HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-06-1998 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
January 6, 1998
Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., Tuesday,
January 6, 1998, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke,
Mays, Powell, Todd and Shepard, members of Augusta-Richmond County Commission.
Also present were Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Mr. Oliver,
Administrator; and Mr. Wall, County Attorney.
MR. HANDY: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Good afternoon, ladies
and gentlemen.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: Good afternoon.
MR. HANDY: Thank you. This is my last meeting in this position, I want
to hear all the voices out there. Welcome to our Regular Commission Meeting
today. And we have a lengthy agenda, but we have a very important agenda here
today. We are going to re-elect four Commissioners, we are going to elect a
new Mayor Pro Tem, and then our Mayor will give us the State of the City
Address. We are going to begin our program today a little different from our
normal meeting. We're going to have our Invocation by the Reverend C.W.
Edwards, Jr. He's a retired United Methodist minister. Then we'll have the
Pledge of Allegiance, and then we'll have the Oath of Office given by the
Honorable Carl C. Brown, Jr., and afterwards we will have remarks by the
Commissioners who will be reinstated here today. And we'd like to ask all the
family members of the Commissioners to stand with them to take the Oath of
Office because you are just as important as that Commissioner, because
whatever problems that we have here, he's going to bring it home with him, so
you need to stand with him today. And after that, then we'll have our State of
the City Address by our Mayor, the Honorable Larry Sconyers.
THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND EDWARDS.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED.
THE OATH OF OFFICE WAS TAKEN BY THE NEW COMMISSIONERS.
MR. BEARD: Good afternoon to all of you. This is a great opportunity in
my life to enter the service of government for the second go-round, and at
this point I would just like to recognize my family members. I have my wife
and my two children and a host of brothers and sisters here, and I would just
like for them to stand and be recognized at one point because they have been
very supportive of me in every-thing that I have done. These are the people
who keep me going, and I just want to continue to do the best job that I can
for this county. And we are moving forward, and I hope that with the support
of the public we continue to make this a great city. Thank you.
[A ROUND OF APPLAUSE WAS GIVEN.]
MR. SHEPARD: Ladies and gentlemen, I too want to recognize my family and
friends who have come to support me, but first I thought I might impart to you
one of the rules that I learned in public speaking when I was attending my
daughter's high school graduation last year when she graduated from A.R.
Johnson High School. That rule was to be brief and then be seated, so I will
endeavor to do just that. If I could ask my family, to include my wife and
two daughters, my mother and father-in-law who are from out of town, and also
my staff and my law partner, if they would stand now and be recognized,
please. I want to thank you for all the support you've given me in the
campaign and I'm sure will continue to give in the coming public service.
Little did I dream that nine years ago when I left the City Council service
in this room, that I would return as a Commissioner in the new consolidated
government, but I do look forward to working again in public service and I
will be bringing some issues that I think are important. I will try to
fulfill the campaign promises that I made. I spent part of the time up here
in December watching the Commission work, and George Cunningham caught me. He
said, "Well, there's old Shepard back in the corner of the room." I was out
there looking at the traffic backed up on Greene Street because the train had
stopped again, so. Some other friends here have told me not to stay on that
issue, but I don't always follow everybody's advice and I think you'll find
that happens again. I do hope we will work closely with the Board of Education
and I do hope that we will, like some Commissioners have said, adopt a two-
year budget, and I think one of the most important things we're going to do in
the time I'm going to serve on this council will be to look at the renewal of
the one-cent sales tax. And so I look forward to working with you, Mr. Mayor,
and my fellow colleagues on all those issues in the coming years. Thank you
very much.
[A ROUND OF APPLAUSE WAS GIVEN.]
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Thank you very much to the Mayor and my colleagues and
citizens. I, too, would like to recognize my wife, and all those folks who
did not stand with Mr. Shepard and Mr. Beard, please stand up with us. This
is my wife, Mrs. Brigham, and [inaudible]. Let me just say that it's a single
honor, if we finish this term -- or when we finish this term we will be the
longest continuous member of this government in modern times. Whether that's
good or bad, it's a fact. And certainly we hope that this year or the years
to come will show that those of us who have been around will be able to share
our knowledge and experience and help to build some coalitions so that we can
get things done, and I think that we can. Certainly you have our pledge, and
at the end of this particular term it will be sixteen continuous years. I
think that's the longest in modern times. Thank you very much.
[A ROUND OF APPLAUSE WAS GIVEN.]
MR. MAYS: The Judge was a school mate, Mrs. Brigham was my homeroom
teacher, Mr. Beard was my guidance counselor, Steve was my former colleague on
the old City Council and we're back together again, and I guess Lena was
holding the Bible because she and Doris were to the two people that I found
that my mother left me during the Newman Administration, so that covers a lot
of my family as well. I joked with some people this morning, I said they
couldn't all get on one bus leaving Lincoln County so they decided to stay.
When I came here in 1979 I never thought past the three term limit that I
would be hanging around as an old-timer still in this place, but I've enjoyed
every minute of it. As I say to people, I do love what I do. This community
has been good to me, it's been good to my family. I think it's an honor and a
sacred trust to be able to be elected to public office, something that the
vast majority of Americans will not get a chance to do, and this is something
that should not be taken lightly. I think we have a golden opportunity in
this community. I look back over seven elections that I've been able to win,
Oscar, I won't talk about the ones on the other side, and five of those in
which I faced no opposition. That also can be good and bad. It either says
somebody must be pleased with what you're doing or either you're the only one
crazy enough to still be taking that job. But whatever the reason, there's an
obligation to serve. And when people put their trust in you, I think that's
what you must do. We have the collective opportunity, I think, in this
community and this new government to make Augusta that shining example for the
rest of the nation to follow. Pop Newman used to joke many times that when
Oglethorpe landed in Savannah, it took him many years to find out that
Georgia's best secret was further up the coast. And he happened to derail in
Augusta and we were founded a little bit later, our second oldest city, now
our second largest city. But even though that dot on the map is larger, as I
say to my colleagues, the challenge now, while being the second oldest and the
second largest, the real challenge is to make the quality of life and the type
of leadership that we give to our people second to none. We have the best
kept secret not only in Georgia, not in the South, but in this country, and
that's the strength of our people. We are a blessed community, we are a
blessed city. And I guess as the oldest member of this body in number of
years, I say this to -- and I've said this to three of the announced
candidates that will be seeking the leadership of this council, and probably
to the unannounced ones as well, that the coalition that's made today will
only last until summertime. The real coalition, the real common denominator,
is going to be that which we put together that reflects the sacrifice that we
make for our people. I've been at the so-called bottom of committees, I've
been at the top of them, and whoever gets that job, I want to say to you
first, if it helps you build a stronger coalition, take the chairmanship I've
got. It doesn't matter whether you're at the top of a committee or what
committee you serve, the bottom line is what you do for people. It will take
all of us collec-tively to make this city work, and I say that I hope that
this will be a fruitful year, Mr. Mayor, Commission members, for our city. I
would be remiss -- I don't see Rob Zetterberg in the room this morning, but it
was a pleasure working with him over the last two years, the coalitions we
were able to build in that category. I look forward to working with my
colleagues, and whoever takes the reins of that leadership today, I hope that
it will be a working relationship with the Mayor and the members of this
Commission to present to the people the type of government that they so
desperately desire. Good leadership and good followship must go together to
make a great city. This city, named after the little princess, is still a
diamond in the rough. We've got a little polishing up to do, we've got a few
cobwebs to shake off, but, again, I think it's not important. It's good to
have history on our side of being the second oldest, it's great now to be the
second largest, and let's go to work and make Augusta second to none in terms
of what we present to the rest of the world. I congratulate all of my fellow
colleagues that have been elected to this term and to those of you who have to
hit the mat this year and the next year. But most of all, let the people be
the common denominator in every decision that we make and let God, most of
all, be our guide. Thank you and God bless you.
[A ROUND OF APPLAUSE WAS GIVEN.]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Ladies and gentlemen, I apologize for the intense heat
in the room. It was not intended to be that way. It's nothing to do with my
fellow colleagues, it's just hot in here today. We're trying to have
something done about cooling it off for you, okay? Because I promise you,
it's hotter sitting up here than it is out there where y'all are. As we
start our third year as a consolidated government, in order to properly put
the positives of our government in proper perspective, it's beneficial to
compare our city with other consolidated governments. The timing effort for
most governments to put their consolidated efforts together has been a minimum
of six to ten years. Ours has been done in like two years, which is unheard
of, so I think the group sitting up here to my right and left should be
commended for the efforts they have made, and I want to personally commend the
Commissioners for the efforts they put forth to make our government work.
This was not the easiest thing to do, and these guys have put forth a heroic
effort to make our govern-ments become one. We successfully consolidated
the Sheriff's Department and the former Augusta City Police Department,
equalized the pay in those two departments; the same thing with the Fire
Department from the old county and the former city, the salaries have been
equalized in both of those. And we appointed department heads for all the
newly merged departments, and in compliance with the bill have created and
formed the EEO Office. We have been successful in our endeavor in the
privatization of the Sanitation Department and the Central Shop. We have
hired a Fleet Manager and implemented fuel credit cards, which has brought a
tremendous savings to the taxpayers. Augusta-Richmond County has one of the
best water systems in the Southeast, utilizing both well water and surface
water. We have one of the best rated fire departments in the Southeast and
are constantly seeking new ways to improve this in other departments. We have
attempted to make our government more user friendly and have hired a
professional County Administrator to oversee many of the day-to-day operations
of the Augusta-Richmond County government that were previously performed by
elected officials. However, all of these achievements are not an
indicator that we can sit back and rest on our laurels. We have many areas in
which to concentrate in order to consistently improve our economic growth of
this community and to improve the services the government provides to the
taxpayers. We need to pursue privatization in other departments, try and stop
business as usual, and make long leaps toward downsizing our government, if
not to reduce the tax burden on the taxpayers, at least to prevent tax
increases in the future. We must look at money distributed to private
organizations. I encourage the Commission to ask the County Attorney to issue
a written opinion on a case-by-case basis as to whether or not the
distribution of tax money to that particular organization is legal or not. We
must support the Metro Chamber of Commerce of Augusta. I would also like to
take the initiative to provide better housing for low-income citizens and
challenge all our church and civic organizations with outreach programs to
help us with our homeless people in Augusta-Richmond County by adopting a
family or an individual. By accepting this challenge, we can eliminate the
homeless in Augusta-Richmond County. I would also like to take this
opportunity to thank our department heads, staff, and employees for their
loyalty, hard work, and commitment to our community. It is only with their
continued dedication we will be able to move forward. I thank you all. I
thank you for allowing me to be the Mayor for the last two years and look
forward to working with these ten gentlemen sitting up here to push Augusta
even farther forward. Thank you very much.
[A ROUND OF APPLAUSE WAS GIVEN.]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, do we have any deletions or additions,
please?
CLERK: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor and Commission, we have a request to delete
Item 39, which was placed on the agenda in error. We have a correction on
Item 44, a typographical error on page one of the ordinance. Additions to the
agenda: (1) to approve a petition for retirement on Janice H. McBride; (2)
motion to approve the amendment to the '45 and '77 County Pension Plans so as
to make investment policies uniform. Second reading on that one.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move by unanimous consent.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 1: Election of the Mayor Pro Tempore.
MAYOR SCONYERS: The floor is open for nominations.
MR. MAYS: I would like to place in nomination for Mayor Pro Tem the
Commissioner from District 4, the Honorable Moses Todd.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I would like to place the name of the
Commissioner from District 10, Bill Kuhlke.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I would like to nominate the Commissioner from
District 1, Mr. Lee Beard.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that nominations be closed.
MR. POWELL: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising
your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, could I have a clarification on how we'll be
voting on these, whether we'd have to -- out of the three we'd have to vote
for only one, or just how that's to be done.
MR. WALL: Take them in order. The first one that receives six votes is
the winner. You do not go to the next one. In the event that there are five
yes's and five no's for any particular nomination, then the Mayor would have
the right to cast the vote to break the tie.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd first. All in favor of Mr. Todd, let it be
known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION FAILS 3-7. [MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE, MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR.
SHEPARD, MR. BEARD, MR. POWELL, MR. BRIDGES VOTING NO]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke. All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke, raise your
hand, please.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I abstain.
MOTION FAILS 5-4-1. [MR. TODD, MR. MAYS, MR. HANDY, MR. H. BRIGHAM VOTE
NO] [MR. BEARD ABSTAINS]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard. All in favor of Mr. Beard, raise your
hand, please.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I abstain.
[VOTE COUNT UNCERTAIN]
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, let's have a roll call vote if we're missing some
hands.
CLERK: 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: No.
CLERK: Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: No.
CLERK: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: No.
CLERK: Mr. Shepard?
MR. SHEPARD: No.
MOTION CARRIES 6-4.
MAYOR SCONYERS: So Mr. Beard is our new Mayor Pro Tem. Since we got the
Mayor Pro Tem out of the way, we're going to forego the appointment of the
standing committees until after the discussion of our regular meeting, and
then Mr. Beard and I will get together and do that.
CLERK: Yes, sir. Appointment of Legal Counsel.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I nominate Mr. Jim Wall.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, I move that nominations be closed.
MR. BEARD: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, in mentioning the enabling legislation to
consolidate, in the State of the City Address you talked about the
accomplishments, and I think that you are right, that we've accomplished a
lot. There is one item of unfinished business and that's the item of the law
department, and I would hope in 1998 that we will address that issue and that
we will either, by a vote, tell the people that voted for the referendum on
consolida-tion and the legislative delegation that we're not going to appoint
the law department or that we will go to work on imple-menting the law
department sometime in 1998. I think that when we have unfinished business
it's not fair to the citizens that voted for the referendum, and I think that
we've got to decide on this issue one way or the other. I understand that it
may be less costly to have a appointed County Attorney versus a law
department, but I feel that we've got to take this issue and we've got to vote
on it one way or the other as far as whether we're going to implement it.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Anybody else? All in favor of Mr.
Wall, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT]
CLERK: Under the Finance portion of the agenda, Items 4 through 13 were
approved by the Finance Committee on December the 29th.
