HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-18-1997 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
November 18, 1997
The Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:15 p.m., Tuesday,
November 18, 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-Richmond County
Commission.
Also present were Mr. Oliver, Administrator; Ms. Bonner, Clerk of
Commission; Ms. Nancy Morawski, Deputy Clerk of Commission; and Mr. Wall,
County Attorney.
THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND SHORES.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Morawski, do we have any additions or deletions?
CLERK: Yes, sir. We have one deletion from the agenda, Item Number 36.
And we have some additions to the agenda. The first is to approve a petition
for retirement on Madeline F. Cooper; a motion to approve award of medical
services contract; and to adopt 1998 through 2002 short-term work program.
MR. ZETTERBERG: So move.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question is to the Personnel Director.
On the retirement, is this a normal process retirement?
MR. OLIVER: I'll answer that. There's nothing out of the ordinary about
it except for the timing. I mean, it just didn't come in in time to put on
the committee agenda. But, to my knowledge, there's nothing out of the
ordinary on it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Zetterberg's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: The first item is a Proclamation of National Family Week, and
I'll read the Proclamation:
Whereas a family is a community of persons united by their love and their
commitment to one another, it is through family life that our nation's most
cherished values and traditions are passed from one generation to the next.
Through our experience as members of a family we learn important lessons about
love and faith, duty and fidelity, personal responsibility and concern for
others; And whereas families are models for caring from birth through the
aging years and fountains of celebrations and renewal; And whereas
families need and deserve recognition, encouragement, and support for the
daily miracles that they perform; And whereas Augusta-Richmond County
Community Partnership for Children and Families, Incorporated is sponsoring
National Family Week in our community to stress the importance of community
involvement in empowering and enhancing family strength and potential;
And whereas I wish to recognize and commend the members of the Augusta-
Richmond County Community Partnership for Children and Families, Incorporated
for their endeavors on behalf of the citizens of Augusta; Now therefore
I, Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor of Augusta, Georgia, do hereby proclaim the week
of November 23rd through 29th, 1997, to be National Family Week and call upon
all citizens, government agencies, public and private institutions and
businesses to observe this week with appropriate ceremonies and programs in
appreciation of our community's families.
Our second Proclamation is to Ms. Lynn Lonsdale and to Mr. Randolph
Stills, and I'll read those:
Whereas local artists contribute to our heritage, our culture, and all
those artistic treasures that nurture our spirit and bless and lives; And
whereas the accomplishments and achievements of these artists deserve
recognition and praise; And whereas the visual arts lend color, hope, and
excitement to our lives and help define the personality of a community and
create an image of the cultural life of its residents; And whereas I wish
to commend the artists for their endeavors and recognize these contributions
on behalf of Augusta, Georgia, and offer encouragement for continued
accomplishments and meritorious work in the visual arts; Now therefore I,
Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor of Augusta, Georgia, do hereby recognize Lynn
Lonsdale and Randolph A. Stills, Sr., as participants in the Mayor's program
to Spotlight local artists and for outstanding achievement in the visual arts.
Our third Proclamation is a Proclamation concerning Alzheimer's Disease
Month, and it reads:
Whereas more than four million people in the United States are affected
by Alzheimer's disease, a degenerative,
progressive disease that attacks the brain and results in impaired memory,
thinking, and behavior; And whereas Alzheimer's disease is the most
common form of dementing illness, taking more than 100,000 lives in the United
States annually, making it the fourth leading cause of death among older
adults; And whereas Alzheimer's disease costs the United States more than
80 billion dollars annually, with just 4.4 billion covered by the federal
government and 4.1 million covered by state governments, leaving the remaining
cost to be borne by Alzheimer's patients and their families; And whereas
an increase in public awareness about Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's
Association may stimulate the interest and concern of the American people,
which may lead in turn to increased research and eventually to the discovery
of a cure for Alzheimer's disease; And whereas the Congress has resolved
and the President of the United States has proclaimed the month of November to
be National Alzheimer's Disease Month so as to increase the public's awareness
of Alzheimer's disease and to support the research and services being
conducted by voluntary organizations such as the Alzheimer's Association;
Now therefore I, Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor of Augusta, Georgia, do hereby
proclaim November 1997 to be Alzheimer's Disease Month and encourage the
citizens of Augusta to observe this month with appropriate ceremonies and
activities. The next item is a presentation of Certification
Certificates to the Honorable Henry H. Brigham and the Honorable Jerry
Brigham, and it reads:
This certificate is to certify that Henry Brigham and Jerry Brigham of
Augusta-Richmond County have completed the state required Downtown Development
Authority Training on this 25th day of January 1997.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We're going to have a small change in our agenda. We're
going to move Item 38 and Item 44 forward. Take Item 38 first.
CLERK: Item 38: Motion to approve adoption of an ordinance to amend
Augusta-Richmond County Code Section 6-2-64(b) to amend the distance
requirements for the purchase of alcoholic beverage license for certain
establishments; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting
ordinances; and for other purposes. First reading.
MR. WALL: The effect of this is to increase the distance requirement to
300 yards. It would be measured from front door to front door along the
nearest route of travel. And this came up earlier and was not approved, and I
was asked to put it back on the agenda. This would be the first reading of
this ordinance.
MR. BRIDGES: So move, Mr. Mayor.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I want to speak in support of this. As the
ordinance presently reads, the distance for these establishments is not a
straight line distance; in other words, it's not from property line to
property line, it's strictly 100 yards as you travel. In other words, you go
out the front door of the church to the nearest sidewalk, you walk down the
sidewalk to the front of the establishment that you're measuring from, then
you walk toward the front door of the establishment, and all that counts
toward the 100 yards. So basically what we've got in several situations in
the county is you've got churches sitting right next to these establishments
because they're outside of the 100 yards as it's measured. We had a case with
Curtis Baptist Church in which an establishment was going to sell alcohol and
they're sitting diagonal from the church. But because of the measurements--and
you're measuring from it's front door, not from it's property line--the
establishment was, as far as legality was concerned, was within the limits.
And many people in the community don't feel that this promotes the kind of
moral and Christian atmosphere that we want for our children and our churches,
and I think that this would be a positive step and direction for future
development. And under-stand now, anything that's there presently is
grandfathered in, but for future development, to protect the churches.
Because basically what we've got now with the 100 yards, which is a pittance,
it's really nothing, is a protection of the alcohol traffic. It's not a
protection of the churches, it's not a pro- tection of the moral climate of
the community. And the purpose of this ordinance is to better establish those
moral standards that we believe that we have in this community and to protect
churches from establishments that sell or consume alcohol.
MR. TODD: I guess I'm going to speak in opposition to the ordinance and
not in opposition to the churches, and I'll clarify that statement, Mr. Mayor.
Certainly we don't want to put alcohol establishments adjacent to churches.
This Commission have a discretionary clause or discretion to not do what we
done as far as Curtis Baptist Church. And where the distance is there or not,
we basically can use our discretion on negative impacts or whatever on making
those decisions. We did not. This change will have a tremendous impact, is
my understanding, on increased development in Richmond County. We had a
opportunity also to use discretion in a situation where we had too many on
Barton Chapel Road and we did not. It seems to me that my colleagues
sometimes use discretion when we're dealing with Sunday sales, but certainly
never use discretion at any other time. I think the ordinance is okay where
it's at. I think the responsibility of the Commission is to use that
discretion when it's going to impact the churches that we have and not
restrict the entire county where there's not churches to a ordinance change
that we don't need at this time.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, the only thing I'd like to do maybe is to refer to
either Mr. Walker or to Mr. Sherman in that office that's handling those
particular licenses to see if they've had any feedback on the proposed
ordinance as well as how it might affect their work and what they do in that
they are the actual ones that are out there doing the work.
MR. WALKER: As far as I know, we haven't had any feedback on the
recommendation at all. We haven't had any problems that I'm aware of with the
[inaudible].
MR. HANDY: I would like to make a substitute motion to leave the
ordinance as it stands. And just like Mr. Todd said, if we have a problem
with a building next to a church going up, then we could make that
decision. We don't have to have an ordinance to change that. I've been
here about six years now and we've changed this ordinance about four times,
and we keep changing it because of certain people and who's involved and
everything. And we just can't keep changing an ordinance just to satisfy
one side of town or the other side of town, we have to have an ordinance
that will cover the entire county. And then when a problem arise, then we
as a Commission sit up here and make the decision whether we want to grant
that license, because we don't necessarily have to grant a license even if
they pass all the measurements and everything. We are not necessarily
obligated to give them a license, that's something totally up to us. And I
don't see changing the ordinance would make any difference because we can
still make that decision, and I'd like to put in the form of a substitute
motion to just leave the ordinance as it is and we take it case-by-case
basis.
MR. BEARD: I'll second it, Mr. Mayor.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to respond to this supposedly
discretionary authority that we have on a case-by-case basis. And, you know,
I agree that we do have the discretion to vote different from what the
distance requirements may be, but as that has happened in the past -- and
we've got a good case at Brown Road and Old Waynesboro. We turned that down
because of the complexities of that case. We turned the alcohol and beer
license down because of the situation there. The store owner appealed it to
the judge. And, Jim, I don't think the judge has made his ruling yet, but I
understand from the comments that were made in the courtroom at the time, we
don't expect that to go our way even though we've got discretion as a
Commission to go against what the distance requirements may be. Many times
our discretionary authority means nothing. It gets into the court and the
judge sees it and sees the distance requirements and understands that the
store owner meets those requirements and he can rule in their favor and that's
it. So our discretionary authority means nothing. What we've got to do is
get the ordinance so that it's got enough teeth in it to protect the churches
and the children and the moral climate of the community so that a judge won't
overrule our discretionary authorities, and I think that's what this ordinance
does and I hope you'll support the original ordinance.
MR. SUMMERS: Gentlemen, I'm Mark Summers, the President of Koger Walters
Oil Company and I own convenience stores in Rich- mond County. I was up here
last month making this same appeal. The proposal is very anti-competitive,
it's anti-commerce. And if you don't understand where I'm coming from, then
the laws -- if you read these books that I've got, you'll find that they are
very discriminatory against me already. These laws are designed so that they
affect and segregate convenience stores away from restaurants, away from
grocery stores effectively. And the reason that I say that is because it's
not measured to the pro-perty line of the establishment, it's measured to the
door of the establishment. My properties are small, usually less than half an
acre. A grocery store is on possibly seven or eight acres. Their buildings
are located far away from the street. They're not affected by this even
though they are for off-premises consumption. The only people that are
affected by this rule change are going to be convenience stores. You make
exceptions for restaurants. You make exceptions for events. You always are
giving people the right to sell alcohol on Sundays at Lake Olmstead, at Julian
Smith Casino. There's about 15 different places that y'all permit alcohol to
be consumed on Sundays on county properties. Y'all give those permits
regularly.
But me, I can't sell beer as effectively or as -- without the
constraints that these other people sell it. The situation will render a
monopoly in a lot of intersections. I'm not a big business, I'm a small
business, but it will impact my ability to grow my business because it will
shrink the number of available properties for me to expand to. Maybe somebody
doesn't like convenience stores. Maybe we're not what y'all want as far as
business in the community. But I employ over 150 people. I've got three Dairy
Queens. How much more family-connected? And, yes, I sell beer in some of my
locations. One of my locations in Columbia County is directly across the
street from a school, catty-cornered across the street from a church. I would
never even think about trying to get a permit for that. Never even consider
it. But it's because I'm inside that boundary. The boundary is established
by state law, 100 yards. If you take the area around a church or a school
that's 100 yards, that's six acres. Take it around a church or a school
that's 900 feet, that's 58 and a half acres. That's a lot of land. Multiply
that by the number of churches, the number of schools, that's half of this
county. A lot of intersections will be impacted, a lot of my ability to grow
my business will be impact. I appreciate it.
MR. BRASHEAR: Mr. Mayor, might I also speak? I'm Tice Brashear with
Brashear Realty Corporation. I've been in the real estate business for 26
years here in Richmond County. And perhaps this ordinance -- maybe it will
save Richmond County's great moral dilemma with alcohol, but from my
perspective it probably won't. But let me tell you what I
think this ordinance will do. I think it will take one group of property
owners and it will lower their property values. This kind of ordinance has a
tremendous impact on what a property might be worth. As a matter of fact,
there's a lot of property sitting around right now that go undeveloped, and if
they were developed, it would be at a fraction of the price because they're
already in that 100 yard limit. What this will do is take a small number of
properties and make them into a large number of properties that cannot be
developed, particularly for convenience or gasoline sales. I can tell you
that if you go to any of these gasoline or convenience stations people, they
will not develop on any site where they can't sell beer. It's not that they
have a great love of the beer business, but if they don't have that particular
item their customers will start going somewhere else. It'll mean less
competition because, if you can imagine, there will be a lot of areas where
people who are already there who are already selling alcohol, they can name
their price because nobody can move in next to them to sell that same product.
Ultimately what that means to you and to all the citizens of Richmond County,
it means higher gas prices. Because if you have less competition, somebody's
going to pay for it, and it's going to be the citizens of Richmond County.
It's also going to mean a smaller tax base because it's going to destroy a lot
of property values. I want each of you to sit down there and think. If
you were a property owner and you have bought a piece of property in good
faith with all intentions of investing in that property, and then suddenly
Richmond County changed all the rules so that your investment was largely
destroy, how would you feel? I suggest to you that it's very difficult on
people who are private property owners. And let me say right at the outset, I
don't even own any property that might be affected by this ordinance, but I do
think that it's going to have a negative impact on real estate values in
Richmond County, and it's also going to make people think twice before they
invest money in Richmond County if they feel like their property values might
get destroyed by the County Commission. Thank you.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, can I respond to a couple of points there? In
the first place, once again, this measurement is from door to door and it's as
a person walks. It has nothing to do with a straight line and drawing a circle
around a church or anything like that. The way it's measured is not changed,
it's merely the distance. What we've got now is we've got churches catty-
corner and across the street from these establishments, and it's not healthy
to the community, it's not healthy for the moral climate of the community.
This will also affect not just churches but public recreation areas and
anywhere children might be, so I hope the Commissioners will vote for this
improvement in the ordinance of Richmond County. I don't buy this economic
gloom and doom that's being presented because somebody might not be able to
sell liquor within 300 yards of a church. I just don't buy that. So I hope
the Commission will support the original motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Substitute motion first. Ms. Morawski?
CLERK: Substitute motion made by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Beard, was
to leave the ordinance as it is.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to leave the
ordinance as it presently is, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE & POWELL VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 6-4.
CLERK: Item 44: Discuss increasing the retirement benefits for
members of the 1949 Pension Plan.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, I have a letter here
from the Legislative Council, and this is in response to your inquiry relating
to the employees' pension system maintained by the City of Augusta. The
contributions to the system and the earnings thereof belong to the system,
which is a separate entity. The funds may only be expended for administrative
costs to operate the fund and as benefit to the members of the pension system.
When Mr. May of Humphrey Robinson took over our pension in '87, in the tenth
month of '87, our pension was worth $27,970,923. In ten years time, our
pension now is worth almost 67 million. Almost three times as much. Since
the first of the year, the first of '97, our pension fund, we have made
$8,468,446. With the $2,000 that we are requesting to be given to us, I
believe that that would take care of the increase in our pensions for the next
twenty years, and then we wouldn't exist by that time. Most of us are in the
late sixties and seventies. Council-Commission has asked -- I think
they've had five actuaries run this year, and each time they said "we want to
see what the actuaries say." Mr. Oliver said "if the actuary says they can
give it to you, it'll be all right for the Council-Commission to give it to
you." We got back the latest actuary and they said they can give us the
$2,000 across the board raise. This was asked for on September the 1st of
this year. Since September the 1st of this year we have made $2,281,415.
Just since September. And it was reported at the time that our pension was
worth $64,673,000. This past Friday at the pension committee it was reported
that we have $66,954,415. We made since September the 1st $2,281,415. And we
trust that the Commission will vote to give us the $2,000 across the board
raise, which will not impact our pension plan. And we were told at the time -
- I think Mr. Kuhlke spoke up, said "if the actuary says they can give it to
you, we'll give it to you." And we certainly ask you to give us the $2,000
across the board raise. And let me say this one other thing. This does not
include any taxpayers money. This is money that belongs to the pension
system. Thank you.
CHIEF MADDOX: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, back in 1996 a
five percent cost of living was give to the old county '45 pension act and
nobody opened their mouth about it. Everybody voted unanimous because I sat
in this chamber and listened to it. We've got people -- and that's why we're
here today talking. We've got people that retired ten or twelve years ago
that were not making any money because the city didn't pay any money. We've
got people out there that's living on four and five thousand dollars a year as
a pension because we could not get any social security back then [inaudible].
These people need the increase. As Mr. Baker pointed out, in the last ten
years we've made $48 million, so to say you can't give it is wrong. In 1995
an increase was give to all the active people, about thirteen percent. You
can check the record. And at that time it was promised that the retired
people would be given an increase. I was active, I worked real hard to get
that. We got about a thirteen percent increase. $2,000 to give to these
people, you're talking about $332,000. We made $8 million last year. The
only reason you won't vote for it is because you don't want to give it to
them. It's financially sound. I know people talk about the market going up
and down. Check the market for the last fifty years, it's average been at
least ten and a half percent, and I can prove it in black and white. So this
business of giving about, what, 1.5 or something, that is a joke. It's not
going to help these people. We got people out here that needs your help.
We're not asking for something that's going to hurt the city. The city hasn't
put a dime in this fund in the last ten years, and they won't have to put no
money into it. Every one of y'all are trustees and we depend on y'all to look
out for us, but if we got that kind of money, give some increases. That's what
the money is for. The Legislative Council that drew up this fund--and I can
get you a ruling if you need it within the next eight or ten days, wouldn't
have to wait too long --said that you can give it if it's financially sound.
Your actuary came back, it was actuarialy sound. I don't know what the
problem is. You said you'd give it if it was actuarialy sound. Now everybody
says "we don't know if we can give it or not." Gentlemen, I'm telling
you, we've got people out here that's going hungry because you're not giving
them the money. That money belongs to them and you ought to vote to go ahead
and give this $2,000. You're talking about $332,000, which is a drop in the
bucket when you made $8 million last year. And 47 percent of this money is
invested in bonds. You're not going to lose on that, that's fixed income.
You got four percent in cash and cash will stand up in any depression, I don't
care when you're talking about it. You got 48 percent in stock, and all those
stocks, if you check it, is good companies like Ford, IBM, General Motors.
And if they go down we won't have to worry about the pension at all, we're all
going to be stretching. And I ask you to seriously consider giving these
people this money. I'm not talking for Bill Maddox, I make a good pension,
and I helped get it when I was working. These people deserve it. Look at all
of them, they're sixty or seventy years old, they're not going to be here a
whole lot longer. The Good Book says seventy and after that you're living on
borrowed time. Most of them is living on borrowed time. I urge you to go
ahead -- and don't keep talking about what you're going to do, give these
people this money and let's get it over with. The money is there, don't keep
holding it for the city coffers. This pension dies out, the city is going to
come into about a 20 or 25 million windfall, and that's not fair. The money
belongs to these people, so give it to them.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I am one of those members on this pension
committee and all this year I've heard about this $2,000, and also I've
heard about whether if the actuary come back sound do we give it. And so I
may be making a mistake and I may not be making a mistake, but I'm ready
for the government to go ahead on, and I'd like to make a motion to go
ahead on and give the $2,000. I'd like to put that in the form of a
motion.
MR. MAYS: I'll second it.
MR. TODD: In earlier conversation with Mr. Baker we discussed -- this
was a private conversation, but I want to make it public. We discussed if we
gave the $2,000 and if the market went under and the government run into
trouble as far as making this $2,000 a year, on consideration from the
retirees of giving the government some relief, and I think they feel strong
enough about it that they are willing to gamble that it won't happen and they
wouldn't have to give up their $2,000. And I'm only bringing this out in the
sense that it might gain support for it. I know that the legislation says
that once we give it we can't take it back, but if they were signing some type
of release saying that they would give it back if it was going to cost the
taxpayers, then -- that's what I'm putting out there, that's along the line of
the discussion that I had with Mr. Baker, and certainly that may be a way to
pick up some support.
MR. MAYS: I guess probably the ones out of the 1949 plan, I worked with
it longer than anybody else seated here. And it's a situation I think that
needs to be voted up or down today. They have been here on numerous
occasions. I think they have waited patiently for the professionals to act as
well as for the policymakers of this city to act. I don't think they've been
overbearing. One of the most hurting things that we had in old city
government was the fact that we could not do more for a loyal workforce. And
we got a lot of people that are out there that are retired and declare
themselves proud retirees that are basically, some of them, in a poverty level
situation. Many of them are not even here today. Some of those that are
doing a little bit better are representing those who are at the worst end of
that spectrum. I would hope that we do what's right in this situation. I
think it's good to -- when we say we want to tie everything to some type of
contract, but I think Mr. Baker said it best to a point that -- I mean, if
everything collapses, then you don't have to worry about sending them a check,
we won't be sending anybody a check. But I think probably what's most sound is
where their money is. And from the standpoint -- what I do for a living,
Chief Maddox, I won't predict any age scales, and Oscar is probably going to
outlive everybody in this room. He'll do that just to worry me to death most
of the time. But I would hope that my colleagues would go ahead and support
this. I know there has been some question in reference to the other
plans, but it's like I say many times jokingly, but you know I'm serious about
it when I say that every mule has to carry its own backpack. If other plans
are not strong enough when people request, then it's a self-explanatory
answer: they are not strong enough to do it. If you're looking at one that
is, then judge it on its own merits. I think it's been judged long enough, I
think it's been studied long enough, I think they have waited, and I think if
we're in a shape right now that we don't know professionally where we're
going, then I question that, I don't question those who are doing the
requesting. And I would hope that we would vote positively on Mr. Handy's
motion.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I know that what's being proposed here is not
what the recommendation of the Administrator is. And I won't proclaim to know
enough about this actuarial and pension proposition to really get into it, but
I would like to give him the opportunity to explain to us what his proposal is
and why it will be unsound for us to give a $2,000 a year increase to the
retirees.
MR. OLIVER: I think there are two issues here: one is the financial
viability and the second one is an equity question. Of the 357 participants in
the 1949 pension plan, we have to remember that 170 of those are currently
retired and 187 of those people still work for you today. So consequently,
one of the things you need to consider in making this decision, if you give
the retirees $2,000--and I'm going to give you the pros and the cons of the
argument-- the 187 active employees that currently work for you today under
that particular proposal will get nothing. Now, clearly they get their
salary, they'll get their benefits when they retire. A defined benefit plan,
which is what this is, creates a contract between the employer and the
employee to provide a level of benefit upon the employee's retirement. The
county has honored that commitment, so what you're looking at is the moral
aspect of this. We're clearly under no legal obligation to do anything. If
this was a private company, it's unlikely that it would even be considered.
