of Community Affairs (DCA) prior to adoption. The city must
approve a resolution transmitting the STWP to the RDC.]
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that Items 26 and 27 be considered as a
consent agenda.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising
your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Under the Public Services portion of the agenda, Item 33 was
approved by Public Services on August 11th and Item 34 had no recommendation
from the Public Services Committee. [Item 33: Motion to approve
$1,879.00 to supplement grant funds ($5,400.00 to purchase computer equipment
for Transit Department). Item 34: Motion to accept counteroffer from
Blair Properties, L.L.C. to sell approximately 34.89 acres at the intersection
of Highway 88 and Bath-Edie Road to Augusta-Richmond County for $5,000 per
acre.]
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, can we pull Item 34 and deal with the one where we
have a recommendation?
MAYOR SCONYERS: All, right, let's do 33.
MR. MAYS: We bring you this is the form of a conflict agenda and ask
that you approve -- make a motion you approve Item Number 33.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 34: Motion to accept counteroffer from Blair Properties,
L.L.C. to sell approximately 34.89 acres at the intersection of Highway 88 and
Bath-Edie Road to Augusta-Richmond County for $5,000 per acre.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we disapprove this agenda item and go
with whatever the Administrator's other option, and that is -- or it might
have been the County Attorney's other option, and that is to -- well, just
disapprove this agenda item.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. TODD: In the one-penny sales tax there is provisions for a community
center for the City of Blythe. I don't have a problem with that and I support
the community center for the City of Blythe. The community center, as I
understand it, is supposed to go where the one is now, and that's adjacent to
the fire station and adjacent to the school. There's been strong arguments
made for after-school projects, and if that's the case, then that would be a
suitable place. I guess there is also a strong argument made that if you move
it to Bath-Edie Road and 88 that two cities would be able to use it, Hephzibah
and Blythe. Well, Hephzibah have their community center, so I don't see a lot
of merits there. You're moving it away from probably your needs as far as
Blythe go. And the other point here, Mr. Mayor, is that we're paying
$5,000 for a property that was acquired for 3,500 less than six months to this
property being offered to the county. This property certainly is a good piece
of property. My understanding from talking to some realty agents in that area
is that property in tracts of 15 to 40 acres go somewhere, depending on
location, and I would assume that this is a good location, go from somewhere
between 1,500 and 3,500 dollars an acre. That's tracts of property between 15
and 40 acres. Certainly I haven't seen anything other than a appraisal from
one of the three appraisers that we hired to say that this property is worth
$5,000 an acre. Well, certainly I think there is several conflicts here,
but I'll start first with the conflict, Mr. Mayor, that I see with my
colleague which is responsible for this district and has been involved not in
the vote on this issue but involved in the behind-the-scenes setting up the
deal, and that conflict is -- MR. POWELL: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, do I have the floor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, you do, Mr. Todd, but I don't think we need to
bring that out.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, why shouldn't we bring it out? Mr. Mayor, anything
that I say I think the Chair have the privilege to strike it from the records.
MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, there is a provision in here that prohibits
personal comments concerning other Commissioners, and I think it would be
appropriate -- I think those comments are out of order.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, you'll contain your comments to the facts.
MR. TODD: We will stick to the facts, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, there is
two relationships here, Mr. Mayor, with at least a member of this board, and I
won't -- I'm not naming --haven't named a member. Am I still out of order,
Mr. Mayor?
MR. WALL: Mr. Todd, the rules provide that for the discussion of the
issue, and it states that under no circumstances may a Commissioner attack or
question the motives of another Commissioner or staff. The issue and not the
person is to be the issue.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll continue my conversation then and I will
closely tailor it around the fact that it appeared that the property owners,
the ones that took acquisition of this property six months ago, is
profiteering off of the taxpayers and off of Richmond County in selling this
property for $5,000 when they only paid $3,500 a acre for it. Yes, Mr. Mayor,
this is America and you should have opportunity to have a fair profit on
investment. This is a unheard of investment profit at 50 percent. And, Mr.
Mayor, this is ridiculous. We can condemn property if we need to. There is
nothing special about this piece of property that we should spend $5,000 a
acre for it when only $3,500 a acre was paid less than six months ago, Mr.
Mayor. And, Mr. Mayor, I think that it's outrageous that we would pay this
kind of money for this piece of property. I think it's outrageous that we
would move this project to this location and pay when we possibly don't have
to pay one red penny to put a community center as the referendum called for in
the City of Hephzibah. And, Mr. Mayor, where I may not be able to comment
on this behind the podium, I will comment on it publicly from behind this
podium. The truth will be known, Mr. Mayor, as I understand it and as I know
it as far as this land deal go. Mr. Mayor, I presented a resolution to this
board less than two weeks ago that would call for a disclosure on any dealings
from a employee or Commissioner. Mr. Mayor, this board voted that down.
Perhaps, Mr. Mayor, this board will vote to buy this property at a profit of
50 percent less than six months. Mr. Mayor, I think this is a no-brainer, too,
and that this board should vote it down. We shouldn't do it even if there's a
possibility that it's not a conflict. Thank you.
MR. HANDY: I'd like to make a substitute motion that we purchase this
land based on the fact that the recommendation coming from our department head
of the Recreation Department, Mr. Beck, he went out and did another survey. I
received the fax on Thursday giving us some options that we can do in order to
make this work. And we had three appraisals on this land and it came anywhere
from a little under what it was paid for up to the $5,000, and so if I'm
hearing right, that means that if it's -- if an appraiser goes out there, an
MIA, and certifies that this property is worth that amount of money, I don't
see where we as Commissioners are doing anything wrong about paying that
amount of money based on what the appraiser put on there. If he was asking
for more than what the MIA had put on there I would be jumping up and down
similar to Mr. Todd, but not maybe as excited as Mr. Todd is. But the
appraisals that we received, which was three, and the $5,000 was in the
ballpark, and that's why I am voting and I feel that my vote will be justified
by voting for the $5,000.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to withdraw my motion.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I second the motion.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, first of all, I'd just like to speak to the
location of this piece of property. It's in an excellent location and will
have the tendency to service both communities. The land lies well. From a
sitework standpoint, it should not be expensive. And so from my standpoint,
the price on the property I have no problem with. I do have a problem with
the amount of acreage, and I'd like to ask Mr. Handy if he might amend his
motion that we purchase the property, but as quickly as we possibly can, that
we dispose of up to 15 acres of that property at not less than what we paid
for the property.
MR. HANDY: I accept that. And in my motion I was referring to, which I
did not say, the option that Mr. Beck sent us out on the fax yesterday. I
said the fax, and that was the one -- number five. Item number five on the
fax that Mr. Beck sent out, I'm willing to vote for that.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I would like to offer a substitute motion
that we condemn only the property that we need.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second that motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Wait a minute, now. We're not condemning anything, are
we?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I believe we can -- in purchasing property,
if there's a dispute, I believe we can condemn it. Can we not, Mr. Wall?
MR. WALL: Yes, you can, and in the agenda item that was one of the
options that was offered.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I move that we condemn the property only for the
property that we need for this park.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second that motion.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: The other discussion I would have concerned with this
relates to the master plan for this park which nobody up here seems to have
seen, or at least I haven't. I would be concerned about the number of
acreage, the price of acreage, and also whether or not we can build a facility
at this park within the budget as it now exists, as proposed to the voters and
passed in the one-percent referendum. I have a very high concern for that. I
don't think we have any extra funds to increase any budget at this point. We
in the past have found that we have not even had a ten percent set-aside for
these areas, and I would be concerned even about that as to having the
facility completed. The main reason I got a concern is budget concerns. I am
not opposed to the site, I am opposed to the price because of the AIA
appraisals -- the highest price was the AIA that was chosen, and it wasn't
even an average them. But, you know, I think that can be taken care of
through the condemnation process and let the courts decide what's a fair
price.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I'm not too sure I can agree with Mr. Brigham
because I don't think we ever ought to get ourselves into condemning property
for something that we can acquire other properties for. The other thing that
really troubles me about this particular project, although I agree with Mr.
Kuhlke on the land, I think it's an ideal location, I'm not too sure it's the
only location, but I don't believe it's good public policy for the government
to acquire property with the intention of selling off some property just to
close the deal on this one. I think it's bad public policy, it shouldn't be
tolerated, and I ask you to support against doing that.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear from Tom and possibly Trisha,
the director of the present Blythe Community Center. Tom, is this still your
recommendation after viewing, you know, the properties?
MR. BECK: Yes, it is, Mr. Bridges.
MR. BRIDGES: And you've viewed some additional property this week, I
understand.
MR. BECK: We have also looked at another 37 acre tract, which is all in
one tract also. This piece of property, very much unlike the piece that we
are recommending, would require quite a bit of engineering and site work, and
what monies we might be able to save on the purchase price we would turn
around and spend on site work. So this piece of property is still my
recommendation.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Beck, in your memo that you sent to us you indicate
$90,000 available for this project from other funds. What are the other
funds?
MR. BECK: Well, on the front sheet of the proposal, 75,000 of that would
come from the resale of 15 acres, and then we -- and, actually, this memo
mentioned the Department of Natural Resources. Actually, the Department of
Community Affairs has a current recreation assistance program that funds
$15,000 for projects in rural communities that we feel like we'd have an
awfully good chance of getting that small grant because it's a matching
program and obviously we'd have the matching funds for. So that's where the
$90,000 of additional monies would come from.
TRISHA: I'd greatly appreciate that because I'd like to clear up a few
things. There's always a big picture. You only have a part of the picture
and I'd like to give you the whole picture. First of all, I've run the Blythe
Community Center for eight years now, and I can't say that I've seen any faces
on this Commission out to the center to either talk to me, the community, see
what we have, see what we offer, see what the differences are between us and
Hephzibah, what we offer that they don't offer, that they can't offer. I
haven't seen that and that kind of disappoints me, so I'm going to take this
opportunity. First of all, you're probably wondering why so much land.
Everyone knows Blythe is a small agricultural community. Most landowners out
there have large parcels of land. There are very few small parcels, okay?
First of all, to answer your question, Mr. Todd, on building a community
center close to the existing facility, we barely have a parking lot. There's
no land around the community center. The school is on one side, the fire
station is on the other side, and it's the type of community where everybody
lives in the city limits. There's pretty much a house or a mobile home
everywhere. Developers are coming in rapidly, they're buying up the property.
Like I said, we're a small community. There's not that much property out
there other than these large tracts of land. Believe me, I started in
1995 anticipating the one-cent sales tax in 1996. I have documentation to
show you where we have been door to door asking the people of that community
what they needed from us, what the needs of that community is, and that is the
point everyone is missing here, the needs of that community. First of all, we
have to go further out. We're limited to the land and the possibilities of
the land that's any closer inside that little bitty town. We're still in
Blythe. All of the services that we offer at the Blythe Community Center will
still be offered at the other community center with no problem whatsoever.