[Addendum Agenda Item 2: Motion to approve the amendment to the 1945
and 1977 County Pension Plans so as to make the investment policies
uniform. Second Reading. Item 4: Motion to approve 1996 taxes in the
amount of $129.30 for overpayment of taxes on Map 109-4, Parcel 97.
Item 5: Motion to approve 1996 taxes in the amount of $129.30 for
overpayment of taxes on Map 143, Parcel 90. Item 6: Motion to approve
1996 taxes in the amount of $69.17 for overpayment of taxes on Map 249,
Parcel 134.01.
Item 7: Motion to approve 1995 and 1996 taxes in the amount of
$476.55 for overpayment of taxes on Map 256, Parcel 3.06. Item 8:
Motion to approve refund of prior year taxes for 1996 in the amount of
$128.66 for overpayment of taxes on Account No. 238825. Item 9:
Motion to approve Resolution extending occupational tax ordinance for
telephone companies countywide. Item 10: Motion to approve an
Ordinance granting a franchise to Charter Communications. First Reading.
Item 11: Motion to approve an Ordinance granting a franchise to
Knology Holdings, Inc. First Reading. Item 12: Motion to amend KMC
Franchise Agreement to establish a franchise fee of 3%. First Reading.
Item 13: Motion to approve amendment to Augusta-Richmond County Code
establishing inspection fees at $15.00 each. First Reading.]
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the Finance Committee would like to take
these as a consent agenda. And I think it would be appropriate at this time
also to take Item Number 2 on the addendum agenda at the same time, as we
voted on it in the committee meeting and passed that also.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull Item Number 11, please.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Items 4 through 13, minus Item 11, plus Item 2 on the
addendum. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let
it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT]
CLERK: Item 11: Motion to approve an Ordinance granting a franchise
to Knology Holdings, Inc. Approved by Finance Committee on December 29th.
First Reading.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we postpone for 30 days to
receive advice from GMA and to further study the issue.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear from Mr. Wall on this.
MR. WALL: This is a franchise agreement. Knology had indicated that
they desired to come in with primarily cable TV. This was originally directed
to the city sometime, as I recall, probably in November. At the time, it was
the opportune time to deal with all of the franchise agreements dealing with
cable TV as well as telecommunications, and that's what I undertook to do.
Subsequently, because of contact with Southern Bell and others, this item was
delayed one time with the knowledge and the -- I won't say consent, I guess it
was, in a sense, with the under-standing that this matter would be brought
back before the Commission on this date by Knology. They have been anxious to
move forward with this project. And so it was delayed one time at my request
in order to deal with certain telecommunications issues. Thereafter we deleted
the telecommunications issues from the franchise agreement and went forward
with the cable TV portion of the franchise agreement with the understanding
that because of the ramifications and dealing with Southern Bell primarily,
also KMC and Jones Intercable to some extent, that the telecommunications
portion would be brought back at a later time as an amendment to this
franchise agreement. So it was delayed one time at my request. I feel
like that it is a good franchise agreement from the standpoint that you would
have the 3% franchise fee, which is consistent with what we've done with other
utilities within the city. And there are certain issues -- and I know Jones
Intercable is here and they may wish to speak to some of those issues. Also,
Don Hackney and two company representatives are here from Knology, and you may
wish to hear from them.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I asked that this be pulled to discuss
separately, not to delay it. I'd like to make a substitute motion that we
hear both from Jones Intercable and Knology and then take action on this.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, in the times that the city is going through budget
restraints, I think it's important that we capitalize and get as much as we
possibly can from franchise agreements. I understand that there is a federal
statute that somewhat require us to do the same rate with some entities, but
cable television is not necessarily one of those entities, as I understand it,
and that we can do a 5% franchise fee, and especially if we're talking about a
new franchise agreement. And the difference in 3%, if we lock in with this
one on 3% we would probably, to be fair, would have to lock in everywhere else
with 3%, and that could cost this government approximately a half million
dollars. The service provider or franchisee at present serves about 54,000
subscribers in Augusta-Richmond County. At the percentage of 3%, they're
paying approximately $700,000 in a franchise fee annually. You can figure that
monthly, I haven't done the monthly math. At 5%, if we choose to go 5% with
cable providers, that approximately $700,000 would increase to approx-imately
$1.2 million. That is $500,000. I think when we're talking about $500,000,
Mr. Mayor, we need to slow down and smell the coffee. We need to make sure
that we're making the proper decision. Where I'm for competition, I am
not for cherry picking. But where I'm for being fair, I'm for being fair to
the taxpayers also and to not lose opportunities to have a 5% franchise fee
with Knology and with Jones Intercable and/or any other provider that wants to
come into the Richmond County market -- Augusta market. There's going to be
others, Mr. Mayor. There is going to be BellSouth and there is going to be
names that we've never heard of that's going to line up to come into this
market. What we certainly should try to do at all cost is to have the
greatest net gain for the citizens and taxpayers of Richmond County, Mr.
Mayor. We should certainly foster or at least have an environment for
competition, but we certainly should have some regulations on our market as to
how we open it so the taxpayers are not the losers. I certainly would want to
see any entity coming in that's going to service a certain area be able to
service at least 70% of that area, 60 to 75% of that area, within a reasonable
time period. The regulations that's in place now allow us as local
government, Mr. Mayor, to put that criteria on. It's essential that we have
the criteria there because as we open Pandora's box or door we're certainly
going to have everybody in and we could lose opportunity to get the greatest
net. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and colleagues for taking the time to listen and
consider. I would hope that we would slow things down, take the 30 days, talk
to GMA. They are the experts, not ACCG. When we had this issue before
committees with Association of County Commissions of Georgia, we folded the
tent and we decided we wouldn't reinvent the wheel, that we would listen to
our city side, the Georgia Municipal Association. They are the experts.
Thank you.
MR. WALL: You know, during the discussion phase -- I mean, I'm not sure
that you need to have a vote to have further discussion, and that was simply
the point that I was making. And you can recognize the industry
representatives in connection with the original motion that was made. I'm not
sure that it was necessary.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, as I understand this, the reason we want to put
this off is possibly to increase the franchise fee. Jim, can we do that if
we've got 3% on every other utility out there? Is that a possibility?
MR. WALL: Insofar as the cable is concerned, I mean, yes. I mean, you
can go to a 5% franchise if that's the decision of this Commission to do that.
The question and the policy decision is whether or not by increasing the
franchise fee it will have an adverse effect on bringing others into the
marketplace, and that's a policy decision that you've got to make as far as
whether or not the immediate short-term benefits perhaps of an increased
franchise fee is more beneficial to the city than the possibility of keeping
the franchise fee and moving forward with the additional competition that may
come into the area.
MR. BRIDGES: Do we need to hear the pros and cons then of this
discussion before we vote on it?
MR. WALL: I would suggest that you hear from the two
representatives. Mr. Ken Daniel is here representing Jones Intercable and Don
Hackney from Atlanta is here representing Knology.
MR. KUHLKE: I know that you don't have to have another motion to have
the debate on this, but my motion was that we hear from both of the
representatives or we take an action on this today and not defer it for 30
days.
MR. MAHR: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, my name is Bill Mahr, I'm the CEO
and President of Knology. Knology is a company that, as you, very much
believes in Georgia. We're based out of Georgia, West Point, part of the ITC
family of companies. We have other companies already working here in the
Augusta area: Powertel and ITC Deltacom and Minespring, to name those three.
What we're about is building a broadman network. We plan to spend $40
million over the next three to five years. We plan to build close to 100,000
homes, so it's not at all a cherry picking of certain areas. In negotiations
with the city, we have agreed to a build-out provision even though the other
network operator today did not have a build-out provision as they went
forward. We look at bringing competition to cable, to local and long distance
telephone, and then a new technology, which is the Internet. I believe
everyone here believes in the power of the Internet, it's ability to reach out
and touch every home [inaudible]. As to the franchise situation, we
simply would request that -- this was a process that began in early October
for us and we are now into January. This is not the final decision, the
council gets to make another vote in two weeks. We would ask for the process
to continue to go forward. At such time as the other cable provider agrees in
their franchise process to 5%, I will commit that we will come back in and
renegotiate that aspect and go to 5% as well. All we're asking is that we not
be held to a greater standard or a greater amount of franchise fee than the
other providers. These are other providers who have had incum-bency, have
been monopolies for many, many years, and for the new guy in town to have to
have a higher price structure based upon all of those folks doesn't seem to be
quite fair from Knology's perspective. If we have a much higher price
structure, we're not going to have that many customers to be paying that much
on the franchise fees, whereas all the incumbents who pay 3% today, you know,
will stay at that 3% threshold. So we really believe it fair for the city to
set a number, but to set that across the board. We believe going forward with
our franchise at this point in time is the appropriate thing to do. We're
ready to start spending money and employing folks across the city, and would
ask for this additional two weeks to come in and address any concerns that any
of the Commissioners may have instead of not getting an approval to continue
at this point in time. Thank you.
MR. DANIEL: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I repre-sent Jones
Intercable. My name is Ken Daniel. And we likewise want to ask for the same
thing that Knology is asking for, and that is that we not be held to a greater
standard with respect to the obligations of Jones Intercable that's been a
faithful provider to this community for over 20 years than what you're fixing
to do with Knology. We prepared some maps to show the net effect of what the
Knology franchise will do, and I'd like to display those to the Commissioners
so you might have an idea of what we're talking about. We've got two maps and
we'll display one on each end. Knology's franchise, I'd like to point
out, is very limited in the area which they want to serve. They want to serve
the heart of the city where most of the residential customers are located.
They want to serve those areas of the highest density. This is a map of
Richmond County, and the franchise that you're being asked to vote on today is
simply awarding Knology a franchise to serve the area that's high-lighted in
red. As you can see, a great part of District 1 is left out, a great part of
District 7, and great part of District 3, all of District 6 is excluded, all
of District 4 is excluded, a great part of District 8 is excluded, and a small
part of District 2 is excluded. So what Knology is asking you to do is to
approve a franchise that allows them to come into the most dense area of the
community and serve only that area. You're being asked to vote on this
franchise not for a short period of time, as some would lead you to believe.
This is a 15-year franchise you're being asked to award today, and their
commitment is to serve only the area in red in Richmond County. As I
pointed out earlier, Jones has been in this business for over 20 years, and
notwithstanding the absence of require-ments in their franchise, Jones built
out and served the entire Richmond County community. We've got cable running
out in areas where we're passing farmland and there's not houses for miles.
Of course, Knology doesn't want any part of that competition. They want the
competition on the Hill and in other sections of the community where there's
the most cable subscribers by demographics and by density. So we're asking
you to do what they asked you to do, that's feed us both from the same trough.
If we're going to be required to serve the entire community, the entire
county, make them do likewise. That's all we're asking. The second thing
is, if you approve this franchise, you're going to create within Richmond
County haves and have nots. We're not scared of the competition that Knology
may bring, but you are going to create two classes of citizens in this
community, those who have competition and those who don't. You can expect as
just a matter of business what's going to happen in the area where the
competition is, is franchise fees more likely than not will be reduced because
rates will be lowered where there is competition. And so you're almost
certainly going to have a dual rate structure for cable within Richmond County
by adopting this ordinance. You're going to provide competition in the center
of the community and you're not going to have competition in the outlying
areas. In addition, as Knology mentioned, what they're going to be asking
you to do is to award them today a franchise that deals solely, according to
Mr. Wall, with cable television. But as you just heard from the representative
of Knology, that's not all they want. They want a franchise that will permit
them to get into the local and long distance telephone marked and the Internet
market. If that's what they want, why don't we have that franchise before the
Commission so we can evaluate it today? What Mr. Wall told me this morning
the plans are is that they're going to ask you to approve this franchise today
and then come back to you within a few months asking you to amend the very
franchise you're being asked to vote on today. Now, that doesn't make a lot
of sense. Presently Jones Intercable's franchise is up for renewal.
Knology's application for a new franchise is before this Commission. It would
seem like it would make sense to back off, take a little time and address both
of these issues and feed everybody from the same plate, make sure that you're
maximizing the revenues that you're going to produce for the city. Jones is
not concerned -- overly concerned about an increase in the franchise fees, if
that's what the Commission decides to do, as long as we're playing on a level
playing field with the other competitors in the area. I think there are a lot
of policy concerns that are raised and should be raised by this application
and inasmuch as you're being asked to approve for a 15-year period a franchise
that's being represented to you today as only a partial franchise, they're
going to come back and want to amend that very soon, I would respectfully
suggest that Mr. Todd is right. The thing to do is slow down just a little
bit and let's make sure all these issues are addressed appropriately.
MR. KUHLKE: Ken, I'd like to ask this question. What's wrong with that?
You know, what's wrong with them coming back and asking for an amendment?
What's the problem with that?
MR. DANIEL: I think the thing there, Mr. Kuhlke, is that you don't know
what the end product you're being asked to approve today is. What you're
being asked to approve is just piecemeal approve a franchise agreement that's
going to last 15 years. Why not get the whole thing in front of you at once?
MR. WALL: Let me just correct or clarify something insofar as what Mr.
Daniel said. The franchise agreement applies county-wide, and I don't know
that he meant to imply that it did not apply countywide. The requirement is
that there is a build-out provision within basically the area that is in red,
but the franchise agreement is for all of the areas, including District 6 and
the entire district. There is no build-out requirement in those districts,
however. The requirement is that they build within five years within the area
that I assume is the red area and that they service at least 75% of the
residents in there. The idea behind that was, I heard the discussion early on
from Jones that there was concern about cherry picking, is the term that they
used, and so I wanted to ensure that there was a commitment to build in all
segments of the community. I don't know whether they brought the map here or
not, but this is the area that we agreed upon within five years; however, they
do have a projected plan insofar as the growth is concerned. So I wanted to
clarify that. The only thing that is left out of this franchise is the
telecommunication. And the reason that it was pulled out, Jones Intercable's
franchise has been on the agenda for two occasions, it was pulled off, and I
had hoped that both of them would come forward at the same time so that these
policy issues could be addressed and could be decided by you as Commissioners.
But the telecommunications, because of Southern Bell and other reasons, was
the reason that Knology wanted to go forward with a cable TV franchise
agreement, which is the agreement that's before you.
