HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-21-1999 Regular Meeting
Page 1
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
December 21, 1999
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:06 p.m., Tuesday, December 21,
1999, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
Present: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Colclough, Handy, Kuhlke,
Mays, Powell and Shepard, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also present were Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Mr. Oliver, Administrator; and Mr.
Wall, County Attorney.
THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY REV. MAX HICKS.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED.
Mayor Young: Madame Clerk, if you’ll go ahead with the agenda. I think we have
some things to add and to delete. You want to do the addendum?
Clerk: Under our addendum agenda:
Deletion: Presentation of a proclamation to Donna and Anita Howard. They were
unable to make it into town today. We will reschedule that for January 4.
Deletion: Item 54 at the request of the Administrator.
And to add a delegation, Mr. J. W. Dyson, regarding the Augusta Golf Course.
Mayor Young: What’s your pleasure, gentlemen?
Mr. Shepard: I move the additions and deletions be made as recommended by the
Clerk.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mayor Young: Is there any objection?
Motion carries 10-0.
Mayor Young: The addendum agenda is adopted unanimously.
Clerk: The consent agenda, Items 1-48. And for the benefit of any objectors, I will read
the petition and the location. If there are any objectors, would you please signify that by the
raising of your hand?
Page 2
PLANNING:
1. Z-99-116 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve a petition from Roberta Lindsey, on behalf of Oscar W. Taylor, Jr., requesting a
Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family personal care home as provided
for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the east right-of way line of Peach
Orchard Road, 270 feet, more or less, south of a point where the centerline of Pepperidge
Drive extended intersects the east right-of-way line of Peach Orchard Road (3524 Peach
Orchard Road). District 6.
2. Z-99-117 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve a petition from Tamsen McKinnon, on behalf of Shon McKinnon, requesting a
change of zoning from Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone R-1 (One-family Residence) on
property located 400 feet, more or less, east of the east right-of-way line of Peach Orchard
Road and also being 749 feet, more or less, north of a point where the centerline of Willis
Foreman Road extended intersects the east right-of-way line of Peach Orchard Road.
District 8.
3. Z-99-118 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve a petition from Mills Briggs requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-MH
(Manufactured Home Residence) to Zone R-1 (One-family residence) on property located
on the northeast right-of-way line of Seago Road, 1,070 feet, more or less, north of the
northeast corner of the intersection of Ascot Road and Seago Road. District 8.
4. Z-99-119 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve a petition from Dale W. Bridges requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A
(One-family residence) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the
southwest corner of the intersection of Washington Road and Lakewood Drive Extension
(2332-34 Washington Road). District 7.
5. Z-99-120 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve a petition from David Miles, on behalf of Charles G. Hardin, et al., requesting a
change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property
located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Furys Ferry Road and Parrish Road.
District 7.
6. Z-99-121 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve a petition from Billy and Helen Maynard requesting a change of zoning from Zone
A (Agriculture) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residence) on property located on
the southwest right-of-way line of Byrd Road, 1,200 feet southeast of the southeast corner
of the intersection of Peach Orchard Road and Byrd Road (3522 Byrd Road). District 6.
7. Z-99-122 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve a petition from Edward J. Heffernan, on behalf of the Peter S. Knox Community
Service Center, requesting a change of zoning from R-3C (Multiple-family Residence) to
Zone P-1 (Professional) on property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Telfair
Street, 170.42 feet northwest of the northwest corner of the intersection of Third Street and
Telfair Street (317-333 Telfair Street). Mr. Heffernan is also asking to utilize as
administrative offices for non-profit organizations in a P-1 (Professional) zone per Section
20-1 (g) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance the properties located at 317-345 Telfair
Street, 353 Telfair Street, and 355 Telfair Street. District 1.
Page 3
8. Z-99-123 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve a petition from Fred Sigg, on behalf of Xytex Corporation, requesting a change of
zoning from Zone R-2 (Two-family Residence) to Zone P-1 (Professional) on property
located on the east right-of-way line of Emmett Street, 140.21 feet south of the southeast
corner of the intersection of Parnell Street and Emmett Street (1106-1110 Emmett Street).
District 1.
9. Z-99-124 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve a petition from Dannie Reynolds, on behalf of Oscaretin Isiborne, requesting a
change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property
located on the south right-of-way line of Wrightsboro Road, 618 feet, more or less, west of
the southwest corner of the intersection of Luke Road and Wrightsboro Road (3890
Wrightsboro Road). District 3.
10. Z-99-126 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve a petition from Sherman & Hemstreet, Inc., on behalf of Clarence Edwards,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) on property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Oliver
road, 32 feet, more or less, southeast of a point where the centerline of Stevens Road
extended intersects the northeast right-of-way line of Oliver road (2002-2006 Oliver Road).
District 2.
11. Z-99-128 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve a petition from Nathaniel Charles, on behalf of Weldon L. Lake, et. Al., requesting
a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) and B-2 (General Business) to
Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) on property located on the southeast right-of-way line
of Crest Drive, 171 feet, more or less, southwest of a point where the southwest right-of-
way line of Tobacco Road intersects the southeast right-of-way line of Crest Drive (3705-
3708 Crest Drive). District 6.
12. Z-99-129 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve a petition from Edward J. Heffernan, on behalf of Peter S. Knox Community
Service Center, requesting a Special Exception for transition housing as provided for in
Section 26-1, Subparagraph (g) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-
Richmond County, on property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Telfair Street,
170.42 feet northwest of the northwest corner of the intersection of Third Street and Telfair
Street (317 Telfair Street). District 1.
13. Pulled from consent agenda.
FINANCE:
14. Motion to approve refund of 1997 and 1998 taxes in the amount of $302.62 to Doris
Ray Hauser Fulmer for overpayment of taxes on Map 205, Parcel 32.02. (Approved by
Finance Committee December 13, 1999)
15. Motion to approve abatement of penalty for 1998 taxes on Map 27-1, Parcel 33 and
Map 46-1, Parcel 12. (Approved by finance Committee December 13, 1999)
16. Motion to retain Cherry, Bekaert & Holland, L.L.P. to audit the County’s financial
statements for the fiscal year ending December 31, 1999. (Approved by Finance
Committee December 13, 1999)
17. Motion to approve additional funding in the amount of $3,359 for the Jury Clerk’s
Page 4
Office funded from General Fund contingency. (Approved by finance Committee
December 13, 1999)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
18. Motion to approve Customer Service Training for 200 employees. (Approved by
Administrative Committee December 13, 1999)
19. Pulled from Consent Agenda.
20. Motion to approve Option B (12-18) as recommended by our Benefit Consultants
Buck Consultants. (Approved by Administrative Committee December 13, 1999)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
21. Motion to approve renewing contract with Georgia Municipal Association (GMA) to
act as a buyers agent for AUGUSTA RICHMOND COUNTY in procuring natural gas
under their Gas Aggregation Service (GAS) plan. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee December 13, 1999)
22. Motion to authorize Railroad Street Slope Repair Project to be included in
Construction Work Program, approve engineering services for the project with W. R.
Toole Engineers in the amount of $35,800 to be funded from Account 323-04-296823081.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 13, 1999)
23. Motion to authorize the execution of Supplement Agreement #2 with the Georgia
Department of Transportation for the Pedestrian Walkway and Handicap Access Ramp
Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 13, 1999)
24. Motion to authorize Public Works and engineering Department to exercise second
one-year option for existing solid waste collection contracts to extend from February 2000
to February 2001. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 13, 1999)
25. Motion to approve revised State-Aid County Contract Priority List. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee December 13, 1999)
26. Motion to grant easement from Augusta, Geogia to BellSouth Telecommunications
at Jamestown Community Center, consisting of a strip of land lying adjacent to the eastern
right of way of Old Karleen Road (30'RW) and traversing the entire length of grantor’s
property (identified as Parcel 14.10 on Richmond County Tax Map 128). (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee December 13, 1999)
27. Motion to condemn 15 foot storm drainage easement and 5-foot temporary
construction easement (Tax Map 35-5, Parcel 164) which is owned by Vivian H. Rowland
and William B. Rowland, Jr. in connection with Heard Avenue Drainage Improvement
Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 13, 1999)
28. Motion to approve the letting of RFQ for trenchless pipeline rehabilitation
technology. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 13, 1999)
29. Motion to approve engineering contract with Arcadis Geraghty & Miller for the
relocation of water and sewer lines in conflict with the Georgia Department of
Transportation’s project to rework the I-520 & SR 56 interchange ($52,726 from
507043410-5212115/89900250-521215). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
December 13, 1999)
30. Motion to approve engineering contract with Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst
for the design of a surge tank to protect the raw water mains and restoration of the city
Page 5
property under Riverwatch Parkway at the end of Riverwatch Parkway at the end of
Riverlook Drive. ($22,065 from 508043410/5212115). (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee December 13, 1999)
31. Motion to approve awarding contract to Commerce Service Corporation for
collections of delinquent water accounts for Augusta Utilities. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee December 13, 1999)
32. Motion to award bid to the law bidder, Mabus Construction Company,
Incorporated, in the amount of $98,580.00 subject to the receipt of signed contracts and
proper bonds on the Adjusting Roadway Structures, Phase V. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee December 13, 1999)
33. Motion to award bid to the low bidder, Nordmann Contractors, in the amount of
$169,705.00 subject to the receipt of signed contracts and proper bonds on the Mason
Road/Claudia Drive Storm Drain Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
December 13, 1999)
34. Motion to accept proposal from Leadership Augusta for the Trees and Landscape
Dept. to fund $10,000 with a matched funding of $20,000.00 generated from corporate
sponsors to fund a $30,000.00 renovation of the playground area at Riverwalk subject to
contract and approval of equipment to be used by Augusta Richmond County staff.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 13, 1999)
35. Authorize to execute Change Order Number Two in the amount of $25,000.00 to be
funded by Account #101-04-1110/52-13118. The change order is with Clayton
Environmental Consultants. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 13,
1999)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
36. Motion to approve the transfer of $12,808.00 from object code 5111110-Perm. FT
Salary & Wages to the following accounts, 5311111-General Office Supplies, 5424320-
Desktop Software, 5399999-Other Supplies, 5313110-Food and 5237110 Education and
Training (See attached letter for dollar total in each account) and approve moving expenses
of EMA Director in amount of $2,315.15. (Approved by Public Safety Committee
December 13, 1999)
PUBLIC SERVICES:
37. Motion to approve the transfer for four (4) 1994 Ford Paratransit vans to coastal
Rapid Transit Authority (CRPTA) in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina for a price of $12,700.
(Approved by Public Services Committee December 13, 1999)
38. Motion to approve a request by Jackie Choe Johns for a consumption on premise
liquor & beer license to be used in connection with High Life Taverns located at 3602
Milledgeville Road. There will be a dance hall. District 4. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee December 13, 1999)
39. Motion to approve a request by Patti S. Foster for a retail package beer & wine
license to be used in connection with M & M Minit Mart located at 5131 Mike Padgett
Highway. District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
December 13, 1999)
40. Motion to approve a request by Scott Levine for an on premise consumption liquor,
Page 6
beer & wine license to be used in connection with The Playground located at 873 Broad
Street. There will be a dance hall. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee December 13, 1999)
41. Motion to approve a request by Barry Blackston for an on premise consumption
liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Blue Sky Kitchen located at 990
Broad Street. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
December 13, 1999)
42. Motion to approve a request by Chong Hui Ryan for a consumption on premise
liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Speed Karaoke Restaurant &
lounge located at 1855 Gordon Highway. There will be Sunday sales. District 2. Super
District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 13, 1999).
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
43. Motion to approve minutes of the Augusta Commission meeting held December 7,
1999.
ATTORNEY:
44. Motion to approve Ordinance to amend the Augusta Richmond County Code
Section 4-2-14 to regulate transportation of Hazardous wastes, to regulate the commercial
transportation of refuse; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting Ordinances; and
for other purposes. (Approved by Commission December 7, 1999 - second reading)
45. Motion to approve Ordinance to provide for removal of junk and abandoned
vehicles pursuant to State law. (Approved by Commission December 7, 1999 - second
reading)
46. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain unsafe and
uninhabitable properties in the Laney Walker Neighborhood: 907 Dugas Street, 1129-31
Hopkins Street, 842 Adams Street, 1101 Eighth Street (District 1, Super District 9); Olde
Town Neighborhood: 219 Watkins Street, 227-29 Watkins Street, 413 Second Street, 24-26
Ellis Street (District 1, Super District 9); Sand Hills Neighborhood: 2830 Wheeler Road
(District 1, Super District 9); South Augusta Neighborhood: 1943 Haynie Drive (District 5,
ND
Super District 9) AND WAIVE 2 READING. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee December 13, 1999)
47. Pulled from consent agenda.
48. Pulled from consent agenda.
Mayor Young: All right, gentlemen, your pleasure on the consent agenda?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval of the consent agenda, but I’d like to pull Item 19.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Oliver: I would note that on Item 44, that is a waiver of the second reading which
Page 7
requires unanimous consent. On Item 46. I’m sorry.
Mayor Young: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colcough: Pull Item 1.
Mayor Young: Pull Item 1? All right.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I want to pull Item 47 and 48.
Mayor Young: 47 and 48. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: 13.
Mayor Young: All right. Anyone else? All right, we have a motion and a second to
approve the consent agenda, minus Items 1, 19, 47, 48, and 13. All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0 (Items 2-12, 14-18, 20-41, 43-46)
Mayor Young: Ms. Bonner, in view of the fact that we have a big delegation for 57, do
you want to take that before we take the break-out items from the consent agenda? Let’s do that.
Clerk: Item 57: Motion to approve a request by Yon Sun Dickerson to reconsider
her application for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with J.C.
Foodstore located at 2451 Golden Camp Road. District 5. Super District 9. (No
recommendation Public Services Committee December 15, 1999)
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I move approval.
Mr. J. Brigham: Second.
Mayor Young: Motion to approve and a second. Did you want to address this, Mr.
Walker? How about if you would just come up and give us a synopsis here for this?
Mr. Walker: This was an application that was disapproved the last year. It’s been 12
months. They’ve brought it back for reconsideration. If it’s reconsideration, we’ve got no
recommendation. If it’s a new applicant, it does not meet the distance requirements. There’s a
public playground right next door.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Walker. Is the petitioner here, Ms. Dickerson?
Mr. Hunter: I’m here to represent her.
Mayor Young: All right, Mr. Hunter, if you would come over to the other podium,
please.
Page 8
Mr. Hunter: Thank you.
Mayor Young: Please give us your name and address for the record.
Mr. Hunter: My name is Bo Hunter. My address is 2915 Bransford Road, Augusta,
Georgia. I’m an attorney representing Ms. Dickerson who has asked for reconsideration of the
license. This building is owned by Jimmy Lester and Mr. Capers and a third party. It’s been
there for over 30 years. It’s a convenience store. It predates the public playground and the
church that was there has been built within the last couple of years. They are asking for a license
not for on-premises consumption but they’re asking basically what every Smile gas station, every
convenience store in this county, to sell beer and wine off premises. They have had no trouble
there. The Sheriff’s Department has had no reports of any activity there that has been any
problems. I realize that there are some community members here. She has a bunch of them that
are in support of her petition here today. She has also has a petition with 245 signatures on it. If
y’all want to stand up and let the Commission see that you do have some people who are here in
support of this petition. And Mr. Lester is seated in the back, and he was standing, but he has
stated before he is in favor of this petition. Do y’all have any questions?
Mayor Young: We’ll get to that in a moment, Mr. Hunter.
Mr. Hunter: Okay.
Mayor Young: Is there anyone who would like to speak either for or against this
petition? Commissioners, do you have any questions?
Mr. J. Brigham: Do you want to get a count of the people?
Mr. Bridges: I’ve got a question, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Young: Okay.
Mr. Bridges: Of the ones standing up in support of the petition, how many live in the
neighborhood of the store there?
Mr. Hunter: Most of the people live in the neighborhood of the store that are supporting
this petition. A good many of them are people who work, shop at the store.
Mayor Young: Why don’t we do this? Those who do not live in the neighborhood
where the store is who are standing, please sit down. If you do not live in the neighborhood
where the store is. I think that will answer your question. All right, we had another gentleman.
You wanted to speak against this, sir? Okay, if you would come to the microphone, please, and
give us your name and your address for the record. And do we have any other people here in
opposition to this, if you would please stand. Ms. Bonner, get that count for the record, please.
(Approximately 20 supporters of petition noted)
Page 9
(Approximately 5 objectors to petition noted)
Mayor Young: All right, sir, go ahead, please.
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen. My name is George
Mitchell and I’m from the Bellemeade [inaudible] Neighborhood Association. About a year ago,
we were here in reference to J.C. Foodstore. Here we are again. They said that they could not
stay in business without a retail beer and wine license. However, the store is still there. Our
community have enjoyed the decrease in petty crime incidents associated with the sale of beer
and wine at J.C. Foodstore. And we would like to keep it that way. Our community is 400
residents and mostly senior citizens. And have lived there most of our lives. We, too, have
invested in our property. Homes that we have been there for 30-plus years. Myself, I’ve been
there for 30-odd years, 33 to be exact. In the time, 27 I was serving in the military and in and
off, back and forth, but I had a place to call home in Richmond County, of Augusta. The beer
and wine license, when you add that to the equation, it changes the community situation. What
we would like, Mr. Chairman, in the best interests of our community, again we ask that you
would deny the license for sale of beer and wine at J.C. Foodstore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We do have a petition.
Mayor Young: All right. If you’ll submit that to the Clerk, please. Do y’all have any
questions for the opponents. Mr. Wall, you wanted to tell us something?
Mr. Wall: Just for everyone’s benefit. This went to–last year, when it was turned down, a
civil action was filed. It went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court on November 1 of
this year affirmed the decision of the trial Court and affirmed your decision and that’s in saying
that you had the discretion to deny the license. I wanted you to be aware of us cause I’m not sure
that I distributed a copy of this opinion to everyone, but that decision was rendered on November
1.
Mayor Young: All right, we have another speaker. Let’s hear from this gentleman and
then we’ll close out the public portion of this. If you would identify yourself and give us your
name and address for the record, please.
Mr. Lowery: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I’m Melvin Lowery. I’m the
pastor of Belle Terrace Presbyterian Church, which is near the J.C. Foodstore. I stand in
opposition to the beer and wine license and I have a short statement here. I truly regret that I
must stand before you again in opposition to the beer and wine license. It seems like yesterday
that we fought this fight, this same battle. My reason for standing today is to inform the
Commission that this battle will continue until this is resolved once and for all. I’m told that the
Commission sought to resolve the issue some years ago but was unable to reach a lucrative
agreement with the owners. It is unfortunate that, I think it’s the Dickersons, that have been
thrown into this battle between the community and the owners of the property. You’ve heard
who the owners are, Mr. Lester, Perry, and Mr. Capers. It is unfortunate but the fact remains that
this community is seeking to move to another level of respectability. It no longer wishes beer
Page 10
and wine to be sold near its churches, playgrounds, health clinic and senior citizens center. It has
been opposed to the selling of beer and wine for sometime. It was opposed last year. It’s
opposed this year. It will be opposed next year and I’m afraid if our Lord and Savior Jesus
comes to rapture the church soon, this community will still be opposed to it, because of the
progress that this community has made to move to another level of respectability that I stand in
opposition of granting the license to sell beer and wine. And as a representative from the
community, I pray that the Commission will stand with the community and help them move to
another level.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Pastor Lowery. Mr. Henry Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, Commission, I hear what the Attorney just said as far
as what the State has done. I would like to move to deny this.