And you have to keep this in mind when you're building a community center --
which is another issue I think you miss sometimes. If you put that community
center in the wrong place, you're going to take that first word out, community
center. A community center needs to be located to where the community can
utilize that facility, and what I mean by that is where the children can walk
to that facility and use that facility. Parents today work, they don't have
time nor the desire to take their children to these facilities. They get there
on their own, gentlemen, they have to walk. You've got to keep that into
consideration. This 35 acres is surrounded by houses, mobile home
developments, neighborhoods. Would you ask me some questions and let me try to
answer some of your concerns?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Let's stick with what you just brought up, children
walking to this community. I happened to go look at the community center. I
happened to be in Blythe several times. I have been in your facility; you
might not have been there. That doesn't matter, that's beside the point. But
let's talk about the children walking to this community center. How far is
the nearest house? Is it a mile, half a mile, three quarters of a mile?
TRISHA: No, sir. It's right across the street, sir.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Right across the street happens to be the Jefferson
Electric property; right?
TRISHA: Right across from Jefferson Electric, sir.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. And how far is this from downtown Blythe that
we're going to transport -- let the kids walk from downtown Blythe to the
site?
TRISHA: They're not going to walk from downtown Blythe, sir, they're
going to walk from the neighborhood communities, which is what a community
center is.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: They're going to walk from the school or we're going to
transport them?
TRISHA: Mr. Brigham, we're not talking about the school, we're talking
about neighborhoods.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: How many houses are right adjacent to this property
approximately?
TRISHA: On my street alone, Mr. Brigham, which is one block up, there
are probably forty, fifty.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Houses?
TRISHA: Well, they're modular -- mobile homes, and then there's Edie
Station.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: And how far is -- TRISHA: Just a few blocks down
the street, sir. A few blocks down the street is Edie Station. Right across
the street from the property are many homes on Bath-Edie Street, sir. This is
the ideal location for a community center. We have many developments there.
We can't get it inside Blythe city limits, sir.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I understand that, I'm not arguing -- in fact, I haven't
argued the site. But the way you're pitching the situation is not exactly
what it is. It's not row housing right along Bath-Edie Road, house to house
to house in there.
TRISHA: Yes, sir, it is. Yes, sir, it is, and I would like for you to
come out there.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I believe that there's a lot more undeveloped than not.
TRISHA: Sir, I was born and raised out there. Believe me, I'm not going
to stand before you and mislead you today. I would never do that.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: By Blythe standards it may be developed, but by
community standards I do not believe it's developed.
TRISHA: Well, you need to go out there, sir, because you definitely
missed the boat.
MR. BRIDGES: Jerry is right, by our standards out there it's -- there
are no row houses. I guess a lot of people sit on an acre or two acre lots.
But I hope the Commission will support the motion to purchase this property
and put the community center there. Right across the street Mr. Brigham
mentioned Jefferson Electric. Several years back they purchased ten acres to
put their pole barn there, and they paid over $8,000 an acre for those ten
acres. $5,000 to me is not -- it's within what the actuary has proposed and,
to me, if they can buy property for that out there I'd like to see it. You
know, it's something that I find difficult to believe based on the prices I'm
hearing of properties being purchased, both large tracts and small tracts, but
I hope the Commission will support this. I think it's needed in that
community.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I'm calling the question.
MR. HANDY: Could I say one thing? When I was making my reason why I
wanted it I said MIA, and I think I heard Jerry say AIA, so I'm going to get
our Administrator since he's an engineer -- what was correct?
MR. OLIVER: Master Appraisers Institute, MAI.
MR. HANDY: MAI, okay. If I was wrong I wanted to correct it, but I
wanted to make sure that Jerry knew what he was talking about. That's what I
wanted.
MR. TODD: I was out in Blythe on Monday. I drove back to town on US-1
for the purpose of going to Blythe, you know, from Waycross. So I was out at
Blythe. I haven't been to the center probably in the last seven years. I've
been out to a Blythe community activity in that general location, I've been to
the school, I've been to the fire station, I have a concept of what's there.
I never make a decision, or try not to, without knowing something about the
issue and about the facts. My problem isn't whether Blythe should get the
money that's in the sales tax and in the referendum for a community center,
and I want to make that perfectly clear. My issue is that someone is
profiteering on this government and on the taxpayers. That is the issue. I
think that if we really want to talk -- you know, Jefferson Electric, they're
in business to sell electric power. They may go out and pay different for a
piece of property, Mr. Mayor, than the government would be willing to pay for
it because the market powers is not the same. We're not going to sell
recreation, so we shouldn't, you know, give a windfall for a piece of
property. We've heard about the tiller deal. Well, I can't call the name
because of the rules, but this is another one of those deals, Mr. Mayor. And
the bottom line is that if we pull records, if we look at what property is
selling for, if we talk to real estate folks, we'll see that the line is
somewhere between 1,500 and 3,500 dollars a acre. And the higher appraisal
here was a person that is pretty well politically connected, too, through
marriage. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, we call for the question, please.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we've got some other folks down here.
MR. MAYS: As chairman of that committee let me say this, and probably
the last ten years have had more than anybody else. Mr. Mayor, I probably
would have longed for a fight like this about five years ago because then,
Henry, we would have had some money to be arguing about. I can remember when
we didn't have any and we were talking about firing folks, laying them off,
closing swimming pools, closing centers, and God blessed us with the wisdom of
people to be able to pass the sales tax referendum to get us to this point
where we've got some money now to argue and squabble about and I think we
should make those decisions very wisely. I've got probably a comment to
Trisha and to Tom. I don't do that much visiting probably to Blythe, probably
haven't been since I was grand marshal, but I saw enough of the center or
what's supposed to be the center to see a drastic need, and obviously that
need has not changed. We've still got a lot of needs. And I was supportive
of it prior to us getting some money to go down there, supportive of wanting
to do something there before the two gentlemen on that end even came into
public office, and that desire still has not changed. Whatever else
occurs with who bought what and when is not going to really determine whether
I support this project or not. I've got probably -- and I hate to put you on
the spot and put Tom on the spot all the time, but one of the things I asked
for as an amendment to Mr. Kuhlke's motion in committee is we wanted to get --
even though I know you work out there, but one of the things that we were
concerned about in terms of support from community people who utilize, who are
there, and even though folk may not be here today, what we were trying to get
to was some of the comments in reference to [inaudible] what basically in
terms of comments since this thing has arisen in terms of what these people
want to see and support. And I'm not talking about from these two fellows
down here on the end, they're going to support it anyway, but people that you
have to work with, those desires or the lack of things out on that end of your
-- really your only real growth area that you've got to go to. And I was
asked a question the other day, do you stupidly buy more than what you need.
Well, I answered that, do you stupidly buy less than what you may need as
well. You know, it's kind of like Forrest Gump, you know, stupid is as stupid
does. You can be stupid on either end of it, just depending on whether you're
planning for the future or whether you're planning to take care of what you
got right now. But what has been the general consensus, has this caused a
problem in terms of this thing or the shift from the so-called mindset of a
City of Blythe or trying to expand what we've got? And I guess I ask you that
because I'm going to follow up and ask Tom, with the amount of dollars that
we've got to spend and what we're going to have to pay for in like, then where
does that leave us in terms of what we've got to carve out, whether it's for
building, whether it's for land, facilities that have to go on the outside and
of what would be there to be able to put this thing together, you know, rather
than just -- what I don't want to see us, Tom, I don't want to see us with a
lot of land and nothing to put out there, because I want to see us with
something there.
TRISHA: It's a good point, Mr. Mays. And we out in that community are
well aware that we don't have a whole lot of money to do a whole lot of things
tomorrow, but, sir, we haven't had anything in so many years. We understand
that if we get this property we may not have all these fields and all these
nice things yet, sir, but in five, ten or fifteen years we will have the
property to add like we are adding today at many of our facilities. If we
don't have the property we can't do that, sir, and at least it gives us
something to look forward to in the future for our children and our
grandchildren. Those things will be coming. If you have a smaller tract of
land -- the community is going to continue to grow. I mean, that's obvious.
Then your community is going to outgrow your facility and we've wasted our
money. This amount of property gives us room for growth. Sure, we know we
don't have money to add everything today, and we don't expect it, but years
down the road there will be more monies.
MR. BECK: Commissioner Mays, to address your concern about what would go
in there once we bought this property, the report that was sent to you the end
of last week does outline what we could do with the balance that would be
left. And, of course, this would be a -- I guess you might call it a best
case scenario, but even if we did not sell the property, for example, then
some of the other -- like Trisha mentioned, some of the other facilities like
the ball fields possibly, the basketball court, you know, those kinds of
support facilities to a community center could wait, or we could find other
means and other mechanisms to get that done, but we could still have the funds
there to build a 6,000 or so square foot community center to meet the needs of
that community.
MR. MAYS: Because I'm like Rob on speculating on whether you can sell.
I'd rather us in a worst case scenario of what we can do, so that if we buy
something, then we can basically know what we are going to build. I don't
want it, you know, speculated on the fact that somebody else can come along
and buy half of it, you know, and do it. I want to make sure that we are
moving in a positive direction of something that folks can see. You know, I
can support it and will support it, but I just hope that that's not being
written in stone as a funding source in terms of hoping that you sell off to
be able to do something.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Case in point about the land, Mr. Mayor. In 1988 when we
bought the eleven acres out at Belle Terrace it looked like that was all the
land in the world, and now we don't have land to park there. So I think that
you have some vision in moving forward. Twenty acres left or whatever is not
going to be very much over a period of time. Time you get your senior citizen
center in there, time you get your swimming pool in there, time you get your
ball fields in there -- this takes time to get those things, but ladies and
gentlemen, you come out to Belle Terrace now, we can't turn around out there
hardly. But in 1988 when we bought it, Mr. Todd, for $80,000 it looked like
it was a lot of money and a lot of space, but it doesn't take long to fill it
up. I hope we would [inaudible].
MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a question on Mr. Kuhlke's proposal. It does
include selling the land; right?
MR. KUHLKE: That's the only way they're going to do what they want to
do.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Would you tell me which parcel of land you're going to
sell?
MR. KUHLKE: The best.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Which is the best?
MR. KUHLKE: Probably all the road frontage.
MR. ZETTERBERG: So y'all understand, Mr. Brigham, Mr. Kuhlke's motion is
to sell the land, and if we vote on that you will sell the land. The last
time I checked the charter of this city we were not in the land acquisition
business.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Zetterberg, you know my opinion of this. This is an
attempt to be able to fund that project out there. I agree with you
wholeheartedly, we don't need to be in the land business. The people that are
proposing the land to us will not break it up. My opinion, it's the best
location to put this facility, and if this approach will allow us to put the
Blythe Community Center out there, then I think this is the approach that we
should take.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, my thoughts is, if we're going to do that, why
don't we get the communities of Blythe of Hephzibah to decide if they want to
chip in for this.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, we call for the question, please.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Substitute motion by Mr. Brigham and Mr. Todd. Do y'all
want it reread or do y'all want to vote on it?
MR. BRIDGES: Yeah, please.
CLERK: Substitute motion made by Mr. Jerry Brigham, seconded by Mr.
Todd, was to condemn only the property needed for the park.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MR. BEARD, MR. BRIDGES, MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. HANDY, MR. KUHLKE & MR. MAYS
VOTE NO. MR. POWELL ABSTAINS.