MR. BRIDGES: Jim, so my understanding of what you said then is that
you're the one that requested that they commit to this red area basically?
MR. WALL: That's correct.
MR. BRIDGES: Okay. Could I ask you a question, please, sir? The red
area that you've got that you referred to as cherry picking, from my knowledge
of inner-city Augusta, downtown Augusta, that appears to me to contain some of
the poorest areas. I mean, I'll agree that, you know, the Hill is included in
that, but, to me, that's some of the poorest areas of the city as well.
MR. DANIEL: I would respectfully point out that Mr. Wall is correct.
They have the right to serve anyplace in the county; they have the obligation
under this proposed franchise to serve 75% of the area in red within five
years. Now, if you give them the choice of what 75% of that red area they
want to serve, you can be relatively assured that they're going to look at
demographics and they're going to look at density and they're going to serve
the 75% with the highest density and the best demographics of cable
subscribers. So what you've done essentially is you've limited not only the
area that they are required to serve, but then you've given them the right to
pick the three-quarters of that area that they will serve.
MR. WALL: It's 75% of the residents, not of the geographical area.
MR. BRIDGES: This does not limit them to the red area; in other words,
they could go ahead in the five years and expand out into the 8th District or
wherever?
MR. DANIEL: And that's what we would ask that the franchise require them
to do, the same thing that Jones does, and that's serve these outlying areas
where there's not the same density and there's not the same demographics to
produce the income that this red area is going to produce. What you're going
to have, unquestionably, is competition inside this high density inner-city
area where the rates may be lowered, but no competition in the outlying areas,
and you will almost certainly see a dual cable rate structure within Richmond
County as a result of this ordinance.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Since we've heard some of Knology's business plan, does
Jones have any interest in getting into the telecom business also? And I need
to know that because if we're going to get into a 5% on cablevision, and I
know we're limited by law to 3% on the phone bills, then my next question
would be to Mr. Wall: Can I charge the same company two different rates? So
I need to know.
SPEAKER: We have no immediate plans to be a telephone company.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: When you say immediate, are you talking about five
years? Ten years?
SPEAKER: We have no business plan for that.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: How long have you had your franchise?
SPEAKER: We've had our franchise -- I don't remember the exact date.
It's about 20 years.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: About 20 years. And how long did it take to build the
system? The entire county.
SPEAKER: When we first achieved the franchise for Augusta, we built it
out in two years in Richmond County.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: The whole City of Augusta?
SPEAKER: The whole City of Augusta in two years.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I don't believe that's correct.
SPEAKER: That's what the history shows me. I was not here personally.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I know, I was.
MR. DANIEL: But they were two separate franchise agreements, Mr.
Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: No, I knew one was for the county and one for the city,
but I don't believe they completed any one franchise within two years. Now, I
might be wrong.
SPEAKER: But, again, what the Cable Act of '94 says, that a government
has the right to require any new franchisee to build cable and service to
everyone, but it must be within a reasonable time frame. So what you've ended
up here with is a reasonable time frame to build out a portion of the county,
but you have the right to require any new franchisee to build the entire
county. Now, we have offered to Jim to follow these same rules. I mean, we
have already done this, we did this voluntarily. We are out amongst the areas
that have cornfields and stuff like that as well as the city area, but we do
not hesitate to be obligated to that either. You know, just because we've
done it doesn't mean that we would not hesitate to put it in writing and live
up to that, too. But, to us, that is what is fair competition, is when you
can provide service to all of your county.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: What percentage of the county is now being serviced?
SPEAKER: Ninety-five percent.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: And it took 20 years to get to 95%?
SPEAKER: No, I would not say that.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Did it take 10 years?
SPEAKER: Ten years might be reasonable.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: It might have took more than five?
SPEAKER: It could have taken more than five, that's correct.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: It could have took 10 years?
SPEAKER: But I think 10 years would be a reasonable number [inaudible].
MR. J. BRIGHAM: To go to 95% of the county?
SPEAKER: As a matter of fact, if I came in here and asked you for a
franchise today, I would commit to doing 100% in five years. That's the norm
in this day and time.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, I'm just asking because I'm trying to -- there's a
lot of things weighing into this rate and whether or not -- and I think the
phone thing weighs heavily. And I'm still going to ask that question to Mr.
Wall, but I need to get some idea of your business plan.
SPEAKER: Sure. I did take the initiative to call GMA and ask them about
this proposal and how they felt about, and GMA was very clear that in their
representing the cities, that they do not feel that a partial franchise is
adequate competition. They feel that you should, you know, build the entire
community with reasonable time lines associated with that. They must be
reasonable. You can't expect the unexpected, but there should be a
commitment. Whatever cable operator is going to come in here, there should be
a commitment not only to serving the entire area, but you should look at other
things like maybe commitments to studios, commitments to on-air programming.
I mean, this is the time -- if you're going to set franchises for 15 years,
this is the time to redo it.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Jim, I need to know about the dual franchise on cable
versus the telephone.
MR. WALL: You could have one rate for cable TV and a different rate for
telephone. They're different services.
MR. MAHR: We have the commitment to build much more than the area that's
depicted here. We actually increase the recommendation by the city. All
we're asking for is equal treatment to our competitors as they build out their
network. We're asking for 15 years. They had the opportunity for a 20-year
franchise coming out of the blocks. They also had an opportunity for a 10-
year exclusive where there could be no competition while they built. We're
coming in now to great competition. We are building a network that's far
advanced and a higher cost structure than the networks that were built at that
point in time. It's a 750 megahertz, not a 550; we offer a lot more channels;
it's two-way so that there will be interactive communication; and, yes, it
will be voice and telephony capable. We understand that you're going to need
to talk to Bell, because you can't ask us to pay something that Bell wouldn't
be paying from a local perspective. All we're saying is don't hold us hostage
until all of these players come to bear. But we will agree that at each time
that one of the other providers agrees to an additional franchise fee, that
we'll agree to that fee. We're not asking for anything extra, we're just
asking for an even playing field. But delay is extremely harmful to us.
There are a lot of apartment complexes across the city that enter into long-
term exclusive contracts with providers, and the longer we're not here, the
more that those contracts are excluded, and it will very much hurt our
business base. So we're not asking for anything in addition to what's been
granted in the past. We're asking 15, they got 20. They got a 10-year
exclusive and they've had 20 years to build out this network. As I mentioned,
we're looking at over 100,000 homes, and if you'll look at that area and count
up the homes, it's substantially outside of that region. Of course, we
haven't had time to come in and walk out the entire area to get, you know, a
feel for exactly the network design, but we've been doing that for the last
six weeks.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: To go to 95% service to the county, what is your
projection as to years to complete?
MR. MAHR: Years to complete 95% of the county, I would say 10 to 15
years. But, once again, you're asking us to be bound by a circumstance that
the competitors were not bound by; and then, likewise, we're building a
different type of network. When KMC came in and asked for a communications
network, they were not bound by a provision to build out the entire city. To
build a traditional cable network and going out in those areas is much more
cost-effective than building the type of robust network that we are, so it
would take us longer.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my responsibility is at least to have a
significant gain in the net or to keep it revenue neutral. And is it my
understanding that there is a possibility that the competition would actually
drive down the net, and would you agree that I have a reasonable
responsibility to make sure that there is competition but also to protect the
interest of the local government as far as revenue go?
MR. MAHR: I think that revenue gain is an extremely important thing for
the local government to look at. I think it's also important to realize where
that revenue gain comes from. It doesn't come from us because the franchise
fees are passed through. It comes from the pockets of the citizenry. So look
at that in balancing that across this decision-making process. I do agree
with you that cable to cable competition will drive prices down, which I think
is very good for the entire community, to get more channel lineup for a better
price struc-ture, which does mean that there could be some revenue drop.
However, a company like Knology brings something in addition: we bring the
high-speed data services that will likewise have fran-chise fees upon them.
So we're not just cable to cable, and we hope there will be better price
structures across this city. But by bringing new services like cable modems
that we're committing to, we're looking at energy services and security and
other things that our network can support, continues to drive that franchise
base while offering competition across the entire market. Now, there is,
you know, an extreme earnest for us to get into the market. We have $332
million sitting in the bank that we're paying interest on, so we've got to get
that into our business, and that's why -- you know, we're not trying to be
difficult here today at all, but we began this process in early October and we
have very much a need to deploy this capital and get going down the road. It
will be six months from the day that y'all give us this franchise till we
begin operating services on the cable side. That, I believe, gives us ample
time to come back in and work on the telephony side of the equation. Once
again, we're agreeing we'll pay whatever the other competitor pays on the
franchise fee. We're not going to enter into that battle. We can't agree to
pay more is all we're saying.
MR. TODD: I want to ask you what kind of agreements have you built
Columbus to the point that you promised?
MR. MAHR: We are ahead of our obligation of our franchise, yes, and
we'll complete the full city build-out by May of this year. Likewise in
Montgomery, Alabama, we'll complete that full city build-out by May. We just
purchased a small company in Panama City Beach and we are completing the
obligation with that franchise, yes. Once again, this was not what we said
we're going to serve, this was what we were asked to firmly commit to. And
I'll take an issue off the table, we can change it from 75% of this area to
100%. So we don't have to deal with that, we're going to build it, that's not
a problem. We just need to get into the market because the market is eroding.
Our competitors are going to these apartment complexes and hotel/motels and
the like. And, once again, there's other competitors across the marketplace
who --we're looking at 18 cities and Augusta was the very next one that we're
going into past the two that we began our company with. We're extremely
excited about the opportunity here. We, as y'all, love Georgia and very much
want to be part of that collective prosperous city that y'all are growing.
MR. KUHLKE: Would you agree to a 10-year build-out countywide?
MR. MAHR: No. And, once again, we simply cannot agree to franchise
obligations that others did not have. When they got their 20-year versus our
15, they also had a 10-year exclusive in the market as a monopoly. As a
monopoly, you know, there are certain interests there. I would argue that
very few, if anybody, would agree to that type of deal this go-around. It's
taken them 20 years, we'll be back in 15. We're agreeing to build out the vast
majority of the area at the end of the 15. I mean, we're coming here to stay.
Fifteen years is a long time, $40 million is a lot of money, but without our
full network engineering and getting going throughout the process, ubiquitous
build-out is not something that we can agree to, as they didn't when they
began their franchise process. But we would ask that if the process could
continue for the next two weeks, we will spend all of our time between that
point and next visiting with y'all individually or other members of the
community to understand what our concepts are in going forward, but we would
like to get to that next step.
MR. DANIEL: I just wanted to point out that I think that you just
learned what our concerns are. Mr. Kuhlke asked would you agree to a build-
out within 10 years of the entire community, and without hesitation the
response was no. And I think that's clear. What you're being asked to do is
to give them a franchise to build out only the part of the community with the
highest density and the best demographics for cable. You're being asked to
create dual situations within the county where the folks who live in these
outlying areas will not have competition, where you're going to have dual rate
structures, and they're simply not willing to commit to play on that same
field that we have to play on by servicing these other areas. And I think
that's an awfully important consideration as this Commission grants a
franchise that's going to be in place for the next 15 years, long after most
all of us have moved on.
MR. TODD: Mr. Daniel, if we change the build-out to 10 years for the
entire county and both at 5% and suspend the second reading on the Jones
franchise agreement, would you guys be willing to compromise and sign?
MR. DANIEL: I don't think you'd have any problem with those conditions,
no, sir. We'd be willing to accept those conditions immediately.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to amend my motion if the seconder of my
motion will allow me to, to a 10-year build-out for the entire county, and 5%
for both franchisees, and Mr. Wall prepare the Jones Intercable franchise
agreement and bring it to us for the next meeting to approve by suspending the
second reading.
MR. SHEPARD: I seconded that motion, Mr. Todd, and I would accept the
amendment.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, if Knology has got the 10-year build-out, what
about any other company, like Jones Intercable? Are they held to the same
standard or because they're already here we're not able to hold them to that
standard?
MR. WALL: It obviously is a decision for you to make as far as whether
or not you want to require a 100% build-out in the entire county within a 10-
year period. However, I mean, you have the response from Knology that -- and
they may reconsider. I would also point out that insofar as the Jones
Intercable franchise agreement is concerned, that there is another provision
in that agreement that I spoke to Mr. Blackman and corporate counsel out of
Denver, Mr. Tom Carlock, this morning -- well, I guess it was yesterday,
concerning the existing fiber that is there and insofar as the county's
utilization of that. And that is something that Mr. Hewitt and Mr. Rushton
have some interest in and we're trying to work that out insofar as the Jones
Intercable franchise agreement. That's the primary reason that it has not been
brought on here. So the Jones Intercable franchise agreement insofar as
existing fiber optics has a different provision in there, and I don't know
whether Mr. Daniel and Mr. Blackman are willing to agree on the language that
is in the current draft that they have or not, and I need clarification on
that because as of yesterday they had a problem with that language.
MR. BRIDGES: Is there a substitute motion on the floor, Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, by Mr. Kuhlke. Do you want to read it, Ms.
Bonner?
CLERK: No, sir, the Parliamentarian ruled that that motion was out of
order -- that we didn't need that. He said it was just for discussion
purposes.
MR. WALL: The effect is -- I mean, Mr. Kuhlke wanted some discussion.
You've had that discussion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: But he also tied to the end of the motion that he wanted
it voted on today.
MR. WALL: And my point was, Mr. Mayor, that in the event that it's not
postponed, then you will take action today. I mean, all it takes is a motion
to take action. So I don't know that that -- that motion is unnecessary, was
my point.
MAYOR SCONYERS: But if we go back to the original motion, it's just to
postpone, then we'd have to have another motion and turn around and take
action on it.
MR. WALL: Exactly. But to take action, I mean, is that action to
approve or disapprove, and that's the reason that I said it was unnecessary.
MR. BRIDGES: So my question is, do we have a substitute motion on the
floor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: We don't have one.
MR. BRIDGES: Could I make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir.
MR. BRIDGES: All right. The substitute motion is to go ahead and
approve the ordinance as was originally brought before us.
MR. POWELL: I'll second the motion.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Let's go back to Knology. On the table now with Jones
we are afforded [inaudible], which I'm sure that most of this community
watches and our constituents pay taxes on. Are y'all going to afford us that
same opportunity?