The county's actuary states that the '49 plan, as Mr. Baker has stated, can
increase benefits by a flat $2,000 to non-window retirees and absorb a ten
percent downward adjustment in the market. That means if the market goes down
ten percent--it went down about seven and a half, it rebounded very quickly--
that it can absorb that. If a fifteen percent adjustment occurred, and it's
my job as Administrator to put the facts on the table, then additional
contributions would be required. If a flat $2,000 a year in additional
benefits is provided to those retirees, these individuals would receive
proportionately a higher level of benefit. For example, if you have a person
that gets currently $6,000 in retirement benefits, $2,000 would give them
$8,000. If a person received 18,000 in benefits, they would get twenty under
that proposal. If a person retired tomorrow after you approve this change, if
you approve that change, they would get nothing. So consequently, the active
workforce has some concerns as evidenced by the petition in your book. In
addition, as was previously mentioned, I just want every-body to be aware of
it, there is going to be some expectation -- and I agree with Mr. Mays that
each mule should carry its own pack, but that isn't going to stop other
pension plans from making similar requests. It's our recommendation, because
we believe from an equity point of view that this is the most equitable, that
we standardize the benefits in the '49 plan at 2.15 times the number of years
of service. That effectively would make all participants equal. The only
exception would be the ones that went out under the enhanced early retirement.
Now clearly there are two issues you should be aware of. Sometime back income
was averaged over five years, currently it's averaged over three years. That
does make a little bit of difference, there's no question about that.
Clearly, salaries today are higher than they were twenty years ago, but I can
assure you, all things being equal, they're higher today than they will be in
twenty years from today. So consequently, based on being as equitable as we
possibly can, we believe that 2.15 percent times the number of years of
service, which is in accordance with Ordinance 5776 which was adopted in '95,
is the most equitable approach.
CHIEF MADDOX: Mr. Mayor, may I speak on that, please? To start with,
2.15, you're talking about giving some of these people maybe a two or three
percent raise, because it takes fifteen whole to make a whole. Mr. Oliver
keeps talking about the people that's working. I tell you, if you'll check
the records for 1995, they were given a thirteen to fourteen percent raise.
Nobody opened their mouth. The retirees stepped back, said give it to them.
And now the retirees [inaudible] everybody talks about the people that's
working. That's not fair. You're trying to play one against the other and
that's not fair. You got the money there. I know the market could drop. It
dropped ten percent in 1987, didn't hurt the fund at all. We didn't have
nowhere near the money we got and had a lot more members working. I know Mr.
Oliver has got to tell you about the finances, but finances of the city has
got nothing to do with this pension money. We've got the money there, we only
got 353 members, and there's [inaudible] come back with .15 because they
already retired on two percent. You talk about giving them .15, you might as
well keep it because the taxes, whatever they pay, will take care of it. I
understand Mr. Oliver and I respect Mr. Oliver, but if Mr. Oliver was a member
of this pension and drawing what some of them are drawing, he'd be right up
here with me begging y'all to give these people an increase.
MR. KUHLKE: I just wanted to ask Chief Maddox this: You indicated that
the majority of them, their retirement is based on two percent at this point?
CHIEF MADDOX: Yes, sir.
MR. KUHLKE: Is there a fluctuation in that somewhere? I mean, is
everybody at two percent or -- MR. OLIVER: Some are at 1.75, I believe,
Chief Maddox.
CHIEF MADDOX: The ones that retired in 1995 forward, they retired on
2.15. Most of the people that's working now, by the way, they came to work in
[inaudible]. They're going to make thirty-seven years. Used to work from
thirty to thirty-five years, you paid in the pension five years, you didn't
get any-thing. We were able to get that changed in '95 to give those people
that worked from thirty to thirty-five years one and a half, which is a seven
and a half percent increase. But the fact is, the money is there. We only got
a very few people at 2.15. I would say it would be a very small number, since
the ones retired from 1995, Mr. Kuhlke. Up until that time you were entitled
to two percent.
MR. OLIVER: That ordinance also provides for the additional one and a
half over thirty, that ordinance in '95.
CHIEF MADDOX: Yeah, but at that time you didn't get anything for over
five years.
MR. OLIVER: This would propose to go back and make that equitable for
all people that retired under this plan.
CHIEF MADDOX: Yeah, but that wouldn't be equitable. What are you
talking about, another two or three percent. I'm not going to debate
[inaudible].
MR. BAKER: Tell them about the ones that only have twenty-five years
service that retired.
CHIEF MADDOX: The ones that retired under twenty-five years, they'll
never get anything because they -- they'll still get it up to the .15, which
may be two percent, but -- MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I just want to quickly
add one thing to those persons that are in that plan that's not written into
any ordinance, but it's a fact of reality. During many years when raises were
given, and there was no sliding scale, basically the percentage raises went
in, one of the horrifying effects of that was the fact of what we created out
of city government in so many cases. Not of the Fire Chief, not of former
police chiefs that are in the audience, people who worked in administrative
categories, and not to demean anyone because everyone worked proudly, but for
those people who worked in the so-called lower echelon of this city, their
percentages were no more than what those were at the top. Many of us argued
during those years to no avail that the gap kept getting wider and wider.
Separation grew deeper. Now we've got them at this stage where they are
today. And, you know, if anything that needs to seriously look at, rather
than turning it down -- and I'm prepared to vote for it, but I think even if
there was some measure of a sliding scale, if you went through this --because
you've got some that are on the bottom of this darn thing. And when you pump
in what's done, even though we did it in good faith with the health plan
that's just been put in -- and I know I'm mixing a little bit of apples and
oranges here today, but it's still reality when these folks go in to deal with
some of their medical expenses. Those that are in their sixties, they
actually -- from the stand-point if they are sick, buying their medicines, for
what they have under their old insurance plan, they'd be better off with a
Medicare/Medicaid supplement than they would even being in the insurance plan.
Because what's left off and when the government kicks in and where it stops,
they are now paying all of that. And I think what they are trying to say
is they need some help from various categories. They are basically placed
down here and are looking in to a picture where they have paid --and, yes,
investments did kick it up, and I think our professionals deserve a round of
applause for being able to do that. But, you know, you've got some factors
here to a point that, you know, if nothing else, we come out better if we
didn't do anything but probably sell the darn property that they had no hand
in. And none of us did anything with it, but from the standpoint of them not
even having a decision in their money for what was done by the old City of
Augusta, Georgia, to buy property out of pension money -- and nobody really
was concerned about what happened in that. It wasn't on the face of the
eleven people here. But those are the type of things that bring them here
today to ask simply for help, not so much from many of the faces you see but
for a lot of them that you don't see that are still in those lower echelon
that never got a chance to come to this chamber to complain because of where
they worked, because of their educational level, because of the years they
spent for this city. And I think it's the right thing to do to go ahead
on and to give it. We said in the beginning if it was sound, if it was sound,
we would do, and that's all we said, and we promised that. And whatever way
we want to vote, I think we ought to do it today, but we ought to end it
because this is about the sixth or seventh occasion that these folk have been
here to deal with this one issue.
MR. WALL: One thing I want to be sure that everyone is aware of, and
particularly in light of Mr. Mays' comment about end it. It would take an
amendment to the plan. It would have to be advertised under the home rule
provisions, then you would have to come back with an ordinance to effect this
change. So it will be brought back if y'all approve it, and this would start
the process. I wanted to be sure that both the retirees--and I think they
understand that process--as well as the Commission understands it.
MR. BAKER: Let's do it before the 1st because we need a little help for
Santa Claus.
MR. WALL: Effectively it could not happen because you've got to have it
advertised and then two readings at successive meetings, and there's only one
other meeting scheduled, so it would not happen -- MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr.
Mayor and Commissioners, I'd like to just say we've been here one year,
eleven months and seventeen days, and when I first came this was one of the
issues that these gentlemen and these ladies brought to us -- brought to me.
And since Mr. Wall says there's a process that we would have to go through, I
would like to call for the order of the day. We do have a motion on the
floor. I call for the order of the day and let's vote it up or down at this
particular time. I support the motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I had recognized Mr. Todd.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess the concept probably is not that sound of
them signing off on the -- if we ran into trouble, but I'm going to put one
other option out there for an amendment to the motion, and that is that the
government be allowed -- the trustees be allowed to pay the insurance premium
for the retirees out of the retirement fund.
MR. BAKER: No. No. That's a benefit that's paid to us. You're going
to take ours away and pay the rest of the employees' insurance? You're going
to take ours away and pay yours?
CHIEF MADDOX: Mr. Todd, that would help nobody. What you would be doing
is taking the money out of the pension fund and saving the city about a
million dollars a year. So you'd be using our pension money actually to save
the city by paying that.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I understand that, but also I have a responsibility
to make sure that this pension never cost the taxpayers of this county as a
trustee, and right now we're paying approximately $7 million a year for the
premium of the retirees. If we are as sound as you say, then certainly it
would seem to me that that would be a good trade-off. And it will assure that
if we do wind up having to -- to the revenue for the taxpayers, then at least
they would receive something for it.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question, please.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm going to allow two more questions. We've got Mr.
Zetterberg and Mr. Beard, then we're going to vote.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to just say that I have a lot of empathy for
the retired people. As I look at some of the money that they get every month
I'm sort of appalled. I don't quite understand how they can even come close
to making it on that. My biggest concern on this is everything is a big
guess. Does the market continue to go up or does the market continue to come
down? Nobody knows. Are we going to see inflation come or are we going to
see deflation come? And what we're doing is betting on the come really on all
of these particular situations. Where did the $2,000 come from? What was
magic about $2,000? What's magic about 2.15?
MR. OLIVER: The magic with the 2.15 is that that is the same level of
benefit that's accrued by active employees, so that would make the active
employees and the retired employees have the same percentage level of benefit
based on service. That's the magic about that. I think that Chief Maddox or
Mr. Baker would have to indicate where the $2,000 would come from because I
don't know.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Could that have been 3.15?
MR. OLIVER: No. I mean, different plans set that benefit level at
different rates. So consequently, for example, in the '77 plan that rate is
one percent, and this one is at 2.15. As was previously mentioned, there were
a number of amendments that have been done to the '49 plan. At one time it was
1.75, so if you had twenty years of service you'd get thirty-five percent; if
it was two you would get forty percent. They moved it from 1.75 to two, and
then subsequently it was moved to 2.15. Benefits for retirees was never
recomputed based on changes in that benefit level and that's what we're
suggesting.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Does $1,500 versus $2,000 do anything different? It
certainly gives them a lot more money in their pocket -- more than the 2.15.
MR. OLIVER: I mean, you know, clearly $1,500 is actuarily more sound. I
mean, there's no question about that. I think there are two questions that
have to be weighed: one is the question of being equitable to both retirees
and active employees, and the other question is the financial aspect of it.
And as I previously mentioned, as long as the stock market doesn't decrease by
more than ten percent -- and that would be in the relatively near term.
Obviously as you go on, then $2,000 is actuarialy sound. Is $1,500 more
actuarialy sound? Yes, it is. There's no question about that.
MR. TODD: What's the average age of the 187 active employees?
MR. OLIVER: I can't answer that. When an actuary does a survey, what
he does is he takes -- and I guess this is a bad way to look at it, but he
takes a mortality table out and he basically says if a person is this old they
will be projected to live this much longer, and then every year it's
recomputed. So it's based on, you know, statistical averages on a very large
population.
CHIEF MADDOX: Mr. Mayor, I think the Commission needs to know there is
a cushion built into this pension. If you look at the actuarial report, it
says that the city employees is going to get a five percent increase every
year. That's figured in. For the last ten years the city employees got three
or three and a half, so you got a cushion there. It also says that the
retirees are going to get a five percent increase every year. That hasn't
been done in the last two years, gentlemen, so you've got a built-in cushion.
And I would point out also that we lost six members this year that's already
passed away, and we got four in the hospital right now we don't know if
they're going to make it. So these people need the increase. We could stand
here all day and talk about equalizing. I'm telling you, the people that's
working today got a thirteen percent increase in '95. The retirees didn't get
nothing, and it was agreed at that time we'd come back and try to help them
again.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, call again for the question, please, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm going to let Lee, then this is it.
MR. BEARD: Just a few minutes, Mr. Mayor. I think I'm in a unique
position here because I've been involved with the city and most of these
people. And I've worked with them and I do have great respect for all of them
and I do see the plight that they are in, and especially have a great respect
for Chief Maddox. And I think that one thing that we can do here, Chief, and
I don't know if this will be acceptable to you, but I think if we add this on
to it everybody will feel a little bit better about it. You know, if we could
attach to this, and if Mr. Handy would accept this, that if the market
decrease less than ten percent, would we be able to come back and adjust this.
I think that would satisfy a lot of our members up here. Would that be
acceptable?
CHIEF MADDOX: Certainly the Finance Committee could look at it any time.
I know people say that you can't do it, but under home rule I think you can
do what you want to.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Beard, once it is given there's no changes. You can't
take it back, so it's there. So what you're asking is no good.
MR. WALL: That is correct. Once the benefit is given to them, then it
becomes an obligation, and I do not believe that you can take it away from
them. So I think it's there.
MR. BEARD: Then I call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
MR. HANDY: We call for the question, Mr. Mayor. We call for the
question, please.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to increase the
retirees benefits, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MR. ZETTERBERG AND MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 8-2.
CLERK: Under the Planning portion of the agenda, the Planning Commission
recommends all of the items be approved as a consent agenda with the exception
of Items 1 and 6.
[Item 2: Z-97-114 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve, with the condition 'That a six (6) foot
solid buffer be constructed on the north property line', a petition from
James Gist, on behalf of Faith Outreach Ministries of Augusta, Inc.,
requesting a Special Exception to allow a day care center as a church
related activity as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property
located on the southwest right-of-way line of Willis Foreman Road, 779
feet, more or less, east of the south-east corner of the intersection of
Hunters Glen and Willis Foreman Road. Item 3: Z-97-115 - Request for
concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition
from Jackie Dixon, on behalf of Godiva of Georgia, Inc., requesting a
Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family personal care
home as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (h) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located where the
southeast right-of-way line of Lexington Drive intersects with the
southwest right-of-way line of Concord Drive (3720 Lexington Drive).
Item 4: Z-97-116 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve, with the condition 'That the provisions of
the Tree Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County shall apply', a petition
from St. Marks United Methodist Church requesting a Special Exception for
the purpose of establishing a vehicle parking lot as provided for in
Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County on property located where the northeast right-of-
way line of Woodbine Road intersects with the southeast right-of-way line
of Bluebird Road (2345 Woodbine Road). Item 5: Z-97-117 - Request for
concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a
petition from James F. Findlay, on behalf of Jefferson Electric Membership
Corporation, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing
a telecommunication tower as provided for in Section 28-A of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property
located on the southeast right-of-way line of Georgia Highway 88, 714 feet,
more or less, west of the southwest corner of the intersection of Bath Edie
Road and Georgia Highway 88 (3210-26 Highway 88). Item 7: Z-97-119 -
Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve, with the condition 'That the only business on this property shall
be a manufactured home refurbishing business per the plan submitted, and
that at such time as this use shall cease, the zoning of the property shall
revert to Zone A (Agriculture)', a petition from Larry Johns requesting a
change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business)
on property located on the west right-of-way line of Mike Padgett Highway
(Ga. Hwy. #56), 635 feet, more or less, north of the northwest corner of
the intersection of Clark Road and Mike Padgett Highway (4711 Mike Padgett
Highway). Item 8: Z-97-120 - Request for concurrence with the
decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Carlton
McDonald, on behalf of ECN Limited Partnership, request-ing a change of
zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property
located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Windsor Spring Road
and Tobacco Road. Item 9: S-542-SEAGO ROAD EXTENSION (ROAD ONLY) -
FINAL PLAT - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Ayercorp, on behalf of Tower
Financial Services, Inc., requesting a Final Plat Approval of Seago Road
Extension. This subdivision is an extension of Seago Road south of Brown
Road.]
MR. HANDY: So move, Mr. Mayor.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's
motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 1: Z-97-92 - Request for concurrence with the decision
of the Planning Commission to approve, with the condition 'That a six (6)
foot privacy fence be constructed along the right-of-way line of Princess
Court', a petition from Bill Fulcher, on behalf of Mandy Quattlebaum et
al., requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1D (One-family Residence) to
Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) on property located on the north
right-of-way line of Milledge-ville Road, 136.56 feet west of the east
intersection of Princess Court and Milledgeville Road (Lots 1-17 and 34-40
of Princess Gardens Subdivision).
MR. AUSTIN: Mr. Chairman, I need to correct a clerical error actually on
the condition. This was a negotiated settlement between the residents of
Princess Gardens Subdivision and the contract purchaser, and the condition
should read that a six-foot privacy fence be constructed along the east
property line of the subject property.
MR. HANDY: Move for approval, Mr. Mayor.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's
motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 6: Z-97-118 - Request for concurrence with the decision
of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Patricia A. Scott
requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) on property located on the southeast corner of the
intersection of Patrick Avenue and Wexford Court (2420 and 2422 Patrick
Avenue).
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we concur with
the Planning and Zoning results.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MR. AUSTIN: The petitioner was here, so I thought I would separate that
so the petitioner would have a chance to speak.
MS. SCOTT: My name is Patricia Scott and I'm the President of Tender
Sprout Christian Learning, Incorporated. The reason that we wanted this
building and this property to be zoned com-mercial is because we do take care
of children, which is true, from 5:00 in the morning until 1:00. But we also
have a lot of our parents with the new welfare reform that do not have a high
school education, and because we all are out in the Hephzibah area, we have
worked with Augusta Tech in trying to provide a location in that area. This
house would be used as the educa-tional site to help with educating people in
that area because there is no bus out in that area, there is no transportation
services out in that area, and this way, with it being right in the area, they
can walk. And this is why we're asking this. We have been in business
for five years. We came to you all five years ago and I don't think you've
had any problems with us at all. If you've read the newspaper, we have been
doing good things for the community, and this is another part that we would
like to do. We can help the children, that is true, but all of the million
dollars that they have for training for adults, when I went to the state
meeting, there is no monies out there for the GED program. How can you train
someone to be a certified nursing assistant if -- when they get there to apply
for the job, the first question they are going to ask is do you have a high
school diploma? We just need to make it convenient for the people out in the
Hephzibah area.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess I need to know from Mr. Austin were there
objectors at the zoning meeting and what were their objections?
MR. AUSTIN: There were no objectors and there was no objection to Ms.
Scott several years ago when she came before the board to get approval of the
sign. There were three conditions on the original zoning of the property
which was granted a special exception. One of the conditions was that the
facility not be expanded, and the Planning board would like to maintain that
condition. And she was allowed the sign a few years ago, and the Planning
board thinks that that's as far as the commercial encroachment needs to come
into the residential area. This is at the corner of Patrick Avenue and
Wexford Court, and the zoning pattern is really rather strange, but the land
use pattern is almost exclusively residential.
MR. TODD: I'm just trying to get a fix on where it's at. I note that
it's zoned Agriculture now, and it seems to me that that would be upgrading
the zoning to go B-1 versus downgrading the zoning, and I'm just trying to
figure the reason. Does the comprehensive plan call for the property that's
Agriculture now to stay Agriculture?
MR. AUSTIN: The comprehensive plan would call for the commercialization
to stay closer to Windsor Spring Road and not being down Patrick Avenue.
MR. TODD: Well, what are we going to do about the Agriculture zoning
there [inaudible] mobile home, et cetera?
MR. AUSTIN: That's the pleasure of the Commission, I guess. Of course,
the Agriculture zoning does require the 150 space to give residents some
protection, but that would be the pleasure of the Commission to make some
changes in zoning.
MR. TODD: It would seem to me that there is not opposition then to go to
the greater use, would be the direction we would want to go. I'm going to
make a substitute motion, I may not get a second, that we change the zoning
with the stipulation that if it should cease to be used as a school or
training center, that it would revert back to the Agriculture zoning. And
that's in the form of a substitute motion.
MR. HANDY: I'll second that motion, Mr. Todd.
MR. KUHLKE: I'd like to hear from Mr. Powell on his reason for --
MR. POWELL: The reason is basically the Planning and Zoning's findings.
Also, the neighbors of the Neighborhood Alliance Association in the area have
asked me to bring a stance on these businesses coming further into the
neighborhoods and further entrenchment, and it's the request of the
Neighborhood Alliance Association that we try to keep the commercial locations
on commercial properties and not bring them further into the neighborhoods.
MS. SCOTT: I'd just like to say this: We've been where we are for five
years, and if you'll check out the area where we are, our children are not
running the streets like they used to. We have a Christian facility there,
and any time they need service or anything they need, homework in the
afternoon, they are there with certified teachers. People in the community
have just been great in helping us. We're just trying to get something to help
the adults, and right now they are the ones that are suffering. If you go
down to the welfare down there, you'll see these people would not be able to
get their check if they are not volunteering some place. Now, I have had six
good people come and volunteer for me for the last nine months. I'm going to
have to let those people go at the end of this month because they do not have
a GED, because my license for child care requires that they have some type of
high school diploma. Now, we have talked with Augusta Tech, will you all help
us. Yes, they will, by paying for a teacher to come out to us because these
people do not have transportation. They are very low income people and
someone has to do something, and Tender Sprout is trying to do that, and that
is to help them get a high school diploma or a GED to help them get into the
workforce so that they will not continue to remain on AFDC, which is not going
to be there for them in the years to come.
MR. POWELL: I'm not disputing what you're saying at all. The reason I'm
taking this stance isn't a part of what you're doing, it's a part of the
neighborhood associations have asked me to take a stance on businesses in the
neighborhoods and I'm having to take that stance. I commend you on your
efforts, but that's the -- that's been the consensus so far.
MS. SCOTT: When we came here five years ago we had every-one's signature
on that street except one person, and the reason that one person did not sign
on that piece of paper was because he felt that we would have his property
value decrease. He lives in a trailer. We have done nothing but increase
that area.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, call for the question.
MR. BRIDGES: I have a question, Mr. Mayor, and this is for the staff.
The recommendation is to deny. What's the reasoning there?
MR. AUSTIN: Not to continue the commercialization into the residential
area. I need to point out one thing. This petition involved two pieces of
property. Ms. Scott wanted to expand onto an adjacent residence, an adjacent
piece of property, so y'all probably need to clarify as far as the motion
whether it's the intent to let her expand or just keep it on the one piece of
property she's on now.
MR. TODD: The intent of the motion, Mr. Mayor, was to allow her to
expand it. And if we need to put stipulations in there, then we certainly can
put stipulations in as far as
configuration. Is this two separate buildings, two separate pieces of
properties that won't be added to [inaudible]?
MS. SCOTT: If the only way that we can not get the -- we would like to
make it [inaudible], we wanted to connect them, but he said that might be a
problem. But they are right next door and Tender Sprout owns both of them.
MR. TODD: Yes. I'm going to put the stipulation on that they not be
connected, that it be two, you know, we don't change the integrity of the
community. Will the seconder of the motion accept that?
MR. HANDY: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to read the substitute motion first, please?
CLERK: The substitute motion made by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy,
was to allow the change in the zoning with the stipulation that if this should
cease to be used as a school, that the zoning revert back to Agriculture, and
that it not be connected.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE & POWELL VOTE NO. MR. BEARD DID NOT
VOTE.
MOTION FAILS 5-4-1.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Back to the original motion made by Mr. Powell to concur
with Planning and Zoning to deny. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it
be known by raising your hand, please.
MESSRS. H. BRIGHAM, HANDY, MAYS, TODD & ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MR. BEARD
DID NOT VOTE.
MOTION FAILS 5-4-1.