Mr. Bridges: I’ll second.
Mayor Young: Any discussion? We’ll vote. All in favor of the motion to deny, please
vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. J. Brigham vote no.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mayor Young: You want to go ahead and do those presentations now? Let’s do that.
Clerk: Now we have special recognitions and presentations.
Mayor Young: The first thing we’d like to do is take note of the fact, although this may
not be the last meeting of the year because we have a Committee meeting next week and perhaps
we may still be working on the budget. This is our last regularly scheduled Commission meeting
for this year and we wanted to recognize two faithful servants of Augusta Richmond County who
have been with this consolidated government since Day One. Commissioner Powell and
Commissioner Handy. They’ll be leaving us at the end of this year and we wanted to recognize
their service. I know it’s been a difficult term for you for four years, trying to take two
governments and make one out of them, but we do applaud you and commend you for your
contributions and the successes that we’re able to enjoy. And I’ve asked Mayor Pro Tempore
Beard to do the presentation because he’s not only their seatmate at that end of the room, but also
he’s been with them since Day One.
Clerk: The first recognition goes to the Honorable Freddie L. Handy, Commissioner,
District 2, presented for faithful and loyal service on the Richmond County Board of
Commission, January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1995; the Augusta Richmond County
Commission, January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1999.
(A round of applause is given)
Page 11
Clerk: The Honorable James B. Powell, Commissioner, District 6, presented for faithful
and loyal service on the Richmond County Board of Commission, January 3, 1995 through
December 31, 1995; the Augusta Richmond County Commission, January 1, 1996 through
December 31, 1999.
(A round of applause is given)
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners, I just want to say that we all came
together four years ago and we had a very difficult job trying to put two governments together.
But I just also would like to say that I’m very proud to have been associated with Commissioner
Powell and Commissioner Handy, because they both have exemplified those traits and those
characteristics that we all look for in people in government. Sometimes it’s been a fun time and
sometimes it’s been a rather strenuous time in dealing with them. But Mr. Powell here, and my
good friend Commissioner Handy there, they always kept me intact, tried to keep me straight,
and I’m going to really and truly miss both of them next year. And we just look for them to have
the best success in whatever endeavor that they venture into. Congratulations.
(A round of applause is given)
Clerk: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we have another presentation. Mr.
Nathaniel Charles.
Mayor Young: Mr. Charles, we need you to come to the microphone so we can hear
you. Thanks you.
Mr. Charles: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, on behalf of the residents of the Sand Ridge
Subdivision, Sand Ridge Estates, and the Sand Ridge Community Association, I would like to
present a plaque to Mr. J. B. Powell in appreciation for faithful and loyal service as
Commissioner of District 6, Augusta Richmond County, for his tenure.
(A round of applause is given)
Mr. Charles: We have a certificate we want to go along with this, special recognition for
th
Mr. Powell, for his unselfish dedication and service that he has rendered to members of the 6
District, in particular the Sand Ridge Community Association.
(A round of applause is given)
Mr. Charles: And last, but least, we said what a good job Mr. Powell has done and
everything, but without the support of his wife, who couldn’t be here today, I doubt very
seriously he could have done the job that he did here today. And so without any doubts at al, we
have a certificate here we’d like to present on behalf of the Sand Ridge Community Association
to [inaudible] Powell to signify special recognition for unselfish support of your husband’s
th
commitment to the 6 District.
Page 12
(A round of applause is given)
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Charles. All right, Madame Clerk, let’s move along
with the order of the day.
Clerk: Item 1: Z-99-116 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Roberta Lindsey, on behalf of Oscar W. Taylor,
Jr., requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family personal care
home as provided for in Section 26-1, subparagraph (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the east right-of-way
line of Peach Orchard road, 270 feet, more or less, south of a point where the centerline of
Pepperidge Drive extended intersects the east right-of-way line of Peach Orchard Road
(3524 Peach Orchard Road). District 6.
Mayor Young: All right.
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir, we looked at it. It sits on Highway 25, one block up from the lot
that’s directly across from the entrance to Pepperidge Subdivision. The adjoining properties are
zoned commercial. There’s a house in between this property and a drinking establishment,
which is something that you will have to be concerned about with this type use. There’s
obviously substantial traffic on Highway 25 and frankly the staff had mixed emotions about it.
But with the commercial zoning in the area, the house, you have to consider the request for
commercial zoning. We felt that it slightly favored approval. Although you do have fast-
moving traffic on Highway 25 that’s a straight shot, there’s unlimited sight distance at that
location and there’s a center turn lane at that location and I believe everything considered, we
slightly favor approval. There were no objectors.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] personal care home probably will have, I am just surmising,
either mentally retarded or mentally ill patients there. A drinking establishment [inaudible] and
Highway 25 is there. [inaudible] someone [inaudible] drinking establishment walk out in the
street, get hit [inaudible] an alcoholic, how liable is the County?
Mr. Wall: The County would not be liable in that situation.
Mr. Speaker: Could you tell me why not?
Mr. Wall: Well, the County has immunity, first of all, and this would not fall within any
of the exceptions. The only thing that we’re doing is granting a special exception to them. The
alcohol owner would be the one who is responsible insofar as the sale and dispensing of alcohol.
The fact that we license that location would not in any way subject us to liability. But the
primary reason is that sovereign immunity protects us in those situations.
Mayor Young: You’re Ms. Lindsey?
Page 13
Ms. Lindsey: Yes, I am.
Mayor Young: Would you like to address the Commission on this?
Ms. Lindsey: Yes. The house is sitting back off of the highway. We have a lot of
property in back of the house and it’s down the hill where the clients cannot just walk right out
there. We have a lot of trees around. The house does not sit right on the highway. There are
trees in front of it and we don’t have any clients in there that’s not able to know not to walk out
in the street. We don’t have any wheelchair clients or any that’s so mentally debilitated that they
would just walk out in the street.
Mr. Speaker: Ms. Lindsey, how far is the house from the highway?
Ms. Lindsey: Pardon me?
Mr. Speaker: How far is the front door of your home from Highway 25? Approximately?
Ms. Lindsey: It sets a pretty good piece back off the highway and down the hill. But as
far as knowing footage, I don’t know the footage. But I do know they have to go up the hill
before they would be able to get to the highway.
Mayor Young: Do any Commissioners have any questions for Ms. Lindsey? Or for the
Planning Commission? Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure?
Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mayor Young: Motion and second to approve. Any discussion? All in favor of
approval, please vote aye.
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Colclough vote no.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mayor Young: Thank you. Next item.
Clerk: Item 13: ZA-R-110 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
for Augusta Richmond County to provide for facilities for public or private assembly such
as conference centers, convention centers, meeting rooms, and facilities used for similar
events by Special Exception in agriculture, residential and professional zones and by right
in commercial and industrial zones.
Mayor Young: Mr. Patty, can you tell us what brought us to this point with respect to
this item?
Page 14
Mr. Patty: We had a zoning case, I think y’all remember pretty clearly, a month or so
ago, that we considered commercial zoning in a residential area because there wasn’t an
alternative method of dealing with the request. And we allow certain things by special exception
in any zone. Some of which were pretty similar to the use of the property which the petitioner
wanted to make, which was a conference center, convention center, that type of facility. For
instance, we allow private recreational facilities by special exception. We allow personal care
homes, day care centers, all those sort of things, by special exception. And there really wasn’t
any logic to why we couldn’t allow a facilities like this, a conference center, by professional
exception. These uses are specific to the use. In other words, if you grant a special exception for
a recreational facility, private recreational facility, and they conform to the objective or
subjective standards for that, then they can’t go out and start operating a personal care home. So
you know, the uses are specific for whatever is being requested. What this amendment would
allow you to do would be to permit these type facilities by special exception. And I think it’s
pretty obvious that if you approve this amendment, which I would encourage you to do, then
your former petitioners would come back and seek, I assume they would come back and seek
special exception under this amendment.
Mayor Young: Do y’all have any questions for Mr. Patty? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I guess this is a result of the Olde Town properties?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridges: They’re trying to utilize this thing as a convention center, but we don’t want
to change–we’re not really changing the zoning on them, we’re just allowing them to continue to
function as they have been; is that right?
Mr. Patty: Okay. What you would do today, if you approve this, this would be an
amendment that changes the text in the zoning ordinance to allow you to consider that type
request. This is not directly tailored to the request. If you approve this, and I would assume that
they would come back and pay and fee and ask for this type of special exception. But this today
is just amending the ordinance to allow this type request to be considered. Frankly, if that
request, that specific request had never been made, I think this would be a good amendment to
the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Bridges: So this would allow them to do, in essence to operate as they are, but will
not change the zoning from professional zoning; it will be an exception?
Mr. Patty: Would be by special exception. Will not change the base zoning. There are
some criteria that they would have to meet and it does allow you to set additional subjective
conditions for the operation.
Mayor Young: Mr. Colclough?
Page 15
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Patty, if we’re writing this for a specific area, how would this affect
the area, other areas in Augusta Richmond County, in terms of convention centers and other
commercial activities? Say, for instance, one of these communities [inaudible] special exception
to hold a conference [inaudible] if we pass this ordinance today?
Mr. Patty: This would only give anyone the right to apply for that type of special
exception. It would not give anybody any right to operate any kind of facility. It would give you
the right to apply for a special exception on any property, regardless of the zoning. You all
would have to decide whether it was the appropriate location for that use before anybody could
do anything.
Mr. Colclough: This ordinance is being written for one specific area.
Mr. Patty: No. No, sir.
Mr. Colclough: Yes, sir.
Mr. Patty: No, sir. It’s not written for a specific area.
Mr. Colclough: Well, then how did–you just said it came up because of the Olde Town
situation.
Mr. Patty: The need for it became apparent due to the situation we had in Olde Town, but
if this is approved it’s a use that would be available for anybody upon request in any area.
Mr. Colclough: If I wanted to hold a conference in my community, I can get a special
exception [inaudible]?
Mr. Patty: You would have to come before this Board and ask for permission to do that,
yes. And they could do that by special exception rather than by zoning. But it would still be the
same process as far as advertisement and all that.
Mr. Colclough: So you take a community and you turn it into a commercial zone for a
specific period of time?
Mr. Patty: If y’all were to approve it, that’s true.
Mr. Colclough: That’s what I wanted to get clarified.
Mayor Young: Are there any other questions for Mr. Patty? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor. Let me, I guess cause I got George partially into this, with part of
the argument I made when we were dealing with Olde Town, I think. I think Richard and
George are correct in reference to how this got started. And we probably wouldn’t be dealing
with this in this manner. But maybe to expand it past the special exception. Is this one that you
Page 16
got to deal with today, George? And my reason for asking that is that we dealt with, I guess
getting back into the Olde Town situation, we dealt with two things. And my question at that
time was whether or not we had some commercial establishments that maybe needed to be
possibly in a different type of zoning. And I guess to further that conversation and maybe Mr.
Wall may want to jump in here somewhere in this, is the fact that we made a basic compromise
decision from this Commission in dealing not just with one situation, but with two situations,
even though the usages may be different, they were applying for a change of zoning. As to
where we gave two different entities, one being a beauty salon the right to stay in terms of what’s
left of the lease. And if that one, even prior to the situation coming with the non-profit, I made
the argument then that maybe we should start looking at some of these being different. And my
argument at that time was the fact that how did we base the classified difference, say for
instance, and I used an attorney’s office as an example, in terms of their appointments and a
beauty salon, their clientele, basically one being maybe no more disruptive than the other. Well,
if we made an exception to deal with something, and I wonder where we’re going from also a
liability standpoint, maybe by approving this today, because this did come out of Olde Town.
And it’s going citywide, but also to get us back in Olde Town. We’ve got another business per
se that we gave to the end of the lease, and I’m wondering when you say this just being an
entertainment center in here, then what position does this put the salon in that we made an
exception to? Does it go then to a Professional, which you have Professional in that area? And
I’, just wondering if maybe this one doesn’t need to be thought about a little while longer and
bounce some of it off. Because I think we’ve got two things there, Mr. Mayor, where we are
making an allowance, not only if Richard say if it goes out of that neighborhood and goes
countywide, but you’ve got two different businesses out of the same neighborhood that led us to
the zoning change, which I do think you all needed some improvement in there. I don’t have an
argument with you there. But I guess there’s no greater time to maybe deal with the argument
of it than now, if you had two of them basically a month apart, and we’re dealing with the last
one now, which basically cures it, but the Commission also set some kind of special differences
for that person to take. What do we do then when that person reapplies at the end of that lease?
And does that put us, Mr. Wall, in any type of liability of handling one of them and not handling
the other one and yet we’ve gotten mixed zoning in that block, which has some Professional in
there?
Mr. Wall: No, sir, I don’t think that it puts us in a position of liability, nor do I think that–
I mean obviously I suppose that if a lawsuit is filed, I guess it would be to challenge a further
denial of the P-1 zoning for the beauty salon. Someone might try to argue that this ordinance
was written specifically insofar as the Knox and try to challenge it on that basis. But let me tell
you some of the thinking that went into this and you’re right that this ordinance is not going to
grant any relief insofar as the beauty salon, because this is dealing with the convention center.
However, insofar as the convention center is concerned–well, two thoughts. Number one, we
discussed the possibility of having an intermediate type zoning. Discussed that with Mr. Patty.
And he reviewed the zoning ordinance and the various classifications and felt like the zoning
ordinance was appropriate as written and that there really was not a middle ground, so to speak,
that you would create a softer area, and although it might have created an avenue insofar as the
beauty salon there, it would have opened up problems in other areas of the community. The
second part of it is that insofar as the conference center is concerned, by doing this as a special
Page 17
exception, you are able to put some restrictions, more restrictions, on the type of activity that
would go there and grant you greater control. And you know, the P-1 zoning is an appropriate
classification insofar as the beauty salon. That would not prevent that owner from coming back
at some future time and seeking a P-1 zoning for that. And we just felt like that the classification
scheme was appropriate and that this would give you the avenue for a special exception and
control.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I stand to be corrected, but did they apply, George, for P-1 or was
that a B-2 zoning that she applied for?
Mr. Patty: B-1.
Mr. Wall: B-1, I’m sorry.
Mr. Mays: B-1. And that was my point, it never was applied for, for a P-1. It was
applied for a business zoning.
Mayor Young: Mr. Mays, would you like to refer this back to Committee for some
further discussion?
Mr. Mays: I yield first to Mr. Colclough, because he had something else he wanted to
say.
Mr. Colclough: If this is for the entire community, you may not see it, but what you’re
going to have is a bunch of people coming down, wanting to have special exceptions to hold
commercial functions out there. You may not see it now, but if it’s passed, this will happen. I
would like to refer it.
Mayor Young: Do you want to make that motion to refer to Committee?
Mr. Colclough: I make the motion that we refer this back.
Mayor Young: Is there a second?
Mr. Mays: I second.
Mayor Young: Motion and second to send this back to Committee. Is there any
discussion on the motion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Handy vote no.
Motion carries 8-2.
Clerk: Item 19: Ratify approval to give $50 to all full and part-time employees
(minimum 30 hours per pay period) as of December 17, 1999 as additional compensation
for services during 1999, excluding elected officials, state supplemental employees, poll
Page 18
workers, and bailiffs. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee December 13,
1999)
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion? Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I asked that this be pulled because I feel like as we go through
this budget process, we’ve had some tough decisions that we’ve had to make. We’ve got some
more tough decisions to make. We’ve got a potential of a balance budget. We have things that
are no in the budget, such as the contingency, which is half of what we had last year. And here
we are, in my opinion, signaling to the taxpayers that we’ve got an abundance of funds that we
can dole out one time a year. And I think it sends the wrong message out to the public. I think it
sends the wrong message to those departments and agencies that are asking for our assistance.
And I’d like to make a substitute motion that we deny this.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mayor Young: Okay, we have a substitute motion to deny this. It’s been seconded.
Any further discussion? All in favor of the substitute motion–Mr. Handy, yes sir?
th
Mr. Handy: I have a question. I just want to say to ratify the 17 payday, that’s gone,
isn’t it?
Mr. Oliver: The checks have been written and they are available pending whatever action
is taken here today.
Mayor Young: The checks are almost in the mail.
Mr. Handy: Okay.
Mayor Young: We have a substitute motion to deny. Please vote aye if you’re in favor
of the substitute motion.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Powell, Mr. Beard, Mr. Mays, Mr. Shepard and Mr. Colclough vote
no.
Mr. Handy abstains.
Motion fails 3-6-1.
Mayor Young: So that takes us back to the original motion. As soon as the Clerk clears
the board, we’ll vote on the original motion. And the original motion is to approve. All in favor,
please vote aye.
Page 19
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Bridges vote no.
Mr. Handy abstains.
Motion carries 6-3-1.
Mayor Young: Mr. Oliver, you can release the checks. The check’s in the mail.
Mr. Powell: Merry Christmas.
Mayor Young: Next item.
Clerk: Item 47: Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend the Augusta Richmond
County Code to add to Title 1 Chapter 1, a new Article 2 to provide for a Code of Ethics
for employees and public officials of augusta, Georgia; to renumber Augusta Richmond
County Code Section 1-1-11; to provide definitions; to establish a Code of Conduct; to
provide sanctions; to amend the Augusta Richmond County Code to amend and renumber
Code Sections 1-10-10 through 1-10-22; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee December 13, 1999)
Mr. Powell: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I think we ought to at least discuss it a little bit.
Mayor Young: All right.
Mr. J. Brigham: I know I’m in favor of going back to the original definition of family
members in the original Ordinance, and I would think that we ought to at least vote on whether
And therefore I would make a motion that we go back
we want to do that or not as a group.
to the original language that was included in the original ethics ordinance for family
members.
Mayor Young: Is there a second to that?
Mr. Bridges: I’ll second that for discussion.
Mayor Young: All right. As a point of clarification, Mr. Brigham, you’re saying you
want to approve this with the change being to go back to the original definition?
Mr. J. Brigham: Yes.
Mayor Young: Okay. Mr. Bridges?
Page 20
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Wall: , if I remember during the discussion of this ethics thing, this
came up and there was some discrepancy between what we had and what was in existing State
law. Now is that the case or is there any discrepancy if we change it back to the lengthy, you
know, aunts, uncles, cousin, whatnot? Is there any discrepancy in any existing ordinance or law
that that would conflict with?