MR. MAHR: Yes.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Do y'all make any of your time available to be community
channels?
MR. MAHR: Yes. We've discussed that with the County Attorney and have
made those arrangements.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Are you going to make it available to other agencies in
this community such as Board of Education and Convention and Visitors Bureau
and other -- MR. MAHR: We have not made those contacts as of yet, but we
very much want to be part of the citizen action in the community. One thing
I'd like to point out is these are two different types of networks, and asking
us to build, with the cost for our types of network versus a one-way system, I
believe is something that we could use these next two weeks to come in and
discuss and understand those differences. They have, you know, been in
business now for up to 20 years and have only built 95%, so to ask us to build
100% in 10 years when it's much larger with a much more robust and dynamic
network, I would like to entertain the -- to get past today but then come back
in and visit and help get everybody understanding of the power that our
network really brings to the community.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question would be, if we're looking at
the technology 20 years back and looking at the technology today, you're
telling me that you need the same time with today's technology that Jones had
20 years ago, or any other entity out there in any other community, to build
it.
MR. MAHR: Well, at this time -- and I have not really studied their
plan, but I think they only did 95% percent and they've had their franchise
for 20 years. But just looking at half the time and having to build 100% I
think is a little bit different. Our network is not just a cable network and
that's why we will be coming in and paying franchise fees for the Internet
services and paying franchise fees for the telephony service. So it is a
different type of network, one of which they could upgrade to. A lot of other
cable companies across the nation are affording their communities a 750
system. Comcast has upgraded, Cox has upgraded, and they're offering
telephony and Internet services as well, so it's not something that we have
the sole domain on. They likewise could invest those monies and have that
type of upgrade. What we're looking at is spreading out across the entire
community with a 20-year-old technology or really looking at a state of the
art technology that I think helps you as a citizenry become the city that
you're working very hard to get to.
MR. TODD: Mr. Wall, did the 105th Congress pass legislation to allow us
to franchise or tax Internet services? Do we have a right to franchise or tax
Internet services?
MR. WALL: I think that's part of the Telecommunications Act.
MR. MAHR: It's part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that deals
with cable companies venturing into the telecommuni-cations area and the
Internet services. And simply what it says is that to the extent the other
competitors --and I'm para-phrasing obviously, but to the extent other people
are paying franchise fees, then we likewise would pay those franchise fees.
And we're seeking an even playing field for the assessment of franchise fees
so that anybody town wasn't paying more.
MR. TODD: Right, I understand that, but I know we're dealing on the
national level with legislation dealing with the tax or franchise fees on the
Internet and that's why I raised the question. Mr. Mayor, we can, for
$500,000 per year, probably go on every television station for a hour or
whatever in this community once a month or a couple of times, three times a
quarter. We're talking about a $500,000 opportunity loss. And I've heard the
argument that this come out of the pockets of our taxpayers and citizens, but
certainly this come out of the pockets of our taxpayers and citizens that can
afford it in the sense that we're dealing with, you know, cablevision.
The other area is that, you know, it took us -- since I've been on this board,
I think the Telecommunication Act of 1994 gave us the right to regulate and
charge a franchise fee on the gross, and we were told why it was bad to do and
we didn't do it. And then the 1996 Telecommunication Act pretty much changed
that language somewhat and said that we could collect on the gross without
regulating and having the number crunches and all that to justify a rate
increase, et cetera, if I recollect from my briefings from NACCO correctly.
Now at this point we can, and also it kind of separated it out that we can go
5% on the gross versus, you know, 3%. And I think the opportunity loss is
$500,000. $500,000 is not something that I'd walk past in the street.
Mr. Brigham brought up the issue of other service delivery that you're going
to, you know, donate to the community. If I'm correct, and I stand to be
corrected, that the service provider that we have now have all the schools
live, they have a lot of other public service interest live, and our children,
you know, is receiving some of their education through, you know, cablevision
or cable companies, et cetera. And I'm not making this argument, you know, to
say don't have competition, but I think we need to have reasonable
requirements and regulations on competition that come in that they provide the
same level of service as the monopoly that's here now. And this is not like
the telephone and the power monopoly in a sense. There was a lot of folks in
the cablevision business, but they picked their market, you know, and I think
this is probably the first request we've had as far as deregulating and
opening up that market. I'm for deregulation. I sit on a national task force
for electric deregulation appointed by the NACCO past president, Michael
Hightower, and the present president, Randy Johnson. I'm for deregulation,
I'm for fairness, and I'm for competition, and in my conversations with Jones
Intercable representatives I made that clear. And I at least studied the
issues as best I possibly --with the information that I had at hand,
regardless of where that information come from, Mr. Mayor. And I wanted to
make sure on some issues like stranding costs and other issues, you know, like
investments. I'm understanding that Knology is going to invest $40 million,
so certainly they're going to invest at the level or greater than Jones has
invested. I don't have a problem there, but my problem is the $500,000. Do we
walk away from it or do we try to compromise this situation where we can
collect it? And I prefer to do a cablevision where a family have a choice to
have it on or off, increase in cost or franchise fee, than to raise the
millage rate where the family don't have a choice. Because when you raise
that millage rate, that payment go up because that escrow account got to have
more money in it. And that monthly payment go up, and at what point do we
price folks out of home? And I think that we got to look at the tradeoff. We
can look at it as a indirect tax, but certainly I wish that we had other
entities that we could do a indirect tax on where folks can afford it versus
pricing them out of their homes with a property tax increase. Thank you, Mr.
Mayor.
MR. DANIEL: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to be clear on one thing that I may
be misunderstanding, because there's been a lot of talk from the Knology
representatives about what this fran-chise is intended to do and what their
intentions are. Mr. Wall represented to me this morning that this franchise is
just for the provision of cable television, not for all these other things.
Is that right?
MR. WALL: Yes, that's right. And, again, it was for the purpose of
getting them started in the market and having a fran-chise with a specific
understanding that we would be coming forward at a later point in time.
Because, again, when these discussions started with Jones Intercable, with
Southern Bell, et cetera, in early -- well, in November and December, the
telecom-munications area is the one area where there was obviously a lot of
different takes on the subject.
MR. DANIEL: Mr. Mayor, I would just respectfully suggest that the
concerns that we've raised are very legitimate policy concerns. The issue
about the money that's at stake, a half a million dollars annually to the
city, is a very significant amount of money, and I would respectfully suggest
that maybe the best thing to do is just slow down this whole process and work
on both these franchise agreements until the Commission has addressed all of
these policy issues.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Substitute motion first,
Ms. Bonner, made by Mr. Bridges.
CLERK: Substitute motion by Mr. Bridges to approve.
MAYOR SCONYERS: As is?
CLERK: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION FAILS 3-4-1. [MR. SHEPARD, MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE, MR. TODD
VOTE NO] [MR. MAYS ABSTAINS] [MR. HANDY AND MR. BEARD OUT]
CLERK: Mr. Todd's motion was to postpone for 30 days to hear from GMA,
and to amend the motion for a 10-year build-out for the entire county, and a
5% for both franchisees, and the Attorney to bring at the next meeting the
Jones Intercable, and to suspend with the second reading.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION FAILS 4-3-1. [MR. BRIDGES, MR. POWELL, MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTE NO]
[MR. MAYS ABSTAINS] [MR. HANDY AND MR. BEARD OUT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we have a no vote on anything, so we'll pass it
along to the next meeting.
CLERK: Under the Engineering portion of the agenda, Items 14 through 30
were approved by the Engineering Services Committee on December 29th.
[Item 14: Motion to accept counteroffer option in the amount of
$3,803.00 to acquire an easement consisting of 4,149 sq. ft. of permanent
utility easement and 2,191 sq. ft. of temporary construction easement from
Wilhelmina Umecker McMahon (Tax Map 71.3, Parcel 045). Item 15:
Motion to accept counteroffer option in the amount of $3,000.00 to acquire
an easement consisting of 40,069.04 sq. ft. of permanent utility easement
and 86,638.35 sq. ft. of temporary construction easement from Nathan
DeVaughn (Tax Map 25.2, Parcel 113). Item 16: Motion to accept
counteroffer option in the amount of $1,150.00 to acquire an easement
consisting of 804 sq. ft. of permanent utility easement and 750 sq. ft. of
temporary construction easement from Arthur Hal Riddle and Suzanne Riddle
(Tax Map 71-3, Parcel 145). Item 17: Motion to accept counteroffer
option in the amount of $600.00 to purchase 0.026 acre of permanent
drainage easement owned by Shirley Koger Mason, individually, and Marion
Miles Koger, executor of the Miles Singleton Koger Estate (Tax Map 72-1,
Parcel 38, Project Parcel 14). Item 18: Motion to approve Capital
Project Budget 51-8804-097 in the amount of $329,440 and the engineering
proposal from Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst P.C. in the amount of
$23,440 for the Hephzibah-McBean/Brothersville Road Improvements to be
funded from Special One Percent Sales Tax, Phase I Recaptured Funds, and
approve to let for bid. Item 19: Motion to approve bid award to low
bidder, APAC-Georgia, Incorporated in the amount of $965,886.40, subject to
receipt of signed contracts and proper bonds on the Barton Chapel Road
Improvements, Phase I Project. Item 20: Motion to approve bid award
to the Trane Company for repair to the 40 year old Trane Chiller in the
amount of $4,253 from Phase III Sales Tax. Item 21: Motion to approve
engineering fee increase and invoice from W.R. Toole Engineers,
Incorporated in the amount of $7,062.50 for Tanglewood and Kingston
Subdivision Drainage Improvements Project to come from project contingency.
Item 22: Motion to approve Resolution to abandon a portion of Jones
Street and authorize its conveyance to SouthTrust Bank. Item 23:
Motion to approve amendment to engineering proposal with Southern Partners,
Inc. in the amount of $1,200.00 for additional services for Glendale
Subdivision and Cook Road Improvements. Funds to be allocated from project
contingency. Item 24: Motion to approve an additional $5,473.28 to
cover the cost of change order executed by Shiloh Comprehensive Community
Center. Item 25: Motion to approve proposal from W.R. Toole
Engineers, Inc. to design Phases II and III of the Rae's Creek Trunk Sewer
Replacement at a cost of $141,985, with an allowance for the preparation of
easement plats of $16,500.00. Item 26: Motion to approve bid award of
contract for North Clarifier Modifications to the low bidder, U.S. Filter
Distribution Group, Inc. at a cost of $326,721.00. Item 27: Motion to
approve proposal from Southern Partners to design sanitary sewer extensions
for Colony Park and National Hills areas at a cost of $83,047.50. Item
28: Motion to approve recommended criteria of the Unpaved Road
Subcommittee and receive as information the ranking order. Item 29:
Motion to accept counteroffer option in the amount of $1,738.00 to acquire
an easement consisting of 872 sq. ft. of permanent utility easement and 759
sq. ft. of temporary construc-tion easement from Barbara Boynton (Tax Map
71.3, Parcel 148). Item 30: Motion to approve a preliminary audit
with EPD and a portion of the Phase I environmental study not to exceed
$1,500 for +10.35 acres of tract of land on White Road.]
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I move that we take the Engineering
Services Committee report as a consent agenda.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: 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 9-0. [MR. BEARD OUT]
CLERK: Item 31: Motion to approve contract with SCANA
Communications, Inc. to provide radio services to all radio users.
Approved by Public Safety Committee December 29th.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: This was approved and I pass this on as a
recommendation from the entire committee.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's
motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Items 32 through 41, with the exception of the deletion of Item
39, were approved by the Public Services Committee on December the 29th.
[Item 32: Motion to approve a request by Anthony Louis Freuhauf for a
Special Event one day (January 22, 1998) consumption on premises beer and
wine license to be used in
connection with Rader Mazda Volkswagen located at 3061 Washington Road.
Item 33: Motion to approve new ownership request by Christopher L. Bush
for a consumption on premises liquor and beer license to be used in
connection with Trackside Tavern located at 1801 Kissingbower Road. There
will be a dance hall. Item 34: Motion to approve a new ownership
request by Shams Ali Savaja for a retail package beer and wine license to
be used in connection with Quik Way Food located at 2447 Wrightsboro Road.
Item 35: Motion to approve new ownership request by Bobbie Hammond
for a consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine license to be used in
connection with B&D Wet Spot located at 2623 Deans Bridge Road. There will
be a dance hall. Item 36: Motion to approve new ownership request by
Andrew P. Orecchio for a consumption on premises beer license to be used in
connection with Central Cafe & Pizza located at 2571 Central Avenue.
Item 37: Motion to approve new ownership request by Tan T. Branscum for a
consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine license to be used in
connection with the Sit N' Bull Lounge located at 3663 Deans Bridge Road.
There will be a dance hall. Item 38: Motion to approve new ownership
request by Fernando B. Rivera for a consumption on premises beer and wine
license to be used in connection with Los Hermanos Restaurant located at
2960 Old Highway #1. Item 40: Motion to approve purchase order for
shipping charges to Triple "C" Transportation in the amount of $100,000 for
shipment of twelve (12) acres (8,100,000 lbs.) of military surplus
perforated steel planking (PSP) material. Item 41: Motion to approve
new ownership request by Debra R. Hawk for a consumption on premises beer
and wine license to be used in connection with Yo Pizza located at 2525
Washington Road.]
MR. MAYS: I'd like to make a motion that we accept those items as a
consent agenda, that the owners be polled in reference to whether or not
there are any objectors on the alcohol licenses, and that they be taken as
one.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
[NO OBJECTORS PRESENT.]