CLERK: Under the Finance portion of the agenda, Items 10 through 15 were
all approved by the Finance Committee on November the 10th.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: The motion is going to be that we take Items 10
through 17 as a consent agenda.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
[Item 10: Motion to approve declaring property on 5th Street as
surplus and authorizing sale of same. Item 11: Deleted from consent
agenda.
Item 12: Motion to approve a request to procure a line construction
truck for Traffic Engineering Department at a total cost of $130,000.
Item 13: Motion to approve a Resolution to transfer the designated
portion of Tatnall Street (Tract (II) to the Georgia Golf Hall of Fame.
Item 14: Deleted from consent agenda. Item 15: Motion to approve
rescinding waiver of $1,111.17 in 1997 ad valorem taxes on Map 47-4, Parcel
88, 334 Greene Street, which was mistakenly submitted by Tax Assessor's
Office as being owned by United Way of CSRA. Item 16: Motion to
approve funding of $2,500.00 for the Miss Augusta Scholarship Pageant.
Item 17: Motion to approve a request by Mr. Hiram C. Kirkland for a
waiver of penalty and interest on his 1995 and 1996 taxes.]
MAYOR SCONYERS: We're going to vote on Item 10 through 17 with the
exception of 11 and 14. All in favor of the motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 11: Motion to approve BellSouth on a year-to-year
contractual agreement for telephone service.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask Mr. Brigham, the way I read the
recommendation from the Finance Committee is to make that approval, but I read
the backup material -- and I don't know whether I have the right one in here,
but the backup materials coming from some of the staff was to approve the
transfer the contract to KMC, and -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: What happened was
that in the committee meeting the administration changed the recommendation.
MR. OLIVER: BellSouth came in at that committee meeting, Commissioner
Kuhlke, and had made a better proposal at that particular point in time, and
the backup was not changed. There was some concentrated negotiation going on.
MR. KUHLKE: I'd just like to say that, you know, in the future when we
get this information, even if it's supplemental to this, that I'd like to know
what I'm voting on.
MR. OLIVER: Let me say this, to be fair. The proposal that's on the
table, and I see this as a win-win situation the whole way around, is
currently would save Augusta-Richmond County $305,000 over a period of thirty-
two months. It would be a twelve-month contract as it's proposed, so we'd save
about $100,000. There was some discussion, because we'd only been working
with two entities, about the possibility of bidding this out because there are
other people that could potentially do it. We don't know whether they're
viable forces in the industry or not. So consequently, what you may want to
do is you may want to consider going through some kind of formal process.
Obviously this is a complex issue to go through a formal process. I'm advised
by the Attorney's office that we're not legally required to do that. But the
two companies that have expressed a significant amount of interest are KMC and
Southern Bell, and obviously both of them -- the financial aspect is one
perspective, and then the second issue clearly for consideration is the
ability to be able to service and maintain the account. So those are the two
issues.
MR. WALL: Let me follow up on the advertising, in fairness to both
companies. This came up last week in a discussion where questions were asked
concerning why other companies were not given the opportunity to bid on this
service. As a result of that, it was my recommendation that, you know,
depending on the outcome today, that it be advertised for a period of time and
brought back before this Commission on December the 16th. That way, if there
are other companies out there that have an interest in bidding on it, they
will be afforded the opportunity. And, you know, although these may be the
only two companies that are bidding on it, at least you won't be subject to
the criticism of some of the other companies that are in a position, I think,
to bid on this service. Based upon that, I think that there was some
discussion following the Finance Committee last week about companies coming in
with a best proposal. A letter was sent out giving them until Thursday at
five o'clock to submit their best proposal. That then was retracted and
communication was made with the companies, if I'm not in error, that the
recommendation was going to be that this be postponed until it could be adver-
tised. And so they have been operating under, I think, the assumption that
the recommendation would be made today that it be postponed to be advertised
and then come back in on December the 16th.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly I'm no expert in deregu-lation and I
understand that there is some gains for customers in deregulation. I
currently serve on NACCO's deregulation committee or task force for power
utilities, and I haven't been involved in phone service. I understand also
just by virtue of the mention or suggestion that we go out for proposals that
it gave us some market leverage and we got a better deal without going out for
proposals. So that tells me if we can get a better deal by suggesting or
making a recom-mendation that we go out for proposals, that if we went out for
proposals it's going to even bring us a better deal even though it may cost us
some money in between the time going out. I don't understand all the market
powers of deregulation in communication. I wasn't involved, wasn't at the
table. I understand that the gatekeepers and, you know, those folks is
probably going to provide the service regardless of who it go to. I also
understand the integrity of BellSouth and the level of service that they
offer. And they do a lot more than just offer service, they do economic
development in communities, et cetera. So I understand that, but I also
understand that the public would expect us, after we suggested that we're
going to go out for proposals, that we go out for proposals. And I'm sure
that after we go out for proposals, if the level of service is not as great as
BellSouth with the other service providers, that we'll probably stay with
BellSouth -- or we'll pick the best service provider and not necessarily the
lowest dollar cost. And I agree, Mr. Mayor, with the County Attorney's opinion
that we don't necessarily have to go out for proposals. We don't necessarily
either have to go with the lowest dollar cost, but it give us certain leverage
in the market when we go out for proposals.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to propose a substitute motion that we
accept the recommendation of the Finance Committee, but that we add to that
that at the end of this year and during the meantime, that we prepare an RFP
and next year we go out for proposals.
MR. BRIDGES: I'll second that. Is that the only motion? MAYOR
SCONYERS: That's the only motion we've got on the floor. Jim, did I
understand you to say that both companies were under the impression that we
were going to go out for proposals?
MR. WALL: That's correct. Both companies had been asked to submit their
best proposal by five o'clock because there was a lot of last-minute
negotiation. Both companies held off making any further proposal -- they may
not have made one, I don't know, but held off from making any further proposal
under the impression that we were going to advertise. And obviously they
didn't want to put their best proposal forward if it was going to be
advertised and present it to the public knowing that they would be bidding on
it down the road.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion that
we go out for proposals now.
MR. BEARD: I'll second that.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: This is no indication of how I'm voting because I don't
know [inaudible], but I do want to say one thing while we're talking back and
forth about it. I know BellSouth has been in town a long time and providing
good services, but without KMC making an offer to do our business we would not
even have this proposal in front of us. So I guess I'm going to sit here and
play the shell game and try to figure out what I'm going to do.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, the reason I seconded that motion is because I
don't think that -- based on what I've heard, I don't think it's fair. I
think we owe it to both companies to put it out for proposals at this time.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'm supporting Mr. Kuhlke's motion in this
because I think, from my understanding on the Finance Committee, this proposal
has gone back and forth between Bell-South and KMC. Basically we've treated
them like yo-yos. We get a good price, then we go back to the other one and
say, hey, can you beat this price, and I don't think that's fair to either
one. We've gotten good service from BellSouth. I've discussed it with some
of the law enforcement officers and they are very well pleased with the
emergency service that they get. I don't think we need to interfere with
that. I think they've been loyal members of the community and I think the
motion is reasonable. In a year's time we hold this for a contract, which
right now we have a three-year contract, we just make it a year, and come back
in a year and bid it out and see what we come up with. But I think we should
go on with it today.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd just like to say I don't represent either BellSouth
or KMC, I represent the taxpayers. And I see a potential savings to the
taxpayer right now if we went out for bid on this contract, and that's what
I'd like to do, and I'd like to have the support of everybody who is
interested in saving money in this government to vote for my proposal.
MR. MAYS: I pretty much came here prepared to go ahead on and vote
today. I've got a little bit of an uneasiness from the standpoint -- you
probably could look in that file and play back one of my two or three year old
tapes and just incorporate that into the other minutes, but I'm going to say
it again anyway. Somewhere in there with professional services we're going to
have to either deal with it, apples or oranges. If they're services and we're
satisfied with services, then we need to deal in that capacity, we need to
treat them in that, we need to allow people to negotiate, and I think it's --
I don't have a bit of problem, that's an American way of negotiating and
getting to a point. But I have a little problem that if we have hinted that
we are going to deal with proposals, then I think that changes the wind a
little bit in here. But I beg us to at some point when we are satisfied with
services or we know what we want with a level of service, that we not
necessarily play these dollar games when in essence we're going to come back
to deal with what we think is the best proposal, which may not necessarily be
the cheapest proposal, and just go ahead and deal with professional services
in the non-bid category. But I'm kind of like the judge that tells some
of y'all attorneys, Jim, you know, when you open the door, you know, now it's
open, you got to let both sides deal with it. And I think where we are right
now, we may be seriously on the borderline that if we don't deal with
submitting proposals, then this may not be the last time we deal with this.
So I think to protect the integrity of the process as it is on the floor
today, I'm going to support the motion by Rob to deal with the proposals. But
I would just hope, with competent people on board, that we would continue
where we've got contracts with things that we know we're going to have to do.
And I'm not saying it should be
written in stone we ought to deal with the same folk forever, but I think the
negotiating process for services ought to be just that, deal with it for
services, not make some folk adhere to the strict bid process and write that
in stone, and then we come up on the other side and say, well, okay, you know,
I know them, they're good, that's service. And we're still playing that game.
At some point we're going to have to get with dealing with one set of rules,
and when we got services, then let's deal with them with services, allow our
Administrator and our departmental people to prepare that, negotiate with it,
and move forward. But I think from a comfort zone we don't have a choice if
this has been hinted at any company to go ahead on and support the motion to
deal with going out with RFP's.
MR. PRESNELL: Gentlemen, I'd Ed Presnell and I'm the City Director of
KMC Telecom, and I appreciate the opportunity to just speak a few words before
this Commission. We operated last week under the impression until late
Thursday afternoon that there would be --[inaudible] a last-minute opportunity
to respond to the proposal that we had placed before the Finance Committee on
Monday. You're being asked to approve the recommendation, number one, now the
substitute motion asks you to wait a year -- one of the substitute motions
asks you to wait a year, another substitute motion asks you to go ahead and do
an RFP now. We encourage the RFP now process. We're far enough along in the
analysis of the situation that we can make a competitive bid as we speak.
Because of our efforts so far, and it was mentioned earlier, the taxpayers are
going to go ahead and save over $100,000 next year. I'm of the opinion, and I
was prepared to present it earlier and would be prepared to present it now,
although I don't think that's the right forum, that there are possibly tens of
thousands of dollars more. And we're not only talking about money, we're
talking about quality of services. Under the arrangements that we have with
the incumbent phone company, we are a wholesale provider of their services.
So there is a consistency there that does not go away until we come down here
and -- as I understand the contract, it comes due in thirty-two months. That
will be when we would begin the process of bidding out for the network
services when we can provide it on our own fiber optic network that we've
already built in this city. Y'all are aware of that contract because of the
franchise agreement we have with the city -- [End of Tape 1] --information I
read in the paper, though, about the crisis in the budget process. So with
that I would ask you to remember that if it wasn't for us in the first place
we wouldn't be having this conversation, but we appreciate the thought that
you would give to put it out for bid now. Thank you very much.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Read Mr. Zetterberg's motion.
CLERK: It was to go out for proposals at this time.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. And that will solve what you were speaking of
while ago; right, Jim?
MR. WALL: [Indicates affirmatively.]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. And go ahead with the first motion so everybody
will -- Mr. Kuhlke's motion.
CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke's motion was to approve the recom-mendation of the
Finance Committee for BellSouth and to prepare -- request for proposals to go
out next year.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, could I get a clarification? Have we gone out
with an RFP or have we just been negotiating?
MR. OLIVER: No, we've just been negotiating with these two service
providers.
MR. KUHLKE: And I hear Mr. Presnell say that if we went out for the RFP,
that they are prepared right now to make a proposal. So I think maybe I
misunderstood a little. If we went out for an RFP today, when would we
actually be able to get proposals?
MR. OLIVER: When we were discussing this we were talking about putting
it on a very short time frame and bringing it back on December 16th, because
obviously we lose about 10,000 a month for every month we don't move.
MR. KUHLKE: Well, if that's the case, is that a reasonable approach, Mr.
Oliver? I'll withdraw my motion.
MR. OLIVER: I think it's reasonable. It's tight, but doable. Now,
remember, this is going to be what I call a generic request for proposal in
that we are going to make a general request. We're not going to have specific
performance standards but, rather, it's going to be based on the data they
give us. Because obviously this is an arena that's constantly changing, and
we think at most there may be two other people that may be interested, but
they may not even be interested.
MR. KUHLKE: I'll withdraw my motion, Mr. Mayor.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I make a substitute motion that we adhere to the
Finance Committee's recommendation to go on and approve this with BellSouth
for one year and come back for bids at that time.
MR. POWELL: Second.
MR. BRIDGES: I'd like to make one comment, Mr. Mayor. You know, we've
been back and forth, back and forth with bids, and each of these companies
have shown the others their bid and they come back up. You have to end this
thing at some point. I mean, you can't just keep throwing it out there and
yo-yoing these people around. And, once again, we've had good service out of
BellSouth. And this is just for a year, we'll come back with an RFP at that
time, and I think we just need to end it for a while. Let's do it, let's pass
the substitute motion.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to request a roll call vote, please.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I believe that the BellSouth representative had
some comments.
MS. WRIGHT: I'm Susan Wright with BellSouth and I'm here really to
support our local account team who has worked with Augusta-Richmond County for
a number of years, and we're proud of the service that we have delivered to
your city and to the county. And we feel like that we're more than a
technology company. We try to also be a leader and supporter of Augusta-
Richmond County. We believe that we've got a very aggressive deal on the
table and one that you can benefit from right now. You're in a budget crunch,
you could use the dollars. We move that Augusta-Richmond County accept this
deal now. And our clause is very open so that at the end of the year it's
renewable. You have all these new companies that want to come in and go up
against BellSouth? Well, that's fine and good, let them do it, but let them
prove themselves within that year's time frame, and in the meantime you
continue to save money that you badly need today. That's our recommendation.
MR. WHITE: Commissioners, I am Chuck White, I am account manager for KMC
Telecom here in Augusta, Georgia, a recent retiree after twenty years of
service with BellSouth, and I echo what Ms. Wright said. I'm also proud of
the service that Bell-South has provided to Richmond County, and I personally
was involved in my role with Richmond County. I think it's really appropriate
for now. That's one of the reasons why KMC Telecom has entered into a
wholesale agreement with BellSouth, so we can offer that same technology to
customers but at a greater savings. The fact of the matter is our overhead is
much lower than Bell-South, which is the primary reason why we're able to
provide BellSouth services at reduced rates. In this particular instance, the
negotiations -- I mean, one way or the other we were happy to negotiate and
we're happy to enter into the bid process. I do think it is the best thing
for the taxpayers of Richmond County, because we're talking about the same
service, the same telephone line, the same telephone numbers, and the same
support to law enforcement officers of Richmond County to be able to put that
in a bid process. Have each company come up with their best offer. That way
you're deriving the lowest possible price and the greatest possible savings to
the taxpayers of Augusta-Richmond County. I think it's reasonable to
assume that even BellSouth going back and looking at it one more time may be
able to do better than the $100,000 a year savings that they proposed, you
know, for the twelve-month term. I can tell you on behalf of KMC it's
definitely possible for us to provide a greater savings than that $100,000 in
terms of tens of thousands of dollars worth of savings, which I consider to be
significant, and I would think the taxpayers would also. And I would also
point out that our proposal is not a twelve-month, it's a one-month. At any
time if Richmond County is not satisfied with the service that KMC provides in
giving BellSouth lines and numbers to Richmond County, the county can always
revert back to BellSouth, and KMC would absorb all the financial impact to do
that switchback. Thank you very much, Mayor. Thank you, Commissioners.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, may I ask one question? We're going backwards and
forwards between you and BellSouth, and the more we go back to the bargaining
table, the cheaper it gets. Now, somebody's going to lose on that end. Now,
which one, KMC or BellSouth? Either you're charging us too much from the
beginning or somebody's going to lose.
MR. WHITE: I think that probably your first statement is is probably --
the fact of the matter is, competition drives prices closer to the cost it
takes to provide that service. So [inaudible], you're going to drive the cost
to Augusta-Richmond County as close as you possibly can to the cost of
BellSouth to provide it. And we honestly do not mind the negotiations. We
feel like we have been dealt with in good faith. We also did expect to at
least have the opportunity, even in the negotiation phase, to present our
final offering at the same time that BellSouth did so we didn't go back and
forth, and that could be done in a negotiation environment or a sealed bid
environment. But I do think -- it is my presumption, you know, that it's best
for Augusta-Richmond County to set a deadline, either sealed bid or
negotiation, say here's what's on the table now, come in with your best. And
in that, you know, bid format what you're getting is the absolute bottom offer
from both companies.
MR. HANDY: But the question I'm asking, who's losing? Because if we are
gaining, it's the taxpayers who save the money to get the lowest bid. So
you're telling me now, which I know you're not going to say, that BellSouth
has been overcharging us or are you telling me now that you feel that you can
do it cheaper just to get the job and it doesn't matter about what it costs to
get it done? That's what I'm asking.
MR. WHITE: I do not presume to speak for BellSouth and whether they've
been overcharging or not. I mean, you need to let the facts, you know,
determine that. I can tell you that KMC is not losing anything on the deal.
It is certainly in our best interest to have Augusta-Richmond County as one of
our customers because then we're able to improve the level of service that we
can bring to the table. I will tell you we will drive our proposal to Augusta-
Richmond County as close to cost as possible, and I can absolutely tell you
that we can reach that and still bring additional savings to Augusta-Richmond
County over the proposal that's now on the table. Significant savings.
MR. POWELL: I have one more question for you, sir. My question for you
is this: Just say in the middle of the night
that we have a major systems malfunction. What is your plan of action as far
as repairing these lines?
MR. WHITE: That's a good question. I don't want to get too technical,
let me try. We have a twenty-four hour, seven day a week network center just
as BellSouth does. What we essentially do is replace some BellSouth functions,
which is why BellSouth can afford to sell it to us at [inaudible]. What we do
is we take the repair just like BellSouth repair center does at our seven day
a week, twenty-four hour a day repair center does. We're online to
BellSouth's trouble reporting system. We test that line ourselves, and then
if we determine that it is a central office problem, then we turn it over to
the central office. If we determine that it's something that needs a dispatch,
then we turn it over to the BellSouth technician to dispatch. Perhaps one
difference -- and Merle may want to speak about BellSouth's repair system.
Perhaps one difference, and I think may be important, is in our repair we do
two things that traditionally BellSouth does not do. One is at the time the
repair is made we reach a mutual time frame in terms of feedback to the
customer. In other words, if you call me at 2:00 in the morning and you've
got a problem, we ask what time do you want feedback: Do you want us to call
you at 8:00 in the morning to tell you what's going on or do you want me to
call you back at 2:30 in the morning? We give feedback during that outage so
that our customer knows what's going on. The other thing we have is an
automatic thirty-minute installation. I'm a manager, KMC manager in Augusta,
Georgia, and any time there is a repair beyond normal business hours -- our
normal business hours are from 8:00 to 5:00. So at 5:15, if there is a repair
on any of our business customers, not just Augusta-Richmond County, a manager
of KMC: Ed Presnell, myself, Kathy Patrick, Sandra Smith, you know, we're
notified, so we locally can be involved beyond just our repair team. That was
a long answer and I don't know if that made sense, but I didn't want to get
down to a lot of acronyms and -- MR. POWELL: Well, I'm coming back with
the acronyms; okay? Now, what you're telling me is that you have a twenty-four
hour a day -- now let me tell you why I'm concerned here. It's 911. You
asked did I want a report back at 8:30. No, if it's called at 2:00, I want a
report back at 2:01 when it comes to the 911 center.
MR. WHITE: Well, I understand. When you're talking about 911, you've
got 911 equipment there and then you've got the lines that serve 911, you've
got the database, and you've got the -- the data lines and the database, you
know, back to the 911 center, so there are various elements.
MR. OLIVER: We're not proposing to include 911, so I don't think that's
an issue at this point, to be fair.
MR. POWELL: Okay. That's where I was headed. Okay, going
back to the other part of what I wanted to know, you say you have a twenty-
four hour a day, seven day a week service. Do you have people on call or do
you have servicemen sitting there being paged?
MR. WHITE: No, they are network service technicians who are sitting
there by the phone waiting for the phone to ring in case something goes wrong.
MR. POWELL: They're on the job, they're not at home or --are they paged
in or are they on the job?
MR. WHITE: No, no, they're on the job. I don't want to get into it now,
but those kind of details, you know, we will try and make available. But we
have -- and they don't only service Augusta-Richmond County after hours, they
really serve all of our customers, just like BellSouth does.
MR. POWELL: So how many men do you have like on call, just say on a
typical night, tonight. That could service is our system is what I'm -- I'm
coming at you from a service aspect. I'm not shooting at you, I just want to
know.
MR. WHITE: No, no, I understand. I really don't know what they've got
on a typical night. I'd have to ask.
MAYOR SCONYERS: The substitute motion became the original motion, and
now we have Mr. Bridges' substitute motion?
CLERK: Yes, sir.
MR. HANDY: And I asked for a roll call, Mr. Mayor.
MR. BRIDGES: Read the substitute, please.
CLERK: The substitute motion made by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr.
Powell, was to approve the recommendation of the Finance Committee for
BellSouth and to prepare an RFP to go out next year. The original motion, now
the original motion, made by Mr. Zetterberg, seconded by Mr. Beard, was to go
out for proposals at this time.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We're voting on Mr. Bridges' substitute motion, which is
to go ahead and approve BellSouth.
CLERK: Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: No.
CLERK: Mr. Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: No.
CLERK: Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: No.
CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: No.
CLERK: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: Reluctantly, no.
CLERK: Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: No.
CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg?
MR. ZETTERBERG: No.
MOTION FAILS 7-3.
MAYOR SCONYERS: So now we need to go back to the original motion.
CLERK: The original motion, to go out for proposals now. Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg?
MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MR. OLIVER: We'll bring that back then on the 16th.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Oliver, it'll be ready for us to vote on on the 16th?
MR. OLIVER: That's what we're planning on. We may not make committee
due to the time frames, but we will -- I think every-body is familiar with the
issue, and if it's agreeable with the Finance Committee chair, then we may
wind up because of the timing doing that. If we can, we'll get it through
committee.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion we go on and put this on
the agenda for the 16th and forsake the Finance Committee.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MR. POWELL: One question, Mr. Mayor. Is that going to be a sealed bid
process or a negotiated process?
MR. OLIVER: No, we're proposing that it be sealed. And we will do an
advertisement in the papers here, and if there's anyone else that has
interest, we'll let them submit a proposal also.
MAYOR SCONYERS: So that will be opened and awarded on the 16th; is that
correct?
MR. OLIVER: Yes, sir. Remember, this will be a combination of price and
service.
MR. WALL: It'll be awarded on the 16th, I don't know that it will be
opened on -- we need to --
MR. OLIVER: We'll open it before that to evaluate the proposal, but they
will be opened in a public environment.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. I think that's what everybody wanted to know.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, I just have one question. They're all
bidding on apples; right?
MR. OLIVER: No, not -- that isn't exactly true. The reason is, is on
these types of contracts there will be clearly some clarifications that will
be needed. However, the clarifications won't be in the numbers. I think
these two firms know what we want, but on this type of thing there are a
number of things that they can include and exclude, and the analysis will be
the key part of it. Because when they're talking discounts, some of them
discount certain services and not others. But we can address that, I believe,
for the Commission and the Mayor successfully.