Mr. Wall: Well, there was a difference in the definition of relative that was included in
the earlier draft of the ordinance and in the language of the ethics provision that is a part of the
current Augusta Richmond County Code dealing with purchasing. And it was that discrepancy
that was commented upon and a motion was made to limit it to spouse, parent, or child. And so
the Ordinance has been redrafted with that language in there. And it will take me a minute to
find the exact language in the current Purchasing Code, but there were a couple of differences in
variations insofar as the language that was in the first section dealing with rules of conduct
versus the old County Procurement Code.
Mr. Bridges: Was the change of just spouses, parents and children–was that to make it
consistent throughout? Was that the purpose in it?
Mr. Wall: Yes. I mean it was a definition that would apply throughout. Now that
category is different than either one.
Mr. Bridges: I understand. I understand.
Mr. Wall: But it was to make it consistent, yes.
Mayor Young: Any further discussion?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Wall: , let me ask–Mr. Mayor, ask this question of the attorney.
Mayor Young: All right.
Mr. Shepard: This will require a second reading; is that correct, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: That is correct.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. That’s all.
Mayor Young: Any further discussion?
Mr. J. Brigham: Did we make the motion to waive the second reading?
Page 21
Mayor Young: Well, we have two motions on the floor. We’ve already got two on the
floor.
Mr. Powell: Yes, sir, but if we get back to it, I amend my motion to say that. I’d like a
point of clarification from the County Attorney.
Mr. Wall: It would take unanimous consent, but if you had unanimous consent, yes, sir,
you could have–
Mr. Powell: To amend the motion?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir, you can amend the motion when it comes back.
Mr. Powell: I didn’t know it took unanimous consent to amend a motion.
Mr. Wall: No, to waive the second reading. To waive the second reading takes
unanimous consent.
Mr. Powell: Oh, okay.
Mr. Wall: Excuse me.
Mayor Young: We have a substitute motion on the floor. Is there any further
discussion? All right, all in favor of the substitute motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Mays: Wait a minute. Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Just a point of clarification. I guess J.B. got me a little bit confused on that
way. What was the substitute motion?
Mayor Young: The substitute motion is to approve the Ordinance as written, with the
exception of using the original definition of family member.
Clerk: That goes to cousins, aunts, step-father, that definition.
th
Mr. Mays: I might get caught with anybody from Lincoln County that’s a 99 cousin.
My vote be no.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Powell, Mr. Beard, Mr. Handy, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Colclough and Mr. Mays vote
no.
Motion fails 4-6.
Page 22
Mayor Young: That takes us back to the original motion.
Clerk: It’s to approve the Ordinance as written.
Mayor Young: Did you want to amend that, Mr. Powell, to amend the second reading?
Mr. Powell: Well, Mr. Mayor, we got votes down here that aren’t supporting the motion
so I think I’d be really crazy to put it out there and state unanimous consent. So we’ll just go
with what we’ve got.
Mayor Young: All right. Very good. Any further discussion on it? All right, all in
favor of the original–
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Yes, sir, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: And I do plan to vote for the motion. Does this Ordinance have to go back on
at our next regularly-scheduled meeting? Or can it go on, say for instance we do not finish our
budget items today and it’s adopted on a different day, can it go back on?
Mr. Wall: No, because technically that’s the same meeting. You’re just recessing the
meeting until a second time. So you could have a special called meeting, but absent a special
called meeting, it would have to wait until the next regular meeting.
Mr. Mays: And my purpose for asking, Mr. Mayor, it was more or less out of courtesy,
the slender fellow down there on the end that asked that question about unanimous consent, he
was merely making that because he served as Chairman of the Ethics Committee and I know he
would want to get that passed before we put him out into the pasture and wanted it done before
he left, and that was why that was being asked to be done as unanimous consent.
Mayor Young: All in favor of the original motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. J. Brigham votes no.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Powell: That’s close enough for me, Mr. Mays.
Mayor Young: Okay, now what about Item 48? We still have 48 to consider.
Clerk: Item 48: Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend Title 1, Chapter 4 of The
Augusta Richmond County Code entitled “Boards and Authorities” so as to provide
qualifications for members; to provide for removal for failure to meet such qualifications;
Page 23
to repeal conflicting Ordinances; to provide an effective date; and for other purposes.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee December 13, 1999)
Mr. Shepard: I move approval, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Young: We have a motion. Do we have a second?
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mayor Young: Item 48. Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Does that take
a second reading, too, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Yes, it does.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk: At this time, we have Mr. Dyson, delegation.
Mayor Young: Do that.
Clerk: Do that now? All right. Mr. Dyson? Come to this podium.
Mayor Young: Mr. Dyson, if you would, state your name and your address for the
record, please.
Mr. Dyson: I’m J. W. Dyson, 2062 Edgar Street, Augusta, Georgia. I’m here to address
you gentlemen. First, we appreciate your time. We’ll try to make it brief. There are four of us
people, members of the Augusta Municipal Golf Course. We have been there 20, 25, 30, 35
years. We have carried our own golf carts, some of us. My cart is stored there. I pay a fee to
store my cart. Anytime a guest rides with me, I pay cart fees for my guest to ride. We have been
notified that as of January 1, we are to remove our carts from the golf course. I think this is
highly unfair when you’re talking about people 70, 72, 74, 76, 83. I mean if we had a
grandfather clause that would just–not just start any new people bringing carts. We don’t like to
ask special favors, but I think it’s a little inhumane to ask us to move our carts when we have
supported that golf course today that was a cabbage patch. We stayed there all that time. We
supported it. And we would appreciate any consideration that you gentlemen see fit to show us.
I’ll be brief with it, and I thank you for your time.
Mayor Young: Thank you. Mr. Beck, would you like to–Mr. Beck is here. If you
would come up to the podium and explain to the Commission what’s going on.
Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, Mr. Dyson is right. They have
certainly been good supporters of the golf course for many years. This was a situation that we
inherited when we took over operations of the course in ‘97 and having private golf carts on any
course that’s public or private is something that’s just not done. It is fairness and obviously you
Page 24
guys have just let a contract for golf carts that is one of the biggest forms of revenue that we have
at the course. It is a question of fairness and being equitable across the board. We feel like that a
grandfather situation will be difficult to administer because other people that come up will want
the same benefits. So we have given about a six-month notice for this, and it would go into
effect the first of the year.
Mayor Young: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: How many people? Are we only talking about four people?
Mr. Beck: I believe it’s either four or five, Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I move that we grandfather those four people in.
Mr. Powell: Second.
Mayor Young: We have a motion and a second to grandfather. Mr. Handy?
Mr. Handy: It’s been done already.
Mayor Young: Okay. Any discussion on the grandfathers? All in favor of the motion,
please vote aye.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, if we’re going to grandfather them, which I’m planning on
voting for that, I think we ought to list the names in the minutes so there’s no confusion about
who is being grandfathered.
Mr. Beck: If I could, Mr. Mayor, a point of clarification. Would there be any fees that
would be deemed accessible for this grandfathering situation for–they haven’t, I believe, and Mr.
Dyson–
Mayor Young: I think that’s an administrative decision left to the department head.
Mr. Beck: I just want to let the Commission know, I believe Mr. Dyson is the only one
who has paid a cart storage fee. He has actually stored his cart there at the course, and typically
in the past, when other courses have done this program, those users pay what’s called a trail fee.
Trail fees are not done very much at all in public courses or private any more, but that’s what it’s
called for the usage of a private cart. So I would–
Mayor Young: Do we provide the shelter and we provide the electricity for those carts
that are left there?
Mr. Beck: Again, I think there’s only one. I believe Mr. Dyson is the only one that’s
been allowed to do that or has been the only one to ask to do that. Obviously, that won’t be a
problem for cart storage. We have the room now in the new clubhouse to do that, with the only
Page 25
one that’s been done, to store, but as far as any fees that would be associated with that, it has
been a free service, other than the $60 that Mr. Dyson has paid, and I’m just wanting to make
you aware of that, and if you want to deal with that now, fine, or either leave that up to me.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: These gentleman have been playing golf out there for 35 years. And this
one gentleman paid $60 for his cart storage. Did any of the rest of the gentlemen pay to store
their carts out there?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible]
Mayor Young: Let’s move ahead with the vote. We’ve called the question on this
already. All in favor of the motion to grandfathering these gentlemen, and if you’ll please leave
the list of names with the Clerk so we can incorporate that in the minutes.
Motion carries 10–0.
Mr. Bridges: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, did we vote on the consent agenda?
Mayor Young: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridges: Could I let the record show that I voted against the Sunday sales on Item
42?
Mr. Powell: Madame Clerk?
Clerk: Yes, sir?
Mr. Powell: Likewise, Madame Clerk.
Clerk: Yes, sir.
Clerk: Under our regular agenda, Item 49: Z-99-114 - Request for concurrence with
the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Andrell Kemp, on behalf
of Leroy Kemp, requesting a change of zoning from Zone HI (Heavy Industry) to Zone R-
MH (Manufactured Home Residence) on property located where the northeast right-of-
way line of Truman Drive intersects the northwest right-of-way line of Gordon Highway
(211 Truman Drive). District 2.
Mayor Young: Mr. Patty?
Page 26
Mr. Patty: This is a corner lot, one of the two streets that leads into Arrington Park,
Truman Drive and Gordon Highway. It’s currently zone Heavy Industrial. The petitioner wants
to put a manufactured home on the property and live on it and we don’t feel it’s a suitable
environment for that and recommend you deny.
Mayor Young: Is the petitioner here today?
Mr. Beard: I move for approval.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mayor Young: And that’s to deny?
Mr. Beard: That’s correct.
Mayor Young: All right. Motion to deny. It’s been seconded. Any discussion? All in
favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk: Item 50: Z-99-127 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to deny a petition from Harlow W. Neeley, on behalf of Mamie
Elizabeth Neeley, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone HI
(Heavy Industry) on property located on the northeast corner of the intersection of
McCombs Road and Old Waynesboro Road (5190 Waynesboro Road). District 8.
Mr. Handy: I move for approval.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mayor Young: We have a motion and second. Y’all want to hear from Mr. Patty on
this?
Mr. Bridges: Yes, I’d like to here from him.
Mayor Young: Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty: That’s the petitioner, Mr. Neeley. I think he’d like to speak to you.
Mayor Young: Yes, we’ll give him an opportunity.
Mr. Patty: This is located at the corner of Old Waynesboro Road and McCombs Road.
McCombs Road you just paved and did a real nice job. It’s as nice a looking road as anything
we’ve got in the county. The petitioner’s family has owned this property for years. They own a
lot of property around this. They recently started building pallets on a small, I think it’s a two
Page 27
acre tract, at this intersection and I think Zoning Enforcement cited them in some form and told
them they needed to get the zoning changed and that’s why they appeared before us.
Unfortunately, what he’s doing requires Heavy Industrial zoning. And while nobody is
complaining about it, the precedent of HI zoning in that area would just be enormous and we feel
you should deny.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Patty. I’m sorry, we can go ahead and hear from Mr. Neeley.
Mayor Young: Do you have a question for Mr. Patty first?
Mr. Bridges: Let’s hear from Mr. Neeley.
Mayor Young: Okay. Mr. Neeley, if you’ll come up, please, and tell us why it should
be approved.
Mr. Neeley: Harlow Neeley, 1825 Cheryl Drive, Augusta, Georgia. All we’re doing is
cutting a few trees and building a few pallets. And it’s really no disturbance and no noise. You
don’t have much. I mean I can’t see nothing that really[inaudible]. And we’ve been there,
doing it a good while and nobody’s ever complained about it or nothing. And everybody that
lives even close to me or anything, you know, I’ve got a petition signed here from all of them
that they don’t care.
Mayor Young: Would you turn a copy of that petition into the Clerk, please, for the
record, if you would? Do y’all have any questions for Mr. Neeley? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Neeley, you say you are using lumber off your property for this?
Mr. Neeley: Right.
Mr. Bridges: And right now you’re zoned Agricultural, aren’t you?
Mr. Neeley: Right.
Mr. Bridges: George?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridges: If he’s zoned Agricultural and he’s using lumber off his own property for
that, why can’t he continue to do what he’s been doing for this past five years or so and continue
making these pallets with an Agricultural zoning?
Mr. Patty: To be honest with you, this is the first time that I’ve heard this. I was not
aware that the timber was coming from his own property and I was just discussing it with the
Attorney that it could be considered incidental to the forestry operation on the property. The
Ordinance provides for uses and buildings that are incidental to forestry, and frankly I hadn’t had
Page 28
enough time to think through whether that one qualified, but it’s a possibility that it would.
Mr. Wall: How large of a tract is it?
Mr. Patty: It’s a two acre tract that you’re considering today. He’s probably not using a
quarter of an acre of that tract to make the pallets. It’s strictly a hand operation.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, if I could make some comments. I rode out there when this
thing came up and I’ve been out there before, but I rode again just to see what this area looked
like. I had to go about two miles down Old Waynesboro Road before I ran into where Mr.
Neeley’s operation is. You go by nothing but trees and farmland and there’s a large, I think one
of the paper mill companies has a large tract there that I went by, and then Mr. Neeley’s
operation has been there at the corner of what was a dirt road, McCombs Road, and Old
Waynesboro, right on the Burke County line. I know, George, we don’t want Heavy Industry, to
zone it Heavy Industry so he can continue to operate and make his income as he has in the past.
But if he’s Agricultural now, he’s operated there for five years or thereabouts is my
understanding, and to deny him a change in that would deny a change his income. It’s a very
sparsely populated area there. I’d like to see us, and I’d let these two discuss it some, but this is
Agricultural, he is using his timber off of his property, this is really one of those issues probably
been better if you could just ignore and let the man continue going on as he has in the past.
Mr. Handy: Uh-uh-uh-uh-uh.
Mr. Bridge: Could I speak, Mr. Handy? I’d really appreciate it. But I’d like to–
Mayor Young: You want to make a substitute motion?
Mr. Bridges: I’d like to make a substitute motion that we view this as part of the
agricultural operation that has been ongoing and allow Mr. Neeley to continue in operation
as it has in the past pursuant to the Agricultural zoning.
Mr. Powell: Second.
Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion on the substitute motion?
Mr. Powell: Wouldthere be any deadline limitation on this, Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Should he–I guess we could do it pursuant to should he ever cease
operation, then–how would we word that, Mr. Wall: ?
Mr. Wall: Technically I think all we need to do is to allow him to withdraw the
application to rezone the property and it goes back to the Agricultural. And then it would have to
be lumber from that property and at such time as he’s getting lumber from adjoining property or
other properties and in a pallet business there, then Zoning Enforcement would bring it back to
the attention and have to go through a rezoning at that time. For rezoning consideration. I think
Page 29
technically the motion just needs to be to allow him to withdraw the application to rezone the
property to HI.
Mr. Bridges: I’ll make that motion, then.
Mr. Powell: Second.
Mayor Young: All right. Any further discussion? Mr. Handy?
Mr. Handy: I just want to make one comment. Mr. Neeley said that all the land around
there, his mother own it, and I disagree with Mr. Mr. Bridges: Bridges when he said that stop
him from making a living. If y’all own all the land around there, that ain’t going to stop him
from making a living. That’s all I got to say.
Mayor Young: All right. Let’s go ahead and vote on the motion. The substitution
motion, which would allow him to withdraw this and to continue the operation there. Please vote
aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk: Item 51: Consider approving incentive pay of $1,200.00 yearly for
firefighters who have valid EMT certification and $1,800.00 yearly for firefighters who
have valid paramedic certification. Firefighters who receive this incentive pay must adhere
to the following guidelines: 1) to obtain EMT certification and keep this certification valid
and current by successfully completing the required certification hours; 2) must be able to
assist the department Medical Director in teaching other firefighters; 3) must maintain the
medical jump bags on the fire apparatus ti insure the necessary medical supplies are
available. This is applicable to fire suppression personnel only with the rank of Captain or
below and is not applicable to employees hired after September 1996 with salary not to
exceed top of the range. (No recommendation Public Safety Committee December 13,
1999)
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I would like to make a substitute motion to this and delete Captain to
Battalion Chief and delete that it is applicable to employees hired after September, 1996.
Mr. Powell: Second.
Mr. Oliver: One clarification, so I know. Is this a stipend that’s supposed to be paid
above the salary range if they reach the cap or are the salaries supposed to remain in the range?
Page 30
Mr. Beard: We deleted–I said I would delete the last.
Mr. Oliver: No, I said I understand that, but this is a material point. I want to make sure
we’re clear. In other words, for the $1,200 or $1,800 additional amount, the question is, if the
salary range is from $20,000 to $30,000 and somebody is at $30,000 before, when this is
approved, is this to be an additional stipend that would allow them to go above the range?
Mr. Beard: Well, I leave that to you and the Chief Few: to work out.
Mr. Oliver: No, I think that’s something the Commission has to be very clear about
because this is obviously going to put the salaries of the Fire Department at a different level than
the salaries of the Sheriff’s deputies.
Mr. Beard: Well, why do we have to include the Sheriff’s deputies in there? I don’t
think the Sheriff has a stake in this at all.
Mr. Powell: Why don’t you amend the motion to include the Sheriff’s deputies with that
training?
Mr. Oliver: That’s your prerogative.
Mr. Beard: I think we’re talking about one issue here, and I don’t see where we’re going
to, where we need to bring another department into this. I don’t think we do this on any other
items, so I don’t see the need for that.
Mayor Young: Mr. Beard, I think Mr. Oliver’s question is with respect to the last few
words of what’s written on the agenda, not to exceed to of the range.
Mr. Oliver: Do you to exceed the top of the range?
Mr. Beard: I said to delete the last part of this.
Mr. Oliver: So this would permit them to go above the top of the range?
Mr. Beard: Not to exceed the top of the range.
Mr. Oliver: Not to exceed the top of the range?
Mr. Beard: We’re deleting that.
Mayor Young: Okay.
Mr. Oliver: So it will allow them to exceed the top of the range?
Mayor Young: All right. Do we have a second to the motion?
Page 31
Mr. Powell: Yes, second.
Mayor Young: We did? Okay, Mr. Powell, you want to speak?
Mr. Powell: Yes. Gentlemen, I urge you to support this because we’ve been working
with the Fire Chief Few: and the rural part of the community for some time now. We’re having
a serious problem with ambulance service as far as response times in Blythe and McBean. Mr.
Bridges is having some problems. And what we’re looking for is to hopefully get our Fire
Department, which is pretty well the first responder should anything happen out there anyway.
We’re trying to get our firemen trained so that they could hopefully breathe for someone having
a heart attack or some medical problem for a period of time until some ambulance service
arrives. And we’re talking about people’s lives. I know it’s a little bit more money but we really
need to push for these firemen to go out and get this training because we are having a problem
and it’s going to wind up costing somebody their life.
Mayor Young: All right, any further discussion? Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Powell said include the Sheriff’s Department in this.
Mr. Powell: No, I was just joking.
Mr. Kuhlke: I know you were joking, but you ain’t going to be here in a few months, you
know. And as soon as the Sheriff’s Department comes back and wants to implement this same
thing, and if in fact everybody in the Sheriff’s Department got certified, we’re talking about
increasing our budget about $1.5 million a year. So that is a concern of mine. But I comment
the Chief Few: . I think that this is a good program. I do have a problem going above the cap.