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 42: Motion to approve renewal of 1998 on premises
consumption alcohol, beer, wine, Sunday Sales, and Dance license for Donn
R. DuTeau to be used in connection with Le Cafe DuTeau located at 1855
Central Avenue. Approved by the Public Services Committee on November
10th.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I visited the Cafe DuTeau Sunday a couple of weeks
ago with my son and his mother. We enjoyed the atmosphere, the food was world
class, and we didn't see --I think we stayed there probably till about 11:00
something, close to 12:00, but we didn't stay until the wee hours of the night
because I had a 12 year old I needed to get back home. And we basically
enjoyed it, we didn't see a lot of what we were told was going on. And I
guess have some incident reports that I've been given today that I've
reviewed. And, also, I had the opportunity to talk to some friends of mine,
Frank Vaughn that used to play for the previous owner before Mr. DuTeau come
on, I think, and when the college crowd was there, and to some other patrons
of the Cafe back in those days, and trying to compare what it's like then and
what it's like now and whether it's fair for that history of what it was like
then to be hung around Mr. DuTeau's neck and the Cafe's neck. And the best
that I could determine from those conversations, including a employee that had
left the DuTeau because he was unhappy with his employment situation and gone
to a children's entertainment entity to work, I got basically a good thing
from the disgruntled employee, from the gentleman that used to play the club,
and from other folks that I talked to. So that's why I made the motion to
approve both licenses. And I tried to review the historical data as far
as the complaints that I was provided by one of the complainants on the other
side of the issue, and one of my concerns there was you know, we don't have
case building here. And I'm willing to consider fully any issue that has
happened before this complaint -- these complaints was how this activity
started in this room, but I'm somewhat skeptical of any complaints that I
would receive or see without hearing from the person in the incident report,
et cetera, otherwise. And I'm prepared to vote in the affirmative as far as
letting these folks go on and do business in this community, and I believe
from talking to Mr. DuTeau and other individuals that know him, neighbors and
et cetera that I talked to, that he will do his level best to make sure that
he have a orderly operation. Thank you.
MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, my recommendation was going to be that you approve
the consumption of the alcohol, beer, wine, and Sunday sales, but that you not
approve the dance license. The dance license is the issue concerning the
zoning question. It's zoned B-1, it is not zoned for dance. Their argument is
that the activities that they carry on up there, the music, et cetera, piano
or whatever, does not fall within that license. Y'all have taken the position
that it's an issue of enforcement. Let's let the enforcement end of it deal
with the issue of whether or not they do or do not need a license for the
entertainment that they, or piano or whatever it is, but go ahead and issue
the other license. I would point out that they have not been properly zoned
for entertainment. It is my opinion, and the additional case that I located
since the last Commission meeting, basically they have no vested rights if in
fact they were supposed to have an entertainment license or if it was supposed
to be zoned B-1 for the type of entertainment that they provided. And so my
recommendation is that you approve the on-premises consumption but not approve
the dance license, and then let the enforcement deal with that issue or let
them come back and rezone the property for that one item if they want to do
so.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I believe, if I recall correctly, that they were
supposed to to work out an agreement and bring forward an agreement to us.
I'm assuming that they have not worked it out because they are back again and
the proposal that each party has brought forth is not adequate with each
other. Are we at that point?
MR. WALL: They were not able to reach any agreement. And I have
explained to both sides what my recommendation was going to be, and I don't
know if they want to address that or not, but that is my recommendation.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear from the objectors and the
licensee at this time, if it's appropriate, or his attorney.
MR. LONG: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. We've beat this horse to death
before, but I think Mr. Wall's legal opinion is correct, and I would ask the
Commission to follow his advice. The property is not properly zoned for live
entertainment. I have Mr. Fishburn and I have Mr. Bolgla here. They are
still seriously opposed to the alcohol problem. Mr. Todd, with all due
respect to your position, I believe that the history has been every time
something is coming up before this Commission, a lot of things happen that
don't normally happen, and I think the historical data would be more
important. And I don't know, Mr. Shepard, if you want to hear from Mr.
Fishburn or Mr. Bolgla or not, but they are here to express their concerns
about the continuous problems they have with this place turning from a
restaurant to a nightclub [inaudible].
MR. SHEPARD: I'd like both parties to be heard. I'd like the licensee's
attorney to be heard, if he wishes.
MR. HUNTER: One of the things as we've gone over this over and over
again, this was a problem because the city allowed an entertainment license,
not a dance hall license. Under the code section under the ordinance it says
dance hall license for places with live or recorded music are provided for the
purposes of dancing. Now, I would like to point out that Village Deli,
Treybon, there is a lot of restaurants in this town where somebody comes in
and plays the guitar or plays some type of music instrument while people are
eating. He has a piano and he sometimes has a bass player who plays jazz music
at this establishment. Now, he had always gotten an entertainment license
from the city for 20 years. When consolidation came along he went to the
License Department and he applied, and they said now we have this dance hall
license and this is what you need, so he bought that. Y'all approved it last
year under the dance hall license, but y'all voted on and approved that as
part of the package on all of those. I think there is another case which
says that he does have a vested property right in that license. Also, in the
Consolida-tion Bill it says that you shall not abrogate the ordinances of the
city or the county and reduce any of the rights that were vested under there.
So what you would have done is you didn't pass the proper ordinance that the
city had of an entertainment license that applied to restaurants. I'm not
sure if Luigi's or any of these restaurants that have music that I've been to
that play music, live or otherwise, and I cannot believe that this Commission
would vote for all restaurants in this town to have no music whatsoever, even
Muzak, played in their restaurants. Now, if this is some kind of tactic that
this council wants to take to ambush Mr. DuTeau at his restaurant, I don't
think that's fair. I think that if you want to apply this uniformly across
the city and if you want everyone in restaurants to get a music hall license,
that's fine. He is properly zoned for a restaurant, he was properly zoned for
an entertainment license that he started this business. It doesn't really
matter to us, because if y'all don't want to pass it -- he's volunteered to
pay some money to --Mr. Todd was talking about raising money for the city.
He's volunteered to pay some money, and then if he doesn't need it, then it's
a gift to the city from Mr. DuTeau. He's offered to buy the license and pay
the money into the city. If you don't do it and then we have to go into
court, then we're going to have to have declaratory action on whether he needs
that or not and it's going to become a quite cumbersome and, I think, costly
proposition. It's up to you. I will put on notice that I advised him that he
will continue to play music at his establishment as he has in the past and we
will go from there. I don't know what position that you want to take on this,
but he stands willing and ready to write a check to y'all on the dance hall
license. I do not think it violates the zoning ordinance because it was
applied and wrapped into what the city had previously had as an entertainment
license, which was what he was told, and he was not improperly zoned for that
license. Thanks.
MR. HANDY: My question is, Jim, originally I thought they were
complaining about the food, and now I'm hearing that you got to have a dance
hall license, and then they say they got a entertainment license. Now, how
many licenses are we involved in here? One day we're talking about closing
the door because you're closing down a restaurant and now we're on the dance
hall license, and I need some clarification.
MR. WALL: And you're right, it originated by virtue of the fact that
there was complaints concerning the Sunday night activities. And in the
process of that it was brought to our attention that there was entertainment
going on there and, in checking with the zoning, it was not zoned for that
purpose. So it then went from a Sunday night sales issue to a zoning issue
insofar as the entertainment is concerned. And y'all have, in my mind,
addressed the issue insofar as the Sunday sales. I've heard most of you loud
and clear that that's an enforcement issue. And what I'm saying is, insofar
as the entertainment is concerned, it is not properly zoned, in my opinion,
for enter-tainment, do not issue the license and let that be an enforcement
issue. They take the position that it's not required, and let's let someone
determine whether we're right or they're right, and it may never come up.
MR. HANDY: So what you're saying is that as far as the food is
concerned, the restaurant, that part is taken care of?
MR. WALL: Well, they're still complaining about it, but I think y'all
have -- although you haven't taken a vote, I mean, I've been here and heard
you say that you want them to stay in business to sell alcohol both on Sunday
night, so that's the reason I'm recommending approval of that.
MR. HANDY: Okay. For them to have the music there, just the jazz, no
dancing -- you don't dance to jazz, you just listen. Don't you need a dance
hall license to listen to the music? That's what you're telling me?
MR. WALL: That's what I'm saying. That is the license that replaced the
old city entertainment license.
MR. HANDY: I think that for me to make a intelligent decision here I'm
going to have to have some legal advice. We're going to have to go into legal
session before I put this out because there's other things involved than
changing licenses. And some things we grandfathered in from the city to the
county and there's some things we didn't, so I need some more clarification
before I can make a decision.
MR. WALL: Then I would request that you move this to the end of the
agenda and, following the legal session, come out and vote, if that's what you
choose to do.
MR. HANDY: Okay. That's what I would like to do, Mr. Mayor, if
possible.
MR. KUHLKE: I'll second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that a substitute motion, gentlemen?
MR. HANDY: If that's what you need, yes.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I have a point of order. If it's a substitute
motion, then I would want to debate it. If it's a motion to table it, I would
not want to debate it. So it is a motion to table, Mr. Parliamentarian, to
the end of the meeting?
MR. HANDY: Well, whatever we need to get it in to talk about it in legal
and come back out with it, that's what I'm asking.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, it would have to be a substitute because we've got
a main motion on the floor; correct?
MR. WALL: Well, a motion to table it to the end of the meeting would be
a non-debatable motion.
MR. MAYS: I would just ask the Parliamentarian on a point of order.
Now, you seem like y'all are mixing a little apples and oranges here now.
Either you're going to have a legal meeting or you're tabling it till the end
of the meeting. Now, he can't have both. If the County Attorney is going to
make a legal opinion in an open session, I don't see why in the devil you got
to get now into a legal session to turn around and discuss it. Everybody just
ought to be man up, no discrimination because there's 11 men sitting up here,
and go ahead on and make a decision on this thing. Now, you can't delay, Mr.
Mayor, I don't believe. Either it's a tabling to the end, which that is not
debatable, but if it's tabling to the end to go in a legal session, then I
think that has to be in a substitute motion. It cannot go both ways. Now,
table it, yes, no debate, to the end. But if it's going to prescribe it going
into legal session, and that's what you're defining, then that has to be voted
on as a legal meeting.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'll withdraw my motion.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it seems -- and I have been one, you know, to
disagree, even when we selected the County Attorney by unanimous vote in the
past, and I will continue to do that. And I probably was on a different side
of this the last time we was down here than he is today, but probably the
difference was that he was sitting on the fence at that time because he hadn't
been reappointed, you know, as County Attorney. And, Mr. Mayor, the other
thing that I'd like to say, it seems that we get different opinions depending
on what issue we're talking about. When we were talking and we tried to slip
by this public and taxpayers the issue of nude dancing license, and it was --
you know, and we were told that they had a vested right. Now we have a
individual that have a license that don't have a vested right to have a
license to do what I call conventional dancing. You know, maybe I'm missing
something here. Maybe it's like, you know, some other things that's gone
down. But, gentlemen, it's my position that we got to be consistent and we
got to be fair, and if we're not, then the public is going to see through us.
MR. HANDY: That's what I was talking about, Mr. Todd, right there. You
just brought out what I was talking about, and that's why I thought we needed
to talk about it.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to make a motion to table it.
MR. HANDY: To table it to how long?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, from my understanding of the rules, tabling
has to deal with this meeting and this meeting only. To do a motion that
would extend it past this meeting, it would have to be a motion to postpone.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All right, let me ask you this question: Are we going to
go into a private session? I think that would solve Mr. Handy's problem. If
we're not, why table it if we're going to discuss it. We need to give --
we've had these people down here four times [inaudible].
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I think these people in front of us has told us they're
going to sue us no matter what we do, and I think we can discuss the
possibility of the -- maybe both of them haven't, but at least one of them has
told us they'll sue us if we do rule against him.
MR. LONG: No, sir. Mr. Brigham, what Mr. Wall I believe is saying,
leave it up to enforcement. Now, if my clients --if you haven't approved a
permit that is not zoned for this permit -- Mr. Hunter has said his client is
going to play it anyway, so they don't care, they don't need one. Well, don't
give them one and we'll let one of those Superior Court judges on the third
floor decide the issue between these people and these people and y'all are out
of it. But y'all shouldn't come up here and try to buttress their position by
giving them a permit for live entertainment that the County Attorney says it's
not zoned, Mr. Patty says it's not zoned, and Mr. Hunter says it doesn't make
any difference. Well, if it doesn't make any difference, don't give it to
him.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, it appears to me that the problem here is zoning,
and I don't know exactly where we stand on motions -- can I make a motion,
Jim, or have we got three or four out there?
MR. WALL: We didn't get a second on the motion to table.
MR. KUHLKE: I'd like to make a motion that we accept the recommendation
of the County Attorney and that we direct Mr. DuTeau to take the proper action
to apply for rezoning of his establishment.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I just want to ask Mr. Sherman whether or not we're
going to probably step up a vigorous
campaign of probably all the places that were never zoned in various parts of
this city. Now, that's a little maybe unfair to put on Rob; if George Patty
wants to answer it, you know. Whether we're going to step that up on how a lot
of residen-tial places got to be businesses that probably never were changed
but bought licenses and are in this day operational. Maybe I shouldn't say
this around y'all because between the city and the Board of Health, they've
been trying to put me out of business for two years and I've been hanging on
anyway, but I'm going to say it. In 1931 my granddaddy bought five
residential lots on a site that used to be an old golf course, that's a piece
of history, and the site of a current funeral home, and he probably never
dealt with bringing them into special exception, business, or anything else.
Now, we pay business tax. It's regarded to as a business, but on five
residential lots. You probably have got various places throughout this city
that have been brought into a business sense that over the years have retained
that right mainly because city or county sold those places a business license.
Now, if we're going to get into the precedent business, are we going to
go back and we're going to get Planning and Zoning or License and Inspections
to research every place historically that never was changed over to a business
or be so-called properly zoned? And Mr. Wall can answer that, Mr. Patty can
answer that; unfortunately, Rob, you've come into a new job, whether y'all are
going to answer it. But I think you'll find a whole lot of them that are like
that, and what's been the common denominator has been the fact that they were
able to purchase licenses that set the rule for them. And whether they were
spelled out as grand-fatherships or not, they became those as such and they
were businesses and they've done business in this community whether under the
old county government or whether under the old city government. So, now, if
we're going to get to that point, does everybody in the city maybe whereby a
corner store that was built on a residential lot that never came into that
facet or a beauty shop that was in a little neighborhood, are we now going
back into nitpicking and to getting into that? Because if you set this one,
then you open the door for those, too. And I'd just like to know that,
whether I'm going to be faced with that ordeal to come up now.