CLERK: Item 14: Motion to approve $100,274 of funding from Phase II
Sales Tax for Savannah River Lock and Dam Project, reimburse General Fund
in the same amount, authorize repayment to the CDBG program, and fund
$100,274 in improvements to be made to Laney-Walker area from CDBG
reimbursing Phase III Sales Tax.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MR. TODD: And I propose that we pay one hundred percent of the Lock and
Dam out of one-penny sales tax. I believe that was along the discussion when
we were agreeing to do fifty-fifty with the Corps, and I don't understand how
it come out of the General Fund to do it because it [inaudible].
MR. OLIVER: That's fine, because that would permit me to put the money
back in the General Fund. And the General Fund has some issues, as you're
well aware.
MR. TODD: As long as we're going to put it back in at some point. I
understand that it wasn't in the one-penny sales tax budget at that time so it
was pulled from the General Fund. Anything that's voted on we pay for from
one-penny should eventually be purged back into the General Fund that come
from the General Fund, so I could go either way at this point now. And I
understand also that one-cent sales tax is going to be revenue neutral, that
the Community block grant transfer is not going to have a negative impact
there.
MR. OLIVER: For the $100,274, that's correct. If you pull the remainder
for the Lock and Dam, however, that money would come back into the General
Fund and would reduce the sales tax Phase II by some $400,000.
MR. TODD: Yes, I understand that, and I can go with the $100,000 now.
And we can pull the minutes on the other, but it was my understanding that the
initial vote was to pull the $500,000 from the one-penny sales tax, and with
that being the case, I think that at some point we need to do the entire
amount from one-penny sales tax and not have a impact on the General Fund.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, my sticking point with this is really not the
funding of the Laney-Walker project, my problem with it is moving sales tax
dollars around when the public has voted on the project, has voted on the
sales tax list, and we're going to move it around. And the question is when
is this going to stop, because I got a major concern with this. It's already
starting, and, you know, we've got a lot of projects that we fought -- every
one of us up here on this Commission at the time and the City Council at the
same time, we fought to get those projects in the sales tax. Now we're going
to start raping the sales tax fund to go over here and do other projects that
aren't even listed, and I have a considerable problem with that. I mean, it's
sales tax money, it was voted on to go to a set place, that's where it should
go, and I have some concerns there.
MR. OLIVER: Mr. Powell, let me address the $100,274 first. That has no
net impact on the sales tax other than to move that sales tax money from Phase
II to Phase III. This plan was conceived to alleviate a problem created by the
former City of Augusta in the CDBG program in that there was a down payment
assistance program as well as a closing cost assistance program, and that
program was not appropriately administered as determined by a HUD audit. What
this particular plan does is it makes it so that we can get out of that
situation without using any General Fund dollars. It does take money from
Phase II sales tax and moves it to Phase III, but the $100,274 does remain in
sales tax. The other $400,000 that was being discussed would not remain in
sales tax. You are correct, that was not contemplated at the time this was
written. Obviously that would help us take some pressure off the General
Fund. That is a policy decision, however, the Mayor and the Commission would
have to make.
MR. BRIDGES: Randy, I've still got some confusion, I guess, on -- I
mean, it's almost like we're doing a shell game here. I can't keep up with
more than two shells at a time; three of them just boggles my mind. But what
I'm hearing you say is this was a problem in the -- is it similar to the
airport funding or -- MR. OLIVER: Yeah, it's very similar, except we've
come up with a plan that will permit us to get out of it without having to pay
any General Fund dollars. What we are proposing to do is to take sales tax
Phase II money to reimburse the General Fund for $100,274 under the auspices
of the Lock and Dam project. Then we take the $100,274 that we got reimbursed
and pay community development, okay, to pay back that audit finding that says
we spent the money improperly, and then to take that $100,274 and reimburse us
for sales tax expenditures for Laney-Walker. So the net effect is just to
move money from Phase II to Phase III of sales tax.
MR. BRIDGES: So originally the $100,000 was spent out of CDBG on the
Lock and Dam?
MR. OLIVER: No. No, it was spent out of the General Fund for the Lock
and Dam. The Commission incorporated in last year's budget one half a million
dollars for the Lock and Dam repairs and the Corps gave one million dollars
for that.
MR. BRIDGES: So we did the Lock and Dam out of the General Fund?
MR. OLIVER: That is correct.
MR. BRIDGES: And now we're taking sales money because we can pay for
the Lock and Dam out of the sales tax, putting it back into the General Fund -
- MR. OLIVER: That's correct.
MR. BRIDGES: -- and then covering our tracks on the CDBG?
MR. HANDY: You shouldn't use that word, covering tracks. MR.
BRIDGES: Well, that's what it sounds like.
MR. OLIVER: Perfectly legal, however.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I call for the order of the day and let's
vote on this motion.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I call for a roll call vote.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it's still my position that we agreed to pay for
the [inaudible] Lock and Dam, Mr. Mayor, out of one-penny sales tax. And it's
my understanding that initially it was coming from the Lock and Dam provision
or whatever we was calling it, and I know since we've went over there and we
pulled that money to do the Olympic swim center. And so what I want to do, at
least if I'm going to support this, is to get the minutes at some point on how
we were to pay for the Lock and Dam project, the county-city's fifty percent,
and pay for it that way. Because I think it's unfair to have an impact of
$100,000 or $400,000 on the General Fund when we have a budget crisis.
MR. OLIVER: We can pull those minutes and send it to committee next
time, Commissioner Todd, if that's agreeable.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Are y'all ready to vote, gentlemen?
MR. HANDY: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Did you say you want a roll call vote?
MR. HANDY: Yes, sir.
CLERK: Mr. Beard?
MR. HANDY: Out.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we've got two of them out.
MR. HANDY: I don't know whether it's by design or what, but they're out.
MR. POWELL: Go to the next one.
CLERK: Mr. Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: No.
CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'll pass because I was out [inaudible].
CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: No.
CLERK: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Yes. And, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to note that Mr. Beard is back
in the room.
CLERK: And Mr. Zetterberg is out. Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: I'll vote yes.
MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO; MR. H. BRIGHAM ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 6-2-1. [MR. ZETTERBERG ABSENT]
CLERK: Item 18: Motion to approve the recommendation of the
subcommittee of various groups regarding the division of funds among the
recipients of the proposed increased hotel/ motel tax monies. There was no
recommendation from the Finance Committee.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any spokesperson from any of the groups?
MR. TIMMERMAN: Mr. Mayor, I'm Pat Timmerman, I am Chairman of the Board
of the Augusta Metropolitan Convention and Tourism Center. And I think
there's been some confusion as to our position on the additional one percent
sales tax. I think if you'll look in your folders, for lack of a better term,
under Item 18, some of the information that's been furnished to you I don't
think is any longer effective. Let me go back a little bit and say that
initially the CVB was not in favor of a tax increase. The reason being was
because we didn't know anything or details about the tax increase. Then we
began to find out things about the tax increase, and we took a neutral
position on it because we are the -- we're your agents for tourism for the
City of Augusta. We work for you, and we do that by contract that was so ably
drawn by Mr. Wall, and we do that under a percentage of the hotel/motel tax.
And we took our neutral position, and at that point in time I think the
Finance Committee appointed a subcommittee. Mr. Handy chaired it, and the
groups that were interested in receiving these monies were asked to get
together and come up with a consensus and some recommendations. Well, we came
up with two sets of recommendations. The CVB had a set and another group had
a set. We got off the track for a while, then we got back together. We have
a consensus of opinion among all of the groups involved. I believe there are
some twelve or thirteen including the Convention and Visitors Bureau.
Now, if you'll look in your book and you'll take out the first eight pages,
go to the last three, and I believe it starts with--correct me if I'm wrong--
criteria. The last three pages are the ones that are, I think, now
significant for our purposes and the tax increase. While you're looking, as
you know, our mission is to promote tourism in this town and our mission is to
bring someone here to spend the night. And that's when things happen, when
somebody spends the night. Tourists come and they rent a room and spend the
night, they go out to eat, and this money trickles down through our economy.
Just for instance, in 1995 -- and this is Davison Peterson information. This
is the foremost authority in tourism. They said that 1,149,000 will visit our
area, our city, in 1995. They spent $376 million. Now, you take seven
percent of that and you get $26 million in sales tax. So as you can see, what
a tourist does here is
material not only to the Convention and Visitors Bureau in terms of funds they
get but the city in terms of revenues that they get. If you are interested in
expenditures by type, and this might give you some insight into where the
money goes: food is thirty-two percent, shopping is twenty-seven, lodging is
sixteen, transportation is thirteen, and recreation is twelve. So when you
take all those numbers and put them together, tourism is an important business
in this town. It is the second largest industry in the state of Georgia, only
behind agriculture. It is the one of the largest industries in the United
States. So we're not taking all of this at our job working for you
lightly. What we have done is we have met with these groups, we've come up
with a set of criteria that you see there on how these funds would be spent.
And there are no names by any of the funds to be spent. The criteria outlines
who is eligible. We had envisioned that there would be a contractual
arrangement between the Convention and Visitors Bureau and the recipient of
funds. The sales tax money would go into a pool of funds from which the
applicants could request funds. The time frames would be up to five years'
support. But the main criteria is the funds be spent in marketing tourism to
bring somebody to this town to spend the night. That's what we're interested
in and I think that's probably the purpose that sort of kept us at odds for a
while, how the money would be spent, that it be spent for marketing and not
operational expenses. The CVB now has voted that we are a hundred percent
behind an increase in the sales tax. We are willing to administer the tax,
administer the pool of funds, but we are only interested if the criteria are
set on how the money will be spent, how the money will be used. And we feel
like that this will help the Commission responsibly administer the tax funds,
and we also feel that it'll take a lot of pressure off some of the members of
the Commission that you're now receiving. We know that -- you said you don't
have money out of the General Fund to finance or support a lot of these people
in this twelve or thirteen, and we feel like that this is a plain, easy way to
get funds to do these things that need to be done. Thank you, sir.
MR. TODD: Let me make sure I'm on the right page, Mr. Timmerman. I'm on
Exhibit A, criteria for one-cent option tax increase, amended November 13th,
1997?
MR. TIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.
MR. TODD: And you said that there was no entity and there's not, but I
did note that the entities involved has changed, you know, like overnight. I
guess I kept up on what's going on by cell phone over the last [inaudible],
and I came in here yesterday and I looked at one list, and I understand that
list has changed or been faxed out since last night. And I just have one
question: How do you expect me to make a decision on this thing if you guys
has changed in less than twenty-four hours the entities that would receive the
breakdown funding? And ever who want to answer that can answer it.
MR. TIMMERMAN: What we've done is we felt like that if the Convention
and Visitors Bureau took over the management of the funds, we're starting from
ground zero, everybody has the ability to [inaudible] for funds, and that we
would be the natural agent. We've been in business for ten years, we know the
industry, we know what needs to go on, and we have representatives on all
walks of the industry. We have hotels, we have restaurants, we have two
members of the Commission, we have events, the activities. Our idea is to
ensure and promote all of the attractions that are beginning to develop. If
we have a [inaudible] of attractions [inaudible] we're going to bring people
here. All we need to do is tell the story, and we need to all sing off the
same sheet of music and this would probably help us do that. Consolidate our
efforts rather than going in this direction and go in one direction. Does
that help you?
MR. TODD: Yes, I think it do. I somewhat have the same philosophy that
we shouldn't do any long-range granting to any entities and we should possibly
do it year by year and let the Convention and Visitors Bureau bring the
proposals as far as, you know, who should receive funds.
MR. HANDY: I have one question, Mr. Timmerman. On the original list you
had Springfield Village in there as one of the projects that's going on on
Reynolds Street. What does that have to do with Springfield Baptist Church?
Are you just using that name or what is the connection for Springfield Baptist
Church and that project?
MR. TIMMERMAN: I'm a little confused. Help me a little bit. Are you
talking about the space for the Springfield project?
MR. HANDY: Yes, Springfield project right at 12th and Reynolds Street.
What does it have to do with the church?
MR. TIMMERMAN: I can't answer that, sir. I'm not -- BARRY: That's
the site of the oldest continually existing black church in the country, and
it's going to be developed into a project using the one-cent sales tax money.
I think they're supposed to start work on that sometime in early '99. And the
church is involved. There are members of the church on that board that are
kind of leading that project.
MR. HANDY: What are you going to do to the church?
BARRY: We aren't going to do anything to the church.
MR. HANDY: But the church going to have to do something to bring it up
to date if you put the park there. That's what I'm asking.
MR. TIMMERMAN: See, the money is going to be designated for marketing
type of activities, not bricks and mortar and not anything -- operating
expenses. Just to let people know that the church is there, the history is
there, Morehouse College started there, and all that good stuff that they need
to know to get them to come here and look at it and spend the night and spend
a dollar.
MR. HANDY: Right. The reason why I asked is I want to know what were
you planning on promoting because it's already there. I mean, everybody -- I
mean, everybody who need to know knows unless you're planning on doing
something different when you say promoting it. That's the part I was
concerned with, what are you going to promote, the church or the park?
MR. SIMON: To follow up on your question, Mr. Handy, there's also been
private funding for Springfield Village and the church is involved in all of
that, so I think we'd be promoting both the church and Springfield Village,
and it will become a tourist attraction to bring people into town to see the
oldest black church in the country. Let me say I'm Paul Simon, I'm
speaking on behalf of the following organizations: National Science Center,
Fort Discovery, the Georgia Golf Hall of Fame, Greater Augusta Sports Council,
Augusta-Richmond County Museum, Historic Augusta, Inc., Lucy Craft Laney
Museum, Springfield Village, Imperial Theater, Greater Augusta Arts Council,
and Sacred Heart Cultural Center. These organizations need your help, and
it's my understanding that you don't have any money in the General Fund to
help them, and I feel that you should not raise property taxes to help these
organizations. However, I think the hotel/motel tax is a better issue. Here's
a tax and a source of revenue that we have missed. We have missed it in that
Augusta has the lowest motel/hotel rate of any other major city in Georgia.
Columbus is at six percent, Macon is at six percent, Savannah is at six
percent, Atlanta is seven, and Augusta is five. So there's room there to
raise that tax. This is a tax that in most cases does not burden our local
taxpayers. This tax is not paid by the local motel or hotel. Most of this
tax is paid by visitors from out of our area. These visitors use our roads,
our hospitals, our police and fire protection, they use all of our
infrastructure, and they should pay their fair share. As far as the hotels
are concerned, I don't believe that our community will lose one room night by
increasing this tax. I don't think it will hurt the hotels at all. On the
contrary, I think it will -- down the road I think it will help the hotels.
This one percent increase is estimated to raise approximately $385,000 the
first year. These funds, by law, may be used only to attract tourists and
overnight stays. This pool of funds may be used to support all the
organizations that I represent as well as others not included. The others,
I'm sure, will provide tourists that we have not even talked to yet. All of
the organizations I mentioned working together, along with the CVB, have put
together guidelines and criteria regarding the distribution of these funds.
This letter states what I'm stating to you, but also provides the criteria
that all these organizations working together have agreed with with the CVB as
passed to you a few minutes ago. This has taken a lot of time, a lot of
effort of a lot people's part [inaudible], and I hope you will see fit to
[inaudible]. The ultimate beneficiary of this tax increase will be our
community: our local businesses and, yes, the local hotels. We may have some
who object to the tax, but if they are farsighted and look into the future
they can see that we'll bring more tourists to town and, therefore, they'll
have a little more room stays, and I don't think the tax will hurt anybody.
This group that I represent asks you to do this: Number one, vote in favor of
increasing the hotel/motel tax from five percent to six percent; number two,
adopt the criteria that we have established for the administration of these
funds. We ask that you vote in favor of these proposals in order to continue
to move our commu-nity forward. And by the way, all of you know that I have
been speaking on behalf of Fort Discovery. It is a great project in our area,
but if Fort Discovery does not get anything out of this tax I think you ought
to pass it. These organizations need these funds. This is the only source of
funds you have, and it won't hurt our community by raising this tax. Thank
you very much.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I have a question or two for Mr. Simon. Certainly
I support Fort Discovery and the Golf Hall of Fame. I think that, you know,
from the numbers that you've given us, that the Discovery Center is certainly
[inaudible], but I think the Golf Hall of Fame is the entity that personally
is going to bring tourism in, but I support them equally. But there is some
entities that you have on the list that [inaudible] have a hard time
swallowing that they actually bring in overnight -- sell overnight beds. You
know, they may help sell tables at restaurants and things. The Greater
Augusta Arts Council, which I've been a big supporter of over a number of
years, that this government already gave approximately $160,000. We're
funding the Lock and Ham Jam, which I'm sure the entertainers come in and they
stay overnight, but I can't see, you know, much more than that as far as
overnight. Drinks in bars, table space, I agree, you know. The Arts in the
Heart of Augusta, they do, bring business in, so I can see where they possibly
stay overnight, so you could make that argument. But there is other
events and entities in town that actually bring folks in, and we know what the
numbers is, you know, whether we're looking at the Peach Conference or whether
we're looking at the Thanksgiving Classic or the CSRA Classic, et cetera.
And I'm having a hard time funding some of these entities as long as you want
to unless you guys are making in your recommendation that we cut the level
that we [inaudible] by that amount. And the other problem that I have with
the proposal is that -- I don't have a problem passing the tax as much as I
have a problem with a ten-year obligation to any entity that's on the list. I
think that's ludicrous, you know, that we would go out and do a ten-year
obligation. I would expect the Convention and Visitors Bureau to bring us a
recommendation. I don't expect every entity that wants funding or share in
this funding to sell themselves to the Convention and Visitors Bureau and the
Convention and Visitors Bureau come back to this board every year and sell the
entities that sold themselves to them to this board. And I probably could buy
into that. I have a problem with the grantees changing over the last few
hours.
MR. TIMMERMAN: There are no grantees. We asked you to just look at the
tax and the criteria for selecting grantees. There are no designated
grantees, those are only possible grantees.
MR. TODD: Oh, so those were proposed grantees or possible grantees.
MR. SIMON: But you asked a good question. Could I respond to a couple
of your questions? We were asked by -- first of all, let me back up and say
that I guess I started all this in that we came to the -- had some of you
folks to come to Fort Discovery the first part of the year, and we showed you
before we opened what we were trying to accomplish. And then once we opened,
we told you at that time that we were going to have some financial needs.
Now, you can say, well, we didn't tell you that before we got into that
project. I won't take the blame for that because I didn't get involved until
sometime last year. It's true that Fort Discovery opened its door without
telling the county that we were going to need future funding. After I got
into the project I realized that that was going to be necessary, as it is for
other science centers around the country. I brought some charts and I've
shown some of you that. As a matter of fact, if we had come down here to you
and said, look, we want you to support us in bringing the national science
center to Augusta, Georgia, put it on the river, it's going to have a
partnership with the United States Army, but we're going to need a half a
million dollars a year funding, or $300,000, whatever the number might be, you
and other cities would have jumped at that opportunity because of what this is
going to mean to Augusta, Georgia. I don't have time here, I guess, to get
into the details of that, but we have the Army at the Pentagon level in
support of what's going on here because the Army is interested in educating
the future candidates in both math and science. And the Army from the
Secretary of the Army on down have been here, and they see what we're doing
and they're very much behind it. Now, we have a partnership [inaudible]
and, therefore, the partnership has its obligations. The partnership must do
certain things, the Army must do certain things. It will take us funds to do
those things we have to do. We can't depend on the Army for that. But back
when we came to the Council back in April of last year and submitted a
request, at that time it was $500,000 a year for five years. The Finance
Committee appointed a sub-committee, headed by Mr. Handy, and we had two
meetings. During those meetings, when it was on the agenda that money was
going to be discussed, we had all these organizations to show up wanting
funds. Well, Mr. Handy appointed a subcommittee of us, along with the CVB,
with the idea -- with the charge that we were to go out and to come back with
a recommendation as to, one, where you're going to get your money to support
it and, number two, how the money will be spent. We did that. We got all
these organizations together and we realized that you didn't have funds except
for the hotel/motel tax. So we came back with the recommendation that, if we
passed the tax, here's the way these organizations would recommend that you
spend the money. That's the reason you got the -- instead of five hundred for
five years, three hundred for ten years. That's the reason you got that, it's
because we had to spread it out. And so that's the reason we've had those
numbers. Numbers you also asked about are these organizations who are on the
list that you don't believe bring in tourists. Those organizations are on the
list because we think they help bring in tourists, but they weren't designated
to get any money. Those organizations were designated to be supported by the
CVB in marketing. And so if you'll look at the list I came up with, it shows
that they'll get some money going through the CVB like the Arts Council and so
forth, but not funds directly to the Arts Council. And then the list that
I have, which you may have seen a report that I give to the Financial
Committee, I'm not submitting that today. What we're asking today is that
[inaudible] criteria, let it be handled by the CVB. We at Fort Discovery will
take our chances going through the CVB and to this board that's appointed and
asking for funds there. We just realized that the county does not have any
money except this one source for us or anybody else, any of these
organizations, and so -- it's so important, though, because here's this pool
of money that won't hurt anybody [inaudible]. And when I go out of town and
you go out of town, I never ask -- I always what the hotel room rate is
because I try to negotiate that. My secretary knows when she makes the call
[inaudible] the first thing, is that your lowest rate and, second, don't
forget you're dealing with a senior citizen and all those other things, trying
to get the lowest rate. But never do I ask what is the tax rate [inaudible].
Tax is not an issue in most cases, and we are behind the pyramid because
these other cities are at a higher rate than we are.
MR. TODD: I think I understand your memorandum probably better than I
would like to, and the amendment of the memorandum of understanding, and I
also give your folks that preceded you or are still in the project from South
Richmond, and I think that's probably in the best place now, and I support the
project. I just have a problem -- and I'm glad to see that you guys have come
to the realization that we need to approve the concept and the criteria versus
having grantees, because I've looked at a list of grantees or proposed
grantees and I had a problem with that, including supporting Discovery for ten
years because, you know, there is nothing that indicates to me that you need
ten years or you would be the one that priority should be put on at $400,000 a
year [inaudible]. And I probably need some more time to absorb all this
that's happened in the, you know, last several days, but my position is that I
think I understand the issue well. We're talking about the tax increase.
We've had little ID's made up, you know, so when we go places and we're on
county business, that we get a waiver of the taxes. So I understand the
importance of the taxes when we're talking about [inaudible] because we're
trying to save the taxpayers of Richmond County that cost on the taxes when we
go out to conferences and conventions. If I'm not on county business, I'll go
on to confess that I use my business card, which is a county business card,
hopefully to get the corporate rate rate, and that works. So I'm always
looking for the lowest rate. If I'm driving down 95 having to go to Virginia
to a watershed meeting or meeting in Florida, I'm looking for those lowest
rates along 95. So I think when we [inaudible], whether it's going to have a
great enough negative impact or whether it's going to offset that impact on
what it's going to bring in, and I'm not prepared to argue that. At some
point I'm probably going to support this tax, but, you know, when I look at
the proposed list I have some unreadiness and some problems in supporting it.
MR. SIMON: The body that approves the grant will determine what that
list is going to be. These are lists of organizations that I've been working
with and do bring tourists in.