And that’s going to happen sometime. In discussions with the Chief Few: , you’re going to have
a situation sometimes when a lieutenant might jump above a captain’s salary who hadn’t been
certified. So he’s going to have some internal problems as he begins to implement this, but I
think it’s a positive step. I’m going to support the motion, but I do have some concerns and I
think we need to begin to consider some of these things as they come forward. This is a pay
raise. This is it.
Mayor Young: Any further discussion?
Mr. Powell: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I’d like to rebut that, is it a pay raise. It may be a pay
raise, Mr. Kuhlke, but it’s money well spent when you’re out here trying to save people’s lives in
these rural communities that don’t have anybody out there to give them some form of emergency
help when they’re having a serious problem. And it may cost a million dollars. There’s no
question about it. But I’m going to tell you this. One life is worth a million dollars or more.
Especially if it was somebody up here’s family member.
Mayor Young: Let’s move along. Mr. Shepard?
Page 32
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, a question for the Administrator. These raises, well, these
incentive payments are included in the proposed 2000 budget; is that correct?
Mr. Oliver: There’s sufficient funding in the 2000 to cover it within the Fire Department
only. As more and more people get certified, however, in the future, because it is a requirement
of the Fire Department where people hired after September of ‘96 to maintain this certification,
as more and more people get certified, however, there will be increasing pressure to increase the
revenues of the Fire Department.
Mr. Shepard: Well, then my follow-up question is if we feel like we reach a sufficient
level of certification, we could revisit this policy and determine that perhaps we had enough
certified employees?
Mr. Oliver: I don’t–I think once you, in my opinion, once you have this certification
option and you specific the people, in my opinion it would be unfair to say, you know, that this
person needn’t or shouldn’t get certified cause we had enough people. I think it you’re going to
do it, you need to do it and apply the policy uniformly and fairly.
Mayor Young: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: How many EMTs are we talking about?
Mr. Oliver: Currently I can tell you the numbers. It’s in the agenda items. Currently
there are 40 EMTs within the Fire Department and there are three paramedics.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, my concern with this, whereas Mr. Powell and I have been
working along with the Fire Chief Few: in getting some people in the Fire Department in
McBean and Blythe that could be first responders to life and death situations, because
ambulances are not getting out there for 20 minutes. I mean that’s how long it’s taking them to
get in those rural areas. And while I certainly want to see something done in that regard in those
areas, my concern is what door are we opening here if we’re going above the salary cap on the
pay scale, if we are opening doors for other people with other certification. I had a call from an
electrician this morning wanting to know if he gets certified, can we increase his salary. My
concern is what are we generating here? What are we opening doors here? We’ve already
mentioned the deputies and placing them outside of that range. Frankly, I don’t know at this
point whether I’m going to vote for it or against it, but it’s something that I’m afraid we may be
putting out there that may come back to bite us in the future.
Mayor Young: Mr. Handy?
Mr. Handy: I just want to make a comment that Mr. Oliver: was concerned about the
cap. Over the top of the scale on this means for a fireman, and a fireman only, and it does not
have anything to do with the EMTs and the other training. So if the other training put them over
the top, that’s still the regular fireman, going to still be below in the right category, so that don’t
have anything to do with it. You can’t offer somebody incentive pay and expect for it to be
Page 33
equal to a regular fireman.
Mr. Oliver: I agree with you Commissioner Handy, but in most jurisdictions if there’s a
conscious decision to run an ambulance service, you revisit the qualifications based on the
services being offered, and the typical norm for that is about five percent and ten percent for the
additional ability to be able to run both fire and ambulance.
Mr. Handy: That’s pretty good statistic, but this is Augusta and it’s different. You know,
what I’m saying to you is that you are either going to support the program or you don’t even
have it all and don’t get halfway started and someone suggest cutting it back and all and to me it
sounds like a good program. And you and I may be the first one to use that program. So here we
are today going against it. We never know whether we’re going to ever need it or not. So it’s
hard to sit here and go against something, not knowing what’s going to happen. I ain’t quite
finished yet. You need to rush on?
Mayor Young: No, we’d like to move along. If you’ve got more to say, go ahead.
Mr. Handy: I don’t have anything else.
Mayor Young: Okay. Mr. Mays has been waiting and the Chief Few: would like to say
something.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, hopefully very briefly. For some of my colleagues who weren’t
at the last Committee meeting, there was no recommendation that came out of that Committee,
and it wasn’t that there wasn’t support for both measures that were there. One the way that it’s
written and the other the motion that Mr. Beard has placed on the floor. I would hope that we
could support it, because two or three things are here that we really need to look at. One, the
question always comes up when we ask about money. Whether it’s capital, whether it’s salaries.
Regardless of what it is, whether or not the departmental person has been able to work that
within that budget. The answer to that question more than one time has been yes, he has. I hope
we don’t get into the business of, I guess a new term, that the reverse education. We’ve left the
Fire Department in a predicament that where, when I saw the criticism recently, and the question
came up, the reference to the raises that were done administratively, that this Commission set the
parameters for it, set up the Committee for the Chief Few: to deal with it, which left him in a
plot that basically only deal with his administrative people. The only way to deal with any other
incentive, if there, is a two-fold positive means. He was not hesitant, and I’m not comparing this
department with any other one, but it was not an across-the-board thing of where we came in to
ask for money. It left an educational incentive as the means to be able to move on, while not
penalizing any of the senior firefighters that might be in place. Nothing would happen there.
What would newcomers trying to broaden their horizon and trying to give us better service, that
was a means of doing it. He also was honest enough in an open meeting to admit that everybody
probably would not qualify. We often don’t get that from everybody. Is trying to satisfy
everybody, give them a good grade, put them up. It’s so often applied, sometimes we get ready
to discipline folks, we can’t get rid of them because the evaluations have been so high on
everybody and have not been fair and have been necessarily reasonable and honest. I think he
Page 34
brought that forth in an honest way. I know we’re not looking at what we’re dealing with with
going into the ambulance service business, but I think we ought to at least, as Mr. Kuhlke has
said, applaud the department head that’s at least given us other option to put people in place to
do it. Health care is something that we as a county, even though we’re consolidated, we still
have County responsibilities that deal with the health and welfare of the public. Be it indigent
care, be it in public health, be it in what we deal with with ambulance services. This gives us a
viable future option. So when all the negatives come up about the future, we have a positive for
the future that at least we’re set. We’re not locked in and tied to what may be a contract
presented to us. And that’s not a knock on what we have. But I think it puts us in a ready
position that if we have to as a government put forth an alternative, then our people are trained.
We’re not having to go out and look for folks or to search for them to say if they’re certified. So
I hope with those parameters attached to is, that we can support it and the one reason we went
back prior to the dates that were put in in the original motion is that some of the people prior to
this being asked for had gone at their own expense, out of their own pocket, and on their own
time, to do this when there were no measures on the board that said anything about any
incentive, and that’s why they are being asked to do this. And for the one knock, finally, on
where folk rank and about somebody going over somebody else, we were not that concerned
when the Chief Few: had to restructure and reorganize the department, when you basically had
Assistant Chiefs that were making less money than the folk that they were commanding, there
was no great concern then to make that a particular issue. This is something that might happen.
When it might happen, then I think you’ve at least put yourself in a position to deal with it. I
hope we can support it on the floor as it is.
Mayor Young: All right. Chief Few: , did you want to make a brief comment? Brief,
please, and we’ll move along.
Chief Few: Few: I’m just going to say–
Mayor Young: That microphone is not working, Chief Few: . Actually this one. You
have to use this one. That one is not plugged in at all.
Chief Few: Few: I just want to make a brief comment. I want you to know that we
talked about certifications in our department. I have one station that everybody in that particular
station who is on what we call rescuer, certified. We didn’t ask you for additional money for
that. I have another station where it’s a haz-mat station, where they require them to do a number
of training every year. We did not ask you for certification pay for that. I have another station
that’s a water rescue certified fire station that every member in that station is certified to water
rescue. We did not ask you for that and they have to certify every. It’s a number, all of them
have to spend. The only thin we ask you is that while we are trying to build a system that will be
one that our sisters can respect and also save some lives. This is the only certification that we
ask you. It’s not out of the norm. Every city pays their EMT firefighters additional pay. It is not
a very easy course to go through. And the only thing we ask you to do is just pay them. Now,
Mr. Powell, you asked me what can we do to show up? What if you kill this today? What will I
have to say to the members of our Fire Department? What you just told us is you really don’t
want me to go for it, you want us to stay a traditional department that only respond to fire calls.
Page 35
That is not the norm in the United States. I’m somewhat embarrassed that we haven’t move
forward as quick, but it took some time to do that. I had to put in first responder certified. I did
that without a dime. You gave me no extra funds to do that. I went back, found a way to get the
money to send all of my EMTs to school and paramedics to school. I did it through HOPE
scholarships. I’ve done everything y’all have asked me to do with this budget and try to squeeze
out. And I haven’t gotten one dime extra since we did that. I’m asking the firefighters to do too
much now. And I’m just asking you to just pay EMTs and paramedics.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Chief Few: . Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: I had one other question, Chief Few: . I don’t know if you’ve got the
answer or maybe Mr. Oliver: . I’m just wondering if Blythe and McBean, particularly the rural
stations, are having trouble with the ambulance service, would it be cheaper if we just put two
EMTs at each station and just pay them full time salary as opposed to doing this program?
Chief Few: Few: No, because you don’t get the benefit of having a firefighter there. You
have down time. That’s why you don’t see very many ambulances out there. It’s not one that
gets a lot of EMS calls. And they’ll tell you this and I’ll just go ahead and put it on the record.
Nobody is going to take and put ambulances out there to actually equip that side of town because
it’s not cost effective. And the only way you are going to do it is through your local fire
department. They understand that. Both ambulances understand it. We spoke about it. It
works. EMS-based fire department is the way to go. It’s already the future.
Mayor Young: I think the Commission has already made that policy decision to go
ahead with that, and the discussion today is with respect to financial incentive to the employees.
Mr. Oliver: And I agree with the Chief Few: on that. What you’ve got to be careful of,
though, is that you don’t let an ambulance company, what I call skim the cream, like you would
do. Remember on cable franchises and all that came up as related to cherry picking, you didn’t
want them to put cable into areas that were very lucrative and ignore other areas of the County.
And that’s what you can get into very quickly on ambulance services because the service
population in Blythe and Hephzibah is much less than it is in some other areas of the County.
And that’s why it’s not cost effective to them. So it needs to be handled as an overall approach.
I clearly think having the skills within the Fire Department is beneficial. But you need to know
what the financial implication and impact on it is.
Mayor Young: Let’s move along. We have a motion on the floor, the motion by Mr.
Beard which makes amendments to Item 51 as it’s stated in the booklet. All in favor of the
motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk: Item 52: Consider the appointment of Mr. Phil Wasson Interim 911
Coordinator responsible for all current 911 personnel in the Sheriff’s Department and Fire
Department with all 911 staff members maintaining their present rank. This position will
Page 36
report to the 911 Steering Committee with all employees being subject to the rules
developed by the Steering Committee. No filled positions will be eliminated.
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I’d ask the Sheriff is Mr. Wasson here?
Mayor Young: Mr. Wasson?
Mr. Kuhlke: Is Mr. Wasson here?
Mayor Young: The Sheriff is.
Sheriff Webster: No, he’s not here.
Mr. Kuhlke: I just don’t know Mr. Wasson.
Sheriff Webster: Sir?
Mr. Kuhlke: I said I just don’t know Mr. Wasson. You want to speak?
Sheriff Webster: He’s a former APD and he was a Captain, and since we consolidated
he’s been with us and he’s a very competent fellow. I am sure he can run 911 with the greatest
ability. He’s a fine fellow.
Mayor Young: Sheriff, we need you over at that podium. Mr. Oliver, could you just
push that microphone down over there or take it off the gooseneck, if you would? There’s no
cable on there.
Sheriff Webster: Charlie Webster, Richmond County Sheriff, and I would just [end of
tape one].
[Beginning of tape two]
Mayor Young: Chief Few: Few, you wanted to speak to this?
Chief Few: Few: Yes, I do. Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, we both have consoles
down there at the 911 Center. When I first came to Richmond County, I took over the fire
service here, one of the first comments I got from the citizens is they asked me whether or not I
was going to be here any time. Because you sent the wrong Engine Company to the wrong fire.
She left me know right off. I had been here two weeks. That if I didn’t straighten up that place
Page 37
down there in two weeks, I wouldn’t be around here very long, cause they didn’t take kindly to
sending the wrong Engine Company out there. We have spent significant dollar amounts down
there at the 911 Center in our budget to upgrade that system, and finally we got our system that’s
run pretty good. Now in that efficiency study, I know when he put the study together he talked
about making it cost effective. For the first time, the 911 Center is cost effective just like it is
now. Because what we did, we got cellular telephone money coming in for the first time. The
Sheriff get the first $350,000 and I get the rest for the first time. It is not cost effective, it’s not
going to gain a dime. The only thing is now that the Sheriff don’t have to go through the
General Fund and I don’t have to go through the General Fund. For the first time. I have a
significant number of programs that I want to implement at that 911 Center, and to take it away
from us now at the point where we are changing so much in our department, it is going to slow
us down somewhat in the things that we do. I have a latch key program. Every morning now,
we wake up senior citizens, say are you okay. And if they’re not, we send an engine out there.
We’ve got all kind of programs out there. I get no customer complaints on the fire side of it. We
are doing the job y’all asked us to do. In addition to that, nobody wants to change over. And
when I started down there to bring about change, what percent of my–a number of employees
have to leave there. And the reason for that is they couldn’t take change, the change I was
giving. I had to send a number of them to Concern to make them understand that we had to
change. They are courteous now. I don’t feel embarrassed when somebody calls, pick up, say
911 Fire Service, what is your emergency, because they do it very kindly now. And now that
I’ve expelled so much of the City’s money, now you take it away. One month ago, we voted to
give the Sheriff the first $350,000 and give me the rest. I spent all the money I had to upgrade.
The station did not [inaudible] with the type of actual alerting system. I straightened the alerting
system up. Made everyone in every station, consolidated every station so it looks like one Fire
Department. And now when we get to this point, you’re taking it away. Now I understand the
efficiency study, and at the time, there was a problem. We had to go to the General Fund. But
we don’t have to do that now. The Sheriff and I never have any problem. The only thing about
it, he told me I was a little bit crazy when I first come here and asked him, told him I wanted him
to pay for that dispatch and he thought I was real crazy. But we understand each other. We have
no problem with each other. We don’t have a problem at the 911 Center. Why are we changing?
Are we changing just to change? I don’t understand why we have to change at this point. Now
if you gave me a year to get the program up and running and how I needed it done, then I’ll say I
won’t even come to the podium. But I need the time now and I need to do some hands-on. I go
down to the 911 Center and I need to do some hands-on. I go down to the 911 Center and I
dispatch myself. I’ve cleaned that up. And now at this point, to take it away at this point with
some [inaudible] I just don’t fathom at all. It just don’t make us feel very good about it. And so
I’m asking you not to do it at this point. I want you to delay it. A year or just turn it down. And
I don’t think I’m asking for something unreasonable about that. I know the Sheriff has went
down there and cleaned up some problems that he has down there, on his side of it, a couple of
times. And the hands-on, you can’t say hands-on is not there. My folks know that.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Chief Few: Few. Let’s move along with this. We have a
motion on the floor. Discussion among the Commissioners? Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Chief Few: Few, maybe I’m not thinking right, but I was under the
Page 38
impression that you and the Sheriff had no problem with the consolidation of 911. I don’t here
that from you today. The other comment that I’d like to make is it is my understanding that the
911 Center would remain under the authority of the 911 Committee, which is you and the Sheriff
primarily, and my third point is the only reason we are not going into the General Fund is
because we imposed the fee on the cell phones. And one little problem I have is that we never sit
here and talk about how we can cut taxes, how we can give money back to this community.
Now it will save money to consolidate. It will save positions according to the–and I’ll let Mr.
Oliver speak to that. But it will save positions. And what I don’t understand is that we are a
consolidated government. We are trying to consolidate certain departments, and every time we
turn around, people that work for the government are totally opposed to it. Now, if it’s a bad
idea, that’s fine. But if you don’t mind, let me ask Mr. Oliver. Mr. Oliver, in consolidating 911,
will it save this County money?
Mr. Oliver: According to the management study, it will save approximately four
positions. I will say this, though, if that’s within a position or two, that’s fine. One of the things
on the cell phone revenue that’s come up, the Chiefs’ estimates of cell phone revenue are a little
more aggressive than ours are, and until we have that firmly in hand, if we don’t consolidate this,
I think there has to be an understanding that any deficit in the 911 Center has to be borne
someplace other than the General Fund. Because as you all know, there has been some history
of compliance issues on the 911 field. We think that everybody’s paying now, but there’s some
past things that haven’t been and we don’t have a good history to do that. But there will be some
savings. The other thing I would add is depending upon what happens with ambulance service,
if we take over control of the 911 for ambulance service, I think there’s going to have to be some
expansion in personnel.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay.
Chief Few: Few: If we started EMS right now, it wouldn’t cost us anything. On the fire
side of it. Just like you told me to do extra [inaudible]. It didn’t cost us a mint penny. The only
thing it did, it would make it cost effective on our end. You say you’re saving four persons.
Two people got to sit at the console for the Fire Department. I only got nine employees for the
four shifts. You’re not going to save anything. I did the study down there once myself, only on
the Sheriff’s side. He cannot take away a single person down there now because it’s busy. And
I’m saying that it’s not going to save a dime because as soon as we start anything [inaudible] on
EMS, he’s going to come back to you and ask for some employees. Not saving a dime. Now, I
can tell you this. I may not know anything about being a Commissioner, but this public safety, I
live and sleep it. I know. He is going to ask for some additional people. And he’s sitting right
there, and I can guarantee you he’s going to tell you. We’re not going to save a dime. The only
thing now is that everybody is going to be busy down there at the 911 Center. Everybody on
every end of it. That’s the only difference you’re going to have. He’s having problems now
keeping his people down there now and I don’t have a lot of them. It’s not going to save a dime
on it. Now I understand at one point why they was trying to get to it, thought they could save
four employees. Now they can’t save those employees because it’s going to change down at the
911 Center just a little bit. And I’m saying that we can handle the call volume on our end of it.
The money is there. I can tell you the figures and all. I can tell you every bit and exactly how
Page 39
much we’re going to make off each one. I studied it. That’s why I’m not really worrying about
it on our side. We’re both on here. It’s not going to cost us anything in the General Fund.
Mr. Oliver: You’re willing to take any deficit into the Fire Department from the 911
fund?
Chief Few: Few: Taking it now, yes, sir, I do.
Mayor Young: All right, any further discussion on this?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Let me ask this first question. Since we’re talking about savings. Let’s lay
all these cards out on the table. No names by any person or whatever we’re going to do. When
we do, if this motion passes and we do consolidate, what will the salary of the person running
that department be? That’s proposed? Asking Mr. Oliver.