MOTION FAILS 6-3-1.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Back to the original motion, made by Mr. Handy.
CLERK: Seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham, was to purchase the property based
upon the recommendation of the Recreation Department Director, with an
amendment by Mr. Kuhlke to dispose of 15 acres at a price not less than was
paid when it was bought.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. TODD & MR. ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MR. POWELL ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 6-3-1.
CLERK: Under the Engineering Services portion, Items 28 and 29 were both
approved by the Engineering Services Committee on August 11th. [Item 28:
Motion to approve an agreement between Augusta, Georgia and TDI, Inc. for use
of space on Deans Bridge Road water tank. Item 29: Motion to approve the
opening of Carolyn Street in Belair Estates.]
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we accept the
Engineering Services Committee report as a consent agenda.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to have Item Number 29 taken out.
MAYOR SCONYERS: So we're going to vote on Item 28. All in favor of Mr.
Powell's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Item 29.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a letter that I'd like to have read into the
record. It's from Jackie R. Hayes and family, it's dated 18 August 1997,
deals with Scott Street clearing: "Our working schedules will not permit us to
attend this meeting today, however, to show our concern we are writing this
letter to be read. Please excuse our absence. We own property at Belair
Hills Estate, better known as 3965 Scott Street. We are ready to build, but
we do not have access to the property. Our builder is currently on hold while
we try to get the street cleared to our property line. We have written
several of you letters, including the City Administrator, soliciting your help
in getting this matter handled. In addition, we have had numerous
conversations with Commissioner Zetterberg concerning this matter. We also
attended the Engineering Committee meeting on July 28th. Last Sunday
Commissioner Zetterberg met with me at the property site and saw what we
needed in order to get our building process started. As law abiding citizens,
we are sure you can help us. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful
consideration." One of my concerns is that the motion that's on --the
item on the agenda only includes Carolyn, but also we had at that meeting --
at the Engineering Committee meeting we had also talked about what we were
going to do with Lincoln and --not Lincoln but Scott, and then what we were
going to do with the rest of the roads. What I'd like to do is to make sure
that that appears on the next Engineering Services meeting and we take quick
action to approve the opening of that, and at that time we ought to have
somebody from the Public Works Department to assess how much money it's going
to cost to open up Scott.
MR. OLIVER: That was what was agreed at Engineering Services. The
dilemma with Scott was nobody was aware -- we believe that there may be severe
drainage problems on Scott, so therefore, if it was opened, that it would not
remain passable. The direction that I received from the Engineering Services
Committee was to look at the feasibility of opening that road to see if it
would stay open and to get proposals from an engineering firm with -- and we
advised you all that the cost, in our opinion, would be 30 to 50 thousand
dollars for the engineering services of Belair Hills Estates. But to do a
master plan which would develop a plan for addressing both the drainage and
the paving component of that --
MR. ZETTERBERG: For the other roads?
MR. OLIVER: It would include the total roads. Our rough estimate for
drainage and roads at Belair is somewhere in the million dollar range.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Does that mean that the people who have -- we've already
said that we would open up roads when people wanted to build, and we're not
going to do that now?
MR. OLIVER: Well, there are a couple of those roads that it's not
feasible at all, and I think one of the roads is --to open up Carolyn the
whole way through -- there is a sink hole in the middle of it, and if we open
that up it would be nothing short of a disaster. There would be cars lost in
there every week that it rained. So there are parts of Belair Hills Estates
that the engineering was not of the caliber that it should have been. It
needs to be looked at comprehen-sively, and our direction we received from
Engineering Services was to bring that back at the next Engineering Services
Committee, and we intend to do that.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it's my understanding that Mr. Oliver and Mr.
Murphy in Public Works was supposed to look at it, and also the chairman of
the committee appointed a special committee to deal with unpaved roads. So
everything is in the working, and I believe that Mr. Handy, the Mayor Pro Tem,
stated in that meeting that anyone that wanted to build would notify the
county and that would start the procedure. I believe that we're doing
everything that we possibly can to take care of the issues, and I think that
we need to move on with this one that we have on the agenda and take care of
that with the understanding that we're going to comprehensively look at Belair
Estates. And indeed there are some costs there, but we have money for storm
drainage in one penny, and we've taken care of some storm drainage in other
subdivisions that is not as old as Belair Estates. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
MR. OLIVER: I would note, too, for the record, that this is only that
one end of Carolyn and it's not Carolyn the whole way through, because that
is, engineering-wise, just not do-able at this particular point.
MR. HANDY: Call for the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MR. MAYS ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 9-1.
CLERK: Under the Public Safety portion, Items 30 and 31 were both
approved by the Public Safety Committee on August the 11th. [Item 30:
Motion to approve $33,352.75 for matching funds (25% of the grant amount).
This amount necessary for the procurement of $100,058.25 in federal grant
funds. Item 31: Motion to authorize the Solicitor's Office to apply for
grants from 1997 VOCA-Victims Assistance Grant Program and 1997 STOP Violence
Against Women Grant.]
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I move approval of these two items by consent
agenda.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MR. OLIVER: I would note for the record on Item 31, so that you know,
Mr. Collins from the Finance Department and Cheryl Jolly have gotten together
on that grant that we can meet the requirements of that grant. It's a one-
year grant, so you know, but we can meet the requirements of that grant with
an in-kind match. There will be no cash funds required, and it would remain
that way assuming that the grant is renewed in the future.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known
by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 32: Discuss funding and any related actions necessary to
match $3.6 million grant by the Justice Department for the addition of sixty-
eight (68) deputies for the Richmond County Sheriff's Department.
MR. HANDY: Move for approval.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. KUHLKE: I'd like to make a substitute motion, and my substitute
motion is simply this: We're talking about a lot of money. The Sheriff has
mentioned that this is a wonderful opportunity for this community, and it may
be or it may not be. I think that when we begin to look at this and look at
three years down the road and the cost to the taxpayers for these additional
deputies, it's something that needs to be addressed. And I'd like to make a
substitute motion that we delay any action on this particular item for 30 days
to allow this Commission to take a look at the budget. This is a budget
item. This is something that we are going to be burdened with for a long,
long time and I think that we -- we've got to make one of two decisions,
either we increase the taxes or we can find within our existing budget the
funds to support the Sheriff's request. I believe, Sheriff, I may ask you this
question at this point: If we delayed action on this for 30 days, would it
hamper you in any way in securing this grant?
SHERIFF WEBSTER: It probably wouldn't interfere with this grant
whatsoever for 30 days. Whatever you decide, you'll have to decide, but I
think I got some stats here to prove my point why this grant should be
approved.
MR. KUHLKE: And bear in mind, Sheriff, I'm not opposed to the grant.
What I'm asking for 30 days for is for the Commission -- and we are just
beginning the budget process, is to give us the chance to look within this
budget to determine things that we are doing now that maybe we should not be
doing that would contribute to the funding of our portion of the grant to
allow you to move forward.
SHERIFF WEBSTER: I don't think that it would interfere with the grant
for 30 days, but I think this is something the Commissioners have to approve,
not me.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I have a second to Mr. Kuhlke's motion?
MR. BRIDGES: I'll second it for discussion, Mr. Mayor.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to speak in support of the motion, and I
would have seconded it, but Mr. Brigham seconded it first. Mr. Oliver, what
is the Richmond County overall budget?
MR. OLIVER: General Fund budget is about $85 million.
MR. TODD: And the General Fund would be anything except enterprise fund
operations?
MR. OLIVER: The landfill, the water and sewer, those types of things
would be enterprise funds.
MR. TODD: Yes. And if we cut the general budget by two percent across
the board to draw in their belt, would that be enough money to take care of
the grant?
MR. OLIVER: It would if you assume that the Sheriff's Department is
going to cut the rest of their budget two percent, and I can't answer whether
the Sheriff believes that's doable or not.
MR. TODD: Yes. Well, I think that we can come up with these funds
without doing a great deal of harm to anyone in essential services, and I
don't think that we would probably be looking at cutting the Sheriff's budget
by two percent to do this, but certainly there is other outside agencies where
we fund that we can cut more than two percent to make up for that percentage
of the budget that is Public Safety or the Sheriff's budget.
MR. OLIVER: Thirty-four percent of your money, Commissioner Todd,
roughly goes to the Sheriff's Department. Of the total General Fund budget,
roughly fifty percent goes to the District Attorney, the Solicitor, and the
various Constitutional officers, courts, as well as the Sheriff. So if you
make the fifty percent of our budget off limits, then you've got to achieve a
four percent cut on what's remaining.
MR. TODD: Yes. And I think that when we're talking about essential
services -- and I think that we mostly would agree that law enforcement is
essential services, that fire protection is essential services, and in one
method or the other water is a essential service in this county in the sense
that we don't have wells or private wells. It's the responsibility of
government to provide the water even though that's an enterprise funds.
Sewerage in one method or the other, through the Health Department approving
septic tanks or running sewerage, is a essential service. And I see this law
enforcement as being essential service. We had the argument at committee
here, which I'm not a member of the Public Safety Committee on some stats, you
know, to show what crime is, et cetera. Well, I guess by the grace of God we
got those through a GBI report that come out annually and by some work that
The Augusta Chronicle, the daily paper, done even though they dealt with
incidents and I'm not so sure that we should rely on incidents as much as we
should rely on GBI and FBI statistics. As far as property go, Mr. Mayor,
there is a increase in property-related crimes, automobiles being stolen and
also burglaries. I notice in incidents the 22nd beat seen the increase in the
percentages more than any other beat. I kind of said, well, where is the
twenty-second beat, and I made a phone call down to the Sheriff's department.
Well, it ran in a area where I wouldn't have thought it would have increased
by the percentage it did. It runs from Meadowbrook Drive about the school,
I'm told, back through Spanish Trace and Quail Hollow along Tobacco Road, that
area. That is a area where I wouldn't have thought, Mr. Mayor, that we
would've had that number of increase, and certainly, Mr. Mayor, I think that
we should go on and approve this grant. Also, we can delay thirty days and
thirty days again, et cetera, and we will miss out on another grant that this
grant may help us receive, and that's the Weed and Seed grant. We also need
to get a Crimestopper officer in the Sheriff's Department that will help us
with reduction of crime. Mr. Mayor, the Administrator, I believe, prepared a
memorandum of agreement. I would like for that memorandum of agreement to be
read and to be considered as part of the motion to approve.
MR. OLIVER: Would you like me to read it in totality or would you like
me just to highlight the points in it?
MR. TODD: I would assume the Sheriff has already received a copy of it?
MR. OLIVER: It was faxed to his office.
MR. TODD: Yes, highlight it.
MR. OLIVER: Let me highlight the various points. And the purpose of the
interlocal agreement, because I found out around here sometimes -- and I've
not had the dealings with the Sheriff's Department that many other people have
had, so I don't have any way to do this, but sometimes when we look at things
a year later we come back and we say, well, that wasn't exactly the
understanding that I had when we entered into it. And one of the things that
I've stressed, as we've done with these outside agencies, is to have
agreements with the outside agencies that clearly delineate what the
responsibilities of the parties are. Our responsibility is to furnish roughly
$3.6 million over the next three years to support sixty-eight new deputies.