MR. MAYS: You know, we all discussed about what some of these agencies
were going to need, particularly in the downtown quarter and river
development, that it was going to take money. It was going to take more than
just, at that time, city and county agreeing in concept of what we were going
to be doing. And so I don't look at it as any surprise that we're at this
point today. This was going to have to be something that we were going to
reach. But, you know, while I'm receiving history lessons, I can give some,
too, and I go way back with this whole river project. I sat in this same room
and cast the first vote for the first money to go on that river when basically
a lot of people that are supporting it now were satisfied with it being
squatter's heaven. And we took at that time the first funds, which was
$500,000 that came out the Newman administration that was earmarked for the
CSRA Business League for minority economic development and [inaudible]. And
that's where we got our start, and that was during the McIntyre
administration. So I've been a key player and a supporter of what's gone on
on the river in spite of what some folk may say, and I guess at some point
some folk will learn that I'm not as hard to get along with and I am
approachable. Sometimes when folk run in around me, they run into a lot of
trouble because they meet me on the other side, and I'll give a little bit
more by, you know, everybody play up front from the very beginning. But when
I saw the list of what we were talking about in terms of that concept -- and
I'll say this to Pat Timmerman on a friendly note. If it took y'all three
votes, one not to do it, one to be neutral, and one now to do it, I definitely
don't plan to vote today any way to do anything because, you know --but I am
approachable. I can see where I can support it. Something that Pat
brought up that I don't know whether you all have considered. You had the
breakdown of what you were doing -- and anybody can take this up on an answer.
I guess my concern -- and David has not spoken yet, I don't know whether he
plans to, but I also look at one forgotten entity of where you're taking a
vote, and that's out of your hotel complex of people that voted, the twenty-
six out of twenty-seven that voted not to do it. Have you all maybe given any
thought in this process, in that wagon-wheel pie I heard twelve or thirteen
percent, and I stand to be corrected whether I'm up or down on it, in terms of
what you're dealing with with transportation? Because I think part of that
motel concept, and we might as well spit it out while we're talking about it,
is that when we look at what may be perceived as perimeter hotels and not in
the downtown corridor, what may be promoted versus not being promoted in this
process, whether it's large or small conventions, has any thought been given.
Because you mentioned a key element in there, and that's transportation.
Now, it's good to give, you know, these places money, but then again if you're
promoting on a large scale to other cities, other communities, whether CVB
gets the question or whoever, the Chamber of Commerce gets the question, as to
what your transit system is about. Many conventioneers get in here when we
aren't operating public transit. I'm catching hell on this body to appoint
from the federal government on one end and my colleagues who tell me whether
we're tired of empty buses. But I think it's something that in that
thirteen percent that would help you some with the perception of this process,
probably with the perimeter hotels, in terms of what could tie-in say a
Sheraton, say a Washington Road hotel, say Gordon Highway Holiday Inn, that
would put them on a level playing field to be there. Not exactly because I
understand what we've got with convention space proposed and geographically
where some places are. But I think that might go a long way to possibly
easing that tension of where there has been a resistance in that vote, I
think, in terms of addressing transportation. And I know you said promotion
only, but if you've got somebody that's staying all across this county and
they've flown in here, they maybe have not driven here, you're planning for
tourism to be this megabucks industry, then on Sunday, on holidays, you know,
how are you going to get them around? I think somewhere in this process that
the transportation issue needs to be brought key into focus in terms of what
you're going to fund it, and I think that would help some in alleviating maybe
the negative perception that if it's coming downtown to where these entities
are, whether it's museums, whether it's Springfield Village, Golf Hall of
Fame, whatever it might be, that somebody geographically is going to get an
unfair advantage. And I think that helps you on your hotel side, but I think
it also helps us to answer the question as a community what ultimately do we
do about transportation. We're talking about tourism and we're talking
about the second largest city in Georgia, the second largest metro area, but
yet we're threatened to the point that one of our biggest budget issues is
going to be where are we going to cut routes in public transportation. So if
you're talking about thirteen percent on your wheel of what comes into that --
and I know that's not all dealing with buses, that's transportation as a
whole, but I think somewhere in that process you need to consider that in that
loop very seriously. And I think that would help with some of the people that
have been reluctant probably within the industry that you're trying to recruit
support from of lending you a hand rather than of putting the governmental
body somewhere in the middle to referee it and say let's go when, in essence,
we do have a flip side of coin of having to try and deal with businesses
equally in a three hundred and some square mile county. And that's all I
wanted to add to that process. But I'm not wholly against it at all. I can
embrace it if I know where some funds are going. I'm glad to see the
criteria, but I've also been around here long enough now that it just had to
[inaudible] the less we write into agreements, the less people share, and
people get selective amnesia. And what I don't want to see is that when the
dollars start going out, that somebody just happened to have got edged out on
the criteria and they didn't make it. Because I had some problems with the
first sheet, and I'll just be honest with you, I thought it was more of a vote
drawing card than it was a proposed plan. So I think if you can kind of deal
with those two subjects there, I think it will go a long way towards getting
not only better support off this Commission in nailing this thing down, but
also resistance from within business people that operate other hotels in this
city that have voted against it.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of information. Is Mr. Mays talking about
charter transportations or possibly Transit?
MR. MAYS: Well, like the old riverboat gambler, Moses, I take what I
can get. But I think you need to be seriously looking -- this is my personal
point of view, and I don't want to muddy this tax with Transit today, but I
think we need to look at Transit as a whole. You can't do all of it out of
this particular tax, but I think something can kind of hold us togeth-er while
the feds are cutting back and we're looking at a budget crunch, that we can
get it over into sales tax hopefully, if we do another one. And maybe some of
the people that fought me, and thank God they're gone now, Henry, in the
political retirement, that when we were trying to get recreation and other
things other than building a jail and doing road work, that we could have put
some of these things into one-percent. And the things that we put in there,
such as the ones we are participating in now, some of it, if we had been that
creative, we'd have been further along than we really are. So I think we've
made progress in it, and I think it's a salable thing that we can do.
MR. SIMON: We invited all the hotels down to Fort Discovery to talk
about these issues that we're talking to you about now and to bring them up to
date as to what the funds would be used for and how it would benefit the
industry and so forth. Not all came. There are sixty-some-odd hotels in this
region, in this area. On the vote that was taken -- you know, myself, if you
asked me today are you in favor of raising a tax, my answer is
no. But if you tell me why you want the tax raised and what good it's going
to do and why you need the tax raised, then that's a different issue. So I
think the people who voted, that was the way it was put to them. And still
only twenty-some-odd out of sixty-some-odd responded to that question. I
don't know whether there's any people here from the hotel industry that's
going to speak or not, but I would think that once they know the use and the
purpose of these funds and they can see long-term how it's going to -- not
long-term but immediate term, short-term, how it's going to effect their
business on the increase. There's other things as well that you know about
that we've been involved in on downtown in bringing this riverfront here that
you were involved with that has helped these other hotels and other businesses
in this area, and so I commend you for what you've done in the past that has
benefitted progress.
MR. MAYS: I agree with you. And I only made that as a friendly
suggestion, that if the perception is there that they're not sharing, that
that may be part of a bridge of bringing them into it. You mentioned that
people knowing what the tax is about. I think some know it, but then if they
say, well, how does that help me because I'm further down on the totem pole,
and then if the promotion is going in this area and I'm in a perimeter
corridor and there is no way to bring my two hundred folk there -- and I
guess, yeah, gentlemen, I selfishly put Transit in there, but it's not
selfishly for how I ride but it's for what I think we need to be doing as a
city and in looking at a first-class transportation system.
MR. SIMON: I told you we've been meeting with all these organizations,
and one of the things that's come up in these meetings is the fact that I
think you're going to see all these groups working kind of together to promote
--together with the CVB and working together as a group to bring more
tourists, including the other hotels. David Jones, he puts packets
[inaudible]. But more needs to be done.
MR. TIMMERMAN: You hit on one of my favorite subjects. I have for some
time been urging some of the folks at the CVB to do a little study. If you go
to Savannah, Georgia, if you go to Macon, Georgia, and see these little
trolley buses running around, they're carrying people on tours. They're going
from hotel to hotel and they're going from attraction to attraction, and what
they're doing is they are operating a method for people to get around when
they come to town and hear the story that's told. Now, this is what we're
getting to here. We had a study done by a agency out of Atlanta, Georgia,
about casual tourism. We in Augusta, the CVB and all of us, I guess most of
the reps of the hotels, have been going after conventions and meetings and
corporate business. I've been told that casual tourism in Augusta is less
than twenty percent, if that much. Now, the major properties don't get a
whole lot of casual tourists. They get some. They depend on corporate and
convention and that that type of business. The periphery hotels stand to
benefit more from casual tourism, which we're talking about here with the
critical mass of attractions, getting somebody to come to town, bring his
family, spend the night, see what we have, spend his bucks. I'd like to set a
committee up with the CVB, if you'd be a member of it, to talk about those
trolley buses.
MR. MAYS: Well, not only trolley buses, but I might -- Mr. Mayor, if I
just might briefly explain all that. I don't know what your studies showed in
reference to this category, or whether it even falls in a category, but
probably we can all thank Alex Haley for it, but the standpoint of family
reunions that pack hotels in this city. And if people are there and they're
shopping for a rate for a family rate, maybe they might not be in an area that
might be, say, in downtown, but they still may want to come to those locations
that you are promoting. And so I'm trying to help you sell your tax, but I'm
also trying to get money for Transit, too, and I think that helps with the
peripheral hotels because if they've been able to pack their hotel --and I've
been to Radisson with proclamations, Ramada Inn downtown, as well as David's
hotel, both Holiday Inns, anywhere where we've had them, and people fill them
up throughout the year, summer months more because the kids can travel, but
that's a major source of coming to a lot of southern cities. And that's why I
think that tie-in has to be in there somewhere, because if they are sitting
around a hotel all day Sunday we're losing a lot of traffic, particularly if
you're having fee events that people can get into. So I think without the
transportation system doing it, particularly some way to back up what you're
doing with charter that you don't have, then I think [inaudible] really needs
to be looked into.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I feel it's pretty
critical for me to make just a brief statement. We're one of those
organizations that was on an original proposed list, but also an organization
that does go beyond. There seems to be some concern with the impact of this
just going to one or two entities and those being in the downtown. The Sports
Council works throughout the county and we are one of the organizations --
it's not a new concept. Tax dollars from hotels go to sports councils across
the country. It's typically funneled through a tourism authority. Here in
our area, our tourism authority is the Convention and Visitors Bureau. They
have instituted in the past criteria processes, an application process, of
giving smaller levels of funding to groups. I have been involved with many,
many dozens of local sports organizations that have gone through that criteria
process, and that process is what protects the organizations that are applying
to that. That process clearly screens the entities that truly make the
impact. And as the Greater Augusta Sports Council, we know the impact we're
having on the community. This year alone we've had more than twenty thousand
people in this community for sporting events of all kinds from table tennis to
rowing to basketball, national basketball tournaments. We are one of those
organizations that need to benefit greatly.
You've heard a lot about Fort Discovery and their funding. We as well,
we're funded probably at a fourth of the level of sports councils all across
the country. But the impact of this is it's more than just two entities, the
impact of this is going to go far beyond just downtown Augusta. I think that
that's the thinking that some have wanted to -- and we're all prepared to go
through that screening process and to take our chances on who truly does make
the impact. And I think in the beginning there were some wishes of ten-year
contracts. I know as one, nothing is going to be a ten-year contract. We
know that there is going to be four or five or there's going to be shorter
terms and those are up for renewals, so we're prepared as one of those
agencies to go through that process. And I truly think it's going to make a
much larger impact if the hotels were more comfortable, I think, with where
this money was going. I work with many of them on a weekly basis, not only
downtown hotels but the Holiday Inns, the Radisson Suites, the Hampton Inn,
all over this county, and they know what sporting events impact on their
books. If they're more comfortable with where this money is going and they
have a comfort zone in how it's going to be screened, then that's what we're
all saying, it's very critical, is not only pass it but pass it with some
criteria.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a motion that this body
consider accepting the proposal set forth in the letter from Mr. Simon dated
November the 17th, 1997, with the following revision to that proposal, and
that revision is under Item A, Paragraph 2, where it refers to the agent. I
understand the funds would be directed to the Convention and Visitors Bureau,
but my recommendation is that a subcommittee of the Convention and Visitors
Bureau be designated to oversee the distribution of those funds, but that the
makeup of that subcommittee be the Mayor, two members of the Finance Committee
of this Commission, one member from the Hotel/Motel Association, two members
from the Convention and Visitors Bureau, and one member from the Sports
Council. So I offer that in the form of a motion.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second his motion.
MR. JONES: My name is David Jones, I'm the General Manager of the
Sheraton here in Augusta. You probably have already heard through the media
the positioning of our hotels and that there was a vote on the issue of how
each one would feel about adding a tax, and I personally do not feel that we
need to have additional taxes. We're not here against the Arts, against
growth and prosperity here in the community. And in the last two days I did
also hear --well, I should say I read in the last two days [inaudible]. There
was somewhat of a frenzy once it was discover- ed that the hotel/motel tax
would possibly solve everyone's problem, and as we know in our math, that the
proposed $385,000 needs to be shared among various venues. I guess if we knew
that the hotel/motel tax was going to solve this many problems, we should have
voted on it some years ago. I will say that the CVB has met with some of the
issues with the spokesperson for Fort Discovery, Mr. Simon. There were some
changes, and you probably have that in front of you of some of the changes.
Mr. Moses Todd, I just want to say that I don't think there's really any
change of the individuals that would be getting that money. That has been set
up through negotiations with the CVB of the specific criteria who would
qualify. And I appreciate Mr. Mays' comments about transportation bringing
all the hotels into focus with anything that's going to help the Augusta
economy. We all want additional visitors to Augusta because that perpetuates
the tax. The more people we have come and spend the night here, we're going
to generate more revenue for our community. And I will say this, I don't have
it on paper right in front of me, but I will have to congratulate the Augusta
Sports Council because that one organization probably has brought more rooms
to Augusta than anyone, and I look forward to the Games of '99 here in Augusta
and what we need to do to perpetuate that. Gentlemen, you may think this
is a surprise in a roundabout way, but -- I know Mr. Todd has mentioned he may
not be able to vote on it today, Mr. Mays said he may have to think about it,
but as the criteria has been established for who would qualify, and this would
be renewed on a year-to-year basis, some may be given a one-year grant, some
maybe a three or four, I would ask that all of you today pass the one-cent
sales tax. Because in the end, through the criteria that's been established
and the subcommittee of the CVB board that we have, we will make sure that
those funds go to the appropriate venue here in the community that's going to
bring in tourism here in the Augusta area. So I'm here to say I ask that you
pass it.
MR. TODD: Mr. Jones, you say that this is the same list, and I notice
this list is absent dollar signs. And, you know, when the newspaper usually
do a story on me they get it right, you know, at least 99.9 percent.
MR. JONES: I've been misquoted several times.
MR. TODD: Well, I believe I looked at some dollar figures in the
newspaper this morning, and I also seen some dollar figures on another list
that I've seen floating around. And I also understand that -- you know, I
hear you say that there may be other entities that would qualify, but when you
put a list of names down and you vote on something, there's a strong argument
that that's the list.
MR. JONES: If I may, Mr. Todd. I was not part of the list making, but
as a member of the CVB I will say that we have set down specifics on how any
organization could or could not qualify and as we could make that
determination at that point. I have not looked at the paper today and I don't
know what that list is, so I'll pass the floor to Mr. Simon.
MR. SIMON: Let me respond to that. The list goes back to the list that
we made when we came to the Finance Committee, and the organizations that you
see listed there are the organizations that we met with. And these are
organizations that -- when we came to the Finance Committee meeting, Mr. Handy
appointed everybody in the room practically because everybody was there asking
for money. And he asked us to go out in as a committee, work together with the
CVB, and see could we come back with a plan. The plan that we came back with
included the criteria that we first had, and the CVB had some slightly
different criteria. And also we came back, as we thought we were asked to do,
with a list. Because you had so much money to work with and, quite frankly,
back there when I put that list together I thought, based on conversations
that were made at the Finance Committee meeting and the sub-Finance Committee
meeting, that the funds that goes to the Coliseum Authority was also going to
be there. That's the reason you got those kind of dollars, because we were
going to, I thought, take money from the Coliseum Authority, which was
$300,000 a year, you add that to the $385,000 a year, that was $685,000 a year
we had to work with. So we took that pool of money and allocated it according
to the chart you saw. That's where the newspaper came in this morning. They
had that original list that we came back to the Finance Committee with.
Now, subsequent to that I realized two things. Number one, it wasn't likely
that you were going to take funds away from the Coliseum Authority because
they've just committed to [inaudible]. Number two, I realized after we came
back from this allocation that while we were asked to do that, that it seemed
as though the Commission wanted to have more input as to who got the money.
So what we did, we got with the CVB and worked out a compromise on the
criteria [inaudible], but we also backed away from who gets the money. And
all we're saying now in my list -- in my letter there is these are the
organizations who met with us, these are the organizations we worked with, and
that group of organizations -- plus there may be others, I'm not saying there
aren't. But this body that Mr. Kuhlke has just proposed, if you pass this,
this body he just proposed will decide, number one, who the organizations are
and, number two, who gets the money and how much. So I hope that answers your
question.
MR. KUHLKE: If I could, in my motion I included the Sports Council, but
with the Sports Council being a potential recipient for some of these funds I
think probably that would be inappropriate for them to be there. To clarify
my motion, it's to approve the letter of November the 17th, including the
criteria, but to amend the agent and the subcommittee proposed in there, that
that subcommittee would be made up of the Mayor, the two Commissioners that
sit on the CVB board, one representative from the hotel/motel association, and
two other members that are members of the CVB board. So basically you're only
adding one new person that is not involved with the CVB at this point.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll accept the amendment.
MR. BRIDGES: Bill, the way I understood what you just said, you got the
two Commissioners that sit on the CVB are part of the committee, and then
somebody from -- so you're getting rid of the Finance Committee?
MR. KUHLKE: Well, you and Mr. Beard are on the Finance Committee, so I'm
just saying that rather than that -- I mean, at the present time we already
got that situation, but I think that rather than pull two more Commissioners
in, since we've got two Commissioners on the CVB board, let them be part of
that subcommittee.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I think that everybody that is - [end of Tape 2] -
very reputable people. I think they've brought some good ideas to the table
today. My problem that I have in my tur-tle movement sometimes is that this
body, like most governmental bodies, has a tendency to have to get into the
correcting busi-ness of a lot of things that we don't understand on an initial
day. No disrespect to the persons presenting, but I've heard a lot of
different changing with this process, whether we have a list, whether we don't
have a list. I think all this has been for positive talk. I've heard the
exchange of positions. That's an American process, that's the democratic way.
Hot dog, apple pie, Chevrolet, I support all those good things. But I'm
being asked today to go ahead on and vote on something that people that I
depend on probably to bring these ideas forward have been up and down,
changing, for the last several months. If nothing else, out of digestive
courtesy, and since this is not the last meeting of this year, are we on any
shipwreck course to pass this today that we cannot deal with in December to
put some of these things that I've heard of in writing? Because I'm getting a
whole lot being passed on note changes. I mean, we put together committees --
and when we do this it gets back to "I thought so," and then we get to pulling
up tapes and minutes and then Jim gets to huddling up and Randy want to know
something and half the Commission going one way and the Mayor going another
way. I think it would be in the best interest -- and I can support it if
those things are laid out properly. And I only have one vote with it, and I'm
going to take that vote and I'm going to make a motion. I'm going to make a
substitute motion. I think Mr. Kuhlke has got a good pretty good one on
the floor, but I'm just going to make a substitute motion that we vote on
this proposal at our December meeting. Give us time to iron out every bit
of these changes that have taken place, particularly on this floor today
and have taken place in the community within the last twenty-four to
thirty-six hours, and get that feedback, put it in writing, be able to ask
questions and have a concrete format in which we can vote on it and do it
in December.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to second that motion and and I'm going
to second it for this reason. I was about to say something similar to what
Mr. Mays has said. In the last several days I have seen maybe seven different
proposals here. I commend the CVB board, I commend the Sports Council and the
other entities that have been involved in here, for the good work for our
city. They are doing a good job. And I think it's also necessary maybe at
one point that we do the sales tax, but like everything else, we have this
tendency to get amnesia. And I think what Bill has offered is workable and,
really, if I could digest what he said maybe we would be ready to move
forward, but I don't think we should hastily move into this. We do have
another meeting, and I know it's a matter of some people saying, well, we're
going to put it off and put it off, but when you've had this many versions of
different things I have concerns. As I told some of the people before, the
concerns were the allocations and also the number of hoteliers who really did
not go along with this. Whether they knew what they were doing or whether they
didn't, then they should have been informed as to what was going on. And if
they didn't get the proper survey, there are some people in this room should
have given them that particular survey. And I think, you know, in a couple of
weeks these things can be worked out so we can move forward. I think we all
want progress and we want to help those entities that are involved, but I'm
seconding that motion on that accord, and that is what my position is at that
time.
MR. WALL: I was going to point out, and I think this accomplishes what
the motion is directed to, this would have to be done by ordinance, so we've
got to draw up an ordinance. We also have got to draw up an amendment to the
CVB contract to carry this out. So if the vote is for us to move forward,
then we would have the ordinance and the amendment to the CVB contract that
would spell out these details on the December 16 agenda, and then you would
have the details.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to read the substitute motion, Ms. Bonner?
CLERK: The substitute motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Beard, was to
vote on the proposal in the December meeting to iron out the changes and get
feedback and to put it in writing to have a concrete form.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Let's clarify one thing. Mr. Wall, what you're saying
is if we did Bill's motion, you would have it ready for the December meeting.
If we did Mr. Beard's motion, that won't happen until December. Am I correct
in that?
MR. WALL: Well, either motion is going to result in an ordinance being
drawn up that will spell out the details. The more details you tell us today
to include in the ordinance, then we know how to draft it. And that's what
Bill's motion does is tell us what to include in the ordinance so that it can
be voted up or down at the December meeting, and then the second meeting in
January. But either way, we're going to have to draw up an ordinance before
we can put this one-percent hotel/motel tax in place. We're going to have to
amend the contract with the CVB to put in place the procedure, because they do
have a contract insofar as the handling of the hotel/motel tax. But the more
details you give us today as to what to include, then perhaps it will smooth
the process when it comes up in December.
MAYOR SCONYERS: But my question was, Mr. Beard's motion doesn't give us
the details, Mr. Kuhlke's motion does give the details. If we go with Mr.
Beard's motion we'll be looking at the end of January; am I correct?
MR. WALL: Possibly so. I mean -- MAYOR SCONYERS: I just want
everyone to understand what we're voting on.
MR. WALL: The other thing from a timing standpoint you may want to
consider is that if we guess wrong insofar as the details, as Mr. Beard's
motion -- Mr. Mays' motion and Mr. Beard's comments, where we don't have the
details, the tax goes into effect the first day of the second month following
adoption. And you may want to consider the timing of it, particularly insofar
as the Masters is concerned, because I suspect that that's a big source of the
revenue. So you will want to, if your intent is to pass it, to do it in
sufficient time that you can collect that tax before April the 1st.
MR. TODD: Mr. Wall, I don't know if perhaps it's law here, I think we
possibly have a couple of attorneys in the room, but can we suspend the second
reading?
MR. WALL: You can suspend the second reading under the terms of the
procedure with unanimous consent.