Mr. Oliver: I can’t answer it. I don’t have that.
Mr. Mays: Well, Mr. Mayor, I think somebody ought to be able to answer it. Now if the
figure that I saw that it was going to 70-some thousand dollars on that initial proposal, has that
changed anywhere?
Mr. Oliver: That included benefits, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Okay, well a minute ago you didn’t know what it was going to be, Mr.
Oliver: .
Mr. Oliver: It was not--
Mr. Mays: Now I’m going to dig deep on you with this.
Mayor Young: One at a time.
Mr. Mays: Okay, I yield, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Oliver: Do not envision that the salary of that person would change, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Okay. We’re talking about–what’s he currently making right now?
Mr. Oliver: The Sheriff would have a better knowledge of that. Without my notes, I do
not know.
Page 40
Mr. Mays: Okay, we’re fixing to go to a whole different consolidation of a department I
want to know. Sheriff Webster then, what is the current salary of the gentleman right now?
Who happens to be a good personal friend and client of mine. So I’m not digging at
personalities, but I think if you’re going to talk about consolidation and savings it ought to be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Not a mystery of some stage. I’ll get to that in a
minute, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Young: Let’s give him a change to answer your question.
Mr. Mays: Okay.
Sheriff Webster: If you want me to get the amount he makes now, he’s a Captain. I’ll be
glad to walk in the Mayor’s office, if you don’t mind, and in about two minutes I can bring you
back his salary.
Mr. Mays: So it be. Cause I think we ought to talk about numbers. We’re going to talk
about it, we’re going to save if we put it there, if we’re fixing to raise one salary to do it nearly
$20,000, then let’s not tell an untruth in this situation. Let’s talk about the real numbers. The
second thing I’m going to throw out, since we’re going to talk about this, and I wasn’t going to
do it, but I think it ought to be brought out at some point in time. I have had my problems.
We’ve talked about these studies. Now some of you have not had the initial experience of
getting kicked in the butt by this same group where we’re talking about dealing with this
professionally. They want to sue me, I ain’t got nothing, Mr. Mayor, for them to sue me with to
get anyway. So I’m going to go ahead and say it. But we spent $60,000 with this same firm to
tell us how to consolidate two departments in Richmond County, back during the so-called
builders’ scandal, where we put together License & Inspection and we put together that operating
group out there to do it. We had to end up, they said it was the best department in the whole
world. When we consolidated according to the same folk that’s so smart in showing us how to
save this one, we ended up having to force a resignation and almost put in jail the person they
said that could basically best run that department out there. Now that has nothing to do with
anything, but if we’re going to base everything on the so-called validity of this DGM Maximus,
as though all of a sudden this is the Bible of studies and this is how we’re going to save money,
then we ought to at least know, as Mohammed Ali used to say, we got bit by the same dog, we
ought to know this is the same dog biting again twice. And that’s not a personal attack. Those
facts will show what happened in that department and what we had to go through and correct it
and we paid dearly to do it, following the example of that study. So now if we’re going to talk
about savings, let’s talk about a real savings of numbers and be able to show where those
numbers are. If nobody is leaving and going out the door, if the same amount of folk are going
to working to 911, let’s quit hiding behind the charade of what this study is about, go on and let
the Sheriff run his department, let the Chief Few: run his, get an efficiency level out of it, and
when they got a damn complaint, bring it back. But quit playing with this thing, Mr. Oliver: , as
though this is some God-spoken truth that’s it’s in here when you know it’s not. And that
challenge is on the floor to anybody that wants to debate it. The facts in the record will speak for
itself what we went through, Mr. Mayor, and what we paid for that money to do it, and I voiced
my concern when we hired them and I didn’t hide it then and I don’t hide it now.
Page 41
Mayor Young: Let me ask a question. Let me ask a question that might clarify this. Mr.
Oliver, is it the intent of this change that the 911 Steering Committee would set the salaries, set
the compensation?
Mr. Oliver: No. I think that would be totally inappropriate for the 911 Steering
Committee to set any salaries. I think that’s a function of the Mayor and Commission.
Mayor Young: All right.
Mr. Oliver: I think as this was laid out in the budget, this item was pushed forward at the
request of the Sheriff and it was laid forward in the budget to do this. As I mentioned a minute
ago, the Fire Department, their call frequency is not nearly as great as the Sheriff’s Department.
There are several reasons for that. One of the facts is the Sheriff’s Department is the first one to
answer the phone in fairness. However, the Fire Department on average, based upon the
numbers that were provided at that particular time, answers one call every two hours. Okay.
And admittedly they need two people on duty just in case there are two things that happen, but
it’s kind of like a check-out in a department store, the difference being, though, you’ve always
got to have a teller that’s always available to take someone in line, and the thought was, part of
the reason for this was that the fire dispatchers could become a more integral part of answering
some of the other calls, to cross train between fire, police, and EMS, if that opportunity arose.
But that was the rationale and justification behind some of the thinking that was done to
consolidate that. As I mentioned, the bottom line to this is the revenue we implemented last
December, the $1 on cells phones, 30 cents of that $1 is restricted to capital, 70 cents of it can go
to operating, and it has to be used for capital improvements to locate cell phones so that you
know where someone is calling from on a cell phone. For example, they go down the road, they
report an accident, you would be able to tell whether they were anywhere in the general vicinity
of that accident, and it’s required that once we do that and have that equipment on board to be
able to do that, we can again go back and relook at the fees. The amount of those fees at this
point, in our opinion, is not stable enough to be able to take the nine positions from the Fire
Department. What we had proposed in the budget was to take the nine positions from the
dispatch side of 911, to move those positions and pay for them into the Sheriff’s budget, but the
Sheriff, as the Chief Few: has indicated, has had some turnover. It can be done with no loss of
positions, and then to permit the Chief Few: to hire nine additional firefighters, which was
recommended in the management study, and that would result in no increase in cost to the
taxpayers of Augusta Richmond County.
Mayor Young: All right. The Sheriff is back in the room. Sheriff, do you have that
figure for Mr. Mays?
Sheriff Webster: Yes, I do. His present salary is $48, 293.96, and that’s not counting the
benefits.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Page 42
Mayor Young: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I believe that the proposed salary was above $70,000, whether we voted that
or not, and the so-called savings range. Now if that’s been struck down by somebody, I stand to
be corrected. But those are the last figures that I’ve been provided.
Mr. Oliver: We assume a 30 percent benefit factor, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: It didn’t have percentages. I correct you, Mr. Oliver, it had numbers.
Mr. Oliver: I understand that.
Mr. Mays: Okay, and it was over $70,000. Maybe less than $75,000 but greater than
$70,000. The second thing is, if we’re going to consider that study the Bible, let’s go back to it a
little bit, Mr. Mayor. I believe, and I stand to be corrected on this, if we are consolidating, if we
are going to consolidate, we have moved into a different realm outside of the study. The study
called for a basic 911 consolidation situation, I thought, under the direction of a neutral source,
and emergency management. I thought that was what the study said to do. Now we’ve dealt in
here of dealing with a so-called political compromise to get this off of somebody else’s back, and
what I’m saying is we need to just throw the monkey off the back totally if that’s what we’re
doing and it’s not a neutral situation. If the Sheriff’s satisfied the way he’s running it, let him
run it. If the Chief Few: is satisfied the way he’s running it, let him run it. Save from the
$49,000 to the $73,000 and then you don’t have to go up on anything. But now, you know, as I
told you yesterday, Mr. Oliver, my James Brown Boulevard numbers, I can’t count as fast as you
can, but if you give him long enough, I’ll catch you down the road with them. Someone in there
is a difference between 40-something and 70-something. It’s also a difference between a neutral
department and one running it like it is where you’re talking about moving it. These two
gentlemen, you say, you never heard the argument, Mr. Mayor and some Commissioners. The
reason why you never heard it is because they were trying to do the best they could and didn’t
want to ruffle feathers over here on this Commission. I’m not going to put no words in their
mouth, but if they are going to run it like it is, if nobody’s being fired in terms of position
numbers, if it’s not going the way that the so-called study said do it, then why are visiting this
anyway? You’re in a compromise situation to save face in it. If you put folk over there, I don’t
care whose budget you put creative financing in, Mr. Administrator or anybody else, if the folk
are there, they have to be paid. Doesn’t matter who they’re ordered by or what uniform they
wear. They still have got to be paid. So if they’re going to be paid anyway, pay them out the
same pot, pro rate them, give the Chief Few: his, give the Sheriff his, and they’re out of this
political argument and they can continue to work two good departments.
Mayor Young: All right. Thank you, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Oliver: Clarification. What the study provided for and the study does not get into
personnel. I think that’s totally inappropriate for the study to get into personnel because they
don’t know the strength of the personnel and I don’t know the strength of the personnel.
Page 43
Mr. Mays: They said we were over-supplied in the Sheriff’s Department. If they didn’t
know personnel, why are they making decisions on what we should cut in law enforcement?
Mr. Oliver: No, what they do is they compare standards against national standards for
the average-type person in that position. In other words, if you are a factory worker, they would
expect you to produce 1,000 widgets per day and they went against nationally-recognized
standards. But the management study did not get into personnel. What the management study
recommended was, is that the person in charge of the 911 Center, whoever it would be, would
report to the 911 Steering Committee with the 911 Steering Committee setting up, if you will, the
rules and the regulations because the Fire Chief Few: is on that Committee, the Sheriff’s on that
Committee, obviously Ambulance Service has to have input into that because calls are
transferred from the 911 Center to Ambulance, and it was felt that that would be a central point
of responsibility. Additionally, the study provided that Animal Control dispatch would be
handled out of the 911 Center, because of the way the calls and things like that work. But they
did not get into personnel at all because they don’t know the personnel and I don’t know the
personnel. I can’t make any endorsement of personnel.
Mayor Young: All right. Well, we’ve had, Chief Few: , we’ve had plenty of discussion
on this issue.
Mr. Beard: I have a substitute motion.
Mayor Young: Let’s hear your substitute motion and let’s proceed with the order of the
day. What’s your substitute motion, Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, the substitute motion would be that–I make a statement
first. You know I said last night in this management statement that we’re picking and
choosing and this kind of thing, and it look like we’ve kind of muddied the water here quite
a bit this afternoon, and I think that at some point in time, I want to make this clear, that
we’re going to have to deal with the management study, but I think this is not the time to
deal with it, so my substitute motion is that we remain, the Fire Department and the
Sheriff’s Department will continue to run, operate the 911 Center as it presently is.
Mayor Young: All right. Is there a second to the substitute motion?
Mr. Mays: I’ll second it if the maker of that motion will also put in there, cause I know
this is going to be the next cry back from down below me, is that we pay everybody just like
we’re paying everybody out of the same source. They all in the same building, whatever pot the
money comes out of, pay everybody out of the same pot. If it’s telephone, soup kitchens,
hamburgers, car washes, wherever it comes from, pay them out the same pot and settle that
argument real quick.
Mayor Young: All right, we have a substitute motion on the floor. Let’s go ahead and
call the question on that. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote aye.
Page 44
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Shepard, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Powell, and the Mayor vote
no.
Motion fails 6-5.
Mayor Young: That takes us back to the original vote. All in favor of the original
motion, which is captioned in the book, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Beard and Mr. Colclough vote no.
Mr. H. Brigham and Mr. Mays abstain.
Motion carries 6-2-2.
Mr. Mays: Madame Clerk?
Clerk: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: In terms of the hiring, let my vote be recorded as abstaining. I forgot we just
passed an Ethics Ordinance and I want to be real clear on that. So I change my no to an
abstention?
Clerk: On the first item?
Mr. Mays: No, on the second one, because that’s where we’re actually hiring him. I
mean putting a person in that position.
Clerk: Okay, you’re going to abstain now?
Mr. Mays: Yes, ma’am.
Clerk: Okay. So that’s two abstentions, Mr. Mays and Mr. Henry Brigham.
Mayor Young: Madame Clerk, we’ve been going here about two hours non-stop, so the
Chair will declare a five-minute recess so we can all get up and stretch.
(Recess)
Clerk: We’re at Item 53, Mr. Mayor. Item 53: Motion to approve Change Order
Number Two in the amount of $49,787.63 and Capital Project Budget Amendment Number
Three for the Pedestrian Walkway and Handicap Access Ramp Project. Funds for the
change order are to be provided from Urban Recapture Phase III. (No recommendation
Engineering Services Committee December 13, 1999)
Mr. Oliver: That’s the contract that is being proposed to be amended; however, that is
for the additional and entrance to the parking facility over there adjacent to the Radisson. And
Page 45
it’s just proposed to be done as part of that contract. Mr. Goins is here and can talk about that in
more detail if you like. We are contractually obligated to do that under the terms of the
agreement that you all approved some time ago. Or we could go out and bid that if you want.
We have looked at trying to get a price from the contractor that was going to do the work, to
[inaudible] the work, however because of their timing that did not work, either.
Mayor Young: Is there a time line, Mr. Oliver, for this to be done?
Mr. Oliver: I’m sure that they would like to have it done the sooner the better, but the
reason would be because the one entrance at the other end is going to be closed when the new
facility is put up, so consequently it is going to create an impediment and a hardship getting in
and out of that parking facility until this is done. The contractor, I think, has 120 days, Drew, but
I think they can move pretty quickly on it. The big question they had and the reason for the time
frame for the contract is depending upon the weather and how cold it is make control when they
can put the actual asphalt down.
Mr. Goins: Mr. Oliver, we had requested 60 days in the change order. The contractor
requested 90 days because of the cold weather, and we agreed to that change.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I think when this came up before the Committee, if it’s the one
I’m thinking about, Drew, my question on this was who was actually requesting this and who
were we working for. It came up like we were–the motel was requesting us to do it and we were
doing it at their behest and not something in the scope. Can you address that?
Mr. Goins: It’s my understanding this is a contractual obligation that we have with the
proposed convention center improvements.
Mr. J. Brigham: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any further discussion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Young: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Just for the sake of consistency in the record, I did not vote for the $7 million
giveaway which we did, so I have no problems in terms of voting for anything with handicap
access. I believe that that’s something we should do. But I believe out of $7 million in addition
to the new deal over in there, I didn’t vote for the first one and I don’t really care whether it’s in
this contract or another one, I’m not going to vote for this one. Out of $7 million, I think they
ought to be able to fund the $49,000 to deal with the handicap ramp. Since we’re going to talk
today about savings to the taxpayer.
Page 46
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Mays. I think this is not actually to build a handicap
ramp. This is using the handicap ramp that is in the contract to reconfigure the entranceway to
the parking lot from Tenth Street; is that not correct?
Mr. Goins: That’s correct.
Mr. Mays: $7 million still, Mr. Mayor, will get you a lot of ramps. Stairway to heaven
if you need them.
Mayor Young: We have a motion on the floor to approve this. All in favor of the
motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Mays and Mr. Colclough vote no.
Mr. Handy abstains.
Motion carries 7-1-2.
Item 54: Deleted from agenda.
Clerk: Item 55: Consider approval of concept for Augusta Commons Project. (No
recommendation Engineering Services Committee October 11, 1999)
Mr. Oliver: Number 55, Mr. Mays has suggested several weeks ago, and frankly it had
slipped my mind, that we needed to talk with Bonnie Ruben, one of the owners of the property
adjacent to the proposed Augusta Commons project. We talked with her, and she has indicated
that the plans that we have to go forward, Mr. Wall and myself and representatives from
Cranston, Robertson, Whitehurst met with her, and she was comfortable that what we were doing
was consistent with how she could develop the property. She had not totally decided what she
wanted to do with that. I would note this conceptual approval would still be contingent upon the
property owners at the north end of the Commons working out the various land transactions they
need to do to insure that it gets developed in a manner consistent with the plan.
Mr. Shepard: I’d move we approve it as recommended by the Administrator with
the conditions regarding the northern property owners.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any further discussion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Young: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Still in favor of the concept. Just wanted to ask Mr. Wall one question.
Does this concept where we are at this point commit us to any form of condemnation of any
properties?
Page 47
Mr. Wall: No, not at this point.
Mr. Oliver: Let me say this. There are, and I don’t remember, Mr. Mays, how many,
there are some seven or eight properties in there. I think we have acquired two of them
voluntarily. We have not actively pursued acquiring those. If an impasse should be reached,
that, however, is a possibility. I want to do that in the sake of full disclosure.
Mayor Young: Okay.
Mr. Wall: That would be brought back as a separate item.
Mr. Oliver: That’s right.
Mr. Wall: I mean this does not authorize any condemnation.
Mr. Oliver: That’s correct.
Mr. Mays: It doesn’t call for it but it sometimes leads to it. I guess that gets me to my
next question. That’s exclusive, then, of the property that you met with Ms. Ruben about? Or is
that inclusive?
Mr. Oliver: We don’t plan at this time. There is not funding available and we told her
that. There’s not funding available to do anything south of the proposed project at this point. At
some future point, something may be done with that. There have been some concepts thrown
out. She’s indicated that she might like to make an open-air market or something like that, but
she hasn’t decided. She’s also talked about some other things she may like to do with that
property. And I think there are three or four viable approaches as to how that property may be
developed.
Mayor Young: Any further discussion?
Mr. Oliver: No, we’re not talking about acquiring her property.
Mayor Young: All right, all in favor of the motion to approve the concept of the
Augusta Commons project please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk: Item 55A: Award contract to Hobby Construction in the amount of
$1,208,795.00 for construction of the 20" Transmission Line along Hwy. 1/Tobacco Road
(Acct. # 507043410-5425110/89900240-5425110).
Mr. Powell: I move approval.
Page 48
Mr. Oliver: This was something that did not go through Committee.
Mr. Handy: Right. I was going to ask you. I haven’t seen it. How did it get on here?
Mr. Oliver: Well, let me tell you how it got on there. We made a commitment to the
Mayor and Commission and the property owners in that section of the County to have this
project on line by next summer, and in order to do that we got the bids in between the time of the
Committee and the time of this Commission meeting. We were able to do this. This calls for, I
believe it’s about a 180 day completion, which will put us in time to get it done and we would
ask for your approval. It is below bid and all the documents are in order.
Mr. Handy: It should not be on here Mr. Oliver: , you ain’t go through no meeting, you
just hide things. If I hadn’t been looking, you’d probably sneak one through.
Mr. Oliver: No, I wouldn’t.
Mr. Handy: Do a lot better by asking me could it go on there than to do this what you did.
Mr. Oliver: That would have been better than us being two weeks late bringing this
water on board.
Mr. Handy: That’s not unethical. We just passed an Ethics Ordinance.
Mayor Young: We have a motion. I didn’t hear a second.
Mr. Handy: No, you ain’t going to get no second. Not from me, you wont.
Mr. Colclough: I’ll second it.
Mayor Young: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Beard, you wanted to speak?
Mr. Handy: So you’re saying it’s all right to do what you’re doing?
Mayor Young: It’s on the agenda.
Mr. Colclough: Putting a water line out there before next summer, that’s what he’s
saying.
Mr. Handy: So you mean you can do anything illegal whether you want something done
or not, you can just put anything on the agenda, without going through Committee meeting,
that’s what you’re saying?