MR. WALL: Mr. Mays, if I can address that. In those situations you have
-- many of the ones I suspect that you're talking about was before we had a
zoning law applicable to Richmond County. If it was validly issued at the
time, then there are vested rights and you cannot turn those away. The issue
here is whether or not the property was properly zoned at the time the
entertainment license was first taken out by the city. It's my position,
based upon the information that I've been furnished from Planning and Zoning
and based upon Mr. Patty's letter, that it was not zoned for entertainment by
the former city. In my opinion, consolidation had nothing to do with that.
It's an issue that was simply not brought to the attention of the enforcement
officials until this issue about the Sunday night activities came up. And so
that's the reason that I am suggesting that you go ahead and approve the
alcohol license, do not approve the dance hall license because in my opinion
it is not zoned for that purpose, and then let it become an enforcement issue.
Let the courts decide whether or not piano playing is entertainment that's
subject to that ordinance and let that issue be addressed. Are there other
places out there that have music playing that do not have an entertainment
license? I suspect there are. And are we going to catch every one of them?
I doubt it. But when something comes to our attention, I think it's my job to
inform you of the legal situation, the responsibilities, et cetera, and let
you make a decision, and that's the basis of the ruling. Let me also point
out, if I may, you would still have to vote to discuss this in a legal meeting
even if it were tabled, and that was the reason for my ruling earlier, Mr.
Mays.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, my good friend Mr. Wall very eloquently answered my
question. He may have probably strengthened my reason to vote as I have been
voting by merely stating that those businesses did whatever they did prior to
there being a law. Now, if the previous government under which Mr. DuTeau
operated his business did not have a so-called spelled out dance hall license
within its parameter of buying them, then how could they purchase something
that was not a part of the whole old city government. And if they couldn't,
then it was the job then, I thought, of this government, you know, to so blend
those laws. Are we really talking about a law, per se, or are we talking
about terminology in terms of what constitutes a dance hall or is that
something that somebody, you know, out at License and Inspections, you know,
basically stuck in to cover that part of the law in the old county and because
it wasn't a part of the old city's terminology? The people basically applied
for what they had been applying for and that was to continue to do business.
There was no law which said anything about dance hall, so I don't see them as
being any different. And I agree with you, both of them, to me, seem like
they did what they did in the absence of a so-called spelled out law because
the old City of Augusta didn't have a dance hall license. They are confronted
with this now. So if we're talking about the reason why we grant these other
businesses the right -- you said we grant them because there was no law that
applied, then how could it be different in this case when there was no law
that applied to them? I think what's very harsh in it, we've gone from
changing the law on an ordinance being proposed to hit everybody from motels,
hotels, restaurants, now to dealing with compromising on a dance hall license.
And I still think the bottom line should be whether or not Mr. DuTeau is
running an establishment which constitutes a public nuisance, and if a public
nuisance -- and we've all heard about the numbers that were increased in
public safety. If we've gone up $10 million from what we were last year and
increasing law enforcement and providing it, then I certainly think we ought
to be able to enforce the law and decide whether or not he has a nuisance
establishment. And that ought to be the basis, not to a point of inviting a
lawsuit from either party so that Jack can sue, Bo can sue, and we got to hire
you. That's crazy. That is absolutely ridiculous.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Wall, what was the date of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance?
MR. WALL: 1965.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: When did Mr. DuTeau get his first business license?
MR. DUTEAU: 1977.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: So obviously you got the business license after the
zoning law. So obviously he's not grandfathered in.
MR. LONG: Mr. Brigham is absolutely correct. I don't think this
Commission can do something that you know is illegal [inaudible]. And Mr.
DuTeau said they don't care, they don't need one, so don't give them one.
MR. WALL: And that's what I'm trying to avoid is your having to hire me,
because if you don't give him one I'm out of it. It becomes an enforcement
issue in the Magistrate's Court and I don't get hired, I'm out of it.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I'd address this question to the County Attorney
and both the lawyers here. You know, I thought I'm on the eighth floor, but
it looks like I'm on the third. In this case of the City of Hampton versus
Brisco, isn't the bottom line that if the zoning is not proper, the business
license is invalid from its inception. So if you have not had the appropriate
zoning, that has just been something that has been overlooked, maybe to the
benefit of Mr. DuTeau, but now we are not compelled to continue that mistake.
In fact, as I read Brisco, it's a mistake to do anything other than what Mr.
Wall suggests. And then Mr. DuTeau can go back, get the zoning change, and
come back before the Zoning body; and then, if he wishes, get a dance hall or
litigate the matter down there. Doesn't Brisco compel the result that we are
talking about today?
MR. WALL: In my opinion it does, yes, sir. I don't think there's any
question about it.
MR. SHEPARD: So I would like you to address that, Bo. I mean, it's a
1993 decision of the Court of Appeals.
MR. HUNTER: I've got the case, Mr. Long provided me, as with Mr. Wall,
with this case and I am aware of it. But what I've tried to explain to you is
the city had a valid entertain-ment license when Mr. DuTeau purchased it in
1977. It says entertainment license, and we can provide you a copy. It was
valid under the zoning ordinance of the city and county at the time. The
entertainment license of the city, he was zoned for that. He had that for
15/16 years. Consolidation came along, which if you go back and look at the
[inaudible], it says that you are not to be detrimental to the rights that
were vested under the old city and the old county governments. So he goes down
and applies for a license. They say we don't have the entertainment license
anymore, we just have a dance hall license, which was what the county had,
which was a broader scope of license. But at the time he was validly vested
with that right and he was zoned for the license of entertainment. Okay.
What's interesting is Mr. Bolgla's property is not zoned for his apartment,
but he's grandfathered in under that.
MR. BOLGLA: Yes, it is.
MR. HUNTER: Well, we can ask Rob Sherman about that.
MR. LONG: Well, Mr. Hunter, if that's the case, then you can bring a
lawsuit to enjoin them from violating the zoning ordinance and, between us
two, and to cut out the County Commission and the County Attorney. And I
think that's what Mr. Wall is saying, let us fight it out and don't help
either side by giving them a permit that's illegal.
MR. HUNTER: All I was saying was is we had vested right, which I have an
outdoor sign case which I'll be glad to cite to you, which was decided -- and
Mr. Wall had provided that to the Commissioners earlier, which says that when
a Commission has voted and they -- this Commission voted last year to approve
that dance hall license, and I have it where they passed it by nine to zero.
I would suggest that they were saying that this dance hall license, even
though it was more comprehensive, fit both the entertainment license and a
dance hall license, which is what the county has.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, it appears to me that we are utilizing a lot of
time here that -- our Attorney has given us an opinion on this. And it
appears to me, unless I'm missing something, that both lawyers are probably in
agreement to taking this downstairs or wherever it is that they take it. Why
are we still discussing this? Why don't we let them go on and take it
downstairs and let's move on? So whatever motion -- I don't know what's on
the floor now, but it looks like we need to move in that direction and let
them take it on to the next juncture. We can't play lawyers up here.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Read the substitute motion first. We'll vote on it and
put an end to it.
CLERK: The substitute motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Jerry
Brigham, was to accept the recommendation of the Attorney and to direct Mr.
DuTeau to apply for rezoning of his establishment.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, could we have a roll call vote on
any motion that's read regarding this? If this is going to end up in court, I
think everybody ought to be responsible for their own vote.
MR. DUTEAU: Could I make one comment? I would just like to say that
I've invested a lot of money in this community, and this maneuver you're
talking about right now is actually yanking the carpet out from under me
because I have financial obligations. I employ 17 people and I have supported
this community for 20 years. We're active in charities. Every major
charitable event that comes to town, they call on us to do food. We're there,
we donate our merchandise, we donate our labor, I donate my time personally.
We have supported the art community in this community. We've helped many
people getting their careers started, we've helped other businesses recruit
personnel to come into this town, become part of this community, including the
Medical College of Georgia that bring potential doctors here. We have
redoubled our security effort, we have two deputies working in the parking lot
to maintain security. And I just feel like this is going to be a losing
situation for my business, the motions you're making, and it's going to hurt
my business financially. And, you know, we need fine dining restaurants in
this community. You need it for the convention business. I mean, what do you
want? We entertain people from all over the world. I'm in the entertainment
business. Everything I do is entertainment. I entertain the visitors to
Augusta. That is my business, entertainment.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. DuTeau. Okay, Ms. Bonner, read them off.
CLERK: The substitute motion. Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: You know, I can go along with the first part of that motion,
but to add something to the second part of it, I have a problem with that, and
I'm going to vote no on that motion.
MR. HANDY: I need to know what the motion is.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Reread the motion, Ms. Bonner, please.
CLERK: The substitute motion was to accept the recommenda-tion of the
Attorney and to direct Mr. DuTeau to apply for rezoning of his
establishment.
MR. KUHLKE: I'll withdraw the second part of that motion.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Accepted.
MR. BEARD: If he's going to withdraw the first part of that -- the
second part, I'm sorry, I will vote 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: I'm going to vote present on that. Because we started off
with a nuisance law and now we're into putting him out of business for
entertainment and all that, and that's not what we started this particular
case off with, so I'm going to be present on that.
CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: No.
CLERK: Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: No.
CLERK: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: No.
CLERK: Mr. Shepard?
MR. SHEPARD: Yes.
MOTION CARRIES 6-3-1.
CLERK: Item 43: Motion to approve the regular minutes of the
Commission held December 16, 1997.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's
motion to approve the minutes, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 44: Motion to approve amendment of the City Council of
Augusta 1949 General Retirement Fund so as to provide payments of $2,000.00
per year to certain participants. Approved by the Commission December 16th.
Second reading.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's
motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. J. BRIGHAM OUT]
CLERK: Item 45: Motion to approve an Ordinance amending the Augusta-
Richmond County Code to provide for a 1-cent increase in the Hotel/Motel
Tax and to amend the contract with the CVB to provide for distribution of
the increase. Approved by the Commission December 30th. Second reading.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we approve that to get it
on the floor. I know that we've got some people here that may want to make
some comments in regards to the action we've taken, but I make a motion that
we approve.
MR. TODD: I second, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I think our primary
responsibility is the Augusta-Richmond County Museum, and certainly we have a
responsibility as far as tourism and visitors to the community, and I would
hope to have somewhat of a modification or look for funds. You know, we have
a opportunity for bringing a half a million dollars in that the Mayor could
use to grow jobs and we could use to do Convention and Visitors with, and
that's funds that wasn't in the budget or basically no one had basically
proposed and is not designated or in the budget. We can put it in the budget
by dealing with another issue. There are some other issues, too, that can
bring this community additional funds, and I think this, you know, has to do
with the line of discussion, Mr. Mayor, because we're talking about money.
The bottom line here is money. And we're doing some things as far as
sanitation with the Housing Authority that could free up some money, and
there's some other monies that this community can free up. I can support this
for the Museum and we look at the options we have to free up money or bring in
different revenue, then go back and at least plug into the entities that we
had cut or moved or swapped the money away from as far as Fort Discovery, et
cetera, a share equal to the amount of that until they start receiving their
money from the hotel/ motel tax. I hope that everybody is following me. I'm
trying to be brief and speak fast because I know I've taken up a lot of time
today. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to make a substitute motion that we
postpone Item Number 44 and 45 until we can deal with the budget next
Commission meeting.
CLERK: You mean 45 and 46?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: 45 and 46, I'm sorry. I make a motion we postpone
both items until next time.
MR. BRIDGES: I'll second it to get it on the floor.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, you know, whether I'm part of the leadership team
or whether I'm sitting on the left as I've sat, you know, ostracized I guess
to some extent, down here on this side when we rearranged the seating to deal
with at least a former colleague's hearing problem, what I'm trying to do is
to keep this government moving to not -- MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor,
[inaudible]. I don't think that's appropriate.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, do I have the floor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: You got it, Mr. Todd.
MR. TODD: To deal with issues, to move ahead progressively, and -- and
what I said is a fact. I think we need to do that, and I think to delay or
postpone a decision on these two issues is wrong, and come down to the
eleventh hour on having a deadline that we shall pass a permanent budget, then
have to deal with this issue there. We need to vote it up or down and know
that we got to look for money and have that time to look for money, Mr. Mayor.
And if we want to get back in the business of looking for money, Mr. Mayor, I
can find some money. I think I gave Mr. Oliver a list, we can revisit that
list, we can revisit a lot of other areas, but there's money that can be freed
up. And if that's what we want to do, then let's do that. Thank you, Mr.
Mayor.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: While we're going to be at it, let's be at it all the
way. I agree with you, Mr. Todd, but I don't agree with one thing. I think
if we're going to discuss the budget and all the [inaudible] and this tax
increase affects the budget, we're going to discuss the budget, and I think it
ought to be all done at one time. And I agree with you, we either need to
vote it up or vote it down, and if we vote it down we better be willing to
cut. But I don't think we need to vote on it this week and then come back in
two weeks and vote on the budget, I think we need to do it all at once.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to agree with Mr. Todd, I think we need
to move on both of these items at this time. You know, if we have to, you
know, whatever we have to do later on, but I think to just keep, you know,
putting things off -- we need to just face it and do what we're going to do,
vote it up or down.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Anybody else? I agree. You know, how many times have
y'all bee down here, David? Mr. Simon? I mean, every time you turn around
we're getting you back down here, right?
MR. SIMON: And each time you seem to turn up the heat, Mr. Mayor. It's
quite hot in here. I don't know how you folks feel up there, but it's awful
hot down here.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Absolutely.
MR. SIMON: I would like to say that, of course, I was pushing for this
hotel/motel tax all along, since last spring, and I encouraged you to pass it.
However, I didn't envision it would end up the way it has because I thought
the purpose of passing the tax was going to be used to encourage tourism and
to spend the money in that way. Now, I'm not opposed to the Richmond County
Museum for getting funds. I think it's an obligation of the county to fund
that. However, I'd like to see you do it in another way and let these funds
flow to the accumulation of dollars that we talked about so that those funds
can be applied for by Fort Discovery and other organizations who will need
funding over the next few years. So I would encourage you to consider that.