CLERK: I'll read both motions. The substitute motion by Mr. Mays was to
vote on the proposal in the December 16th meeting so as to iron out the
changes and to get feedback and to put it in writing. The main motion by Mr.
Kuhlke was to accept the proposal as set forth by Mr. Simon dated November the
17th and to revise the proposal on Section A, Paragraph 2, the agent, to have
a subcommittee of the CVB to be designated to oversee the distribution of the
funds, the subcommittee to be made up of the Mayor, two members of Finance
that sits on the CVB board, one member from the hotel/motel association, two
members of the CVB.
MAYOR SCONYERS: The substitute motion is to postpone until the 16th.
All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion to postpone until the 16th, let it be known
by raising your hand, please.
MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE & MR. ZETTERBERG VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 7-3.
CLERK: Under Administrative Services portion of the agenda, Items 19 and
20 were approved by the Administrative Services Committee on November 10th.
[Item 19: Motion to approve the petition for the 1998 Holiday
Schedule. Item 20: Motion to approve Personal Services Contract
between Augusta, Georgia, and Augusta-Richmond Clean & Beautiful, Inc.]
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that these items be considered as a
consent agenda.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Under Engineering Services, Items 21 through 27a were approved by
the Engineering Services Committee on November 10th.
[Item 21: Motion to authorize CSRA Regional Development Center to
prepare a Brownfield Economic Development Grant for the Hyde Park/Virginia
Subdivision Area. Item 22: Motion to approve engineering services
proposal from CH2M Hill for initial program management tasks related to
bond program projects at a cost not to exceed $135,700.00. Item 23:
Motion to adopt the Stormwater Management Plan Technical Manual with
elevation amendment. Item 24: Motion to approve deed of dedication,
maintenance agreement and road resolution(s) for Pepperidge Subdivision,
Section XI-E. Item 25: Motion to approve Capital Project Budget
Amendment Number One with funding for the Antler Drive West Drainage
Improvements in the amount of $231,000 from Allocated Special One Percent
Sales Tax, Phase III Funds, Capital Project Budget Number 57-8657-097, and
approve to let for bids. Item 26: Motion to approve Georgia
Department of Transportation County Contract No. PRLOP 8530-51(245)C1 for
their participation in the Lakeside Subdivision Drainage Improvement
Project in the amount of $113,722.05. Item 27: Motion to approve
$260,000 for Utility Billing Software and Hardware. Item 27a: Motion
to approve condemnation of approximately 201.2 square feet of right-of-way
improvements (shrubbery).]
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we accept the
Engineering Services Committee report as a consent agenda.
MR. TODD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's
motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 28: Motion to approve engineering contract with
Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst in the amount of $11,346.80 for
engineering services for 12" water main extension to new high school site
on Old Waynesboro Road. No recommendation from Engineering Services.
MR. TODD: So move, Mr. Mayor.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. BRIDGES: I've got a question, Mr. Mayor. I understand there could
be litigation over that. Have we lost any money if the court decision is to
not put it there?
MR. WIEDMEIER: This water main will serve to strengthen our distribution
system, so it's something that we would do at some point in the future.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? 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 29: A request to discuss Parker Street and either (1)
approve Resolution to abandon Parker Street or (2) accept Parker Street
into the County Road System.
MR. TODD: Is it my understanding, Mr. Wall, that this road is already in
the county system?
MR. WALL: There is no deed of dedication of this road. It has been
maintained by the county for a number of years and has been scraped, so
therefore there is an implied dedication to the public use, and that's the
reason for the discussion concerning possible abandonment. If I can sort of
lay out the issue. Parker Road has been scraped for a number of years, and I
can't tell you the exact time period. A developer has bought some property
between Parker Road and Henderson Road, off of Hephzibah-McBean Road. A
question came up concerning whether or not an exception to the subdivision
regulations would apply to lots on Parker Road. The subdivision regulations
basically provide an exception where you submit a plan for approval where the
lots are less than ten lots and are on an officially deeded street to the
county. Based upon that ordinance, I wrote a letter some months ago that, in
my opinion, that exception did not apply insofar as Parker Road is concerned
because that was not an officially deeded road to the county. There was
further discussions between the developer and others concerning the
possibility of the county entering into an agreement with the developer where
the cost of paving Parker Road would be split. During those discussions, a
letter from some of the residents out there, and particularly Mrs. Parker,
requested that Parker Road be abandoned and that's the request that has been
made. I have not personally traveled Parker Road. I'm told that there is one
house at the end of Parker Road, and I can't -- having not traveled the road I
can't vouch for that, but that's what I've been told.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we accept Parker Road into the
county road system being that it meets the criteria that it's been upkept by
the county for several years and I don't think that a lot of the other issues
is really relevant.
MR. WALL: Let me comment, if I may, insofar as accepting the road into
the county system. First of all, no deed of dedication has been presented to
the county for acceptance. It clearly is a county road from the standpoint of
being maintained. If a deed of dedication for a thirty-foot right-of-way,
let's say, is offered to the county, then the things that I want you to take
into consideration is that you will have multiple homes put on this dirt road,
so at some future point you are going to be asked to pave Parker Road. I
mean, you can count on that coming. The second issue is one of the water
lines. And we're encountering this problem now with another dirt road, and we
are trying to work through that process and we haven't come to a conclusion as
far as what should or should not be done. But you're going to have the
developer wanting to put a water line potentially -- and I don't know that
there is water out there off of Hephzibah-McBean Road, frankly. And where is
he going to put the water line? Is he going to put it in the thirty-foot
right-of-way of the road where when you have to pave the road you have to dig
the water line up and move it or are you going to ask him to put the water
line over to the side of the road, still facing the potential that the
construction of the road is going to get into the water line? So, you know,
there are other issues that are going to come out of allowing a development on
this dirt road where it's not been laid out and got a fifty-foot right-of-way,
and you need to consider those issues because we're dealing with it right now
on another dirt road that many of you Commissioners are familiar with, and
pipes strung out on the doggone road right now and we're going to have a
problem.
MS. PARKER: This is a very short road, it's about one mile there. And
the way I understand it, the developer at this time, if he can get right-of-
way to Parker Road, he will be putting mobile homes there, anywhere from
eighty to a hundred. And if puts anywhere from eighty to a hundred mobile
homes there -- this is in a very nice location of the county. It could be
very well developed and all of you would be very proud of it. But if he puts
those mobile homes there, you're going to have a problem with not only the
road but the entrance into Hephzibah-McBean Road, and many other things are
going to come up from all those extra dwellings there. It has been almost a
private road. No one has used that road for thirty-two years but me and my
family with no houses on it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: And it is your wish that we don't accept it into the
county, and it is your road?
MS. PARKER: Right. It's Eastman and mine, for us to go back and forth
on that road.
MR. TODD: Mr. County Attorney, the issue as I see it, correct me if I'm
wrong -- and I don't know that a lot of the other things that I've heard is
relevant to this issue. But the issue as I understand it is that the county
has maintained this road for several years straight, so the issue is that this
is a road that the county can take into the system. I guess the issue is that
what we would be doing is authorizing you to seek the deed of dedication and
the right-of-way, etcetera, for utilities if we have to do utilities,
etcetera. The issue of mobile homes is another issue that I would address as
far as Planning and Zoning statutes of the State of Georgia if that come to
us, and that would be at the point that they petition us to do mobile homes.
If it's not zoned for them to do a mobile home park, then that is the issue
that I would debate at that time. I don't see the relevance in debating a
mobile home issue at this time when we're simply talking about the road and
whether it's been deeded over to the county or whether it's been used for
public use and the county has maintained it. Now, if we had someone out there
scraping a private road, then I would expect for the folks that's authorized
that to be run off immediately. If this is understood to be a public road
that the county has serviced, then I would expect this board to authorize the
County Attorney to look at taking this road in the system and getting the
proper paperwork and doing the proper things to do that. That's where I'm at
on this issue.
MS. PARKER: My understanding is that if you have agricul-tural, it
property is designated that, you can put whatever you want to on it.
MR. TODD: No, ma'am. Mr. Mayor, if I may make a correction there, I
believe that you can put two per acre. I think the Planning and Zoning folks
is possibly here, but -- MR. SHERMAN: You can have one mobile home per
parcel if the property has been subdivided.
MR. TODD: Right. And at this point have the property been subdivided?
I guess that would be the issue where --if I was going to debate what could go
there, you know, I guess I would debate on -- the question would be whether
the property has been subdivided into parcels that would authorize that. But
the person have the right at this time, if it's zoned agricultural, to put
mobile homes on agricultural property. That's the law.
MR. WALL: Well, the thing that I want to be sure you
understand, Mr. Todd, I'm not looking at it as a mobile home issue at this
point. What I'm talking about is the road paving issue and the utility issue
that is going to come up depending on how you -- whether you abandon Parker
Road or whether you accept it in. If they come in, with it being agricultural
zoned, currently they can cut up ten lots and it's an exception to the
subdivision regulations. And then on those ten lots they can build a house or
they can put a mobile home on there, either one. But then they can go ten
lots, ten lots, ten lots, ten lots, and then you've got forty, fifty, sixty
houses, whether it be mobile homes or homes, whatever the construction is, and
at that point then we're going to be confronted with paving that road. And we
know it's coming by virtue of the fact that you've got a developer that's
developing there, and the county is going to wind up inheriting the problem of
paving that road, of acquiring enough right-of-way to pave that road, and of
dealing with the utility until the road is paved.
MR. TODD: As I understand it, that the person basically have a right to
do that now, and what we would be doing is blocking that by not accepting the
road into the system. My position on it is that the zoning issue should be
zoning issues. Any other issue -- you know, if we have other reasons for
this, to block this, then I would certainly like to hear it, but I haven't
heard why we shouldn't take -- if we've been maintaining this road with public
tax dollars, why we shouldn't move forward to take this road into the system.
Now, certainly we may take some liabilities along with that. We've done some
things as far as other roads go, but we took on some liabilities. And we're
spending money now to pave dirt roads in South Richmond and, my understanding,
this is a very short road and we're not talking about a lot of cost if we have
to pave. But the subdivision developer is responsible for the infrastructure
in that subdivision, is not necessarily responsible for the paving of the road
if the road just happen to be a dirt road that go by that subdivision that's
been maintained by the county.
MR. KUHLKE: Ms. Parker, do you own the property where the road is?
MS. PARKER: I have an easement to the property.
MR. KUHLKE: Do you have a perpetual easement?
MS. PARKER: Yes.
MR. KUHLKE: Is the perpetual easement through that property and what is
the width of that easement?
MS. PARKER: It's thirty feet.
MR. KUHLKE: Thirty feet. And I rode up that road today and it stops at
a fence, and your property begins at that fence?
MS. PARKER: That's right.
MR. KUHLKE: And there's nothing on either side of the road at this
point?
MS. PARKER: That's correct.
MR. KUHLKE: And the person that you have the easement from, does he own
the property on both sides of that road?
MS. PARKER: At the time we bought the place the property was owned by
one person out into the regular Hephzibah-McBean Road, but now that road goes
out past where that person's property ends and Mr. Wells picks up the property
there.
MR. KUHLKE: You go in the road and Mr. Wells owns the property on the
right-hand side?
MS. PARKER: Yes, sir.
MR. KUHLKE: Okay. Then I'll ask Mr. Williams this: The proposed
development out there, does it come from Parker Road all the way -- does the
property come from Parker Road all the way to the end of -- from Hephzibah-
McBean all the way to -- MR. WILLIAMS: First of all, Mr. Mayor, and
members, my name is Bill Williams and I'm here to represent two interests. My
clients have a contract with the Raiford family to buy this particular piece
of property. As it pertains to this issue, I have been authorized by the
Raiford family to tell you they are opposed to abandonment of Parker Road.
And I think from looking at the plat they are the single largest landowner
that abuts to Parker Road. Now, to answer your question, Bill, the property is
bordered on one side by Parker Road, on one side by Hephzibah-McBean Road, and
on the other side by Henderson Road, and a great deal of frontage. Let
me say this, Mr. Mayor, and members, my clients are business people. They are
interested in making money. They are interested in developing this piece of
property to obtain a profit. That's what makes us all motivated, I think, in
the business world. They're not proposing to do anything that's immoral,
illegal, unconstitutional, or against the public inter- est. Now, when I was
on the Commission years ago, when zoning matters or matters like this came up
people started talking about apartments. They said, well, if you're going to
put apartments in, it's going to raise traffic, there's going to be crime. If
you put trailer in, same thing. Well, some people have to live in trailers.
And if you don't want trailers in Richmond County, then pass a moratorium
against them. They are allowable today. My clients have explored the option
of possibly developing some of this property for modular homes or trailers,
whatever you want to call them, which is perfectly allowable and legal. Now,
if they wanted to, and Mr. Wall will tell you this is true, they can put
probably a thousand trailer lots on Hephzibah-McBean and Henderson Road. But
that is not their intent. Their intent is to try to make a nice development
out there plus to leave their options available. Abandoning Parker Road is
obviously an attempt to prevent them from being able to try to develop Parker
Road or the property along Parker Road, and I would submit to you that that's
a bad practice to get into for this Commission to start abandoning public
roads because somebody is opposed to some potential development that is legal
and allowable.
MR. KUHLKE: The property that people are talking about buying, does the
property begin in the middle of Parker Road, to the edge of it, or all the way
to the other side? I mean, who actually owns that property where -- MR.
WILLIAMS: Bill, I haven't seen a survey. I don't know. If you look at that
tax map, which doesn't purport to be as accurate as a survey, it appears to me
that it's showing that the property line runs down the middle of Parker Road -
-or, actually, the edges of Parker Road are the property lines for that piece
of property. I don't know that for a fact. Now, clearly at one area it does
come into the Raifords' property. They own both sides of the road. And where
her easement runs I have no idea. My firm has not researched the title to
this property. We are representing the buyers, and when they give us the go-
ahead we'll research it, and any easements or liens or anything will show up,
but we have not done that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, could you tell us what the boundaries are?
MR. WALL: Well, I'm not sure I understand exactly what Ms. Parker said.
I mean, the easement that she has is an easement over an existing road which
extends from the northern boundary line to the above-described property over
land owned by Thelma T. Matthews. Now, do I understand that Ms. Matthews
divided the property after you acquired it?
MS. PARKER: You mean the property next to the road?
MR. WALL: Yes.
MS. PARKER: I don't know. It's still in her name, I think, Ms.
Matthews. She doesn't live out there. The property was Ms. Matthews' at
first and she extended -- it was a smaller right-of-way and she extended a
thirty-foot right-of-way is the reason it says over the property that she
owned. She is the one who owns that property.
MR. BRIDGES: Bill, to answer your question, according to the tax map,
at the entrance of Parker Road off of Hephzibah-McBean there are two lots, one
on the right side and one on the left side, that are owned by different people
other than Ms. Matthews. Assuming that easement runs in-between those two
lots, you've still got thirty foot.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Mayor, may I make another point [inaudible]. Anybody
that lives on a dirt road, unless -- there are a few folks that don't want
them paved, but the more folks get out there, the more they want them paved.
But if somebody goes in and takes a raw tract of land and cuts it up into lots
and put houses or modular homes or whatever else on it, then they're providing
additional tax base to this county. If there's a water line there, it's
providing additional customers for that water line and additional revenues.
And if they want the road paved, then that's up to y'all to decide whether
it's economically feasible to pave the road or not. But to say that because
somebody is going to go out there and put homes on a dirt road and then that's
going to be a liability for the county because you're going to have to pave it
-- there's a trade-off there. It's not like a total liability. As a matter
of fact, it may be a plus for you because of the increase in the tax base and
increase in the service base as far as utilities are concerned. But
that's politics and that's what you're here for, to decide what roads to pave
or not to pave. It shouldn't be a reason to say, well, we're going to abandon
this road because we don't want you to develop it. I would think that we
would want people to develop more in Richmond County. We've lost West
Richmond County. There's nothing left to develop out there hardly, so the
south end of town is where the development is going to occur, and we ought to
be encouraging developers rather than sending out messages: well, if you don't
do exactly what we want you to do that's politically correct for that area,
we're going to abandon these public roads where you can't develop on them.
And I just submit to you, that's a bad practice. You know, if you don't want
trailers, if you don't want modular homes, then outlaw them. But my clients
want to close this piece of property out next week, and they're investing a
heck of a lot of money in buying the property, will invest a heck of a lot of
money developing the property, and are looking for a return, and want to be
able to exercise whatever option is available to them under the current laws
and ordinances as they exist in this county today. That's all they want to
do.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Should we not establish who owns this property before we
-- I mean, if it doesn't abut to the property they are wanting to develop,
wouldn't it be a moot point anyway?
MR. WILLIAMS: It does, Mayor. It clearly forms the boundary that's show
on that plat of the Raiford property, which is what my client -- and I hate to
disagree with my learned colleague here, but -- they have not bought it yet,
but they've got a contract to buy it. They have not closed it out yet.
MR. WALL: Well, it's a three-step process. If the Commission were to
vote to abandon the property, adopt a resolution today saying it serves no
public purpose, then you would advertise, hold a public hearing, and then it
would come back before this Commission, along with any objections such as Mr.
Williams might have, and make a determination at that time. But this would be
the first step in the process if you chose to abandon the road.
MS. WELLS: I'd just like to say one thing. It seems like that we don't
want people developing in South Richmond County. Yes, we do. We're just as
nice as we can be out there. And if you all hadn't diverted the different
things I wouldn't think of doing this. But when you buy property or plan to,
all we want is courtesy and consideration. We found out about that, okay, the
mobile homes are going on this area. You're going to sell the mobile homes.
Look, there's places for mobile homes, but I don't like to have my
intelligence insulted and neither would you. Now, I have not talked to them.
People who have, they have said they can do anything they want to, it's
agriculture, and they don't have to show us any consideration. We are good
neighbors, we would like to be nice to people. They haven't talked with any
of us and did not want to. But if you are going to put approxi-mately a
fourth of this property in mobile homes and then tell us you're going to put
another part in another area adjoining that of another priced homes and then
on the other side of Henderson Road they're going to build these fine homes,
don't pull my leg. You're not going to build the mobile home area first and
then build the homes. Now, I mean, we're not stupid. We are glad to have
development in our part of the county, we just would like to be treated a
little decent. Thank you very much.
MR. WILLIAMS: Can I just put up one thing? And I don't mean to disagree
with Ms. Wells, but I can assure you that nothing has been set in concrete by
my folks. I talked to them as early as today and they are still exploring the
options of developing this property about what they can do and can't do, what
they can afford to do and what would sell. The problem with this stuff is
that, you know, when somebody wants to oppose something, the first thing they
start talking about is multi-family trailers. I'm not suggesting to you that
they haven't considered the possibility of modular homes and trailers, but
there's nothing set in concrete about where anything will go at this point in
time. And a lot of it is going to depend upon what happens today as far as
what is available and what can be developed and what they can use, so there
are no plans today that are firmed up is what I'm trying to tell you.
MR. WALL: And let me sort of echo what Mr. Williams has said earlier
and the reason that I've not approached it from the standpoint of mobile homes
or modular homes. He is correct that if y'all abandon Parker Road, or
regardless of whether you abandon Parker Road or regardless of whether you
take any action, he could put mobile homes on Henderson Road. So that's a
sepa-rate issue. But if he were to elect to put them on Parker Road, then I
think you should anticipate and know what's coming, and that is that the
county is going to be faced with the potential obligation of paving Parker
Road and of dealing with the issue of where the utilities are going to go down
Parker Road. MAYOR SCONYERS: Basically then what we're doing if we
approve it, we're approving this to help the developer put something in there?
If the Commission approves accepting Parker Road, we're going to help the
developer?
MR. WALL: Frankly, I don't know that that does anything unless you go
further, because accepting Parker Road into the county road system -- I mean,
it's already in there by implication. I still take the position that until
it's officially deeded to Richmond County the exemption does not come into
play. Mr. Williams disagrees with that interpreta-tion and we may be headed
to court if they want to push that, but, I mean, it says officially deeded
road.
MR. KUHLKE: How can we officially accept a road unless somebody is
presenting us with a request to accept it with the appropriate deed
dedication?
MR. WALL: You cannot.
MR. KUHLKE: So what are we talking about?
MR. WALL: You're talking about either abandoning it or work out an
agreement with the developer or effectively taking an action -- MR.
KUHLKE: Well, we don't have a proposal from the developer.
MR. WALL: That's correct.
MR. KUHLKE: So I move that we don't do anything right now. I mean, I
don't know what we can do really. I mean, we're sitting here talking about
it, but we don't have anybody coming to us to make a proposition.
MR. POWELL: I'll second Mr. Kuhlke's motion.
MR. BRIDGES: What's your motion, Bill?
MR. KUHLKE: My motion is that we do nothing at this point until
somebody with some authority comes back to us with a propo-sal that can --
and has the authority to present us with a deed of dedication to the
property or the road with a specific request.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Williams, apparently the problem here is arising from
the community's perception of what, you know, your client is going to put in
that area, and I wondered if it would be possible for -- I mean, we can
support Mr. Kuhlke's motion and in the meantime your client meet with these
people and maybe other people in the area and y'all could work something out
or at least maybe the residents could be assured or comforted that what's
coming in there will be beneficial to the surrounding community. Is that
something that you could do and we could bring this up at the next meeting?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, let me give you a little bit of history. First let
me say that my folks will be delighted to meet with anybody and discuss these
matters with them. You know, again, that's not a problem. But, Larry, to kind
of answer your question, when the thing came up originally and my folks got
interested in buying this piece of property there was a question. The
question was, is Parker Road a county road, because it makes a difference if
you're talking about developing what you have to do if it's not a public road.
All right. We met with Jim, there was some question about whether it was or
wasn't a public road, then we find out that the county had been maintaining
the road for several years. Well, his predecessor and all of our good friend,
Bob Daniels, used to tell me, well, if the county puts a scraper on the road,
then it's a county road, don't have to have a deed. Once the county maintains
it, it's part of the public road system of the county just like it had a deed
of dedication. Now, if my folks acquire that property -- first of all,
that was an issue they wanted resolved about is it a county road and what can
we do on it, what do we have to do if we talk about developing it. I'm
satisfied that if they go ahead and buy this property next week, that as far
as widening that right-of-way, granting to the county whatever necessary land
it will take to widen it, make an assurance that the water lines are put where
they don't cause problems in the future, all that stuff can be worked out.
That won't be a problem. But the issue today, if you abandon Parker Road,
then it makes a difference to my clients about what they can and can't do as
far as development. It has a money impact on them. That's what we're
interested in. We're not asking for you to approve [inaudible], we're not
asking for -- all we're saying is it's a county road today, leave it as a
county road, we'll work with you on what we have to do and it won't be a
problem.
MR. OLIVER: I just have one thing to say as policy comment really. I
agree that we have a responsibility. The property has been subdivided and it
has been accepted into the county and we've maintained it to pave it. One of
the issues, though, I think that needs to be dealt with is a situation such as
this where you have a developer that's going to go in and add additional road
impact. And, in essence, if we accept it in, ultimately we will have to pave
it. Rough figures in today's dollars, the cost to pave that road is probably
$150,000 to $200,000 based on my scaling of that map off. So consequently,
for us to go in and participate in the development cost of a road to support
these additional lots is a policy decision you need to make, and in my
opinion, if we accept this road into the system, it will ultimately get to the
point that, you know, these citizens will want that level of service.