Clearly that's a good and valuable objective. I think, though, it's reasonable
for this government to know what we're going to get in return and to establish
the criteria so that we don't get in a position later that we may get
surprised. And I think -- for the most part, I think there are things that
I've heard, and I've talked with several of you, that you believe have been
included in this. The first item of importance is that, as you are
aware, we intend to apply for a $750,000 Weed and Seed grant that would be
effective on or about January 1st of this year. Based on our numbers, that's
going to require the hiring of six deputies for the Barton Chapel Road. It's
my understanding, based upon the meetings that we've had, that those six
deputies are either going to be taken from the sixty-eight or that those six
deputies would be other deputies, but I don't want to be in a position where
we would have to go out and hire six more deputies for this particular project
because obviously we are going to be in a tenuous budget situation and we're
going to have to make some cuts. The other one that that Commissioner
Todd gave me a perspective on and that I was not totally aware of, but that
the Sheriff had agreed to implement a Crimestoppers program within the city.
Obviously that may be difficult to do with existing staff, but whether that
can or can't be done, that's left to the Sheriff, being the chief law
enforcement officer and having that expertise. It goes on to say that the
sixty-eight officers that we're going to hire will be the total of all the
officers that are going to be hired over the period of the next three years.
Obviously we don't want to be in a position where we hire sixty-eight and then
we need to hire some additional people to do other things. I mean, we need to
have those facts and figures on the table now, and so what this does is it
limits it to the total sixty-eight new officers that we're putting on the
street. It then goes on, and this was a point in here for discussion.
Obviously when you make decisions about how many additional officers you put
on the street, be it sixty-eight or a thousand, there should be some
indication as to what kind of results you're going to get. I've thrown out
the first number. Obviously there are computer models that I'm sure the
Sheriff is much more familiar with than I am that will forecast based upon how
many people that you have on the street, how many people you have in your
department, what kind of a reduction in crime you may expect. I think we
would all look, you know, not necessarily the best if there wasn't any
reduction at all. And we have not set this as a, you know, guarantee or
anything, we've set it as a goal, we've tried to make it as a goal, and it
calls for a reduction of ten percent annually. If a different number is more
appropriate I think that's fine, but, again, my goal here is to have the same
expectations for all parties and to get those expectations on the table and
that understanding today rather than to come back in six months, a year or two
years and say, well, I heard that meeting and we gave you $3.6 million, but I
thought this and somebody else thought something else. And what it is, it's
an agreement between the government for the $3.6 million and the Sheriff's
Department in that regard, and I think it represents prudent and sound fiscal
management.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I've heard some fantastic ways of
micromanaging [inaudible] tell him what to do, and I think that may or may not
be the right way to go. If he's elected Sheriff of this county, then he ought
to be able to bring us what he's going to do, not us telling him what he ought
to do. I just happened to -- I got this out of the newspaper this morning,
Mr. Mayor, if you don't mind passing a copy of this around. Mr. Todd
mentioned something about this, about crime in this particular area. And I
don't know where it came from, maybe [inaudible]. We fiddle around for thirty
more days, crime is still going on, but we got to come up with our own sheriff
ways of doing things. I think that's the kind of thing, ladies and gentlemen,
or gentlemen in this case, we ought to let the Sheriff tell us how he's going
to be able to do that. I think to hamstring him with a contract to say you
got to do this before we do some other things, I'm not so sure if that's the
best way to do it. I've seen Regency Mall go down, I pass there two or
three times every day. Now the next one will probably be Augusta Mall unless
we're able to do something with it, and here we are sitting fiddling and crime
is still going on. I would hope that we would let the Sheriff do his duty,
and if he do that I believe that we [inaudible]. And this business about he
doesn't have whatever it takes to do it, I don't think that's right, and I
think that's an insult to say that he cannot plan what he wants to do, he
doesn't know how many men he wants and all, and I think that that's -- that's
not right as far as the highest elected official in this county, even with the
Mayor. I think the Sheriff -- we only represent small districts, but he
represents the entire area, and if he cannot see what all, I don't think that
we can in our little narrow confinement. I would certainly hope that you all
would ride out Highway 1 this afternoon with us and go down Dover Street and
Hillcrest and I mentioned before, that you look at what's going on. Thirty
more days and we will fiddle while Rome is burning.
SHERIFF WEBSTER: I think that when I was in the Public Safety meeting
the other day when I was asked by members of this group that I would put the
six men out of the sixty-eight people on Weed and Seed, that was part of it.
I also said I'd make two suppression teams out of it. And as far as me not
asking for any additional people by signing this paper, you're a long ways
from it. Because if I think I need somebody, I'm putting in for it, and the
people who approve whether I get them or not will be you eleven people sitting
in front of me. I'm not going to sign anything like this because I think it's
your decision to tell me you can't fund it if I ask for it. Because if I need
something a year from now I intend to come back before you, and you have the
privilege of turning me down, but I'll state you why I think I need somebody.
And I did bring some plans today to show y'all because I was asked in Public
Safety to show y'all why I thought we needed additional people. We've not
showed you anything.
MR. KUHLKE: In the Public Safety Committee meeting I brought up three
points, and I'm sure the Sheriff is prepared to talk to this. I felt like --
and my colleague -- I don't mean to distort what I'm trying to do, because
these funds that are approved will be for beginning in 1998 and they're not
going to start this year, Mr. Brigham. And all of us know that crime is a
real problem, but I think for us to fund this without first knowing where the
money is coming from is totally, totally irresponsible on the part of this
Commission, and thirty days is not going to hurt the Sheriff. It would give
us a chance to take a look at it. We're going to have to work to find a
million two. We're going to have to work. We committed the other day for two
million on something else. Two million here, a million there, 600,000 there or
whatever it may be, the bucket is going to run dry and we're going to have to
go back to the taxpayers. But I asked for three things to help me
understand the need. One is I wanted a detailed plan that if the Sheriff got
these funds, what he's going to do, and I'm sure he's got that. The second
thing is I want to know how our community stacks up with other communities our
size. Population-wise, area-wise, what does it cost us to provide law
enforcement in comparison with those other communities. And the third thing
is if Butch McKie can show me where we can get a million two every year for
three years and fund this program with existing tax dollars, then the
taxpayers of this community are being screwed. So I think we're going to have
to do some work to find this money. And if these things are unreasonable to
ask before we -- and get answers from before we take an action, then I'm
unreasonable.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I find myself in a real unusual position because I do
believe in my heart that public safety is the number one responsibility of
government. And I'm not out here to tell the Sheriff how to do his job, and
if I give him the people to do it, he's got full authority to do it any way he
wants to do it. But I find myself in a position where it's almost like asking
me have I stopped beating my wife yet. Yes means that I had already beaten
her and no means that I haven't beaten her, and it's almost the same thing
here. I find myself -- without any analysis, without any dialogue, without
any substantive dialogue, I find myself having to approve something. Now,
unfortunately I'm a product of my experience. I'm an educated man. I've been
a professional soldier for twenty-nine years, I've worked in the Pentagon,
I've dealt with force levels and people. I served two years in Vietnam and I
saw the taxpayers fund a huge increase -- an incremental increase into Vietnam
of soldiers, and I saw us walk away and lose the war. The Sheriff is
responsible for the law and order of this community and I'm responsible to my
voters to represent them, to make sure that the dollars that we allocate are
properly allocated. Now, I believe that if the Sheriff had asked for 350 or
175 policemen there are some Commissioners in here that would have said yes.
Now, there's nothing wrong with us sitting down as mature and adult men -- I
frankly believe in the final analysis that we will approve the Sheriff's
request. All I'm asking for is a reasonable time that we all can sit down and
we can look and see and manage this. There's lots of questions I have of the
Sheriff about how he uses his people today, not in trying to show him up or
anything. I sat in on a wonderful speech by Ronnie Strength the other day at
the Rotary Club, and Ronnie dealt with the numbers of calls, and I find
today's article in the Chronicle that went over all the calls -- Chief
Strength's position was that they get too many calls, calls that they don't
even have to -- and his whole speech seemed to be on the extraneous calls that
he gets. Maybe there's some things we can do in that, maybe this community
needs a 113 line. And certainly I'm not too sure if there's any correlation
between the numbers in the article and crime. So all I'd like to do is
I'd like to just take a little time, thirty days. Mr. Kuhlke is absolutely
right, thirty days is not going to get the money in here any faster. We're
going to get the money in 1998. We don't know if we're going to get it in
June, July, August, or the end of the fiscal year. So I think the prudent
thing for me -- and I have to vote, and I want it absolutely clear I am not
voting against this proposal. I am voting to buy some time to study the issue
to represent the people of the Third District so we know exactly what we're
going to be paying for, and that's all I'd like you to do.
MR. BEARD: I just have a couple of comments here, that basically I will
support the deputies. I think that he needs the sixty-eight people. And you
find yourself in the position today that you are in-between kind of a rock and
a hard place because you know that there is going to be a need for additional
monies here. And you also need to know I as a Commissioner, because I
represent District One, and I know I only represent a portion of this city,
but I know the needs are out there and that we have to receive more deputies
or get more deputies to perform that function. I also can see where
Commissioner Kuhlke is coming from when he says that we need to look at this
situation. And if I'm reading what the Sheriff is saying, that the items that
Commissioner Kuhlke is asking for is something that he can provide, then I
think it's something that we need to maybe look at. And if this is not going
to impede any projects in thirty days, then, you know, I want to know from the
Sheriff if he is willing to go along with that and get the information and
consult with whomever, the Administrator or whatever, and move forward.
Because I think that we're all going to have to be -- the Sheriff is going to
be accountable for this, also the Commissioners are going to be accountable
for this. Because I think when we give those sixty-eight deputies, if a plan
isn't in place, and I'm sure you have one, Sheriff, wherein in my district,
you know, if we don't get some of those people off the street from selling
drugs, robbing old people, then people are going to look at me, and I want to
know if I can tell them, and I think I can, that with sixty-eight additional
deputies we are going to accomplish all of that. And I think if it takes, you
know, thirty days to do that, I don't have a big problem with that, but if
it's going to impede the progress of the program, then I would say let's do it
now.
MR. POWELL: Sheriff, I read in here where it says that you would reach a
goal of reducing crime by ten percent annually. Is that a reality factor? I
mean, is that something that could be handled?
SHERIFF WEBSTER: Mr. Powell, I probably could be elected Governor of
Georgia if I could say I could reduce ten percent of the crime in Richmond
County. There's no way in the world I can give you a prediction. I hope I am
able to cut it thirty percent, but I can't give you no figures on it. Crime
keeps increasing. If you look at some of the stats I got here, it's fifty
percent this last year just about on everything from 1996 to 1997. So for me
to tell you I can cut crime ten percent, I don't know whether I can or not.
I'm hoping I can. I hope I go way above that, but I can't give you a number
on that. This is not a guessing game here, this is a game where you've got to
get out and do the best you can and hopefully you cut crime. I hope some
education will help us as far as crime is concerned. We can't do it
ourselves. If I get all the policemen in the world I still can't do what
education can do, and we're giving people education as far as crime is
concerned and getting help from the parents, getting help from the teachers.