A compromise to that would be [inaudible], and I'm not in that position
right now, but it seems to me that you have voted to allow all the funds to go
to the Richmond County Museum. And it seems to me if you'd let at least a
portion of it, at least 40%, it should go to the CVB anyway, go to the CVB the
first year and find funds, Mr. Todd, as you suggest, from other sources to
fund the Richmond County Museum, and then follow the plan of allowing money to
be reduced going to the Richmond County Museum and go into this fund with the
committee as we have suggested earlier. That would be a compromise in a way.
I understand you have a very difficult job of trying to balance the budget
without raising taxes, and none of us like to raise taxes, even the
hotel/motel tax. None of us like that, but sometimes you have to do that in
order to make profits. And I know, Mr. Bridges, you said last time we don't
have tourism. Well, we won't have any tourism, we won't grow tourists unless
we do spend some money in that direction. So I encourage you to reconsider
this. Number one, pass the tax, but, number two, reconsider as to the
distribution of the funds and how they are to be allocated.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I got one question to ask. One Item Number 45,
how can we vote on a contract when I received a fax today saying that the CVB
is not in accordance with what's on there? So how can we vote on that and the
wording as it is in this book?
MR. WHITE: Barry White, Convention and Visitors Bureau. That was not the
message that was implied with the fax this morning. That was just to say that
this information has not been presented to our board yet. We got it Monday,
our board does meet Thursday, this would be the soonest that we would be able
to
discuss it. That's not to say that we disagree, agree, or -- MR. HANDY:
Right, but you're asking us to approve something that your board hasn't seen
yet, too. I mean, we can approve it and your board don't agree with it, then
we're just wasting time. I'm not concerned about 46, but, I mean, that
particular one -- you in your fax that I received said that you have not
delivered it to your board and you all was undecided.
MR. WHITE: Right. If you recall, this was changed last week. And we
didn't ask for this, this was something that came from you to us.
MR. HANDY: Well, I'm not complaining about it, I'm asking -- I'm
addressing this to the Attorney. How can we vote on the way it is in this
book when his board has not accepted what we're asking them to do?
MR. WALL: Well, let me address that. Item Number 45 consists of two
things. One is the contract. That has not -- MR. HANDY: Excuse me,
Jim. That's what I'm saying. The way it is in this book, we got to pull
something out.
MR. WALL: What I'm saying is the contract has not changed from last
week. The monies that flow through the contract under the ordinance has
changed. But the CVB does not have anything to do with the monies that they
receive. Now, presumably they had approved the concept of the contract, which
would deal with the money after they received it, what they did with the
money. That contract has not changed. Now, the part of the ordinance that
sends some of the money to the Museum, that's what y'all changed last week.
And, I mean, I don't think the CVB ought to be telling you what you do with
the money.
MR. HANDY: Then why did he send us a fax? You should have disregarded
the fax and we go on and do what we're going to do.
MR. WALL: Well, Mr. Oliver read the fax to me. I have not seen the
copy, but as I recall it, all it said was we have not seen the contract. But,
again, the contract is the same contract that they've seen before. And my
understanding last week when we were meeting, and Mr. Timmerman was here, I
didn't see that they had any objection to the contract itself.
MR. OLIVER: What it provides for is that the money for the Museum is
taken out first before disbursement to the Convention and Visitors Bureau, and
the objection that they may have to it is obviously they get a late start, if
you will, in receiving the money. But the mechanism in the contract is the
same. The difference is in how the payments are made.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, maybe I need to take the blame for the predicament
we're in as far as the Convention and Visitors
Bureau go because of my initiative a few years ago to look into some things
that were going on over there and found out they wasn't incorporated, you
know, then urged them to incorporate, and I think they did incorporate. So if
we have an incorporated entity, and I think that we do the funding instead of
the old arm of quasi city-county government that we had before, then, Mr.
Wall, I would ask can we direct them to do anything? I know we can make a
recommendation, we can make a request, but can we direct them to do anything?
If there is legislation that deals with where the funds go from hotel/ motel
and they are the entity to disburse those funds, then the question is can we
direct them to do it?
MR. WALL: Well, no, you cannot direct them to do that; however, if they
do not accept the contract amendment, I think there are other ways that you
can address the issue. Because the subsection (4) that we're dealing with
only requires that at least 33-1/3% of the money go for a combination of --
one or more of several issues, one of them is to promote tourism. So the 33-
1/3% that the ordinance gives to them, which is this two cents, which is the
same two cents that we are contractually obligated to give to them, we are not
changing that. So I think you could leave that in place, and then the rest of
the money -- I mean, we can come back with a further provision to address the
handling of that money, and it does not necessarily have to go through the
CVB, in my opinion. Just like the Museum, I mean, you can pay the money
directly to certain organizations -- not all of them but certain of them.
MR. WHITE: Jim, could I ask a question? I haven't seen the new
ordinance since y'all passed it. Does it provide that a certain of this
amount of money will go to the CVB the first year?
MR. WALL: What it does, all of the money goes to the Museum in Year One.
In Year Two, 300,000 goes to the Museum and the balance goes to the CVB;
200,000 the next year; down to 100,000, et cetera.
MR. WHITE: If I can make a clarification. We do agree with the spirit
of the contract, that is, the amendment to the contract that was previously
approved by all the organizations and the CVB. We have just not had that
document to present to our board to have action taken on it yet.
MR. LOEHR: I'm Scott Loehr, Director of the Augusta-Richmond County
Museum. Let me first say that much is being asked of our cultural resources
and attractions in terms of tourist development, economic enhancement, and
improving the qualify of life in our community. And we've heard much about
improving the quality of life today, and I think in a short period of time as
an industry we have established a very commendable record. It's going to take
a while longer to feel the full effects of us as an industry, us being
attractions
and cultural resources. The demands on us, as upon you and others in this
community, continue to grow, but we're experi-encing a dwindling of public
financial support as the demands as growing. That is not some new phenomenon
with which cultural resources are dealing, but we are trying to handle it and
we are doing the very best that we can in this particular case. I worked with
Paul Simon and others in the cultural and attractions community to put forth
what we thought was a recommendation that was in the best interest of this
community and certainly in the best interest of our industry by providing some
additional revenue that would allow us as an industry to attract more tourists
to our community and to enhance the quality of life in our community.
Through this process things changed quite a bit, and now the Museum finds
itself as the sole recipient of the increase. The Museum, believe me, needs
the $400,000 this year to operate. We're a business, we have bills to pay.
And if that money decreased any more than that or there was a postponement in
that appropriation, we'd be hard pressed to pay our bills. Quite frankly, the
Museum is asking for that appropriation, but whence it comes is not so much
our concern as it is that it does come, and that's what we are asking today.
A postponement places us in limbo. If you postpone but attach to that placing
the Museum back in General Fund, that is something that we could live with,
but any further postponement means that we have outstanding bills that will
continue to go outstanding if we do not see some money from the county very
soon, meaning the month of January. I know you have a very difficult job. We
have very difficult jobs as well as the attractions and cultural resources,
but we are working in the best interest of this community, as I know all of
you are, and I would hope that some resolution would come today that would
benefit the attractions and cultural resources.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Ms. Bonner, do you want to read the motions,
please?
CLERK: Substitute motion by Mr. Jerry Brigham, seconded by Mr. Ulmer
Bridges, to postpone till the next meeting Items 45 and 46, to be considered
along with the budget.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MR. HANDY: I'm present.
MR. SHEPARD: I'm going to abstain, Mr. Mayor, since it requires
consideration of matters of a former client, the CVB.
MOTION FAILS 4-4-2. [MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. MAYS, MR. TODD, MR. KUHLKE
VOTE NO] [MR. HANDY AND MR. SHEPARD ABSTAIN]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Back to the original motion.
CLERK: Motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Todd, was to approve.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it
be known by raising your hand, please.
MR. HANDY: Present.
MR. SHEPARD: Abstain.
MOTION FAILS 4-4-2. [MR. POWELL, MR. BRIDGES, MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. J.
BRIGHAM VOTE NO] [MR. HANDY AND MR. SHEPARD ABSTAIN]
[Item 46: Motion to approve an Ordinance amending the Augusta-
Richmond County Code to provide for a 3% excise tax on rental cars.
Approved by the Commission December 30, 1997 -Second Reading.]
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'm still going to make a motion to postpone
Item Number 46 till the next meeting.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we've got gentlemen out here that have been here
for three hours, and it's ridiculous to postpone something until these
gentlemen have had a chance to have their say.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I don't mind listening to them, but I --I told Mr.
Waters today what I was going to make a motion.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve. Vote it up or down.
MR. KUHLKE: I'll second the motion to get it on the floor.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly I think that none of us like taxes. I
rent vehicles, and when I'm without a vehicle the only source of
transportation was to rent a vehicle. And I kind of like that arrangement,
you know, on renting and certainly I'll rent vehicles in the future. I either
drive or fly to jobs. I stay in hotels too, by the way, so I understand the
argument there. And we say it don't make a difference to some folks. I think
it do, but I think it's a difference that the taxpayers and the citizens of
this community is willing to make the sacrifice versus having to increase
property taxes to pay for the service delivery that we have, a constitutional
obligation as far as the county side of it, we're constitutionally elected,
and I guess for the city, too, and some of the frills, I guess if you want to
call it, or whatever you want to call them as far as we provide as far as the
city. We have, Mr. Mayor, a $4.4 million deficit that the former city left
this government, and it may be, you know, just a paper deficit [inaudible].
But I do know that we've been told to take correction and we got to take
corrective action to erase that deficit. So we're going to do that either by
looking for revenue enhancements or raising property taxes or some
methodology. The argument will be made, Mr. Mayor, that the folks that
rent cars is just poor folks and they can't afford to rent a car. And I've
heard the argument if the Transit don't work, shut it down. Well, I would
assume the car rental folks would want the poor folks that can't afford to pay
an additional three cent tax to rent a car from them every day so they can
have transporta-tion, Mr. Mayor, you know, because if you shut Transit down, a
lot of those same folks that ride Transit also rent cars. I'm one of them.
I've rode Transit, I've rented cars. I just happen at this time to have a old
Ford Ranger that has, you know, got a hundred and something thousand miles on
it that I'm driving in now. I will rent cars in the future. I will rent cars
from Mr. Waters or Banks as far as special trips, et cetera, and I've rented
cars from Bob Richards. Any time that most of us have a wreck or a broken
down car, whether we own a car or not, we usually wind up going and renting a
car. So I agree that it affects poor folks. It affects all of us,
because at one time or another most of us rent a car. But I'm saying that
it's the way to not raise property taxes by looking at hotel/motel, by looking
at the car rental. And statewide legislators put this issue -- passed it to
enable us to do this, and we've sat and looked at this issue for two or three
years and we haven't proposed to pass this tax until there is a true need for
it, and it blends in with the same folks that occasionally rent cars, many of
them poor folk. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, let me just say this. When we voted on the budget
last week I saw the handwriting on the wall, pardon the pun, it was up on the
wall over there, too. And I saw who and where the cuts were going to come
from, who was going to have to deal with it. I saw a immediately when we
weren't going to deal with this tax where the eraser started going, who
started getting penciled out in the very beginning. As that old riverboat
gambler, Bill, I hate to get boxed in with no way to be let out. I still
question, just like I did that day, I still question whether or not probably
whether this is going to provide the revenue that we are looking for to deal
with Transit. But as chairman of that committee, as representative of four
districts, half of this county, and as that representative of where the
majority of that Transit lies and runs currently, when I saw what was going to
come into place with the shifting of this money --and I still do. The Spirit
was absolutely right, I still think this is the most creative city in America.
Whether it's on legal opinion, juggling money, finding a way to switch rules,
Mr. Mayor, we're creative. And we're so creative that it places the needs
many times of those folk who can't fight back -- you have to go ahead and make
a choice for them because they're not going to be on the front burner of
what's decided. I looked at the juggling of where we had to deal with for
the Museum tax, and I've been supporting the Museum for years. Steve and I
over on the old city, we started off [inaudible] and still support that
funding. But the only way that some of the needs, whether it was through
Recreation, whether it was through Public Transit, a lot of the things it
entailed, our committee -- if they were going to get funded, they were going
to be tied to Items 45 or 46. If not, we were going to be at the front end of
what was going to be taken away, and I didn't see this Commission having the
will to do anything else to provide those services. It was either go with it
this way or we're going to slice you first. And they put it up on that wall.
They showed me a little better than they could tell me. Just as soon as it
was turned down, the first items to start popping up there, small items,
whether they were -- summer employment started coming up for discussion. I
heard rumors, well, there's your Transit money, it's gone. So, you know, you
get boxed in to a point do you make that hard sacrifice and go ahead and do
it. I don't think that some of us were left with that particular choice of
doing otherwise. I chaired that committee, I got it to this point with
the help of others. I don't necessarily like the makeup of it. I don't
necessarily like the makeup of some things in the budget, and I didn't vote
for it, not only the fiscal language of it but also some of the wording
language in it, but at least I was able to help juggle to get some of the
money to where it is at this point. Whether I like it or not, that's a whole
other story. And I would just hope that the incoming chairman of this
committee -- and I was very serious when I made my remarks after being sworn
in today. You can give these extra -- Mr. Mayor and Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I hope
you give these extra -- and I say this real honestly, give these extra 20 to
30 percent blood pressure points to somebody else, you know, with this
chairmanship. It's one you can take this headache and give it somewhere else.
When I have to come and fight, y'all know me, I'll come to your committee
whether I'm on it or not. And I'll fight whether it's in a committee room or
whether it's in a phone booth, I don't care where it is, I get my point
across. But, you know, I'd rather for you to just do that, take it. I'm
tired of the hypocrisy or the hassles that go along with some of the things we
deal with in providing certain elements of public service, and that's all I
want to say, Mr. Mayor. Because I'm left with no other recourse other than to
deal with it this way because many of these issues that involve where we
shifted the alternative monies to, that was the only way that some of these
services were going to be provided. It was as though to say if you want it,
go with it; if not, these are going to be the first things that are going to
be cut. And you all showed me better than you could tell me. Y'all stuck it
on the wall and you stuck it probably some other places, too, and I felt it
real hard. But I did what I had to do to get it to this point, so I wish the
new chairman well, and you can borrow some of my blood pressure pills.