MR. BRIDGES: I just want to make a point here. We're talking about a
thirty-foot right-of-way. You're not going to be able to get a sixty-foot
right-of-way from the entrance from Hephzibah-McBean onto Parker Road because
on either side it's owned by two different people. One side of the entrance
there is owned by the Wells and the other side is owned by the Kellys, and
they both have -- I believe I'm correct in saying neither one will deed a
thirty-foot right-of-way, you know, to expand that road, so you're going to
have a problem right there even if you do want to pave it or expand it or
allow entrance off of it. Mr. Mayor, here is what I think the issue is
here: This is a road that only serves one family, and that's the Parkers, and
it's served them for years. Back at a time when people couldn't get to their
homes because of the dirt roads, the county would come out and they'd scrape
it and they'd, you know, help people out at that time. If we start doing
something like that today, you know, we'd be on the front page of the paper
very quickly for developing private property. But here's what I understand
about this: For that road to be a county road there has to be an intent on
both parties for that to be the case, and there's obviously no intent on the
part of the Parkers to allow that road to be a total county road. Now, Ms.
Parker has an easement on someone else's property to use that road to get back
to her property and out to Hephzibah-McBean, and she's used that ease-ment for
thirty years or more. Now, I know from the way the map is drawn that the
roads probably have changed due to the scraper or rains or whatever, and in
places it does make a few curves and turns, so some of it may go on the
Raiford property, but originally that was all on the Matthews' property.
And here's what I see we have here: We have someone who has an easement to
the road that allowed us for a period of time through a prior agreement with
the county to scrape that road strictly for maintenance purposes. No intent
to give it to the county at all. And now they're saying -- for whatever
reasons they're saying it, now they're saying I want that back, you know,
that's mine, it's my easement, please cease maintenance and get off of it. I
think that the owner of that has the right to do that and I think we should
respect that right. What I'd like to do here, if we could, is to get Mr.
Williams and his client and these people together and maybe they can work
something out so that these people don't want to do that, but to come to some
agreement maybe before the December meeting, and then we could make a
decision. And I think what Bill is proposing is correct at this point, is
that we do nothing at this point until maybe these two parties can come
together and reach a common understanding.
MR. TODD: I'd like to make a point of order, Mr. Mayor. I have a second,
I think, on a motion. And I have a point of information and I have a comment.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, first of all, Mr. Todd, I didn't hear the second,
but if you can prove you got a second, then I'll be glad to accept that.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the way that we prove we have a second, if the
Parliamentarian want to, we can stop the tape, roll it back and listen to it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, did you hear a second?
CLERK: I didn't hear it.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Handy, seconded, Mr. Mayor, I heard him.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we've got another motion then. Maybe in the
future y'all will speak a little louder. If you're recognized by the Mayor,
the Chair would be glad to recognize you properly.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I always respect the Mayor's chair.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I wasn't talking about you, Mr. Todd, okay?
MR. TODD: Yes. And, Mr. Mayor, may I comment?
MAYOR SCONYERS: I'll be happy to hear your comment.
MR. TODD: I'll make it as brief as I can, Mr. Mayor, and try to be as
fair to all parties involved as I possibly can. The point of information is
how this got on the agenda from Engineering Services, I guess is my question,
in the sense that I wasn't here and didn't have the -- MR. WALL: I was
requested to put this on the agenda initially to abandon the road and that's
the way I put it on. And then it came back with a request from Mr. Bridges
that it be put either way, either to accept it or to abandon it, and I revised
the agenda item and put it on in that fashion.
MR. TODD: Thank you. You know, when we're talking about how are we
considering one way or the other, if it was never put on the agenda, then we
would never be considering it. But I have a problem being part of a
conspiracy, and this is just my opinion and I want to make that clear, to
obstruct or block progress or development to serve a interest to stop mobile
homes. Now, when mobile homes come up here -- if mobile homes come up here to
this board and it's not in the comprehensive plan, and if the neighbors
adjacent to the property make a strong enough argument to me that I can use my
discretion as far as negative impact, I assure you that I will abide by the
law of the zoning statute of the State of Georgia and vote for or against. I
have no great love for mobile homes. That is not the issue here. The issue
here, you know, is whether we're going to abandon this road and whether we
scrape this road. And I'm going to tell you something, if we abandon this
road we're probably going to wind up going back and having to scrape it
because we've probably scraped it for the last thirty years. I don't have
any interest in the developers one way or the other or Mr. Williams. I'm
trying to do what's right here, and my position in doing what's right is that
the mobile homes is not relevant. The cost of paving this less than a mile of
road may be relevant, but that's an issue for this board, as Mr. Williams
stated, to decide. The water interest is relevant, and if the issue come up
on whether we're going to provide water to a hundred folks or a significant
number of folks, they have every right to water just like any other citizen
regardless who develops this property or what the development is if that
development happens. And that's my position, gentlemen, and I'm not going to
participate in no ploys to block this development to stop mobile homes. And I
think if you'll go back over the records over the years, you're probably
looking at one of the biggest individuals as far as opposition to mobile homes
that's sat on this board. And that's all I'm going to say. Thank you.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I don't think we ought to be involved in any
conspiracy to block development either, but neither do I think we should be
involved in anything to take someone's property that does not want you there.
I mean, Ms. Parker has an easement to the road. At no time did the Parker
family intend on that being a road into the county system. If they had have,
they'd have deeded it at that time. This road only serves one home, one
dwelling, and Ms. Parker is saying it's mine, it's my easement, please get off
of it. I don't think we have any option. I mean, it's not our easement, it's
hers, and if this is her desire, then I think we should respect that.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, while that's fine and dandy, I didn't hear
anybody come down offering to reimburse us for scraping that road. And if
we're scraping a private road, we all ought to get out of here right now. I
think we ought to immedi-ately stop scraping any private road anywhere in this
county. And if that's the case -- they'd better not be scraping one, they'd
better only be scraping public roads. And I don't think that you can give up
a public road. If we're already scraping it, it must be a public road.
That's always been the law as I understood it. And certainly I don't think
we're in the business of maintaining roads for individuals in this county on a
private road, and I want to call for the question of the day and move on.
MR. BRIDGES: Could I ask Mr. Williams another question? We've got the
parties on one end involved. Could you give the names of your developers and
what real estate people are involved in this?
MR. WILLIAMS: I thought about that coming down here, Ulmer, and I'd like
to cooperate with y'all a hundred percent, but I don't know that I want their
names bandied out in public. I can tell you this, that I am in the process of
forming a Georgia corporation that will own and develop that property, and the
name of that corporation is Raiford Development Company, Incorporated. And I
will talk with the individuals involved, and if they want me to expose their
names in public I'll be delighted to send a letter to Larry for distribution
among the Commission about who they are.
MR. KUHLKE: Call the question, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Let me ask Mr. Wall one thing before we do and then I'll
do it. Normally when you develop a -- and this, I guess, is going to be a
subdivision. All of the infrastructure and the roads have to be put in. Is
this going to be considered part of that roadway of Parker Road? I guess what
I'm getting at, is this a way to circumvent paving a road that we're going to
have to ultimately pave ourselves? If it is, then maybe they should pave this
road if it ultimately has got to be brought in -- we shouldn't have to pave it
is what I'm getting at.
MR. WALL: I mean, that's the way, in a sense, that I see this issue
developing, and I don't want you in two years or five years from now when
there are fifty homes on Parker Road say why didn't someone tell us that this
was about to happen, because that is what's going to happen. I mean, under
one scenario -- and Mr. Williams is correct, I mean, they've not filed
anything, they've not committed to anything. But what they could do is they
could take Parker Road and they could come in and submit a plan to Planning
and Zoning for ten lots on Parker Road. That does not go before the Planning
Commission, it doesn't come before y'all. It's subdivided into ten lots.
They don't have to put in any paving, they don't have to put in any streets,
they don't have to do anything, they just have to come in and submit that plan
if it fronts on a road that has been officially deeded to the county. My
position is this road has not been officially deeded to the county. Mr.
Williams and I have talked about that issue before. He thinks that any county
road -- I say that, I think he's going to take the position that by virtue of
the county having maintained that road, that it's a county road, and so that
exemption applies. The next day they can come in with another ten lots, the
next day he can come in with another ten lots. Y'all never see the issue,
Planning and Zoning Commission never sees the issue, the administrative staff
looks at it. And you've got flagpole lots, you know, however many they can put
fronting on Parker Road. Well, when they get fifteen, twenty, thirty houses
on Parker Road, yeah, I mean, I think they're going to petition y'all to pave
Parker Road, and so then you have to deal with the issue at that time.
MR. TODD: But don't we have criteria on paving dirt roads? And if they
meet the criteria, why shouldn't they be entitled to the road being paved like
any other citizen that live on a dirt road in South Richmond? And we're
paving them all over South Richmond. I come in on 25 the other day and, hell,
there's miles of road, tens of miles of road if not hundreds of miles of road,
being paved.
MAYOR SCONYERS: But I think you missed the point, Mr. Todd. If a
developer does it, the developer should pave the road. We shouldn't have to
pave it.
MR. TODD: In his subdivision, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, is this not going to be part of a subdivision?
Did I miss something?
MR. WALL: Technically this will not be part of his sub-division because
it's outside. He can develop a subdivision right beside it. If it's more
than ten lots, then he's got to come in and show the street layout, etcetera.
But ten lots or less, under our current zoning subdivision regulation, is
exempted, so he doesn't have to come in and show streets, utilities or
anything. He can take that plan directly to Planning and Zoning and get the
administrative staff to administratively approve it. And it technically is
not a part of a subdivision, but he is subdividing.
MR. KUHLKE: Let me ask this question. This might be stupid. But if we
do nothing today, if we do nothing, we're not saying it's a county road, we
are not abandoning the road, and if the developer has an interest in us doing
something, then let the developer come back to us with a proposal that
includes Parker Road and let's look at it.
MR. WALL: All right, that's a possibility. But the other possibility is
that the developer could do one of two things. He could say I disagree with
Mr. Wall's interpretation insofar as it having to be a legally developed road,
the county has maintained it, therefore, it's a public roadway, and he could
go to court and we would litigate that issue. Or the second thing he could
do, and y'all would never see it, is he could apply for a variance and go
before the Planning and Zoning Commission for a variance saying that it need
not be an officially deeded road. So you may never see this issue again under
either of those scenarios other than through the court litigation.
MR. TODD: Mr. Wall, you are an attorney; right? Officer of the Court?
MR. WALL: Yes, sir.
MR. TODD: Are we trying to circumvent something here? Are we trying to
do something underhanded here?
MR. WALL: No, sir, we're not trying to do anything under-handed, but,
you know, it's a policy decision. We've got a road that's an exact duplicate
of this situation. It's about five miles along, it's been cut up into two
hundred flagpole lots. There's a water line that is out there on top of the
ground right now. We've got a thirty-foot right-of-way that we maintain. Are
we going to allow the developer to put that water line in the roadway knowing
that we're going to turn around and three/four/ five years when we pave that
road, tear that water line up and spend three million dollars replacing it?
MR. TODD: That's not the issue, Mr. Mayor, that I'm hearing today. I'm
hearing [inaudible] Parker Road, and I think that I'm hearing that there is
folks that want to block any potential development. And the other issue is an
issue that I'll decide, you know, during a legal session and say do an
injunction against it or whatever that we need to do. But this is a different
issue than the issue of five miles.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I've got a very simple question. How does an easement,
thirty-foot easement, become a road, even if we scraped it?
CLERK: Georgia law is that if -- first of all, the county - MR.
ZETTERBERG: It wasn't a road. Never been a road.
MR. WALL: Well, the people -- she travels on it.
MR. ZETTERBERG: She owned the easement; right?
MR. WALL: But the county came in, used public funds and scraped that
road. And generally when you scrape a road and the property owner has done
it, then there is a presumption that it's done with her permission, and --
MR. ZETTERBERG: Did you ask the county to scrape your road at any time?
MS. PARKER: I didn't. My husband might have, but he's dead. I don't
know.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Read the substitute motion first. We're going to vote
it up or down.
CLERK: The substitute motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Powell, to
do nothing until someone with authority presents a deed of dedication or for a
specific request.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MR. BEARD, MR. HANDY, MR. MAYS & MR. TODD VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 6-4.
CLERK: Items 30 through 35 were approved by the Public Services
Committee on November 10th.
[Item 30: Motion to approve establish guidelines for imposing
penalties (probation, suspension or revocation) for violations of the
alcohol ordinances. Item 31: Motion to approve new ownership request
by Lisa D. Sanchez for a consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine
license to be used in connection with Veracruz Mexican Restaurant located
at 3044 Peach Orchard Road. There will be Sunday sales. Item 32:
Motion to approve the 1998 Alcohol Beverage License Renewals for license
holders in Augusta-Richmond County. This includes dance and Sunday sales.
Item 33: Motion to approve adoption of an Ordinance amending the
Augusta-Richmond County Code Section 6-7-10 so as to delete the limit of
authorized taxi cabs. Item 34: Motion to approve the design and
construction plan for the Augusta Natatorium to be built on Damascus Road.
Item 35: Motion to approve an award of bid and contract to Blair
Construction, Inc. for $555,732.00 for Phase I of the Lake Olmstead Park
Improvements.]
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, before I make a motion, I'd like to allow my
colleagues a chance to dissect this since they probably will be pulling them
out.
MR. TODD: I'd like to pull Number 32.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull Number 34.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I wonder if there are any objectors to Number
31? [One objector noted.] All right, I'll pull that one.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve
whatever items that are left.
CLERK: Items 30, 33, and 35.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. H. BRIGHAM ABSENT]
CLERK: Item 31: Motion to approve new ownership request by Lisa D.
Sanchez for a consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine license to be
used in connection with Veracruz Mexican Restaurant located at 3044 Peach
Orchard Road. There will be Sunday sales.
MR. STILL: My name is Harry Still, address is 2021 Bloom-ingdale Street.
This particular facility that you're talking about today is cornered on
Highway 25, Peach Orchard Road, and Bloomingdale Street. My only comment
today is in regards to the neighbors in that area, particularly Blooming-dale
Street. If this facility operates allowing alcohol to be served, then the
chances that most of the patrons that leave that facility will leave going
down Bloomingdale Street. They will not try to cross over Highway 25 as it
would be against traffic. Our concerns are that we have in that neighborhood
a tremendous amount of retired personnel and also a lot of newlywed couples
that have young children. They all live basically on that main street. They
do a lot of walking down that street. It is a short road, not a very wide
road, and people park on both sides of the roadway, so at night it's very hard
to see personnel as they walk up and down the street, the older people or the
younger people. And we're just concerned that if alcohol is consumed in that
area, that that could create a problem.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question is are you opposing just Sunday
sales or are you opposing -- is that the only issue you're objecting to is
Sunday sales?
MR. STILL: No, alcohol sales.
MAYOR SCONYERS: There was a restaurant there previously that had alcohol
sales.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I've had quite a few calls from the neighborhood
back there concerning this license, and I think they are concerned about
another environment where people are -- people use that as a shortcut when
they come out of these places to drive back in the neighborhood, and it causes
a problem not only for those people in the neighbor-hood, the children or
whatever, but due to the alcohol consumption, there's a danger involved there
also. And this is a situation that brings up another case of the proposed
ordinance I had that the chamber saw fit to vote down, but there is a church
diagonal from this. And I know I didn't have restaurants involved in that
ordinance, but there's a church, Fleming Baptist Church, which is diagonal
from this. I mean, by any reasonable, prudent standard alcohol consumption
should not be allowed that close to a church, but it falls within the legal
limits. And I think this would be a hindrance to the development of that
road, I think it would be a hindrance to the neighborhood which abuts almost
right up to that property. And I know that's zoned industrial commercial and
whatnot, but I think we've got to keep the interest of the public in mind
here, and I hope we'll disapprove this license.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we approve it.
MR. MAYS: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I make a substitute motion that we approve only
six days a week and not approve Sunday sales.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We don't have a second this time, Mr. Todd. I didn't
hear it, okay? You didn't hear it either, did you, Ms. Bonner?
CLERK: No, sir.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, are you making lightly of my challenge [inaudible].
MAYOR SCONYERS: No, sir, I'm not. I just wanted to make sure that we
both understood there wasn't a second to it.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think you've been wrong more times than I have.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, very well may have, Mr. Todd. I won't deny that.
MR. TODD: Let's go on with the order of the day.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Any discussion on this motion, gentlemen? All in favor
of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand,
please.
MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. POWELL & MR. TODD VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 6-4.
CLERK: Item 32: Motion to approve the 1998 Alcohol Beverage License
Renewals for license holders in Augusta-Richmond County. This includes
dance and Sunday sales.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll make my comment very brief. Certainly last
year the nude dancing and Sunday sales slipped through and we didn't have an
opportunity to debate it, and it's my intent to make sure that we know what
we're doing this year, that it don't slip through. And I'm opposed to the
nude dancing having an alcohol license, and basically the Georgia courts have,
you know, cleared the way for us to deny a license to nude dancing
establishments. And I'll go on and make a motion opposing it for the record
and see whether we get a second.
MR. BRIDGES: I'll second that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Now, wait a minute, gentlemen. We've got a little
problem. Are y'all making a motion to oppose nude dancing license? That's
not what this is about.
MR. TODD: Opposing the automatic renewal of a license, Mr. Mayor and Mr.
County Attorney, for the nude dancing establish-ments in Richmond County that
provide adult entertainment, nude dancing.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I make a substitute motion that we approve the
licenses as listed and those that are currently under Georgia law that are
legal at this point and we approve them as one complete group.
MR. BEARD: I second that.
MR. WALL: I wonder if Mr. Mays would accept an amendment to delete the
Cafe DuTeau? And both parties have agreed and it's going to come back on the
16th as a separate agenda item.
MR. HANDY: Could you explain why?
MR. WALL: Because currently one of the licenses that's been asked for
for that is dancing and it does not meet the zoning requirements, and -- but
they have had a dancing license there and I'm trying to work through that with
both parties.
MR. MAYS: I mean, dancing on their own or what kind of dancing? I mean,
if somebody's got some music, they can get up there and dance, Jim
[inaudible].
MR. WALL: Entertainment is not allowed in the zoning that is currently
up there, and that's the issue, and I'm trying to work through both parties.
I met this morning with some of them and Mr. Sherman's been working with both
parties, and we'd like additional time. And by both parties' consent, without
their coming here and debating the issue today, it was our recommenda-tion to
both parties that we would ask that that one be pulled out and dealt with
separately, and hopefully we can reach an agreement by that time.
MR. MAYS: So there is an additional license from what was there last
year then?
MR. WALL: No, same license.
MR. MAYS: Well, then that gets me to the point -- the same license? I'm
getting that we're doing something new here. So if you're saying we didn't
have it before, then how the devil are we dealing with something now that's
not in order if it was approved and then we've been doing it? That's the
problem I got there. Now, either they don't have one and they're asking for
something new or everything is in order as it has been. What are we taking
that's different, that's my question, and if somebody can answer it I'll pull
it off.
MR. WALL: Well, there is an entertainment license that has been granted
there. It is not zoned for that. And, you know, if you want to -- I mean, it
is not properly zoned.
MR. MAYS: Might I ask how long have they had an entertain-ment license?
MR. SHERMAN: They had it in the city for years. That was [inaudible].
So when they first came in they had -- MR. MAYS: If there's a strong
pull of courtesy to take it out, I don't mind, but I'm not getting into the
constitutionality of another government when we've now got a merged government
and we've had a license in a place. And you're actually getting into the
point then of what you're taking, not of what you're granting. I beg to
differ on that motion to pull that out, Jim.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Are you telling me that we granted this license
improperly?
MR. WALL: Apparently. Apparently so. It is not zoned for
entertainment, but they have had entertainment up there and, you know, it's
not properly zoned.
MR. BEARD: Are we checking all the licenses or are we just checking this
one? Because it looks like what we're talking about we need to go back and
check all of them to see if they are -- MR. WALL: We didn't check any of
them. The objectors have come forward and they are aware of the fact that it
is not properly zoned. They have made an issue out of it. I have met with
them. I have tried to meet with Mr. DuTeau and his attorney both yesterday
and today and I have not been able to do so. I'm trying to reach some
agreement, but whether that's possible or not, I don't know. And since I was
not -- Mr. Sherman was finally able to get ahold of Mr. DuTeau. Rather than
having the objectors come down here today and to argue about why it should not
be renewed and deal with that issue, it was my suggestion that we try to put
it off until December the 16th, let us try to meet with both parties, see if
we can reach an agreement. We may not, it may come back before you in the
exact same form.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for the County Attorney, and
we're going back to the motion and I think this is relevant. Do we have on
record a nude dancing ordinance dealing with alcohol that this board has
passed?
MR. WALL: We do.
MR. TODD: And I'm in violation of that ordinance if I vote for giving
alcohol to a nude dancing establishment?
MR. WALL: Only if you deem them not to have vested rights in the
establishment -- in the entertainment that they have down there now. They
were legal when they first started. The question is concerning can you come
in and impose a requirement that they're not. I'm familiar with the Cobb
County case, but there's other litigation going on, and the question is do
y'all want to spend the money to litigate that issue now or do you want to
wait until that issue is finally resolved. The way the ordinances are worded,
this issue is going to come before you again, and that's a decision for y'all
to make.
MR. TODD: It's my understanding, Mr. County Attorney, and correct me if
I'm wrong, that there is more cases than the Cobb County case that's being
litigated by the courts and upheld.
MR. WALL: The validity of the ordinance has been upheld prospectively
insofar as existing establishments, but the Cobb County decision is the only
one that I'm familiar with. The one out of Peach County or wherever dealt
with new licenses.
MR. TODD: Well, I certainly don't want to sound like I'm just after the
nude dancing folks, but I certainly have a problem with us having a ordinance.
We ought to repeal the ordinance. I think that's relevant to this
[inaudible].
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I've got some questions to ask the Attorney.
Jim, my concern here is, it's my understanding that the alcohol license for
these nude establishments is the only thing that gives us as a governing
entity the right to monitor them, see if they're doing anything wrong; in
other words, for policemen to go in that establishment. I've also heard that
if we only allow nude establishments with no alcohol, that we've immediately
lowered the age of those that can attend nude establishments to eighteen; is
that the case?
MR. WALL: That is correct.
MR. BRIDGES: And so it sounds like to me -- I was up in Louisville,
Kentucky, the other week and they had one of those establishments with no
alcohol. I mean, they were doing a booming business from -- according to the
TV report, I under-stand. You know, my concern is I'd like to get rid of
them. I mean, you know, I think it's a moral blight on the community to have
them. But my concern here is, if we do what Mr. Todd is proposing -- and
which I seconded to get it on the floor. If we do that, we may be opening up
more of a can of worms than we have now. At least now they are contained and
they're within an area and we can police and we can send our officers in there
and make sure that they are doing nothing that is presently illegal. Do I
have a legitimate concern that we're lowering the age and creating a greater
problem than we've got now should we not allow nude dancers to have an alcohol
license?
MR. WALL: You're lowering the age, you have greater policing authority
with the alcohol license there than without it. You do have some policing
authority under the adult entertainment establishment, but there's no question
you have got greater policing authority with the alcohol license there.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Substitute motion first. Do you want to read the
substitute motion, Ms. Bonner?