MR. POWELL: And the second part of the question, do you feel that you're
going to make some efforts, let's say, to involve the communities as far as
the neighborhoods? Are they being more active in trying to help you deter
some of this crime? Are you getting what you think you should out of the
neighborhoods or are you getting a lot of help out of the neighborhoods?
SHERIFF WEBSTER: We've got some active neighborhood watches and we've
got a lot of pastors that are concerned in each crime area that's been very
helpful to us. We've got a lot of citizens out there that's helpful to us.
They see what their community is doing in the crime area. There are people
scared to come out on their front porch to sit at night. It worries me,
because they come in -- and some of you people don't see that. I get to see
it because I have those people come in. There's Commissioners sitting at this
table today that know what I'm talking about because they live in a high crime
area. You live in one, Mr. Lee, in the beat that you represent. Number one
beat is a small beat. I have twenty-seven of them. My plans would be -- and
I had it laid out here today to show you some of the things I was going to do.
You have twenty-seven beats in Richmond County.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Could I ask you a question? A beat, does that mean one
patrolman per shift in that area?
SHERIFF WEBSTER: On the north side of town I have fourteen beats. That
is patrolled by a major -- which on each shift you would have a lieutenant and
two sergeants. The south beat has thirteen beats.
MR. ZETTERBERG: But within that geographic area, in any eight-hour
period -- SHERIFF WEBSTER: I think I can show you a little bit better by
showing something as far as -- MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, could I finish
my question?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Yeah, let's get through with Mr. Powell, and then we'll
let the Sheriff make a presentation to us. How about that, is that okay,
Sheriff?
SHERIFF WEBSTER: Yes, sir, that'll be fine.
MR. POWELL: Sheriff, the third part of my question, do you have a plan
to put more officers in the neighborhoods and maybe reduce some of the road
patrol of the major throughfares so that we can get more impact in the
neighborhoods themselves? Is that part of your overall plan?
SHERIFF WEBSTER: That's been my plan for a long time. I went before a
Colonel of the Georgia State Patrol [inaudible] I'm going back to him to see
if I can get maybe a five-man State Patrol post in Richmond County to patrol
the main arteries, I-20 and Bobby Jones, Number 1, 56, 25, and let my people
get more into the residential places than they do now. I don't know whether
he'll be able to do it, I don't know what his manpower needs is going to be,
but I'm going back to him and ask him again. But my plan is to get my people
the visibility. If crooks see an automobile, they have a tendency not to
commit that crime. [inaudible] And our visibility there means a heck of a
lot. That's the reason you see a lot of our automobiles out here is trying to
keep the crooks straight. But my plan is to try to give the citizens of
Richmond County the best coverage they've ever had. I'd like to say this
while I'm at it, I've had seven grants approved over the last two and a half
years. Some of them ranged from 100,000 to 125000, some go to 350,000. This
is the first opportunity that I've ever had to raise $3.6 million. I know
it's a lot, but you have to put up money to get this money, but we'll never
get this opportunity again to get sixty-eight deputies at one time. I've
never heard of it before. I'm very proud that we have this opportunity, and I
hope y'all give me a chance by approving this today and giving me a chance to
have those sixty-eight deputies to prove to you what I can do in Richmond
County. I'd like to state at the same time, being I'm up here, don't
expect me to hire sixty-eight deputies tomorrow because I won't be able to.
It's going to take a long time. I probably won't even start hiring these
deputies -- you remember y'all passed so I could have seventy-five deputies
this year: sixteen for jail at one time, thirty at another time, twenty-nine
at another time. I'll be hiring those people up to the first of the year
trying to get prepared to move into the new jail. And to have an officer
trained and prepared to put him out there in an automobile by himself, you
don't do it overnight, it takes a long time. I'll be hiring people next July
if this thing is approved to take that job.
MR. POWELL: Sheriff, the last part to this is this. You've been in law
enforcement a long time. You've probably been in it all your life. Most of
us up here, we have all the ideas and we shoot them at you, and you've been
there long enough that you know the reality factor. I know we're going to
feel this in our wallets later on as far as this Commission is concerned, but
are our citizens going to feel in their hearts that they're safer? Is this
really going to give us a big impact?
SHERIFF WEBSTER: I think it'll be a big impact, because let me tell you
something, not only -- when we get these men we're going to prove something,
no doubt about it. But the public out there is not against tax money. A lot
of you say that they don't want tax money, but this is public safety and if
they're getting the protection they need, they don't mind spending some tax
dollars for it.
MR. ZETTERBERG: One thing on tax money. You're probably right.
Probably the taxpayers wouldn't mind paying a little bit more money for public
safety. But what they really want some of us to do is to reduce the cost or
the waste, fraud and abuse within the government, and that's what some of us
would like to do.
SHERIFF WEBSTER: Some of you have asked today could I cut two percent.
No, I can't cut two percent. But I ask you Commissioners to come down anytime
you want to, I'll take you to any department you want to. You walk in my
office, I'll take you to that department and you catch them sitting around.
You catch them sitting around. I've got the stats here on what other counties
has got, what Chatham County has got, what Muskogee County has got, as far as
road patrol, people working in the field. People don't realize it, but
Augusta Police Department had a large police department for the size of the
territory they had to cover. Major Vinson, how many people did y'all have on
the force before we consolidated?
MAJOR VINSON: Approximately two hundred.
SHERIFF WEBSTER: Two hundred. I had three hundred and some odd, and I
had a jail that was taking care of ninety some odd people and I had the rest
of them taking care of three hundred and some odd square miles in Richmond
County. Do y'all recall at the annexation when they was going to add the
extra hundred policemen? I think some of you remember. The people in the
West Side voted for it. I was sitting there thinking when if I -- when they
take in that territory, if it does annex, the people I got in the county, I
could give the people in the county a good job. But if I had those extra
hundred people that was promised to them -- I'm asking for sixty-eight. They
didn't have a jail, I had a jail, I took care of all their prisoners. If I
had the sixty-eight I could do a lot better job. [End of Tape 2]
MR. TODD: Sheriff, you made mention to your beats, and certainly
[inaudible]. Out of what percentage of those incidents that you respond to
that you make arrests that there is a crime committed?
SHERIFF WEBSTER: I tell you what I'm going to do, these two men come up
through the ranks [inaudible] one is in charge of the north beat and one is in
charge of the south precinct. I'm going to let one of them answer -- let both
of them answer.
MAJOR VINSON: That would probably be a better question answered by
somebody out of CID. The percentage rate is going to probably be relatively
low as far as the number of arrests made as opposed to the amount of incidents
that happen. But it's going to be relatively low, I would think.
MR. TODD: Let me rephrase my question and put it this way: As far as
your incidents that you respond to, what percentage would you have where
there's a crime being committed like, you know, how many burglar calls you
have, how many car thefts you have, or property crimes that we can identify.
MAJOR VINSON: I would say eighty/eighty-five percent.
SHERIFF WEBSTER: Moses, I'd like to give you a few stats right here.
This is upper Broad, what we call Harrisburg. This here is 1996, the stats on
it. We had 5,386 calls. Well, we're estimating a little bit for the last four
and a half months of this year -- well, it's close to it, because if I give
you from August to August it's going to show up a high percent. It's 8,445:
28 assaults; burglary, 158; dangerous drugs, 10; drunks, 28; overdose, 11;
public peace would be 836; robberies would be 12; sex offense would be 8; and
suspicious situation, there's 782. That's where you're talking about so-
called -- you don't know exactly what you're going to be on. Vehicles stolen,
that would 84, and weapon offenses would be 13. That just goes to show you
one of them, but that's one of the high crime areas, too.
MR. TODD: Thank you, Sheriff. I know the evidence is there that we have
a crime situation. I spent, you know, several years on the streets of Barton
Village when a lot of folks thought I was crazy as hell, and some still do.
But the bottom line is that it's out there and, you know, depleted my checking
account by trying to do some things creative and, you know, wound up filing
bankrupt. It's not something that community associations can do alone, but
they can do it with the help of the Sheriff's Department and community
policing. Now, I talked to Mr. Oliver about, you know, possibility of a
memorandum of understanding or a memorandum agreement. I know that the final
approval on it would have to be the Sheriff because the Sheriff is the other
entity that would be involved, but certainly I don't think there was ever any
intent to pin the Sheriff down on he's got to produce ten percent reduction,
but there are goals. And those of us that's minorities, you know, is familiar
with working with goals, you know, as far as affirmative action go, et cetera.
It's not something you got to do, it's something that you kind of work
towards; it sets a milestone. And I'm sure that the Sheriff is going to be
working towards reducing all crime, but at best we're only managing crime, in
my opinion, we're not stopping crime, or at least not all crime.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a question on the beats still. Let me go back.
One beat is how many officers in a 24-hour period?
SHERIFF WEBSTER: There's one officer per beat.
MR. ZETTERBERG: One officer per beat. In a 24-hour period, how many
officers in that one beat?
SHERIFF WEBSTER: They run 12-hour shifts, so there would be two. But
you've got to have four to make a cycle. In a 28-day cycle, an officer will
work 13 days and is off 15. Twelve hours a shift.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I have heard one number from Chief Strength, I heard
another number the other day from Sheriff Webster. One number was about 166
or 169 patrolmen out in the beats, and the Sheriff talked about 248, and I'm
trying to find out where the other 248 -- SHERIFF WEBSTER: Some of those
are supervisors. Some of those are people [inaudible]. You have squads all
over. He's talking directly out of supervisors. You have a major: one major
is in charge over the south, one is in charge of the north; we have 23
sergeants; we have a total of, what, 17 lieutenants, or close to it. I had
the stats last time when I was up here. But you have to have employees to
work. You have to have -- MR. ZETTERBERG: So the 169 are privates?
SHERIFF WEBSTER: No. I'd have to go back -- I had the stats up here the
other day when I came up here. When I came to Public Safety I had the stats
on where every man was at because I went and looked it up.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Now, what you're going to do is you're going to add how
many new beats?
MAJOR VINSON: Eight new beats.
MR. ZETTERBERG: And so that's 16 officers in a 24-hour period, plus two,
which is -- how many is that now? I'm trying to -- where is the number 68?
What was magic about 68, because I'm sure when you made the request --
SHERIFF WEBSTER: It takes six men to run a four-man shift. With time off,
sick leave and everything you've got, it's five-point-something you've got to
add, so you can't just add four people.
MR. ZETTERBERG: So we've got 27 beats and we're going to add eight
beats, then that will make 35 beats; right? Thirty-five beats times how many,
six?
SHERIFF WEBSTER: Well, you'd have to add six times that.
MR. ZETTERBERG: That's 185 people.
SHERIFF WEBSTER: Okay. Then you'd have to have your sergeants and
lieutenants and -- MR. ZETTERBERG: And the Weed and Seed program will be
included in the 68?
SHERIFF WEBSTER: I stated at Public Safety the other day that I knew
there was a shortage of it, because me and Mr. Randy Oliver talked and he
asked me -- because I had a grant program where I was going to get four
people, I believe it was -- six people. Anyway, he asked me could I take
them. I told him I would give him three when this program came up, I said,
but I can take the six out of this one and put it into this one because
[inaudible].