Mayor Young: There are a number of items on here that do not go through Committee.
Mr. Handy: That ain’t what I’m talking about. We’re talking 55A right now. You’re
Page 49
putting apples and oranges together. We’re talking about 55A. It’s never been through a
Committee, no one talked about it, but yet still it’s on here for us to vote for it today. That’s
what I’m talking about.
Mayor Young: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: You know, while I would approve of this project, but I do think that there is a
problem with this not going before the Committee. We’ve talked about this all this time, about
things being done right and going through the Committees. I would have thought that at some
point in time, someone would have taken the opportunity to put this on the Committee and I
don’t see where two weeks would hurt this, if we’re going to use procedures, but if it doesn’t go
through Committee the next time that I bring something up, I want it to the same way and I want
the same people to vote for it.
Mayor Young: Mr. Beard, would you like to make a substitute motion?
Mr. Beard: I would let somebody else make that motion. I’m not going to do it.
Mr. Handy: I’ll make a substitute motion if you’ll second it.
Mr. Beard: I’ll second it.
Mr. Handy: Cause that’s the way it should be. It shouldn’t have never came
through here like this. I’d like to make a motion to send it back to Committee like it’s
supposed to be done.
Mr. Beard: I’ll second it.
Mayor Young: We have a substitute motion and a second. All in favor of the substitute
motion to send this to Committee, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Powell, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Mays, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Shepard and Mr.
Kuhlke vote no.
Motion fails 3-7.
Mayor Young: That takes us back to the original motion and that is for approval to
award the contract to Hobby Construction. All in favor of the original motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Handy votes no.
Mr. H. Brigham abstains.
Motion carries 8-1-1.
Mr. Handy: It’s going to come back to haunt you now. You remember this. Remember
Page 50
this item, 55A.
Mr. Powell: Mr. Mayor, have we done Item 54? I don’t quite remember.
Clerk: We deleted it.
Mr. Powell: Deleted it?
Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Powell: I’m sorry, I missed that.
Mayor Young: Next item.
Clerk: Item 56: Motion to approve a request by the Augusta Richmond County’s
License & Inspections Department to consider the possible probation, suspension or
revocation of the Sunday sales license of Linda Uhl used in connection with Shannon’s
Food & Spirits located at 300 Shartom Drive for the following violation of the Augusta
Richmond County Alcohol Ordinance Section 6-2-15 Sunday Sales. District 7. Super
District 10. (Accompanying letter from Mr. E. Freddie Sanders regarding an appeal by
Shannon’s Food & Spirits.) (No recommendation Public Services Committee December 13,
1999)
Mayor Young: Mr. Walker, would you address this and give us your recommendation,
please?
Mr. Walker: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Back in I believe it was May, we had audited
Shannon’s and brought it before the Commission. They had 21% total sales, well, it’s
recommended, the Ordinance states here 50% food sales for Sunday sales. Y’all put, Shannon’s
was put on probation and we were instructed to come back in early December to make this
meeting, and I think we went and audited in November. In November, the audit showed that
they were 38% of the total food, beverage sale was 38% of alcohol, and this was a 17% increase
but still well below the 50%, so we brought it back with the recommendation. They’ve been on
probation once.
Mayor Young: What is your recommendation?
Mr. Walker: We recommend that they not be able to have Sunday sales.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I’ve talked with Ms. Uhl out at Shannon’s and I’ve talked with Mr.
Walker and the Sheriff’s Department. I’d like to recommend that we extend the probation
Page 51
for six more months. She has indicated to me that within that period of time that she feels
like she can get back up to the 50% requirement. It’s not uncustomary for us to do this.
She’s in my District and my colleague that represents that District, he may want to speak to
it. But I would like to make a motion that we extend the probation for six months.
Mr. Powell: Second.
Mayor Young: Motion and second.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I want to make a substitute motion. I represent the
District that it’s in. I want to deny it. It has never approached 50% in sales any time it’s
ever been audited anywhere along the way. And this violates State law and County law.
And it’s Sunday sales. And the people that always vote against Sunday sales need to take
that into consideration, too.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Brigham, I’ll second it.
Mayor Young: All right. Motion and substitute motion. All right, Mr. Sanders, would
you like to address the group?
Mr. Sanders: I would, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Young: Please give us your name and address for the record.
Mr. Sanders: Freddie Sanders, Suite 1500, First Union Bank Building. Let me give the
Commissioners, if you will, a little background of where Shannon’s is right now. They were, on
July 6, 1999, you did place them on probation because they were audited and their Sunday sales
was 21%, and the order, or at that time the probation told her to try to get her sales up and that
you would come back in December and audit her again. And she immediately went to work and
did everything, including changing her menu, promoting her menu. She went online with her
menu, she started pushing food sales. And I’m not being critical of Mr. Walker, but when you’re
trying to get your food sales up, every month makes a difference. Every day makes a difference.
And this is a good business lady. She runs a good establishment. She’s never had a complaint.
She’s never had the Sheriff’s Department to have to come up there and do anything for her, and
she’s been in business all of her life up there. So she went to work. Every day was very critical.
But instead of waiting until December, they went in November and audited her, which was for
the time period, before November. And they audited her and it was up to 38% and it was going
up. It was right at 40%. Now she continued to keep her figures. She is now at 50%. Now they
have never questioned her bookkeeping method. They have complimented her on the way she
keeps books. They have gone over her books one end to the other, she pays her taxes, there’s
never been a complaint, and she took the figures back down to the License Department to show
them that she was now at 50%, and they wouldn’t accept it, and they wouldn’t look at it, and
they wouldn’t let her submit those. But if you go by the probation that she was placed on, today
she qualifies as 50% of her food sales. In fact, she was $100 more in food sales than she was in
alcohol. Now Mr. Walker, and I’m not being critical of him, he’s doing his job, I understand.
Page 52
But he will tell you, because I have asked him, if he audits a place and they’re at 40%, 45%, he
doesn’t do anything. If they are that close, he gives them a chance and he doesn’t try to take
their Sunday sales license. The timing, I guess, or whatever they decided to audit her early and
they wouldn’t come back in December. But I’ve got the figures. She’s got her sheets from the
accountant and she is at 50% and she qualifies right now. And again, this lady has not had–the
Sheriff’s here and you can talk to them. If everybody in Richmond County ran their business
like this lady, you wouldn’t need a vice squad and you wouldn’t need anybody to police liquor
establishments. She runs a good establishment. But be that as it may, I think she qualifies to be
given a license today. But I know the concern. I know Mr. Brigham’s concern. I know your
concern. We would live with and we ask you and we would accept if you would still keep her on
probation, although she qualifies, she’s willing to stay on probation for another six months and
let them come back and audit her again. And if she’s still not up to 50%, take whatever action is
.
necessaryBut by the penalty that was handed out to Ms. Uhl in July, she has complied with
what you asked her to do. She has done everything you’ve asked her to do and more. She’s at
50% and she’s going to stay at 50%. And she qualifies more than probably half of these places in
Richmond County. I’m not going to debate the law cause you know what the places are. But
there’s a lot of places out there that’s got potato chip stands. She’s got a full-service kitchen.
She’s got a full-time cook. She qualifies as a restaurant as much as Red Lobster or anybody else
out there and I invite you to go up there and look at it. So all I’m saying is, gentlemen, you are
looking at a good business woman in Richmond County. She’s been a supporter of this
community for years, and it’s unfair, now that she’s done what you asked her to do, to take her
license. So we’ll live with, if you will, if you want to keep her on probation, we’ll live with that
and just come back in six months and look at it again. Thank you.
Mayor Young: Mr. Powell?
Mr. Powell: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to hear from the officer from the Sheriff’s Department to
see if they’ve had any complaints up there, not to dispute Mr. Sanders’ word, but the last lawyer
that got up here told me everybody standing up over there lived in the neighborhood.
Mr. Speaker: You want to know about complaints?
Mr. Powell: Yes, sir. Have you had any problems up there?
Mr. Speaker: No, sir, I’ve never had a complaint up there. I’ve never had any problems
there since I’ve been with the Sheriff’s Department in ‘96.
Mr. Powell: Thank you.
Mayor Young: Any discussion? Let’s go here and here and around the table.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Walker, is that, is it true that you did your audit a little early?
Mr. Walker: To meet the requirements to get it before the Committee, we’re selling the
alcohol licenses in December, the first of December after you approve them, we had to do the
Page 53
audit in November and we covered eight months. From March to October. 38% at that time.
We did not check November but we couldn’t have gotten it. One month.
Mr. Bridges: Have you seen anything that would indicate that in December she is now at
50%?
Mr. Walker: No, I haven’t.
Mr. Sanders: [inaudible]
Mr. Walker: November, probably. The average was still 38%. 38-plus.
Mayor Young: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: My question is to the audit, too, Mr. Mayor and Stewart. Do you go over
her figures or do you actually make a recomputation of that percentage yourself?
Mr. Walker: You have to ask Mr. [inaudible]. He does the audit but he goes over her
papers.
Mr. Shepard: How do we do that audit, is what I’m asking.
Mr. Speaker: Go over the daily sales figures, as well as what she reported on her returns.
Mr. Shepard: So we look at her spreadsheets, then; is that right?
Mr. Speaker: We look at what she reported on them.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mayor Young: Mr. Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. [inaudible], in the original audit you went back three years?
Mr. Speaker: I went from January ‘97 through February ‘99 on the first audit.
Mr. J. Brigham: Two years. Was anytime in those two years sales were above 50%?
Mr. Speaker: No.
Mr. J. Brigham: On a daily basis, was sales over 50%.
Mr. Speaker: Not that I can remember.
Mr. J. Brigham: That you can remember? But I know for each month, the average, the
Page 54
State law says the average has got to be over 50%, I do believe. Isn’t that right, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: 50% on an annual basis.
Mr. J. Brigham: On an annual basis? I think she’s already had two extensions.
Mr. Stewart: For six months, tried. [inaudible]. A few more days sometimes will help
them.
Mayor Young: Okay. We have a substitute motion on the floor. All in favor of the
substitute motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion.)
Mr. Shepard, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Handy, Mr. Beard, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Powell, Mr. H.
Brigham and Mr. Mays vote no.
Motion fails 2-8.
Mayor Young: And our original motion is for continuing for six months.
Mr. Handy: That’s what Kuhlke said?
Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mayor Young: All in favor of the original motion for a six-month probationary period.
Mr. Handy: Kuhlke amendment.
Mr. Powell: That was to extend the probation period; right?
Clerk: Yes. Six months.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Bridges vote no.
Motion carries 8-2.
Clerk: Do we have any other business? Item 58: Other Business - Attorney.
Mr. Wall: Just request for legal meeting to discuss some demands that have been made
against the City concerning the Celebration 2000, two personnel matters, and that’s really all.
Maybe a brief update on some pending litigation.
Mr. Shepard: I move we go into legal meeting, Mr. Mayor, for the purposes stated
by the lawyer.
Mr. Handy: Second.
Page 55
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, what happened to 57A?
Mayor Young: We’re going to come back to that.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mayor Young: Any objection?
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Beard: We already did 57.
Mayor Young: We’re coming back to it.
Clerk: 57A.
Mr. Beard: 57A, okay.
Mayor Young: We’re coming back to it.
(LEGAL MEETING 4:45 - 5:23 P.M.)
Clerk: Item 59: Motion to approve authorization for Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia’s Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mayor Young: Any opposition?
Motion carries 10-0.
A motion to approve settlement of
Mr. Wall: If we could add one item to the agenda.
the claim of Rita Becton for the sum of $50,000 and ask that that be added to the agenda.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I move that we add it and approve it.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mayor Young: Motion to add and approve. Is there any objection?
Mr. Shepard: Let the record show that I abstained due to the fact that I have a client who
may potentially benefit from any settlement and therefore I’m not going to participate in the
adding or the voting.
Page 56
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let the record show that I abstain due to the fact that that person
is a client of mine as well.
Mayor Young: Is there any objection to adding and approving this item?
Mr. Shepard and Mr. Mays abstain.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mayor Young: Next item.
Clerk: Item 57A: Consider approval of the Augusta Richmond County proposed
2000 Budget.
Ordinance regarding utility fees.
Ordinance regarding solid waste fees.
Ordinance regarding animal control.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Gentlemen, just one moment before we get into this. This could be a
very long night, so I just would like to remind you the Commission of one of our rules, and that’s
Rule 2.02, which limits discussion of any particular issue by any particular Commissioner to two
minutes. We’ve been very liberal with our enforcement of the two minute rule, but I would ask
you, with the amount of work that we’re going to undertake here, that if we could abide by the
two minute rule or close to it, that would be appreciated by all those here. I thank you very
much.
Mr. Handy: Give me that Rule again, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Young: 2.02.
Mr. Handy: 2.02.
Mayor Young: 2.02. All right.
Mr. Oliver: I would like to abide by that rule, also.
Mayor Young: All right, Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to propose a motion in regards to our budget for
next year, and my motion is that we adopt the budget that was originally proposed by the
Administrator, excluding any of the recommendations in regards to the efficiency study.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Page 57
Mr. Powell: He’s getting a head start to get out of here.
Mayor Young: Now, Mr. Henry Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: I want to ask a question. In the absence of an Attorney, can we carry on.
Can you–
Mr. Shepard: I think I’d have a conflict, Mr. Brigham, being the lawyer and the
Commissioner, but I appreciate the courtesy.
Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, can we operate without an Attorney?
Mayor Young: I don’t know. Is there some legal requirement we have a lawyer here or
not?
Mr. Handy: Ms. Bonner ought to be able to answer that.
Mr. Oliver: She knows where some things are that Mr. Wall and I don’t.
Mr. Powell: She might know about a lot of things you and Mr. Wall don’t.
Mayor Young: That’s a good question, but the Chair will rule. We can continue without
the Attorney.
Mr. Bridges: Once again, I made this suggestion before, I know we’ve got a motion on
the floor and hopefully before we have a substitute motion we can decide what we want to do
with this list that we’ve got. And I’d recommend we just go down the list and vote yea or nay
and go from there and maybe live with what we’re left with.
Mr. Oliver: I passed out the list that is on the screen, to each one of you gentlemen,
which involves the items that if you put on the table and took off the table yesterday, and the first
column was the potentials that were there, the second column is the column I entitled Cuts for
Further Consideration, and that was what the consensus was yesterday, and then I put a third
column there called Approved Amounts. This is set up in a spreadsheet fashion so anything that
the majority of you wish to cut, it will automatically total.
Mayor Young: We have a motion on the floor. The motion that prevails that would
[inaudible] the necessity to go through the list, so why don’t we just go ahead and take a vote on
the original motion that is on the floor and move forward from there?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: If I might, I’d like to ask for a roll call vote for the votes on the floor.
Page 58
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I’d make a substitute motion that we go down the list and
vote yea or nay and whatever’s on this list and whatever motion is made by each line we
live with as a budget.
Mayor Young: Is there a second? There is no second. Madame Clerk, if you’ll call the
roll, we’ll vote on the original motion.
Clerk: The original motion is to adopt the original budget as proposed by the
Administrator excluding any recommendations on the efficiency study.
(Roll call vote)
Mr. Beard - Abstain.
Mr. Bridges - Yes.
Mr. H. Brigham - Abstain.
Mr. J. Brigham - Yes.
Mr. Colclough- No.
Mr. Handy - No.
Mr. Kuhlke - Yes.
Mr. Mays - No.
Mr. Powell - Yes.
Mr. Shepard - Yes.
Motion fails 5-3-2.
Mayor Young: All right, let’s move to our list of items. Let me just make an inquiry of
the Administrator as we go through this process. What are we trying to get to?
Mr. Oliver: Well, I think there are two issues before the Commission. One is there has
been some sentiment to fund other activities, things that have been specifically mentioned or to
increase additional funding for indigent care. There’s also been consideration given to fund
court security, and in addition to that, an additional administrative position at the senior level.
We also need to close the gap for the $102,000 as it relates to pay increases and I think another
Commissioner brought up the possibility of increasing the funding for Augusta Tomorrow by
about $33,000. And I think there are two questions here. One becomes the, if the sentiment is
the milage rate is to remain the same, which my understanding is that’s the case, then for us to be
able to add dollars on the other side, we have to make cuts on one side to give dollars to the
other. So you’ve got one question of where you would like to cut and then there becomes a
question of how you are going to reappropriate any dollars that you may cut in other areas.
Mayor Young: Let’s get started.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, could I ask the Administrator?
Mayor Young: Sure.
Page 59
Mr. Beard: Also, this is for information. There are some management recommendations,
and I would like to know if we accept those recommendations, and when we get to the point of
the budget, would those recommendations be a part of the budget?
Mr. Oliver: Everything is on the table, Mr. Beard. I think that was how it was left with
the Mayor and Commission and if there are things that the Mayor and Commission would like to
do different than in the budget, I would suggest those items just be brought up.
Mr. Beard: So those items would be brought up after–
Mr. Oliver: I think those items would be, it would be easier to address them in the
financial aspect.
Mr. Beard: Okay.
Mayor Young: Mr. Oliver, if you want to start with the first item and then we’ll see by a
show of hands.
Mr. Oliver: The first item has to do with the Housing Authority and $2,400, and Mr.
Beck has indicated that this is not something he believes, I mean it’s not financially significant,
but he does not believe would be an impairment in any way. We do certain things for them and
they do certain things for us.
Mayor Young: All right, so if you’re in favor of making that cut, raise your hand.
Mr. Kuhlke: Can I ask a question of the Administrator?
Mayor Young: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Oliver, it’s been said to me that the appropriation we had last year was
never picked up.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Beck, I believe, can answer that better. That was my understanding
also.
Mr. Beck: That $2,400 has been in the budget for three or four years and has never been–
to be honest with you, I’m not really sure why it was ever put in there. It’s never been asked for
by the Housing Authority. They have programs they grant to us. So I believe this [inaudible].
Mr. Oliver: I was going to record the numbers out to the side if that’s okay.
Mayor Young: Well, you might need to use the lights. If you’re in favor of making this
cut, push your green light.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Page 60
Mayor Young: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: Just a point of clarification. I don’t mind making decisions on the line item,
but in the motion that was made, are we discussing a moot issue or is this a vote to tally for the
budget, because there was a motion and an attempted substitute motion which didn’t receive a
second that we would vote on the line items. Now if we’re voting on the line items, I guess I’m
asking the question, are we in order to do that, because that, because the motion–
Mayor Young: Yes, sir, Mr. Mays, if the main motion passed, this list would be moot.
So we dealt with the main motion and now we’re going down the main list. It would have been
futile to go through the list and then go back to the main motion.
Mr. Mays: But I mean there was a motion that was germane to voting on this that never
had a second, that died.
Mayor Young: Well, we’re going down the list now to give you a chance to vote on
each item, not vote on the list up or down in its entirety but just to give an expression on each
item.
Mr. Mays: That basically answers my question. We’re not then doing a tally to do a
completion on the budget? We’re basically going through, to further do a check off on what
we’re doing.
Mayor Young: [inaudible] more money to add.