CLERK: The substitute motion by Mr. Mays was to approve the '98 alcohol
beverage license renewals as listed.
MR. MAYS: Let me just ask this, Mr. Mayor, and I'm doing this out of
courtesy. Have we put anybody in a legal bind by proceeding on the document
where you represented the city of saying that we're going to hear this at
another time on a particular license or can they still reserve the right for
us under the discretionary period to come in and revoke that license? Don't
we still have that right of which we do not give up if they can show just
cause as to why we should take away?
MR. WALL: I think if y'all approve the license as it is I'll be in court
tomorrow morning.
MR. MAYS: Well, I mean, that's tit for tat. If we approve it the other
way you're going to be in there with the business. So, I mean, you just as
well prepare for a couple of court cases.
MR. BEARD: Clarify what you're saying about that particular license.
MR. WALL: It is zoned B-1. Entertainment is not authorized in a Zone B-
1. And the attorney is prepared to file an injunction saying that the license
was illegally issued because it allows entertainment in a Zone B-1 category.
MR. BEARD: And you feel you can work this out?
MR. WALL: I don't know whether I can or not. I'd like to try.
MR. BEARD: And if you don't work it out, then you bring it back in
December?
MR. WALL: Yes, sir.
MR. MAYS: I ain't got no problem with you taking it out, but I'm going
to tell you -- I mean, I don't mind saying it, I usually don't preempt
nothing, but I know how the hell I'm going to vote because I'm about sick of
that. And I think we as a government -- and I'm going to go on and say it.
I'm going to remove it, Mr. Mayor, because -- I'm going to grant that out of
courtesy because I don't want you getting in a bind of where you said that
with legal folk to do that and sometimes we can't always communicate and put
everything on a piece of paper between the time that attorneys call. I'm
going to respect that right now, but I'm going to go on and say this: That
place has been there for whatever years it's been there. We took it into a
merged governmental system. And I think at this point, not to weaken
anybody's case, but if we granted a license and so put it in, then we better
be trying to fight what we have put in and issue the license on. Because if
it was wrong and if it was illegal, they didn't go out there and rob Stewart
and them in getting the license. They paid for it and put one on the wall.
Wrote them a check, paid cash for it or whatever. So either way I think
you're going to have a court case of some magnitude that's in there, but I'll
be doggone if I want to reinvent the wheel on something that we've already got
in place. And if we got problems in there, I'm going to say what I said at
the meeting when didn't but two of us vote to do it: if it's a problem over
in there, send the sheriff's department over there and let them deal with the
problem. If they got problems in the parking lot, let them deal with the darn
parking lot, clean their act up if it's one to be cleaned up. But us
getting out here on this semi-crusade to go in here and do something where
we've already granted a darn license where one has been grandfathered that
we've taken in, I think it's crazy as hell, it's a waste of money, and some
folk ought to come down here and sue all of us for even going out on a limb to
pay that kind of money to take up something like that. Now, we want to
grandstand or something, I'll take you home with me, and when the neighborhood
change after dark, you know, come get the nude dancing that ain't got no
license that I have to run off every night over there. You know, prostitution
solicitation and every darn thing else that's out there on the darn street. I
ain't got no old folks calling me worrying me about no darn nude dancing club,
Moses. What I do have is about whether they're safe in their homes, whether
or not you got to see that mess at 5:30 in the morning when the school
children -- 6:00 when the buses come out in the dark, whether or not they're
still greeted with a hooker that didn't make enough at night that I got to get
out there and run them off or somebody else got to run them off before the bus
comes up to keep our children from seeing it. Those are the problems that we
got in darn neighborhoods as opposed to somebody that's dealing with revenue,
buying a darn license, and I'm going to address that to your deal and to Jim's
deal. And you already know how I'm going to vote when it comes up in two
weeks, but out of courtesy I'm going to take that out and we deal with
everything else if the seconder will allow that to go out.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly dancing in a supper club I don't see a
grave negative impact. There are negative impacts as far as nude dancing go,
and I can cite them all, but I won't bother to. You know, I think historical
records show what they are. And I'll accept the criticism of my colleague,
but I'll just be damned if I'm going to sit here again and let it slip through
and say, oh, we let it go through another year. We got a ordinance on the
book, we ought to let the ordinance [inaudible].
MR. BEARD: Call for the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion with his exception, let
it be known by raising your hand, please.
MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. TODD VOTE NO; MR. MAYS ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 6-2-1. [MR. POWELL ABSENT]
CLERK: Item 34: Motion to approve the design and construction plan
for the Augusta Natatorium to be built on Damascus Road.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I asked you to pull this. I'm in favor of
doing this, I just wanted to know what we're going to do about the additional
seating.
MR. BECK: Commissioner Brigham, what we have done, we have met this
morning with the architects, met a couple of hours, and we did look at some
alternatives to doing a little bit of change of some of the design to be able
to get some more seating in. There was one issue of one of the fire code
regulations that prohibited all the potential seating upstairs in the loft
area of the facility. We are looking at a potential fire escape situation
that will not circumvent the law but be within the fire code to allow a couple
of hundred more seats to be planned upstairs. And, also, a potential design
downstairs as well had some more seating down there, and the architects will
have these potential plans back to us Friday to see exactly how much more
seating we can get within the same scope of the project that we've got without
enlarging the facility. Now, the other thing that we've asked them to look at
is to have a situation on one of the exterior walls where that particular area
could be very easily expandable in the future if we get to a point where we're
potentially trying to host some even bigger events that might require more
seating where we could come back in and expand the facility even bigger than
that at that particular time.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Is this going to come back to us as a change order or
what?
MR. BECK: We're going to see what they've got Friday. I don't think
there will be a change. If there is any changes in design cost to do that,
then that would potentially come back, but I don't anticipate that being much.
Most of the design costs have already been incurred and this will just be
doing some flip-flopping of some bleachers.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we approve.
MR. MAYS: Second.
MR. TODD: I just have a brief question. Other than the funds that's
already been [inaudible], is this going to cause the closing of any
facilities?
MR. BECK: I really can't answer that at this time. But we do have a
proposed budget for that facility which would not be until the 1999 budget.
This facility would not open in '98 at all, so we haven't addressed this
facility within the '98 budget. But the actual budget we're looking at is in
the neighborhood of $300,000, and we do project in the neighbor-hood of
$150,000 to $200,000 in income coming back in from revenues. But it will not
be self-supporting, especially right out of the box in the first year.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL ABSENT]
CLERK: Item 37: Motion to approve minutes of the regular Commission
meeting held November 5, 1997.
MR. ZETTERBERG: So move.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand,
please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL ABSENT]
CLERK: Item 39: Appointment of Mr. Marion E. Barnes to fill the
unexpired term of Dr. James M. Hinton, Jr. on the Board of Richmond County
Department of Family and Children Services through June 1998.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: So move, Mr. Mayor.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand,
please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL ABSENT]
CLERK: Item 40: Appointment of Mr. J.W. Solum (6th District
appointment) to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
MR. BRIDGES: So move.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand,
please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL ABSENT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: We're going to move Item 41 to the very last thing.
CLERK: Item 42: Discussion on the interest payment on the repayment
to Bush Field.
MR. OLIVER: I passed out to each of you a memo from myself. I had the
opportunity to talk to Mr. McDill a little bit ago as it relates to the
interest payment on Bush Field. I believe this is the last remaining item we
have to resolve the situation with the FAA. Bush Field originally requested
eighty-five percent of prime, and Mr. McDill and I have talked about that and
I think we've come to the agreement that the five-year treasury bill rate is a
viable rate, with the condition that if Bush Field goes out for financing,
that we would incorporate any residual balance that may be left over in that
financing. In other words, we'd absorb that rate because they'd need that
capital to make that work. And I'm in agreement with that, so we would
recommend a rate of 5.8 percent which, if approved, we would communicate to
the FAA and would be subject to their final approval.
MR. ZETTERBERG: So move.
MR. MAYS: Second.
MR. TODD: I guess mine is to the County Attorney. Am I still gagged in
reference the exit interview? Do we have a final exit interview?
MR. WALL: We don't have a final exit interview. Still gagged.
MR. TODD: So I'm still gagged, and so I'll keep my mouth shut.
MR. HANDY: Randy, you said that we will be communicating to the FAA.
That's not Mr. McDill, we as the government; right?
MR. OLIVER: Previously the correspondence went from the Mayor, and I
would envision that to go before, but on this particular issue we have the
concurrence of the airport director and I don't see it as an issue. But, yes,
we'll be communicating with them, and I think this will put it to rest.
MR. HANDY: You know why I said that. All the other communication we're
supposed to be as a government dealing with FAA, but Mr. McDill sends a letter
ahead of our letter, so that's why I asked that question.
MR. OLIVER: No, we will be doing that, and we'll copy everybody on that
correspondence.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Zetterberg's motion, let it be known
by raising your hand, please.
[MR. BRIDGES, MR. KUHLKE & MR. POWELL ABSENT]
MOTION CARRIES 7-0.
CLERK: Item 43: Consider appointment of Ms. Allison May as Main
Street Coordinator as recommended by the Main Street Board at a salary of
$32,200.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve it at the past salary for
Main Street Augusta, whatever the salary of the last person that was there.
MR. OLIVER: Now, let me explain. The salary range for that position was
set at $29,313.
MR. TODD: $29,313 then.
MR. OLIVER: That was the bottom. I can assure you, based on my
conversation with Mr. Mason, that she won't take it because she's making more
than that currently. I mean, this is within ten percent of the bottom of the
range. The individual's resume is in here. The Main Street people were
excited about this individual, but that's your decision.
MR. ERICK MONTGOMERY: We have interviewed a number of different people
and this is by far the best candidate. And for you to turn this down over a
couple of thousand dollars and we're not going to get this person is absurd.
You've got a board that's working for you very hard on this, and please take
our recommendation. We have met with a number of people, we have gone through
a number of -- a great deal of effort and resumes, and I've sat here since two
o'clock waiting for this to happen. And if you turn this down, she will turn
us down and we've got to start all over again.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my concern is that we got a lot of folks
that's been put in ranges and they're appealing those ranges. And certainly
we put caps on salaries, and, you know, it's somewhat disturbing when an
outside agency bring someone in and recommend them -- [end of Tape 3] -- so a
few thousand dollars may not seem like a lot, but a few thousand dollars is a
lot.
MR. OLIVER: Let me make one comment so everybody under-stands. The
salary data is included that came from Main Street, the salary range that was
established for this position. And there's some confusion about this position
in that this person is responsible for motivating the merchants downtown.
It's more than just a clerical position. We look to them for the block
captain program and that type thing. The salary that was originally requested
was $36,641. I felt that salary was excessive. Our current policy permits,
but since this is at this particular level it needs to [inaudible] permits
someone to be hired at ten percent over the bottom of the range. This is
within that parameter. And as I say, she makes more than the minimum of this
range currently, so I think it's unlikely that she would come.
MR. BRIDGES: So, Randy, what you're saying is this is not outside of the
limits established, it's only -- is it at the halfway mark?
MR. OLIVER: No, it's within ten percent of the bottom range.
MR. TODD: Are we going to give everybody that's below if they can
appeal within that ten percent? And I know the statement has been made that
this is not an outside agency, but this is a merchants association, what this
is, and -- MR. MONTGOMERY: It's not a merchants association.
MR. TODD: Well, then tell me what it is, sir.
MR. MONTGOMERY: It's a management of downtown to try to bring back
business and in a four-point program that we follow a national model that
we've been doing since 1990. Merchants, of course, are involved. Everybody
downtown is involved. And, furthermore, I will tell you that this salary is
right at the point -- the median range of all the thirty or forty main street
managers in the state of Georgia. But Augusta is the largest main street city
in the state of Georgia, but this salary is right in the median. You've got
people doing this job making over $60,000 a year, so this is not [inaudible].
MR. OLIVER: To be fair, that $60,000 a year includes management of the
parking facilities in Athens, and that's not directly comparable.
MR. HANDY: I'll work for you. I'll quit today for $60,000 a year.
MR. TODD: We're the second largest city, I will agree, population-wise,
but I don't think we have the second largest main street or downtown.
MR. MONTGOMERY: I think we probably do. Bigger than anybody but
Atlanta.
MR. TODD: Well, that's a matter of opinion, I guess. And I'm not going
to support it, but I guess there's no need to continue this debate if we're
talking about $3,000.
MR. OLIVER: It's 9.85 percent over the minimum.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, is the Administrator agreeing that that we're going
to give everybody that have an appeal in that's ten percent of the minimum?
MAYOR SCONYERS: I don't think so, Mr. Todd. I think that it's the right
of that group to recommend what to pay someone, and I think it's our right to
either reject it or accept it.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, do I understand there's not a motion on the
floor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: We never did get a second, did we?
CLERK: We didn't get a second, no.
MR. KUHLKE: Okay. Well, I'd like to make a motion that we accept the
recommendation and allow Main Street to hire this person at a salary of
$32,200 a year.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve the
appointment of Ms. May, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MR. BEARD, MR. HANDY, MR. MAYS & MR. TODD VOTE NO.
MOTION FAILS 4-4-1. [MR. POWELL ABSENT]
CLERK: The addendum agenda, Item 3: Approve the petition for
retirement on Madeline F. Cooper.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand,
please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL ABSENT]
CLERK: Item 4: Motion to approve award of Medical Services contract
for the jail and RCCI.
MR. HANDY: So move.
MR. TODD: Second.
MR. OLIVER: The recommendation is to EMSA at a cost the first year of
$1,363,811.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it's my understanding that if there is any
additional cost -- if the courts demand additional service, that there won't
be any additional cost to the county?
MR. WALL: Mr. Todd, I think that's a little different question than you
asked me earlier, or at least I interpreted it different. They're going to
maintain the accreditation, and if there is any additional cost in order to
maintain the accredita-tion, they're going to pay that cost. I mean, the
court is not going to -- it's inconceivable to me that the court is going to
require anything more than what is required for accreditation.
MR. TODD: Well, let me put the question again like I think I raised it
to you. Are we getting the same service delivery at the same level as the
other entity?
MR. WALL: There is less staffing in their proposal; however, the
obligation is the same obligation that was under the existing proposal, and
that is they've got to provide the dental, they've got to provide the
screenings within certain time periods, et cetera. They obviously feel like
that they can do it with less man hours than the previous company, but that
will built into the contract that they're obligated to provide the level of
services.
MR. TODD: And it's my understanding that we kind of worked out the level
of service with Georgia Legal Services, which was the plaintiff's attorney at
the time that we went in this first contract. Now we're going with less. So
my question is that if the courts say no, you're going to maintain the same
level of service, then who is going to pay for that?
MR. WALL: Well, first of all, they have not mandated any level of
service, neither the court nor Georgia Legal Services. What is required is
that we provide the level of service, the level of medical care, so that there
is not an unconstitutional deprivation. By maintaining the level of care that
will ensure accreditation, we will have met that standard. Because you then
have an outside agency looking at the level of staffing, looking at the level
of service, and if they accredit you, then you're providing what the law
requires.
MR. TODD: Okay, I think that maybe you've answered it then. If they are
maintaining accreditation, then they're maintaining the level of service that
the courts and the law require?
MR. OLIVER: The key is accreditation. They have to maintain
accreditation, and if to maintain accreditation they need additional people,
that's their risk.
MR. MAYS: Let me just ask this, and I guess this gets back again to what
I said earlier today with the telecommunications issue. And certainly I want
us to get in for the best dollar value that we can, but it gets us again into
the service in question. And I guess mine is similar to Moses, but to
probably expand upon that, I want to make sure -- because I know we were not
in an accredited situation to start off with, by everybody's admission. But
what's bothering me a little bit, I'm a little bothered that while we may not
have been under the strict letter of law that said, well, you've got to have,
you know, an LPN here, an RN here, or whatever, there were a lot of things in
terms of that increased staffing that was brought on to get us to the
accreditation level, you know, where we are in there now. I just want to make
sure we're going with the best operative services, or are we going to have to
come back because of the fine-line nature of where these things can slip into
non-accredi-tation very easily. And we're opening on what we've done with the
expanded medical downtown and a new facility to go where we are with what we
know we've got versus a situation where we are going less. And I know we
started getting into everything from how many people can go in a cell, how
many folk we got to have on duty. While all of it is not spelled out, you
know, I just didn't want to see us get to a point where we start getting, you
know, into these jailhouse petitions, you know, in reference to medical care.
And it doesn't take much for us to get back, you know, across the street that
way now, you know, in terms of where we are with medical services and we had
to bring on somebody to get us to the point that we are now. I just want to
make sure that we're in the best bid situation for service, and I think with
what we've been through I'd be very remiss if I didn't bring that up at this
point.
MR. WALL: We certainly had concerns when we saw the initial proposal,
when we saw the number of hours that were being proposed. The level of
staffing was less than what CMS and what the other bidder had proposed.
That's the reason that we got a letter from them that in the event that
additional staffing was necessary in order to maintain accreditation or
achieve accredi-tation, that that would be at their expense. And so that will
be a part of the contract that will be drawn up, and that's the measuring
stick. Now, the court did not order us to go to CMS or to go to Medical
Services. We had a doctor on staff, we had LPN's, we got hit with a lawsuit
down there from one individual over a situation. If you remember it, we
settled it. And after that, I mean, it was obvious that we were not -- we
were having problems with the medical care, so we came forward with a
recommendation that we go out and contract for medical services and we did it.
Now, I don't know what the explanation for why they're proposing that
they're willing to do it for less hours than what CMS proposed. Whether or
not they figured the Stockade situation differently because, again, not
anticipating that we'll have the Stockade after the first of the year. So,
you know, we are not unhappy with CMS, but when you look at the $400,000
difference in the bid, then we feel like it's our obligation to come forward
and recommend EMSA in order to realize that cost savings, recognizing that
they are committed and will be committed under the contract to maintain the
accreditation.
MR. MAYS: And I think that's our first obligation to do. The only
sticker that I got in there with us being under federal court order and trying
to, you know, hopefully soon get out from under it, whether it's ordered by
the court or not, is it probably a good idea if we're going to approve this
and go forward with it that we at least maybe do -- and, I mean, that's into
your realm of handling, but subject to some review of where plaintiff's
attorney and Judge Bowen get a chance to review the reduction in terms of
staffing of what we've got so that we don't enter into a patch of where -- I
mean, they're saying they're going to absorb, but they may absorb and go back
with the staffing. But then we are the ones who bear the court order
responsibility, and that's why I'm saying that maybe it's not written in stone
that this has to be approved by the court or sit down and do with them, but if
they were in on and plaintiff's attorneys were in on putting together the
health program that we had to put, is it not in order somewhere in there that
before we kick into this new group, that at least it be run by the two other
parties involved in this thing since there is a reduction of staff. I realize
the reduction in money, but we're still under federal court order, and we just
came out from over there with that last mess we dealt with and I ain't in no
hurry to go back. And, I mean, I know this is a whole different thing, but I
just want to make sure that if we're doing something different, whether the
judge needs to deal with it and see it or plaintiff's attorneys don't have an
objection to it so that we don't get caught up in something where we got to
turn around and review it because there's not as many people on board anymore
if somebody get a stomachache at two o'clock in the morning. That's the only
question I'm asking with it.
MR. WALL: Well, the idea was to have a contract in place by January 1
for them to staff it. If we're going to award the bid, we need a couple of
weeks to negotiate the contract so that we can get things in motion so that
they'll be ready to take over. And I don't foresee that as being a problem,
Mr. Mays, of satisfying the court.
MR. OLIVER: I will say this, Mr. Mays, that obviously it's based on the
local support. In Florida we did use EMSA for two years. We were happy with
EMSA, the sheriff's department was, and it obviously depends on who you get
locally. But EMSA as a corporate entity was good for us to deal with.
MR. MAYS: You know, we've had such great cooperation out of the courts.
We got a reprieve from them for reprogramming. We got chastised a little
while ago and we're in the new facility now. I just want to make sure that
we're on the level with plaintiff's attorney and Judge Bowen to where if we're
going to make a smooth transition of hopefully getting out from under this
thing [inaudible] --but I just want to make sure in that movement that we're
doing that we don't get a question -- and the judge may possibly -- but I know
you never can tell what may happen on the plaintiff's side of it. But if we
beg court on that and health was a question, then if you get a reduction in
what you've got in terms of the staffing, then they may not be at all
concerned as to what the cost is going to be to us. My main concern is that
they are pleased with it and we ain't going to have no problems with it and
then we can get the heck out from under this thing.
MR. WALL: And I'll be glad to advise both the court and plaintiff's
counsel of this proposed change.
MR. KUHLKE: Call the question, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
[MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. POWELL & MR. ZETTERBERG ABSENT]
MOTION CARRIES 7-0.
CLERK: Item 5: Adopt 1998-2002 Short Term Work Program (STWP) as an
amendment to the Augusta-Richmond County Comprehensive Plan.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'm going to so move.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve, let it
be known by raising your hand, please.
[MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. POWELL & MR. ZETTERBERG ABSENT]
MOTION CARRIES 7-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We need a motion to go into a legal meeting, gentlemen.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, are we going into legal meeting to discuss
personnel also? If not, then I'd like to suspend Number 41 and go into legal
session to handle the others.
MR. KUHLKE: I'd like for it to include personnel.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, Mr. Kuhlke said he'd like for it to include
personnel, so we would bring 41 into that.
MR. TODD: I so move, Mr. Mayor.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand,
please.
[MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. POWELL & MR. ZETTERBERG ABSENT]
MOTION CARRIES 7-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I've got three things I'd like to
add to the agenda. One is to approve payment of legal fees for plaintiff's
counsel in the jail litigation in the amount of $13,264.50. Another is to
approve settlement of two water damage claims: the first one is Duncan at
units E-27, E-28, and E-29 to come from Utilities Department funds for the sum
of $11,200. The third item is to approve settlement of Gene's Roofing and
Remodeling for the sum of $10,681.43, also to come from Utilities Department
funds.
MR. TODD: I so move by unanimous consent, Mr. Mayor.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand,
please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. POWELL ABSENT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Now we need a motion on the first one.
CLERK: The motion is to approve payment of $13,264.50 pursuant to the
court order for attorney fees.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. POWELL ABSENT]
CLERK: The next item is the settlement for Duncan, Units E-27, 28,
and 29, agreed value of $11,200.
MR. TODD: So move.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand,
please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. POWELL ABSENT]
CLERK: The next one is the Gene Roofing and Remodeling in the cost of
$10,681.43.
MR. ZETTERBERG: So move.
MR. TODD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand,
please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. POWELL ABSENT]
CLERK: Item 41: Discussion with regard to Public Works Director.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move that we hire Mr. Jack Murphy
as the Interim Director of Public Works and that the Administrator be
directed to negotiate with Mr. Murphy on the appropriate salary for that
position.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand,
please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. POWELL ABSENT]
MR. OLIVER: There is one other item. The retreat for Saturday, a
couple of you all have indicated that there is a conflict with that.
Obviously there are a number of things
going on in that arena. It was scheduled for economic development. I
guess the question I have for you all is if we still want to proceed in
that direction.
MR. KUHLKE: I move that we postpone that meeting.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand,
please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. POWELL ABSENT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Move we adjourn, gentlemen.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a
true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Augusta-
Richmond County Commission held on November 18, 1997.
_________________________
Clerk of Commission