MR. ZETTERBERG: Now, the $3.6 million, that includes just personnel
costs; right?
SHERIFF WEBSTER: Fringe benefits, too.
MR. McKIE: And cars.
MR. ZETTERBERG: And it does include the cars. What doesn't it include?
See, that's one of the things I've never known about the 3.6, but I think
we're only seeing the tip of iceberg.
SHERIFF WEBSTER: It's a 75 percent deal on it, but it adds up -- when
you get through with the thing you've got 3.6 million plus a little bit. When
the county gets through you've got 3.6 million plus a little bit. It shows a
little bit more that the federal government is paying than the county with the
way the stats were added up.
MR. McKIE: I was wrong about the cars, Mr. Zetterberg. We have a request
handling that, but I was wrong about the cars.
MR. ZETTERBERG: That does not include cars?
MR. McKIE: Correct.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Guns? Training costs?
SHERIFF WEBSTER: It pays the training and all that.
MR. ZETTERBERG: So I think what we're talking about is a lot more than
$3.6 million, and I don't have a problem with that. If you've got a plan
that's going to do that -- I wish you would come out and say that I'm going to
try to reduce crime by a certain goal, I really would, because everybody else
in the world does.
SHERIFF WEBSTER: If I were to sit here [inaudible]. If I say that I'm
going to do something, I'm going to do my level best, I'm going to give it
everything I got. And I think if you'll check the back records on me, when I
went before the Commission I never come up here with some baloney. You ask
the people in the budget, when I have my budget come before this group I tell
them don't put baloney into it, give me what I got to have and no more because
that's exactly what I want to put in for.
MR. ZETTERBERG: But you are asking us to give you --sign a blank check
without any performance in there at all. That's what you're asking. I'm not
trying to pin you down -- SHERIFF WEBSTER: I'm not going to sit here and
say how many percentage points I can drop crime, because I can't. Mr.
Zetterberg, you don't know me. These two people know me, and the people that
work for me know me. I demand professionalism out of my people, and I'm going
to do everything I can -- it scares me when I see crime out there like it is.
When I have to talk to people that's scared to live in our community it don't
make me feel good. I can remember when I was a little young country boy we
never locked the door, didn't know what locking the door was, people could
come in and come out. But you didn't have what you got today. I can remember
when I was enforcing liquor laws for twenty-eight years. Twenty of it was
[inaudible]. You didn't have these kind of problems. The bootleggers were
pretty good people. You're dealing with drug people right now. Eighty
percent of the crimes committed in Richmond County today is committed by drug
dealers.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, that brings up a good point. Are any of these
numbers in drug suppression? Eighty-five percent of the crime is related to
drugs; okay? I understand eighty to eighty-five percent of the people in your
jail are involved in drugs one way or another. Is there any of this in drug
suppression?
SHERIFF WEBSTER: No, sir, they're not in that. They're not in that part
of it because I'm very lucky, I work close with the DEA, I work close with the
FBI. We take in a lot of money [inaudible] all the money we got is in the
account that he controls. We're able to buy equipment, we're able to hire
people to go in that unit that don't cost the taxpayers of Richmond County
nothing. We like to spend the drug peoples' money to give our people support
far as that drug use is concerned.
MR. ZETTERBERG: So you don't need any more people for drug suppression?
SHERIFF WEBSTER: Yes, sir, I could stand just as many as you could give
me.
MR. ZETTERBERG: But, I mean, is this a trade-off here? What you're
saying -- SHERIFF WEBSTER: You expect me to come back next year and say
I need some in the drugs?
MR. ZETTERBERG: I don't know. I'm not trying to trick you.
SHERIFF WEBSTER: Let me tell you something, when I come back to you next
year -- I'm sitting here with -- how many judges have you added lately? Added
two State Court judges, they've added a Superior Court judge. How many is
that? I've got twenty-three people that work in that division. That's
serving papers and that's serving the courts. I have to serve them courts,
that's part of my Constitutional acts. And me to come back and tell you right
now I'm short, I wish you could see the stats as far as [inaudible].
MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd love to see them. I'd like to see all those
figures. See, I'd like to really be able to get --I'd really like to get the
whole cost of what it will cost us from judges down to the Sheriff to the
officers of the courts, the whole thing, so that we really have a grasp of
what this community is faced with, because maybe sixty-eight isn't enough.
SHERIFF WEBSTER: Well, you're probably right, but this is the first time
I've ever had a chance to get sixty-eight people. I was sent out an order
today, a fax from Mr. Randy Oliver here today stating in it--and I think it
was read a while ago--telling me what I would do to people and I wouldn't have
to hire no more people for three years.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, you can't blame us for wanting to see if we can
get a contract with you.
SHERIFF WEBSTER: No, I can understand, but there's no way in the world.
It's like giving you -- I wish I could give you the figures on crime.
MR. ZETTERBERG: How big is this thing? How big is it? What would it
take for us to take a significant cut in crime in Augusta, Georgia?
SHERIFF WEBSTER: You don't have the money. You don't have the money.
I'm being frank with you.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I'll tell you what, if public safety is the number
one issue of government, okay, then there's a lot of things we can do. I
mean, we spend millions of dollars on recreation, we spend millions of dollars
for other things, we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for the arts. I'm
just trying to get a handle on what's -- what is the real picture? What do we
really need to do?
SHERIFF WEBSTER: You need to ride with some of my deputies one night.
And I invite the rest of you Commissioners -- MR. TODD: Sheriff, I've
rode with them on several occasions.
SHERIFF WEBSTER: You know what it is. But you go out there and you see
what he's doing. Oh, they say he's stopping to drink coffee, he's stopping
and getting a sandwich over here, but I want you to see how many calls he
gets. Pick any beat you want to go in, and when you get through with that
night, then you come back up here and y'all discuss it with each other and see
where you stand. It will open your eyes.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Zetterberg is correct on one thing, we've spent a lot of
money on recreation, we've spent a lot of money on piping, we've spent a lot
of money on the GIS system that we don't even have up and running yet that
could give us this information at the blink of an eye, something we don't even
have going that could possibly make the Sheriff's job a whole lot easier. We
don't have our GIS system up and running, you know, so I think we are some at
fault, Sheriff, for not being able to provide you some information instantly
that you could put suppression teams on. And that's one of my concerns, too,
is maybe we're not giving you enough support, and I think I'm going to take
you up on going and riding with your deputies just to see.
MR. BRIDGES: Sheriff, I did ride with one of your deputies one Saturday
night, and we had a fine time at a particular club out on 25 about one thirty
in the morning, so I'm familiar with the crime that's out there. You
mentioned that you may be able to get some of the federal money up front and
that we won't have to put as much money up front for the first year. Have you
got that breakdown by year one, two, and three that you could possibly give
me?
MR. McKIE: Sheriff, I've got that. Exactly what we plan to do is match
the expenses for the first year.
MR. BRIDGES: 1.2 to 1.2?
MR. McKIE: Right. Now, as long as we decline the amount each year --
the total is 3.6 and some change. We can take it all up front if we want to,
but then you've got to pay the piper later on, so that doesn't make sense.
MR. BRIDGES: Well, what I was thinking was if we can put up a smaller
amount from the county the first year, then maybe we'll have more time to --
MR. McKIE: That's what we've done in our initial budget.
MR. OLIVER: His initial budget does that.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll be as brief as I possibly can. I'd like to
point out that for the Weed and Seed project we got a time line. I believe
that time line is December that that grant has got to be in. And, also, that
we're only paying personnel, we're not paying for equipment, I believe. Is
that correct, Sheriff?
SHERIFF WEBSTER: That is correct. On this grant right here we have to
furnish the people, and we spend the money up front, then the grant will
produce us money back. I don't know exactly how that money is, but I believe
there's $750,000 somewhere in that grant.
MR. TODD: Yes, I think it's $750,000 per year. So that helps the
department overall because, you know, you're going to have those cars, that
equipment, et cetera, that that grant pay for. I don't see the Crimestopper
in there, but I don't guess that's a big issue because we're only talking
about one person and I think that you've already -- SHERIFF WEBSTER: We
discussed that and I told you I'd look into it. I just didn't bring it out as
an issue as far as this is concerned here today.
MR. TODD: Yes. And so, Mr. Mayor, I think that this is something that
we need to approve and then we budget for. With most things that government
intend to do or want to do, that we go out and we budget for it, then we come
back and say, hey, this is a good concept, let's do it. It may be the wrong
way of doing it, but we have budget hearings. And unless we have a commitment
to do this, I can assure you that every other little frivolous program is
going to win out over putting additional police officers on the streets. If
we commit to do it, then we've already committed to making the cuts and coming
up with the money. I believe that there are some dividends in putting sixty-
eight men on the street that you're going to increase your funds that you take
in through fines, et cetera. There's got to be some dividends and there's got
to be some real dividends as far as reduction in crime. So I speak in
support of it. I don't think that we gain anything by delaying it. You know,
we tentatively approve it, we know we've got to find the money, we go to the
budget hearings and we hammer out the money. And I think also that the
Sheriff probably can help us with some money in the sense that he normally
trains out of, you know, funds that he collects through the vending machines
or whatever. Well, if he's getting grant money to do that training with, then
certainly we may be able to shift some money or do something there as far as
our in-kind or our money back to that program. I just feel that it's something
that's doable. The Sheriff talked to us some time ago about sixty-eight
men. At that time we wasn't talking about a grant that was going to pay
seventy-five percent the first year or fifty percent the second year, we were
talking about needing sixty-eight men that we would possibly have to go to the
taxpayers to pay for one hundred percent. And I think my position there was,
you know, I'd have a hard time doing that. The Sheriff was encouraged to
continue to pursue the grants. They have, it's in front of us. We can either
take advantage of it or let the opportunity pass and in a year down the road
pay for it out of our pocket or pay for it in other ways. I speak in
support of this. I've rode the beat that runs from Underwood Homes back to
Nellyville, back up I guess to Savannah Road or Doug Bernard Parkway back to
Underwood Homes. I know what the beat is like, I know what the officers go
through. I had the pleasure of riding with a officer that normally worked a
beat in West Richmond on Washington Road. He liked that beat a lot better
because he didn't feel that that beat worked him as hard as this beat. Some
of these men take a beating in those cars. And I'm in support of law
enforcement, I'm in support of this plan of putting cops on the street, and
I'm in support of tightening the belt to pay for it. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: It's been a long afternoon. Sheriff Webster, you did a
heck of a job in your presentation and I applaud you, but my problem is not
your problem. My problem is our problem and it's called money, and this is
the problem that we have to deal with, not you. And I've heard some nice
glowing terms of how we will spend money to support law enforcement, and I
think all of us want to do that, but while we're doing that we've got to make
some serious budget cuts. And the same people here that want to support you
want to support every other program that comes down the pike, and somewhere
along the way somebody better start saying no because these taxpayers in this
county is not going to stand for it. Now, everybody wants to support law
enforcement. I want to support law enforcement and I'm going to support law
enforcement. We're going to do some budget cuts. But, remember, we can't sit
here and give the Sheriff our $85 million for law enforcement. Other people
expect other things out of us. And that's where the buck is going to hit the
road, and it's going to be a hard buck, and if we're going to go into this we
need to make our budget commitments first before we commit. I don't know that
we can afford sixty-eight deputies. I would give him a hundred and ten if I
could. But first off we'd better damn well figure out what we can afford and
tell him that that's what we can afford, not have one group come here and
whine today about law enforcement and have another group come and whine next
week about recreation and we want to please both groups. We can't do it.