Mr. Mays: Okay, what I’m interested in, cause I know when we get down, regardless of
these small items, we’re still going to have to debate up or down. Whether we’re putting
anything in addition to indigent care or not, and that’s the biggie, and what I’m saying is I don’t
want to get us to a point that when we’ve gone through these, we say okay, fine, hit the adding
machine, this is our 2000 Budget. We’re not going that route, are we?
Mayor Young: No, sir. No, you’re not. You’re not doing that at all.
Mr. Mays: Okay, we’re in agreement. No problem.
Mayor Young: So we need to push a green light if you want to take the $2,400 for the
Augusta Housing Authority off the list.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, these are in essence straw votes, is that correct? There’s no
motion.
Mayor Young: No, these are straw votes.
Mr. Powell: It’s not an official action?
Page 61
Mr. Oliver: You will have to formally adopt the Budget once we get finished, and when
we get done, there may be more money than you wish to cut or there may not be enough and you
may want to do some additional things, but it will give an indication, I think.
Mayor Young: Yesterday we went over the list by consensus. Today we need to go
through by each item to see how much money we’ve got.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, me and Mr. Oliver, we promised, we argued on it the other item,
but I disagree a little bit. We do not necessarily have to reach a consensus that that’s what we’re
going to add up to. We may reach a consensus that those things on the table of how we feel, but
to say we’re going to reach a total when we finish out of what we are doing is not necessarily
true. I still believe there has to be separate vote and motion to deal with that.
Mr. Oliver: I agree. All this is is an indication of things that can be–
Mr. Mays: Well, let’s keep the language pure.
Mayor Young: All right, Mr. Mays, the point is if you want to raise more money to put
into indigent care, this is how we’re going to identify where some of the money is. That’s what
we’re trying to do right now.
Mayor Young: I have no problem with that, Mr. Mayor. If you want to cut $2,400 out
of the budget that has been going to the Housing Authority, push the green light.
Mr. Oliver: I come up with two people did not vote on that one? Eight to two?
Clerk: Eight to two.
Mr. Beard and Mr. J. Brigham vote no.
Vote carries 8-2
. Mayor Young: And now we move to the next item, Augusta Tomorrow.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Yes, sir?
Mr. Kuhlke: I would like to, this is taking Augusta Tomorrow to zero?
Mayor Young: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kuhlke: And I’d like to propose that Augusta Tomorrow go back to $44,000 as they
were in the budget last year. This is an organization that has made tremendous contribution to
this community, not just to downtown, but to south Augusta, through Greater Augusta Progress.
Page 62
They are the visionaries that have come up with the ideas with what we’ve got downtown. They
make a significant contribution themselves to this organization, and I think the perception of this
government being involved in a public-private partnership is very important. So I’d like to make
that recommendation.
Mayor Young: You’d like to recommend that Augusta Tomorrow, instead of being
taken out, be increased to $44,000?
Mr. Kuhlke: See what happens.
Mayor Young: All right, we’ll see what happens. All in favor of increasing Augusta
Tomorrow to $44,000 please vote by pushing your green light.
Mr. Beard and Mr. J. Brigham vote no.
Vote carries 8-2.
Mr. Oliver: Eight to two, and that will be reflected as an additional expenditure of
$33,000.
Mr. Kuhlke: Well, Mr. Oliver: , I read that as what your recommendation is, is you
were cutting them to $11,000 you had in there as the out.
Mr. Oliver: No, what that shows, Mr. Kuhlke, is that there is $11,000 based on the base
budget that was on the table remaining to be cut.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay.
Mr. Oliver: The negative sign indicates that we will add back $33,000 to bring them to a
total of $44,000, but it means that there are additional cuts that have to be made up till we get
back to zero.
Mr. Kuhlke: I got you.
Mayor Young: The next item is Historic Augusta. If you would like to take out Historic
Augusta, push your green button. We’ve already had public hearings on the budget, we’ve had
three opportunities for the public to come in and speak on the budget. We’ll be here all night if
we let everybody get up and talk. If you want to take Historic Augusta out, push your green
button.
Mr. Oliver: I’m curious, being an accountant. I like to see my numbers add. Mr. Mays
and Mr. Brigham?
Mr. Colclough votes no.
Vote carries 9-1.
Page 63
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Yes, sir?
Mr. Shepard: If there are no changes, does that just carry forward to a zero position, Mr.
Oliver: ?
Mr. Oliver: Yes, sir. I will make no change.
Mayor Young: All right, Georgia Golf Hall of Fame. If you’d like to take out the
$68,000 from the Georgia Golf Hall of Fame, push your green button.
Mr. Oliver: I think we’re missing a few.
Clerk: Five-five.
Mr. Oliver: It’s five-five, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Young: Take it out.
Vote carries 6-5.
Mr. Oliver: The Summer Youth Employment Program. That is within the
administration building. That’s the youth that are appointed by you gentlemen or through
counselors or things like that that Mr. Hornsby works with.
Mayor Young: If you want to take the money out, we need a green light.
Vote fails 5-6.
Mr. Oliver: Paine College.
Mayor Young: If you want to take out the Paine College Summer Youth Program, we
need a green light.
Vote fails.
Mr. Oliver: So I will put no action there, is that a fair statement?
Mr. Bridges: That’s fair.
Mr. Oliver: This one was already taken care of earlier today.
Mr. Handy: Which one is that?
Page 64
Mr. Oliver: That’s $102,000 for the $50 Christmas bonus.
Mr. Handy: Okay.
Mayor Young: All right, the Mayor’s Contingency. If you want to take it out, green
light.
Vote fails 3-2-5.
Mayor Young: Commission Other. If you want to take out the Commission Other, let’s
have a green light.
Vote fails 4-5-1.
Mr. Oliver: Okay, the one is the utility transfer to the General Fund. As I told you, we
are permitted to transfer up to a million dollars in excess of pilot payments, pilot payment
franchise fees and fee for services.
Vote fails 10-0.
Mayor Young: If you want to transfer $1 million out of the water fund next year—
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I would like to suggest, I wouldn’t like to see a million dollars taken out of
there, but I would like to see $200,000 taken out. Could we–
Mr. Powell: Let’s try the million first.
Mayor Young: Let’s do this. We’ve got a million on the table. Let’s vote on a million
first. And then if someone would like to offer another number, we’ll vote on another number.
Let’s do that.
Mr. Beard: Okay.
Mr. Oliver: I do want to clarify what I mentioned to Mr. Powell yesterday. We’re
taking out the cost allocation for payroll and things yesterday. It’s $538,000. That’s for doing
payroll, accounting and all that type thing, and these are fees and services that they would incur.
In addition to that, they’re paying payment [inaudible] taxes based on property tax, just as
Georgia Power, and the 3% franchise fee on all gross revenues, just as Georgia Power.
Mr. Powell: Could I ask a question, Mr. Mayor? Is this going to–if we take this out, is
that going to make us up to raise rates?
Page 65
Mr. Oliver: One of two things. Either–
Mr. Powell: We got to put it in a question form.
Mr. Oliver: Okay, the one of two things that happen, either Mr. Hicks would have to
reduce his capital projects that he’s doing, if there was money put in there. Or you would need
to raise rates if Mr. Hicks’ original projects that he’s anticipated aren’t going to be done.
Mayor Young: So the question is, do we take a million dollars out of the water? If
you’re in favor of doing that, we need a green light.
Vote fails 10-0.
Mayor Young: Mr. Beard, you wanted to–
Mr. Beard: A portion of it.
Mayor Young: Mr. Beard has asked that we take $200,000 out of the water. Let’s see
how y’all react to that. Green light if you want to take $200,000 out of the water.
Mr. Bridges, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Handy, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Powell, Mr. Shepard and Mr.
Colclough vote no.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Vote fails 2-7-1.
Mr. Oliver: To fund an additional position Deputy Administrator. That cost is our
estimate for salary and benefits.
Mayor Young: If you want to add this position, at an estimated $100,000, we need a
green light.
Mr. Beard and Mr. Mays abstain.
Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Handy and Mr. Colclough vote no.
Vote fails 5-3-2.
Mr. Oliver: No action. Move retiree insurance cost to the pension plan.
Mayor Young: If you want to move the cost of the insurance for the retirees to the
pension plan, then you push your yes button.
Mr. H. Brigham and Mr. Colclough abstain.
Mr. Handy, Mr. Mays, Mr. Powell and Mr. Shepard vote no.
Vote fails 4-4-2.
Page 66
Mr. Oliver: And I will record then as a no action vote.
Mayor Young: Next is the increase the franchise fee of utilities by $600,000.
Mr. Oliver: And if you increase the franchise fee in the utilities, that would increase the
rates but would not in fact be capital projects that they would be doing.
Mayor Young: It would be a pass-through.
Mr. Oliver: It would be a pass-through, that’s correct.
Mayor Young: If you’re in favor of increasing the franchise fee in the utilities, then we
need a green light.
Mr. H. Brigham abstains.
Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Handy, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Powell, Mr. Bridges and Mr. Shepard vote no.
Vote fails 3-6-1.
Mr. Oliver: It’s 3-6-1 to not do anything with it.
Mayor Young: To reduce the alcohol tax to the Coliseum Authority. If you’re in favor
of that, green light.
Mr. Handy: Reduce how much?
Mr. Oliver: $65,000. This is money that we’re not legally obligated to provide.
Mr. Handy: We’ve been trying to get that a long time.
Mr. Oliver: We’ve been phasing it out over the last few years.
Mr. Mays and Mr. Colclough vote no.
Vote carries 8-2.
Mayor Young: The next item is the Character First Training.
Mr. Oliver: No, the next item, and that’s my fault, it has to do with the [inaudible]. As I
mentioned earlier, I mentioned this to Mr. Mays, this is–we have done the investigation
regarding what the source of this money was. These are deposits from sales tax collections that
were in advance of the utilization. This would effectively be a reduction in reserves.
Mr. Shepard: How much is it? We don’t have a sheet.
Mr. Oliver: And the–I’m sorry. Let me go back. I’m ahead of myself. Character
Training First is next at $12,500.
Page 67
Mayor Young: $12,500 for Character Training. If you’d like to take that out, we need a
green light.
Mr. Handy abstains.
Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Mays and Mr. Shepard vote no.
Vote fails 4-5-1.
Mr. Oliver: That’s recorded as a no action vote.
Mayor Young: Next item is DFACS - food stamps. $59,061. Pull this out, then please
vote with the green light.
Mr. Beard, Mr. Handy and Mr. Powell vote no.
Vote carries 6-4.
Mr. Handy: May I ask what that money is used for?
Mr. Oliver: That money is used as it’s been represented to us for distribution of food
stamps.
Mr. Handy: So why are you taking you out? Food stamps are not going anyplace.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Wall has researched it and he believes that federal and state law provides
for them to fund it. My understanding is there was a gentleman’s agreement reached several
years ago which was not in writing that there was some way that local government would
subsidize that and I can’t speak to that agreement, but there is no written documentation.
Mr. Handy: Okay. If no written documentation, take it out.
(End of tape two)
(Beginning of tape three)
Mayor Young: If you want to add the money back in, then we’ll do that. Green light to
add in $300,000 for building security.
Mr. Handy: How did you come up with $300,000? May I ask?
Mr. Oliver: That was a number that was offered us by–
Mr. Shepard: I’ll tell you how I did that, Mr. Handy. In your absence. There was a
study that, not a formal study in the sense of efficiency study, but there was an in-house working
group which consisted of the Sheriff and the Marshal. They went around and surveyed
Columbus, Athens, Savannah. Those are the cheapest, doing one building, the cheapest doing
one building was $150,000 apiece. We’ve got two buildings so I ball parked it at $300,000.
Page 68
Mr. Handy: Okay. That’s good enough.
Mr. Beard, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Colclough and Mr. Handy vote no.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Vote fails 5-4-1.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I guess I felt like Mr. Beard. If we maybe could throw another
figure to put out there of looking at it. Since we’ve not made firm decisions on where we’re
going and who is going to be what building, but I don’t think we ought to just dismiss it, but I
hate to see it whacked off at the $300,000 mark.
Mayor Young: Would you like to offer a suggestion?
Mr. Mays: I’d offer it at the $150,000 mark to throw out, just some numbers in there for
study purposes. Then we can play with this and go through this line with it.
Mayor Young: All right, let’s do that.
Mr. Oliver: I want to mention one thing, and I may be telling you the obvious. But if
you fund $150,000 or whatever number and it represents a half-a-year cost, you have to fund
double that amount next year and under the Governor’s roll-back milage on reassessment, that’s
going to be next to impossible, without either doing further budgetary cuts or increasing the
mileage rate.
Mayor Young: So we have–yes, sir, Mr. Powell?
Mr. Powell: I have one question while we’re haggling over this building security. With
us having $10 million that’s already been collected for this building to be refurbished, we
couldn’t take the capital out of that?
Mr. Oliver: We can use that for capital. What we can’t do is, and I talked with Mr. Wall
about that, however we can’t use if for operating costs, for officers or private security that are
going to actually man those facilities. You can use it for the metal detector and the x-ray
machine.
Mr. Powell: So this is just for the staffing?
Mr. Oliver: That’s correct.
Mayor Young: So we’re at $150,000 add in for building security. If you’re in favor of
that figure, $150,000, give us the green light.
Mr. Beard, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Handy and Mr. Kuhlke vote no.
Vote carries 6-4.
Page 69
Mr. Oliver: 6-4 to add $150,000 for building security.
Mayor Young: Now we’re back to the LINK deposits.
Mr. Oliver: We’re back to the LINK deposit. As I previously mentioned, these were
sales tax collections that were put in a bank at a reduced interest rate to entice the bank to make
loans that they potentially would not make. What this is, is it would be a vote to reduce the
County’s reserve fund. If you reduce the County’s reserve fund, it would reduce it from 71 days
to about 60 days. And 60 days is the absolute minimum that you could possibly do, and I
recommend against it.
Mayor Young: Mr. Oliver, what did our auditors recommend in the audit we just
received?
Mr. Oliver: They felt like that our reserve was at an appropriate level. They felt that
based on what they saw as trend may go down a little bit, but in their opinion 60 days was the
absolute minimum that we should have, and I talked with Mr. Plowman just before this meeting,
and he expressed the same concerns that I expressed as it relates to reducing our level of reserve.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Two things, I guess I need some clarification on. Number one would be, I still
say it was brought to our attention last night or the night before, I’ve been over here so long I
don’t which night, that there was $2 million set aside for minority loans or small business loans
or whatever you want to call it, right? But that–
Mr. Oliver: I think the figure was $2.5 million.
Mr. Beard: Whatever it is. And am I to understand that that was lumped in with the
reserve that we have?
Mr. Oliver: No, what was done was there was, there was money, and I don’t know the
economic conditions in the year, but as I understand it from Mr. Collins, that this money was
provided to financial institutions who would provide what I call bridge financing to companies
doing business with the County.
Mr. Beard: But that was co-mingled with the other reserve that we had?
Mr. Oliver: No, co-mingled wouldn’t be the proper term. What this would be would be
a restricted reserve. In other words, we took our General Fund reserves and we took a portion of
the General Fund reserve and took it out for a restricted purpose, but the only time that it would
represent an economic loss to us would be if one of those loans was not paid back. That,
obviously, did not happen.
Page 70
Mr. Beard: Well, if there was $2.5 million, then what about interest that accumulated on
that?
Mr. Oliver: Sales tax money and it goes back into reappropriation for sales tax projects.
We estimate both on the sales tax side as well as the General Fund side what we anticipate to get
in in interest earnings as part of the budgetary process.
Mayor Young: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Oliver: , this money had been accounted for, it was just a
part of it was pledged for this purpose? Isn’t that correct?
Mr. Oliver: That’s exactly correct.
Mr. Shepard: And so we have always counted it in reserves. It’s not like we found $2.5
million that we didn’t know we had. We just no longer have the encumbrance on this $2.5
million that we thought we had?
Mr. Oliver: That’s correct. It’s very similar to someone guaranteeing a loan for another
party and there’s not an issue unless the party doesn’t pay.
Mr. Shepard: And putting up a CD?
Mr. Oliver: That’s correct. Pledge.
Mr. Beard: My other question would how informed has this been to the public, because I
know I didn’t know about it and maybe that’s just my own fault of not being that conscious of it.
But if it’s there for the public, shouldn’t it be some way of making this known?
Mr. Oliver: What it was, and Mr. Mays probably knows much more about this than I do,
but as I understand it, the program was set up for people that were going to do business with
Augusta Richmond County.
Mr. Handy: County, Mr. Oliver: , that was County. That was brought off with the
County.
Mr. Oliver: I’m sorry, County. Correct me, Mr. Handy. And that if they got a $50,000
contract with the County and they needed $10,000 or $20,000 or $30,000 in money to buy
materials to perform work and that type thing, they could go to the bank, obtain those funds at a
reduced rate, and then the County would repay the bank as part of the completion of the project.
That’s my understanding. The EEO officer talked to me this morning. She expressed some
concern about dismantling this program. She hopes to use, she hopes to use it or make it more
active and she could speak better in that regard than I can.
Page 71
Mayor Young: Any other questions?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I’m going to hustle my 120 seconds up right quick. We had
a very cordial exchange, Mr. Oliver and myself, and we discussed a lot of numbers last night.
But I went home last night, and one reason I probably couldn’t vote for a budget tonight is I went
home last night with a different game plan on looking at numbers based on what I left this room
of being told. You see, when the conversation started out, Mr. Handy, I brought up the fact that
this was sales tax money and I what I wanted to look at was the possibility of creative financing
of looking at offsetting sales tax projects where we’ve done before, such as the museum
[inaudible]. We’ve done that. We’ve done it before. However, it was stated last night, and
that’s no problem, that’s a lot of numbers, but I was directed it wasn’t sales tax money, that it
was General Fund reserve. So instead of a General Fund reserve, Mr. Mayor, [inaudible]
because I was going to look at some, not at the whole $2.5 million but looking at a way of
working out of that partially, and a very small portion of it if it was General Fund reserve. Now
I’m back to what I originally said it was when I started arguing about it last night. That it was
sales tax money. No, Mr. Shepard: , it wasn’t ever lost. It was kind of like the people who
discovered America. There was a whole country already over here. We give Columbus credit
for it. That money was put in there out of the old County Commission. Mr. Oliver: is correct.
And we basically never touched it because there was no program, no [inaudible] ordinance
adopted. And as it relates to how they’re going to deal with it in the future, I think that if the
EEO officer really wants to deal with it, then there’s already a [inaudible] study that adopted in
this community and passed and recognized. And anytime she wants to bring that before the
Commission and deal with that in terms of putting that in the form of a small business
ordinance, then we can deal with it on that respect. But right now it’s lying dormant and doing
nothing for anybody at all. And that was my main reason for wanting to go that source because
it was put there in the beginning of the idea of need, based on certain disadvantages. Whether
they be a small business or whether they were minority or whether they were women or just
small businesses period. Trying to do business with this County. Now if we’re going to get back
then, in all fairness, since it’s back like I said it was, do we have anything then that we can look
at maybe that’s over in Water or some place in Public Works where we do deal with sales tax?