MR. WATERS: I tell you, y'all got me confused. I just heard y'all tell
Paul Simon you're going to find him income, and Moses Todd has give Randy
Oliver here a list of cuts for y'all to find some money. So why do we need to
pass a new tax for if you're going to find new money? Now, you're right, I
come down here last week and beat the ball and I shouted and called all of
y'all, but today I got some support. I got all the car rental companies in
Augusta, Georgia, including the airport. And all I can tell you is hear them
people, hear what they've got to say about the car rentals. Mr. Warren here
with Bob Richards Chevrolet -- I give y'all an article just a few minutes ago
-- and let him make a few comments before we go much further on this.
MR. WARREN: Mr. Mayor, gentlemen, I'm a little concerned from my
perspective that we may be targeting, as Mr. Todd says, the very people that
we're attempting to help. We at Bob Richards service a particular segment of
the community, a segment of the community that's not served with rental
vehicles anywhere else in the community: those below the age of 25, those
that don't possess credit cards, and those that would be walking, because
they're not on the Public Transit system, if we were not able to provide them
cars. I do disagree with Mr. Todd that the tax that they will be paying for
those vehicles would enhance their ability to use the public transportation
system. I don't think that those are the folks that are using the public
transportation system. However, that's your decision to make and I'll leave it
in your hands to make that decision. One other fact about this tax that will
affect at least my organization, I believe unfairly, is that we limit our
business relationship to members of this community only. Unlike the national
organiza-tions, those at the airport and the other rental companies in the
community, we only rent to local residents. We do no outside business, so
these are not business people or vacationers that are coming into our
community to drop an additional three cents on the dollar into our coffers,
these are local residents only into whose pocketbooks we're going to delve.
Thank you.
MR. FISHER: My name is Chris Fisher, I represent Enterprise Rent-a-Car.
We also, too, have a local interest. We are not your normal rental car
company. I guess we all have our own pros and cons, but in our position, we
are a community neighborhood type rental car company. I would say in Richmond
County, 95% of the cars we rent are to Richmond County people. We are either
the largest or one of the top rental car companies in Richmond County, and I
can guarantee you this 3% tax would be directly coming out of the pocket of
the people that live in Richmond County.
MR. SHIPP: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is John Shipp, I'm with Budget
Rent-a-Car, and we're located at Bush Field Airport. And you may think that
most of the people that are coming into Bush Field are out-of-town travelers,
but that's not necessarily the case. In our business, at least 50% of the
people that come to Bush Field to rent a car are local. Our Sunday evening,
Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday business are mostly out-of-town travelers
coming in, but beginning Thursday, Friday, and Saturday we push toward the
local renters and try to get business that way as well. And that's how we
draw business into the airport, by offering lower rates, weekend specials, so
to speak, to get the local renters in. And, yes, we have 50%, even at the
airport, of local renters. So, you know, we certainly feel that this 3% tax
is going to affect the local residents as well as the -- this signifies people
that come to Bush Field to rent cars. That's all I have to say.
MR. LAWRENCE: I'm Frank Lawrence with Bobby Jones Ford. We rent
primarily to service and body shop customers, and it would impact some folks
that really -- most insurance carriers will not pay the 23 or 24 dollars,
which is mostly for our lower priced vehicle, 18/20 bucks is all they'll pay.
And most of these folks, when you add a little sales tax to it, it's going to
take -- it's going to impact some single parents, people that really need a
car to go to work. And we're not talking about a lot of folks that can afford
a vehicle, we're not talking about luxury vehicles, we're certainly talking
about entry level vehicles in many cases to people that really need a break.
And I know Mr. Todd from way back, and I know you're sincere, and I know how
hard it is for y'all to deal with these things. And being a businessman I can
understand that. I'm not suggesting that you decide for us, but I do think
that most folks that -- or single parents that need help ought to be thought
about. Thank you.
MR. BRADLEY: My name is Randy Bradley, I'm the station manager of Avis
at Bush Field Airport. I would just like to reiterate what John said. We
work out of the same market as Budget Rent-a-Car and Hertz at the airport:
Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, corporate customers mainly; the rest of the
week and weekend, the local people. One issue I'd just like to bring up is
that when I do work at the counter I get to see the customers' reactions to
some of the prices, the rates that we charge, the fees that are put on top,
the taxes that are put on the top, and the overwhelming majority of the local
people are just amazed at the fees that are tacked on top of the rental car.
And the way I look at it, 3% on top of that is just going to put a lot of
people over the barrel and they are not going to rent cars, certainly not from
the airport. And I do know that, you know, our revenue -- the airport does
take a percentage of that revenue for airport needs, whatever that's allocated
for by the airport commission. That could very well take money away from the
airport and put it here in the city, 3% as opposed to maybe 10% at the
airport. I represent the largest market share out at Bush Field, and I do
know from personal experience that a lot of people will be put over the top
with this.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other discussion, gentlemen? Do you want to read
Mr. Todd's motion, please?
CLERK: The motion was to approve.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, raise your hand,
please.
MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. BRIDGES, MR. HANDY & MR. POWELL VOTE NO.
MOTION FAILS 5-4. [MR. H. BRIGHAM OUT]
MR. WATERS: Mr. Mayor, I get a funny feeling standing here about a
vendetta from Mr. Todd. Can I challenge his vote [inaudible]?
MR. TODD: Mr. Parliamentarian -- MR. WALL: It's out of order.
MR. TODD: And, Mr. Mayor, if I had a vendetta against Mr. Waters, I
think you can check his records, my family has rented from him since his wife
or ex-wife had my car towed from the parking place out there. And I think he
know me well enough from discussing politics and everything else that I don't
do business that way.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. We have a no vote on this,
gentlemen, so this will come up at the next meeting. Isn't that correct?
MR. WALL: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: So I'm sorry, gentlemen, y'all have to come back again.
Unless we can get Mr. Brigham in here to vote. Did he leave?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the order of the day. And I'd also like
to point out that there is individuals that do business with Mr. Waters
presently, and I wouldn't dare challenge their vote. And I don't think that
that's their interest, I think they're voting their conviction on what they
believe is fair or what direction we should go.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Next item, please.
CLERK: Item 1 on the addendum agenda: To approve the petition of
retirement on Janice H. McBride.
MR. POWELL: Move approval.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MR. BRIDGES: Randy, what's your recommendation on that?
MR. OLIVER: I was advised that we were in the process of getting a
second opinion, but we didn't have it in writing. It had been received
verbally. We now have it in writing and, therefore, having a second opinion
by an outside physician in writing, we concur with it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. MAYS OUT]
MR. WALL: I need a legal meeting for some litigation matters.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, what purpose the County Attorney wants to go into
legal meeting?
MR. WALL: To talk about three settlements that I want to just be sure
everyone is familiar with and answer any questions, then come back and have
them ratified. And then one insofar as association counsel matter.
MR. TODD: Is this settlements from lawsuits that was filed?
MR. WALL: Yes, sir, it is.
MR. TODD: I so move, Mr. Mayor.
MR. WALL: Well, no, one was not a lawsuit that was filed --well, two of
them are not lawsuits that were filed, excuse me. Only one is a lawsuit that
has actually been pending, but claims have been made.
MR. TODD: On the other two claims have been made, and we're settling
those claims, we've never been sued?
MR. WALL: Yes, sir.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I don't see any reason we can't settle those claims
out here if there's no lawsuit filed.
MAYOR SCONYERS: That's your call, Mr. Wall.
MR. WALL: The only reason to go into legal session is to answer any
questions. These are some that, for the most part, y'all have indicated an
approval for. The first is the settlement of three water damage claims out on
Washington Road, and y'all had previously settled some others: Delores
Wright, $14,492; Debra Pickett, $13,543.75; David Williams, $14,500. And,
again, this is from the flooding of the Washington Road storage facilities.
The money would come from the Utilities Department, and I recommend approval.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we add it to the agenda by unanimous
consent.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We're going to do each one of them like this?
MR. TODD: That's all three of them, Mr. Mayor, on the settlements from
where we didn't have a legal action, where we're doing what we ought to do and
that's correct the situation.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of adding it to the
agenda, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT]
MR. WALL: The next is to approve the settlement agreement between
Augusta and Jonathan Adams. Most of you received a letter about this. The
effect of this would be that we would reverse the payroll entry and there
would be a savings to the county of $4,833, and I recommend approval for that.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move we add it to the agenda by unanimous
consent.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion? All in favor, raise your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT]
MR. WALL: The third item is to settle the claim of Mary D. Harrison and
her husband. This arises out of the University Hospital ambulance accident,
seeking approval, and most of you have seen documentation on this previously.
Payment by the city of $498,823.98. Recommend approval -- or adding it to
the agenda at this point.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we add it to the agenda by unanimous
consent.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT]
MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I would recommend approval of all three of those
items and the settlements as I've indicated.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move.
MR. BEARD: I second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Anything else?
CLERK: No, sir, that's it.
MR. WALL: The other item is, insofar as the golf course financing plan,
I would like to associate the law firm of Hull, Towill, Norman, Barrett and
Johnson--I'm not sure that that's their correct name now--a local firm, to
assist in the prepara-tion of the documents necessary to bring back. I have
talked with Mr. Doug Batchelor of that firm, who does bond work. This will, in
my opinion, save costs versus going to Atlanta for counsel up there, and I'd
like to be in a position to associate them.
MR. KUHLKE: I so move.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, we promised the public two public hearings, and I'm
not in agreement that you got to get the documents ready before you do the
public hearings. It's not that complicated. The public hearings is about
doing the COPS, and that's what that's about, and to hear from the public
first, and I am not going to support this. You can put it on the next agenda
and you may have the votes to pass it, but when I put something in an
amendment I don't intend for it to be circum-vented. And if you're going to
circumvent it, then I'd say that you put it on the agenda. So, Mr. Mayor, I
move that we adjourn.
MR. OLIVER: And I agree with you, Mr. Todd, that no work should be done
until those public hearings and that input is received. Those public hearings
have been scheduled -- I'm trying to remember.
MR. WALL: The 13th and the 15th.
MR. OLIVER: The 13th and the 15th. I think it's at seven o'clock. And
at that point we'll have that, but I agree with you from the standpoint of we
need that input before we incur any expense.
MR. WALL: And I'm not suggesting that they be directed to do any work,
I'm just wanting to get them on board in the process of doing it. And I can
bring it back on the 20th if that's what the desire is.
MR. KUHLKE: I'd like to amend my motion that we approve that firm, but
we don't expend any funds with the firm until after the public hearings.
MR. SHEPARD: I accept that amendment.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, you're not going to have unanimous consent, so I
move that we adjourn.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear a second to Mr. Todd's motion that we adjourn
since we're not going to have unanimous consent?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I believe that our local ordinances call for
us to approve the Clerk of this Commission for another year's term. Is that
right, Mr. Wall?
MR. WALL: The Commission is supposed to organize itself at the first
regular meeting, which includes the appointment of committees and -- MR.
J. BRIGHAM: I think it includes the appointment of some other officers, don't
it?
MR. WALL: The Clerk serves at the pleasure of the Commission and is not
an annual election. I think I'm the only one that's elected annually.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I didn't think so, but [inaudible].
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, based on what they were telling us the other day,
we can just take it and do what we want to, so she's going to be the Clerk and
not worry about it.
MR. BEARD: Well, that is not in the bill that she become part of this.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mayor, I'm glad to see you use your powers. Thank
you. Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn.
MR. WALL: Are you going to do the committees?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, Lee and I can do that. Do we need to keep y'all
waiting around here?
MR. WALL: Yes, because it needs to come back and be approved.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, that's fine. Do y'all want to take a five-minute
break?
MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I don't have a problem with that. But as I
recollect the bill, and Mr. Wall can correct me, it says we shall elect a
Mayor Pro Tem and reorganize the government. So if that's the language as I
understand it, then I think that we're supposed to do it before we leave. If
that's not the language, I'd like to hear what the language is, because if
that's not the language, then the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem may need a
little more time. And I'm not saying this, you know, vying for a chairmanship
or anything else, I'm saying this based on the fact that that was my
understanding.
MR. WALL: It says you shall elect a Mayor Pro Tem, and it further
provides in Subsection (c) of Section 4 that at the first regular meeting in
January of each even numbered year the Commission-Council shall organize
itself, the Chairperson-Mayor and the Vice Chairperson-Mayor Pro Tem shall
recommend to the Commission-Council the appointment of such committees as they
deem appropriate and the proposed membership thereof. And I think y'all ought
to do that before you leave.
MR. TODD: I'll move that we recess for the appropriate time.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Take a five-minute recess.
[RECESS]
CLERK: The Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem offer the following standing
committees for 1998:
Finance Committee: Ulmer Bridges, Chairman; Henry Brigham, Vice
Chairman; Lee Beard; Jerry Brigham. Administrative Services Committee:
Henry Brigham, Chairman; J.B. Powell, Vice Chairman; Lee Beard; Steve
Shepard. Engineering Services Committee: J.B. Powell, Chairman;
Freddie Handy, Vice Chairman; Ulmer Bridges; Moses Todd. Public
Safety: Freddie Handy, Chairman; Bill Kuhlke, Vice Chairman; Steve
Shepard; Willie Mays. Public Services Committee: Willie Mays,
Chairman; Moses Todd, Vice Chairman; Jerry Brigham; Bill Kuhlke.
MR. KUHLKE: So move, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MR. TODD: I'd like to say that for my time that is left on the
Commission -- and I don't know how long that will be because the Mayoral
election is coming up and I need to hear a ruling on whether I need to exit or
I can stay if I'm running. So until that time I'll gladly accept the
committee chairmanship and work diligently, as I have in the past, to support
the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem in this local government. Thank you.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to make a statement that I would
like to express my appreciation to my colleagues for bestowing this honor upon
me. I think it's a great honor that has been bestowed upon me, and I would
like to work in a cooperative spirit to enhance the leadership of this
organization by working the Mayor and my fellow Commissioners. Augusta is on
the cutting edge of becoming a great city, and I'm humble and thankful to be a
part of that, and I look forward to working this year with my colleagues in
this honored position. Thank you.
MR. KUHLKE: Move we adjourn.
[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 January 6, 1998.
_________________________
Clerk of Commission