We've got to learn to say no. It's not that we don't want to help the
Sheriff, because every one of us -- if you asked us individually, number one
issue on us is law enforcement. But we have a million demands placed on us.
You can't even -- and if y'all can, y'all do different than I can. I can't
even go to the grocery store without somebody wanting to talk to me about
their tax bill or how they can get a little more extra money for another
group, and that's what it is constantly. We're the purse strings. That's
what we have to deal with is dollars and cents. The Sheriff has a much more
easily defined role, he gets to arrest people for doing wrong. And I applaud
him for it, he does an excellent job, and he's trying to do the best job he
can with the manpower we give him. But back home when you're going to sit
down to pay the bills and there ain't enough money to go around in the pot,
you have to pick and choose which ones your not going to pay. Yes, you always
pay the light bill because you can't afford to do without the lights, just
like we'll always pay the law enforcement bill because we can't afford to do
without the law enforcement. The question is, gentlemen, what are we
going to do without, and that's why I think we need the thirty days that Mr.
Kuhlke wants, to sit down and figure out what we're going to do without. And
if y'all got any better ways of doing it -- yeah, we can go out and put it on
the charge card, we can spend that money today, we can make that commitment,
but in thirty days that bill is going to come due and somebody is either going
to pay the credit card off or we're going to attempt to finance it. And the
best way that I found to deal with credit cards is to pay them off and cut
them up and get rid of them.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I do agree with my colleague on one thing, it's
been a long afternoon. I'm going to try not to make it too much longer. As
the representative of District 9, which encompasses four of those districts
that are there and primarily the four that probably have most of the beats --
you know, this is has been a good discussion, and the Sheriff knows if I'm
firm on an issue, probably I've been accused of arguing with a sign board
about it. Changed a little bit over the years, I got a little bit older, but,
you know, if I'm going to fight about something I fight about it. And I don't
have a problem with a fair fight, a good debate. That's the American spirit,
democratic process, you know, the whole nine yards of it. But, you know, this
scenario today I think probably could have been best conducted somewhere else,
spending our time with different areas that have crime problems that I see
support groups of people here, some who are not here but who are interested in
what's going on. Different ones have different problems -- and I'm
changing the course of this in wrapping up and hope that we can come to
friendly meeting on this. The Sheriff -- this is not a show. I think that
the Sheriff can readily explain in his own way where a lot of this stuff needs
to go. I think what I would like to have seen would have been maybe the
dialogue in a lot of these different neighborhoods rather than arguing with us
about whether this is going to be thirty days from now. Yes, our job is to
deal with the budget. You're right, we are there to set policy. And if we
have to cut some bucks during the budget process to deal with it, then we have
to do that. But let me take you back a little bit. To all those good
flag-waving Augustans who supported consolidation -- and it's here now, all of
us are under one umbrella, one city. But there were cries from those of us who
wanted to be prudent and conservative then. There were those of us who knew
that the Sheriff was inheriting a deficient, not in people, not in quality,
but numbers from APD that had already been cut down. But the thing is, you
know, we're at a point now where you talk about everybody hollering for some
money. And I want to clear up something real quick, because I don't -- you
know, I'm big enough to take any old sideways accusation, but I don't
necessarily have to like the feeling. You know, when we start talking about
who gets what or who's gotten what in this city, I hate to think of it that we
start thinking that we have territorial beggars or beggars maybe of a certain
political party. Now, we've had people that have benefitted from some of
everything. Everybody who's come here hasn't been from somebody who wanted a
handout or who necessarily was poor or who came from a high-crime area. I
know that wasn't said, but I'm going to say it for the record. We've had our
share of corporate welfare beggars in this city, too. Brooks Brothers suits
and Lilly Ann suits, too, for the ladies. They've come down through the years.
It broke one government, you know. We also knew in that government we
were inheriting all the deficiencies that it produced that was coming into
consolidation, millions of dollars worth that we were going to have to
fiscally stand up to. We were walking into a bail-out situation. Criminals
didn't bail out, they didn't move, they didn't go anywhere. We sit on a
borderline of a state. We talk about something that has been discussed in
some neighborhoods that are close to the river when we talk about migrant
crime and about people -- not necessarily criminals but who are massively
homeless that also have to deal with this factor that our law enforcement
agencies have to deal with. But you've got support groups out there, you've
got people that want to work with law enforcement even from the creative angle
of getting the Sheriff's Department to look at some things that people want in
these neighborhoods that we can work together on. That's where I'd like to
see the debate at. I'd like to see some of the Commissioners come over and
walk and talk and deal with those folk. This is not Charlie Webster's fight,
this is everybody's darn fight in here. Because, see, when it gets out of that
little densely populated area where some of us live, then when there's nothing
else to pillage out of those areas, then guess what? It comes where they're
not pillaging now. It moves out from where we are and moves to where some of
you are. Then it gets to be a problem, a real problem, then we want to deal
with it. So I think in the budgetary process you got a good simple
formula. You can go back and tell some of the wish list people, hey, get off
the wish list before you even send it. Put some numbers in there to cut from
the very start. It's not as though we've not been down this road before,
gentlemen, whether some of you were here or not. It's not the first time
we've asked some departments to go and cut. I mentioned when we were talking
about Recreation a while ago what was said that we would cut, how many people
we would fire. The answer to that is, and the public knows it, we fired
nobody, we laid off nobody, we closed no pools, we closed no centers. We made
folk go back, and I think Mr. McKie and Mr. Collins can attest to the fact we
went back and we cut even more than was suggested, but we still carried the
same level of service. That's the message that the policy-makers ought to be
sending back to the various department heads.
We have been debating this monkey issue the whole afternoon, knowing
that we're going to have to almost deal with it. It's amazing now that the
people -- and, you know, politics makes bedfellows, but it's amazing how many
people now have even come around, Sheriff, to even deal with grant money. I
can remember when it was on the wrong side of the politics when Chatham,
Dekalb, Bibb, and Fulton were getting monies and planning them into their
budgets on the first release of the crime bill money, but simply because the
wrong president was connected to it, some folk that were there on the
Commission didn't want the Sheriff pushing for it. Now we need it. That
money you got for those folk in the jail, Sheriff, part of those could have
been planned and trained out of some of that, but it wasn't the politically
right thing to do for some people to want identify with. Now we are pushed
against that wall where we are going to have to go after that money. You
know, I would remind some of you that were not in politics at that time to ask
some folk -- and even though he's a good friend of mine, but you may want to
go back to Sibley and Hensley. If I was the Sheriff of this county --and I
see nothing wrong -- only thing I said was agreeing to just a lot of creative
things. I'm in support of Weed and Seed, no problem with that. The things
that we want to try and do, those are good things to line out. But when you
put something on here -- if I was the Sheriff and y'all told me to sign a
contract to tell you what the results were going to be, if I'm here begging
and trying to produce and you're seeing what those stats are, you know what
you ran under as to who was the elected law enforcement officer in this
county, you waved the same flag of wanting to be a part of the consolidated
government, to sign a document -- and there's some good things in here, but to
agree in writing of what that's going to be, it's a little different from
goals, gentlemen. I'd tell y'all to go to hell. And I work with you, eat
with you, we're going to have fun together, but that's exactly what I would
tell you, because I think it's almost an impossibility. What you want to
strive for is one thing, but what you sign for and put in writing to say you
won't come back in three years I think is almost insulting. And I remind you
of Sibley and Hensley, that it's also, as your County Attorney will tell you
and the courts have prevailed, hey, it's pretty much against the law, too.
That was the Sheriff that was unseated, humiliated, and taken out of office--
good Republican sheriff, by the way, gentlemen--that had to be reinstated
because of what the law said and of what the needs were and what prevailed
with the wishes of the people of a neighboring county of what they deemed
important. We need to think about that. And I agree, and I've had my debates
-- Ronnie Strength is one of my good friends. We argue about different things
from time to time. I don't agree that throwing money at this whole thing is
the total answer, but obviously we are going to have to have people and we're
going to have to do it, then we ought to get about the business of setting
policy, which, yes, this comes under it, and what we should do to be prudent,
but we also ought to conservatively go back. Now, I understand some folk
want to know what I said about the cows. I got a list of them cows. And a
lot of them cows, they didn't come out of James Brown Boulevard, Tin Cups
Alley, you know, Ninth Avenue, Turpin Hill, Dover, they didn't come out of
there. We got some folk that have been to that hog trough a whole lot of
times. They got six and seven million -- six and seven figures of money and
don't mind coming back to get some more. So I tell you what we can do, since
we know that a lot of folk in those areas hadn't had the chance to get that
much money, I'm going to use one of Addie Powell's old phrases. She said, you
know, sometimes you have to let misery know company. Well, we know we got to
protect folk. We need to move on and support this thing, and we need to go
back through the budget and we need to tell all the good old cattle boys that
ain't no new sheriff in town, but we're going to help the one we got. And if
we got to slaughter a few cows, we may have to do that. We may have to grind
up a couple of them. But they're out there, and they've been around for a
long time and they don't mind mooing whenever they need something. But
whenever it's not affecting their pasture, then it's just like cow manure,
they don't want to step in it. But, gentlemen, that same mess is going to
spread all over this county unless we try and do something where it's
affecting us most and right now. Now, I don't mind sitting somewhere and
debating with Charlie Webster till the sky changes colors three times about
what we maybe ought to do or what our needs are, but I'm going to respect the
right of that person as the Sheriff. And the bottom line is I know he's got a
need and we're going to have to meet him on that need. And dealing with this
mess of thirty days or going ahead with it, let us take that thirty days, go
ahead and support it. Let's lead up to the budget process and do like we've
done before, milk them down and say, ladies and gentlemen, this is where we're
going to have to make some serious cuts. And to the cow grazers, send them
word they're in trouble. Just tell them they need to have some old fashioned
teas, they need to have some golf parties, and they need to have some massive
fundraisers and get it like they tell a lot of us in the inner-city, the real
deep inner-city, pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. Because, see,
everybody that asks for welfare ain't poor. You've got blue collar welfare
and you've got white collar welfare. So we got both of it in this town, and I
can guarantee you more of it has gone into white collar welfare. And that has
nothing to do with the color of the person, but it's just the fact that while
we're begging -- let's be honest about it, most of the folk that we're down
here fighting for today ain't had a chance -- yeah, they've begging a long
time, but their results, they haven't got that much, so it won't make a lot of
difference. Those that you cut in order to help there, that'll just even the
situation out.
REV. FRYE: Mr. Mayor, I'm Reverend Frye, and, of course, Bobby Hankerson
and some other ministers who are here to support the Sheriff's Department.
One of the things that we want to say is that dead people can't talk and, of
course, we've been having a murder almost every week in Turpin Hill. And I
understand that there is only one officer for every 7,400 residents. The
young man who was shot fifteen times, he can't get up and tell you to put some
more officers on the beat. The lady 83 years old can't get up now and say
anything. Many of you have been there, you see what has been happening,
what's been going on. There is a murder every twenty-four minutes in America
and some us just have twenty-four minutes to live, just like one of our own,
Officer Mike Stephenson. And when we had the press conference over there,
when I went home they followed me and they held me up, and they could have
killed me, because we were trying to do something about Turpin Hill. My
funeral could have been one that you all would have been attending, because
the guys held me up right there by my house, so this is serious. And we
understand about tax dollars, but we're talking about people's lives, and the
elderly are afraid and the young are afraid. So in all of your considerations
please consider what is happening. And some of the calls, Mr. Mayor, that
these officers are getting are not because people are calling because there is
a crime, but some of them are calling getting on their case because nobody has
come or nobody isn't coming or why don't we see them. So that's what some of
their calls are, so I think that we need to consider that because it's
definitely needed. And just as a citizen and as a pastor in this community
where we are, we certainly are supporting our officers and, of course, you all
because we know that your presence has been there. And especially when it
pulls even our Congressman in and all of us should be concerned, we certainly
need to be mindful. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
MR. KUHLKE: Sheriff, I just want to look you in the eye and tell you
this. I don't think anybody up here is opposed to trying to help you on this
grant. The three questions that I asked, when it votes today, until I get an
answer to those three questions I'll vote against it.
SHERIFF WEBSTER: That'll be fine. But, Mr. Kuhlke, I come prepared for
those three questions when I walked in this place, and I've been sitting here
for quite a while right now. So, I mean, that's your business to vote the way
you want to, and there's no hard feelings there as far as that's concerned.
Whether you asked me to bring them, I had them. I had the stats. He wanted -
- three things he wanted, I got it all.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, could we call for the question? I think we've done
all we can do with this one.
MR. OLIVER: Could I say one thing for a minute, because I think I would
be remiss if I didn't say it. And it's not that I don't support the Sheriff
at all. I agree that financial responsibility is important and that I would
be remiss if I didn't tell you this. Mr. McKie, at my request, prepared some
options and alternatives for what we're going to be facing, and we can do it,
there's not a question about that. It's going to be painful. Three of the
options -- and any one of these would almost do it in itself. It'll be some
combination of all three, but I think I would be remiss if I didn't tell you
what we were looking at. To cut five percent across the board from 1997
funding levels to all departments, excluding the Sheriff. In other words,
give them 95 percent of what we did this year. Now, that includes all the
other Constitutional officers. You all can determine how realistic that may
or may not be with the Constitutionals. Eliminate all funding to outside
agencies not required by law. The third option is cut the workforce 5.71
percent across the board, excluding the Sheriff's Department. As I say,
you know, any one of those will meet the need. The thing that we're looking
at here is not particularly this grant. There are a couple of big items that
are in this year's budget we have to prepare for, and the biggest budgetary
buster that we've got is, frankly, the coming on line of the new jail. But we
have gotten requests from departments that exceed what our anticipated
revenues are by about $9 million. As I say, we are up to the challenge, but
it's going to take some courage and conviction by all of us to make this
become a reality.
MR. HANDY: Now can we call the question?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Absolutely. We've got a substitute motion made by Mr.
Kuhlke and -- MR. ZETTERBERG: You're not going to let me say anything?
MAYOR SCONYERS: No, sir, I think we've discussed this enough. Do you
want to read the substitute motion, please?
MR. ZETTERBERG: Point of order. You mean to say, Mr. Attorney, that a
City Commissioner couldn't say anything, I mean, cut it off like that? Don't
I have the right to say something?
MR. WALL: Well, the Mayor controls the meeting. Typically where a
Commissioner has indicated that he's not ready to vote on an issue, the Mayor
has the discretion to recognize that individual. And it shows that there is
an unreadiness on the part of the Commission to vote, but it's the Mayor's
call as far as recognizing you.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg, you don't feel that you're qualified to
vote?
MR. ZETTERBERG: No, what I'm saying is I just want to make sure that
everybody understands. I sit in a position that I'm ready to support the
Sheriff. He's laid out a plan and everything. The only thing that I've got
reserved is that I'd like to -- before I give a stamp of approval, I would
like to be able to sit down with this body and we come up with a decision of
how we're going to cut that money. And I'm prepared to cut money, too, and
that's the only thing I'm going to say. I won't be able to say yes -- if the
vote is to give the Sheriff carte blanche of what he wants without my knowing
what we're going to cut out, then I can't vote for it, and unfortunately
that's the situation I find myself in.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Zetterberg. Now can we vote? Is
everybody comfortable that we can vote now?
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I've had one chance to speak this whole time,
I'd like another chance. I'm going to support Mr. Kuhlke's motion here. The
thirty days he's requesting -- we may be able to come back even sooner than
that with an answer based on what we're hearing today, but the thirty days
we're asking to wait, if the Sheriff is -- he's saying he's not going to be
able to hire anybody until the first of the year anyway. It's not going to --
nobody is going to get killed as a result of it. We may be able to identify
the funds that this is coming from, and based on the information I've got here
we may not be looking at 1.2 million for the first year, we may just be
looking at $455,000, and then '99 we can figure out where we can get an
additional million, and I believe we can do that. Sheriff, you're going to
get your sixty-eight deputies. Our question is where is the money going to
come from. And I'm going to vote in that regard, and I think that's the
proper vote and I think it's the vote that the citizens expect of us.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to offer one thing as an
amendment to -- I think Mr. Handy made the original motion, and I'd like to
see if Mr. Handy would accept as an amendment that Mr. Oliver bring us back a
plan of how we're going to pay for this.
MR. OLIVER: The one thing I would note is the way that you're ultimately
going to pay for this is going to be during the budget process for 1998 where
you can come up with some general guidelines as to how to do it and you can
agree on those policy parameters to have a precise budget. Previously, if you
remember, your budget hadn't been approved until February the 28th, which I
felt was not necessarily the best. We have targeted and it was previously
agreed that we would get a budget adopted by the end of the year. You know,
to go through the entire budget process in a short period of time is not going
to happen, but we could come back with some parameters. And that's part of
what I wanted to do as part of this planning retreat we've scheduled for the
5th and the 6th and to look at, you know, what are the general parameters we
want to look at and make some recommendations to you and then execute on those
parameters.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to read Mr. Kuhlke's substitute motion,
please?
CLERK: Yes, sir. The substitute motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr.
Bridges, was to delay action on this for thirty days in order to allow the
Commission to look at the budget to determine a funding source.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MR. BEARD, MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. HANDY, MR. MAYS, MR. POWELL & MR. TODD
VOTE NO.
MOTION FAILS 6-4.
CLERK: The original motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham,
was to approve the funding -- and did you accept that amendment, Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: Whatever it takes to pass it. If that's going to pass it,
then take it.
MR. ZETTERBERG: My question is before I vote, can you explain what that
means, J.B.?
MR. POWELL: Well, the amendment that I asked -- if I'm in order, Mr.
Chairman. The amendment that I asked for was for Mr. Oliver to go back and
bring us his recommendation on how we can best cut our budget in order to make
this thing financially feasible. I know we need the deputies and I know we're
putting it all on your back, Randy, but that's what you get the big bucks for.
MR. OLIVER: State law requires that by December -- well, state law
requires that as part of your budget process. You're not allowed to operate at
a deficit, so that will be done. The question is the timing. We can give you
some general timing fairly quickly, but as to the formal budget adoption, that
will not occur till December.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE & MR. ZETTERBERG VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 6-4.
CLERK: Item 35: Motion to approve minutes of the regular meeting of the
Augusta-Richmond County Commission August 5th, 1997.
MR. POWELL: So move.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion to approve the minutes, let
it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 36: Motion to approve the amendment of the 1977 Retirement
Plan for employees of Richmond County so as to provide that disability
retirement benefits shall be 50% of the employees average earnings, as opposed
to 25%.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: So move.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Just one question. Mr. Oliver, this has nothing to do
with pensions coming under this -- MR. OLIVER: No, it's unrelated. It's
a situation that doesn't happen very often. It makes our plans consistent,
and it's a case where a person is out on a work-related injury.
MR. TODD: Mr. Oliver, isn't it true that in one plan the individuals
don't have Social Security and in the other plan they do?
MR. OLIVER: That is correct.
MR. TODD: Based on that, I'd vote I think as I voted previously.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MR. TODD VOTES NO.
MOTION CARRIES 9-1.
MR. WALL: If I can, I'd like to add to the agenda approval of the Merry
Land settlement that I circulated the memo about.
MR. HANDY: So move.
MR. POWELL: Second.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Can you read it? Is it public record?
MR. WALL: Yes, sir, if we can get it added. The motion is to approve
settlement of the Richmond County versus Merry Land Investment Company for the
sum of $96,000, and it's Civil Action 95-RCCV-679.
MR. TODD: Is there a urgency, Mr. Wall, to add to this agenda?
MR. WALL: Well, we announced it yesterday morning in court that it was
settled pending y'alls approval today, so it was on the trial calendar today.
MR. TODD: So this is kind of like a out of court settlement?
MR. WALL: That's correct.
MR. TODD: I won't object to it going on the agenda then.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of it going on the agenda, let it be known
by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Now I need a motion to -- MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. OLIVER: If I may, one thing to make sure we don't misunderstand. We
have coordinated a planning retreat. I think this is an important thing to
know what our goals and objectives are for 1998. What I want to try to do is
to create a contract with Augusta to say these are the things that we want to
do for the citizens. I've heard from one Commissioner that the 5th -- at
least all day on the 5th may pose a potential problem. I'd like to -- it's,
frankly, going to take us at least a day and a half or a little longer to go
through this and to do it right. That's a Friday and a Saturday, and I just
want to make sure that, you know, everybody is comfortable with that or if we
need to make modification we do it. But I see this as a significant part of
the budget process, because if we don't give the departments the money to do
what you want to do, we can't expect them to do it.
MR. HANDY: Do we have to have Friday and Saturday?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, wait a minute, let's dispose of this other thing
first and then we'll get back to this. I've got a motion by Mr. Kuhlke,
seconded by Mr. Brigham over here, to take care of Merry Land. All in favor
of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MR. OLIVER: I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor. The only thing I wanted to make sure
of, because I think it's critical that each of you have an opportunity to
fully participate and, also, I'll be contacting each one of you about what you
want to get out of this retreat. I want to work through a questionnaire and
give you an opportunity to rank what you feel are the most important services
that we offer, and then based on those rankings, then we'll go through a
process where we will distribute the money based on what you think are the
most important rankings.
MR. HANDY: Do we need a motion to adjourn?
MAYOR SCONYERS: I was just fixing to ask you, Mr. Handy. Did I hear
that?
MR. HANDY: You heard it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you.
[MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:25 P.M.]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a
true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of The Augusta
Commission held on August 19, 1997.
_________________________
Clerk of Commission