Since we’re looking at sales tax figures.
Mr. Oliver: You–
Mr. Mays: I have a problem, not about losing money, Mr. Oliver, of finding it. I know
where that was cause I helped put it over there. It’s hard to lose an old undertaker when it come
to money. I told you last night. I don’t count as fast as you, but give me a little time, I’ll catch
up with you. I know what we put over there. And the only reason that it wasn’t activated was
because we didn’t have a program. But is there no way then that we can look at that on some of
the same things we did, like we did with the museum?
Mr. Oliver: I can answer that in this regard. Yes, Mr. Mays, as long as it’s capital and
it’s on the approved list that was approved by the voters at least in some category, that possibility
exists. I will check and see what may be out there, but I don’t think there is a whole lot.
However, I think there is a bigger consideration. We have certain projects that we have
Page 72
committee as part of our capital improvement plan to complete. If we fund a previous project,
even if it’s deemed eligible, that will mean that certain of those projects we have told the public
that we are going to complete will have to be taken off that list and will not be completed
because those funds are going to be reappropriated to prior projects, and that is a policy decision
you can make. You all can make. And we will look for it. I’ve got some questions about moving
funds from Utilities back and forth and that type thing. I see Mr. Powell smiling, but I’m not
convinced that we can do that, but if that’s an option y’all want me to explore, I will, but I want
everyone to understand that the projects that we have committed as part of our capital program,
if you wanted to move for example, $2.5 million to other capital projects assuming they’re there
and eligible, and I’m not convinced they are, it would take away $2.5 million in projects that we
had previously committed to do.
Mr. Mays: Two things, Mr. Mayor. The original intention of this Commission was
never to deal, 1, with that whole figure regardless of where the money was being housed or the
source, even though this Commissioner knew the source of it. And I so stated that when I
opened last night. But I think it’s somewhat a semi-falsehood that if we are now playing this
game about reserves, if it is sales tax money that is being housed and being shown as a true
reserve, then you’re right, it is restricted because it’s on a limit, you can’t deal with it anyway.
So if that’s what we’re basing our hopes on, is on restricted reserves to get us through, then you
know, that points to a whole other problem altogether. If that’s the case. And I’m through with
that.
Mayor Young: Any further discussion? Let’s go ahead and vote on this item. This is
$2.5 million. If you want to take that out, press the green light.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Yes, sir?
Mr. Bridges: That $2.5 million, you mean you put $2.5 million extra into the budget? Is
that what we’re saying with the green light? What are we saying with the green light?
Mayor Young: We’re going to take that restricted money and make it available for other
purposes in the budget. In other words, take $2.5 million and make it available to spend.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, you’re going to reduce reserves by any amount you vote;
right?
Mayor Young: I believe that’s right.
Mr. Shepard: Is that right, Mr. Oliver? You would reduce–
Mr. Oliver: Unless there are other projects that you’re willing to reprogram into sales
tax, as Mr. Mays has said. However, that will limit our ability to do projects that have been
previously committed to. One or the other.
Page 73
Mr. Beard and Mr. Powell abstain.
Mr. Bridges, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Shepard and Mr. Colclough vote no.
Vote fails 1-5-2.
Mr. Oliver: So the consensus is no action then on that item.
Mayor Young: The next item is the Newman Tennis Center. To increase the fees.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Beck has suggested that he can adjust some of the fees in the spirit of
compromise and reduce expenses. He has some concern about that, but Mr. Beck, is there
anything you’d like to say?
Mr. Beck: That’s right. When we took over Newman two years ago, you remember we
had a $40,000 deficit in the budget. We have been able to reduce that to $30,000 this year, so
our goal, that $11,000, reduce $20,000 next year. And I think we can do that, just as we’ve been
doing by increasing fees [inaudible] volume of service. Because we do feel like some of the fees
that the management study proposed might not be collectible and there’s no sense in putting fee
increases in if we can’t collect the fee. So we feel that through normal operations and the route
we’re going now, we can live with that figure.
Mayor Young: If you go along with that, we need a green light.
Mr. Powell and Mr. Handy out.
Vote carries 8-0.
Mr. Oliver: We will put down he will reduce expenses or increase revenue $11,626.
Mayor Young: All right.
Mr. Oliver: This is to eliminate a position in Human Resources. It was something that
we did not feel with things going on in Human Resources could be considered at this time.
Mayor Young: Take this out, $22,500?
Mr. Bridges: Can I get some more detail on that, Mr. Mayor? Is this the one where we
were creating a trainer or something in that regard?
Mr. Oliver: No, sir, this is an occupied position with the Human Resources Department.
Mr. Beard: This means that that person or that position would be cut and what would
happen to the person in that position?
Mr. Oliver: Under the terms of the retirement plan that the individual is in, if the
position is abolished they would be eligible for early retirement, and in this case it would based
Page 74
upon years of service.
Mr. Beard: So this is the only person in the list here that we’re offering a retirement plan
to?
Mr. Oliver: No, it just happens to be the plan that they’re in and the number of years of
service. You have to remember we have five or six retirement plans.
Mr. Beard: It’s just funny that we select one person out of all these people we talk about,
we select one. That was my point, that we’re going to deal with.
Mr. Beard abstains.
Mr. H. Brigham and Mr. Mays vote no.
Vote fails 5-2-1.
Mr. Oliver: No action on that one.
Mayor Young: The next is increasing the Planning Commission fees. If you want to
increase the Planning Commission fees by $22,560, press the green light, please.
Mr. Handy and Mr. Powell out.
Vote carries 8-0.
Mayor Young: The Tax Commissioner’s office. Savings of $45,500 in the Tax
Commissioner’s office. Does anybody have any questions about that before we vote? Let’s go
ahead and vote then. A green light.
Vote carries 7-1.
Mayor Young: Next is Public Works. Public Works is [inaudible]. Anybody have a
question about that?
Mr. Oliver: We recommend, regardless of how it may come out based on what we
discussed earlier, we believe that there’s clearly $40,000 there that’s easily on the table,
regardless of which way you address that in the future.
Mr. Kuhlke: I have a question. The 497 is a fictitious number, then?
Mr. Oliver: No the 497, as we mentioned in the budget, we believe within Public Works
at this particular point, if there’s a willingness to cut positions, there’s about $160,000 that is
potentially on the table. The 497, that relates to anticipated savings as we discussed yesterday on
grass mowing and street sweeping. We do not believe that the level of service there is an
acceptable one, so we believe if it’s contracted out, we’re going want a higher level of service
and we don’t think at this point that it’s appropriate to quantify a savings amount. We think, you
know, we think we ought to go ahead and do an [inaudible] for street sweeping outside of the
Page 75
City.
Mr. Kuhlke: I guess, Mr. Oliver, my question is, is when you go over that, if it’s voted
on, what figure are you going to put over on the right-hand side? $160,000?
Mr. Oliver: We think that there is the potential for $160,000 but we would note that that
would involve the elimination of four positions.
Mayor Young: Any other questions?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, we’re going to vote at the $497,000 and then have other
numbers as we have in the other categories?
Mayor Young: Let’s go ahead. We’ll try the $497,000. Go ahead. Give us a green
light for the $497,000.
Mr. Beard, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Shepard and Mr. J. Brigham vote no.
Mr. Handy, Mr. Powell, and Mr. H. Brigham out.
Vote fails 3-4.
Mr. Oliver: The next one, and I don’t know, Mr. Mayor and Commission, whether you
want to handle these individually, collectively or what, relate to the Parks & Recreation
Department.
Mayor Young: Why don’t we do this. These are all recommended by the Director.
Let’s take one straight-up vote on these [inaudible] then we’ll take them individually. On the
Recreation for those seven items, if you agree with the cuts, just go ahead and give us a green
light.
Delete Mechanic Shop Operations
Close Eastview Recreation Center (indoor)
Close Hickman Park Recreation Center (indoor)
Close Highland Swimming Pool
Increase Athletics Participation Fees
Increase After School/Summer Day Camp Fees
Blythe Community Center (delay opening)
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, just for information I would like to ask and we’re trying some
experimental things. But on two of those three closings, I know it’s hard to estimate on the pool,
but are we in a take-over, pretty much assured of a take-over situation on Hickman and Eastview
in reference to be in neighborhood association, be in private group or whatever, because what I
don’t want us to get into is a situation of abandonment. And I think we’re going to need to
address the pool situation secondly because that’s what you got there. You can’t really get
somebody to take over a pool. But then what do we with abandoned pools? Also what do we do
with an abandoned park? But I know we’ve got some means to possibly deal with the parks
Page 76
better, but I just think maybe some of the Commissioners maybe need to know that.
Mr. Beck: I took a lot of phone calls, especially on the Hickman Park issue today. Just to
let you know, our intentions are still to keep the summer programs intact. That was one of the
key issues in keeping the summer employment program yesterday because we will still have
summer programs in those, in these facilities also. As to the neighborhood associations, we have
met with both the Associations, it is out on the table for them to decide whether or not to lease
facilities such as Jamestown has done or Sand Ridge has done with Jamestown, so that proposal
is out, too. We have two key programs that we feel like we need to keep going. One at Eastview
and that’s the senior citizens program. And we will keep that intact with part-time staff. That’s
a three-day-a-week program and we intend to keep that program intact with part-time staff.
Hickman Park has an after-school program and we plan on doing the same there, keeping that
program intact until we can get something finalized on those neighborhood associations.
Mr. Oliver: And your numbers are reflective of that?
Mr. Beck: Excuse me?
Mr. Oliver: Your numbers reflect what you say that are up on the screen?
Mr. Beck: Well, the number that are on the screen are to delete the full-time positions and
go into other vacancies.
Mr. Oliver: And it provides for the part-time staff to operate those facilities?
Mr. Beck: Our part-time staff is [inaudible] that we administer throughout the whole
department and we are taking that into consideration. In relation to the Highland Pool there is a
possibility that we could approach the Skateboard Association for utilization of that pool. They
are used for skateboard facilities across the country. That is obviously in the embryo stages
there, as to that discussion, but that is a potential use for the pool area. With new two indoor
pools year-round within a mile’s proximity of that pool, we feel like that that is the prudent thing
to do, to close that pool. There are some other possibilities for that land in the future, and I’m
sure you’ll hear about potential use.
Mr. Handy and Mr. Powell out.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Vote carries 7-1.
Mr. Oliver: As a result of that, we are $260,324 ahead of where we were when we
started the process.
Mayor Young: So in other words, Mr. Oliver, we have $260,000 that we can add back in
to something else?
Mr. Oliver: That’s correct. Now I will say this. You have addressed Augusta Tomorrow
Page 77
as part of this list. You have addressed court security as part of this list. And I think the only
thing that remains to be addressed is the, either the increase, there’s some discussion about
increasing reserves, or Contingency I should say, as well as Indigent Care. And those funds
could be used either to support Indigent Care, increase Contingency, or some combination.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Oliver: , what about the increase in the dog fees?
Mr. Oliver: The fees, as I mentioned last evening, if you all elect to do that, and that’s
your decision, those fees would be proposed to go back solely into Animal Control for two
positions. There would be an increase in staff to provide better service as well as to expand the
neuter program.
Mr. Bridges: Those fees are still in the budget?
Mr. Oliver: No, those fees, all we would do is if you elected not to go forward, we
would strike those two positions in Animal Control. We were very conservative in estimating
those fees because compliance is an issue in that particular area, and they go back totally into
Animal Control. They would not impact what you’re doing here at all. Whether you approved
them or you didn’t approve them, the only person that would be impacted would be Animal
Control.
Mr. Bridges: Well, what I’m saying is in the budget, as it exists now, the balanced
budget that you’ve given us includes those fees.
Mr. Oliver: Well, what I’m saying is–
Mr. Bridges: Is that right?
Mr. Oliver: That is correct. However, if you did not proceed with those fees, we would
simply reduce the positions in Animal Control for the additional positions and it would have no
effect on this particular bottom line.
Mayor Young: Does somebody want to–
Mr. Kuhlke: I’ve got a question.
Mayor Young: Wait. Does somebody want to make motion on what to do with the
$260,000?
Mr. Kuhlke: Well, I’ve got a question. I don’t quite–you had figures up there that you
had a positive vote on. And then you had several that had no action.
Page 78
Mr. Oliver: The no action numbers are not included in this in any way. If you went
back and decided to take some action, then it would change it. If you like, I can re-add with the
no actions items in there. But at this point, you’ve taken action on $260,324.
Mr. Kuhlke: Well, it would appear to me, Mr. Mayor, that until we come to some
consensus on the no action issues, that we’re really not going to know what we’re talking about.
And my suggestion, Mr. Mayor, is I’d like to make a motion, cause I don’t know that we’re
going to get it done today, we’ve lost two Commissioners, that we go into recess and call this
meeting to try to work it out at another time.
Mr. Beard: I second that.
Mr. Powell: When do we want to recess to, Mr. Kuhlke?
Mayor Young: Recess to next Tuesday at 2:00 o’clock.
Mr. Oliver: I asked Mr. Wall this question cause he is the legal person. Mr. Wall
indicates that by State law and County ordinance that we must have a budget adopted by 1/1.
Mr. Beard: We all understand that.
Mr. Oliver: Okay, I just wanted to make it clear.
Mayor Young: Before we go into recess, do any of the Commissioners have any
homework they’d like Mr. Oliver to do with respect to any additional numbers or issues?
Mr. Beard: I’ve got some and I’ll give them to them.
Mr. Oliver: Anything anybody would like, additional information or us to do research
on, we’ll be glad to do it.
Mayor Young: Meeting is on Tuesday at 2:00 o’clock. We’ll resume the meeting here.
Mr. Mays: The item, the sales tax situation, I would like to see if we have any that we can
cris-cross in there.
[MEETING RECESSES]
(Beginning of tape four)
Mr. Kuhlke: ...the budget presented in the last session last week, and that the $260,324
surplus that is shown on that worksheet be added to the Contingency of $500,000.
Mr. Bridges: I’ll second it.
Page 79
Mayor Young: Okay, we have a motion and a second to adopt the budget as stated by
Commissioner Kuhlke. Is there any discussion? Mr. Powell?
Mr. Powell: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a substitute motion that we approve the
budget with the following amendments. Mr. Oliver, I think, has got a copy of some things
there after he gets off the amen corner there. I can be going over it. The additional
expenses of the courthouse security be cut from $150,000 to $125,000. The 1999 additional
compensation remain at $102,000. The University Hospital be increased from $1.25 million
to $2 million. The contingency be reduced from $872,990 down to $500,000. The
additional reductions, the Housing Authority, the Golf Hall of Fame, the Youth
Employment Commission, DFACS, the Tax Commissioner, the Mayor’s Contingency
Fund, I’m going to skip over for now but I’ll bring it back up at the end. Reduce the
alcohol tax to the Coliseum Authority. Increase the Newman Tennis Center’s fees.
Increase the Planning Commission’s fees. Recreation’s proposal of their cuts. Implement
our pay raises 9/1/99. Public Works would be reduced to 82. Clean & Beautiful would be
reduced $10,000. And the retirees’ pension fund would be left alone. Going back to the
Mayor’s Contingency Fund, on the proposal if you’ll see it’s been cut $5,000. What I
would like to do in my motion is move the Mayor’s Contingency Fund into a new account
which would be a promotional account for–all promotional items would have to come
through that account and that account would be regulated by the Commission and it would
take six votes to expedite any funds out of it.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to second that motion and if the maker of the motion
will give his permission, I would like to add to that that Riverwalk come under the–well, first of
all, the recommendations from the Management Study be taken up at a later date and those
Management Studies that are in the basic budget–Riverwalk–remain the same and be under the
Deputy Administrator, and the creation of the Department of Growth, Risk Management remain
the same, and the contract administration be also be deleted from the basic budget.
Mr. Powell: I’ll accept those amendments.
Mayor Young: Let me ask a question for clarification. Mr. Powell, does your motion
include it in the licensing fees for dogs and cats?
Mr. Powell: No, sir, Mr. Oliver has already taken that out of the budget.
Mr. Oliver: That’s up to you all, but yes, I think that’s the intent of Mr. Powell’s motion
that those be taken out.
Mayor Young: Okay.
Mr. Powell: And the budget is balanced.
Mayor Young: We’re on the substitute motion. Any discussion on the substitute
Page 80
motion? Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I’ve got a few questions. The first thing is it was my understanding on the
courthouse security that that particular number was for operations. And there was some
question, some conversation about that coming out of sales tax. That is not the case now. This is
in addition to the budget, right?
Mr. Oliver: Yes, sir. Only capital expenses are eligible for sales tax, and Mr. Wall can
indicate, as it relates, we’ve discussed this, but it’s only intended that the equipment component
of that come out of the sales tax, as that is capital. However, the operational expenses for
courthouse security are clearly not eligible under sales tax and that is an operations expense.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay, my second, if Mr. Oliver could reconcile, where does the $372,999
come from in the revenue section? How are we increasing that?
Mr. Oliver: We are not and I did not scratch that out. The Contingency under Mr.
Shepard’s version would be $622,990. Under Mr. Powell’s version, it would remain at
$500,000.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay, my next question is the implementation of the pay raises. And the
increase in revenue that you are showing there. That is a one-time shot, am I correct?
Mr. Oliver: That is correct.
Mr. Kuhlke: One-time shot.
Mr. Oliver: Both of these versions, it’s a [inaudible] implementation.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. My next question is this, it sounds to me like Mr. Beard is raping
the budget that we got there. Mr. Powell indicated that we’ve got a balanced budget. But I don’t
know exactly what those figures add up to that Mr. Beard has said he would like to delete from
the efficiency study recommendation and bring back at a later time.
Mr. Oliver: The only one that has any financial consequence at all–the others are
organizational changes–the only one that has any financial consequence is the contracts manager
and that would, if it remained that way, result in a slight savings. What’s being proposed in the
budget is that a purchasing technician position be eliminated and a contracts manager be hired, as
was recommended several places. But that does not have a negative budgetary impact.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay.
Mayor Young: Any other questions? Any further discussion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. On the substitute motion, I guess my question would be
directed to Mr. Wall, if I could. One, when we asked the question the other day, some of the
Page 81
Commissioners, in reference to the commitment with DFACS and the food stamp program, what
was done with the [inaudible] and I asked Mr. Oliver the question, but it was said that that
question had been answered, but I want to make sure that when we’re dealing with the inter-
agency groups that the [inaudible] State money or Federal money, and rather than make a
gentleman or gentlemen/lady agreement, that we’re not violating, if not what may be an original
law, may be the spirit of that law. That’s the first question. The second question would be, I’ve
heard and I think most of us know and we want to do what’s legal, and I guess what my question
would be when we talk about what and who we can hire, sales tax, too, to do whatever jobs, what
is the difference and I’ll get to the point after the question is answered. How then did we hire
people under sales tax contractual agreements over in Public Works to coincide with that
program, which has been done for years, and paid out of the sales tax pot of money, in order to
deal with those projects, as to how it relates how we do with projects that might be related to jail
security, and also the $10 million which we have on hand that we didn’t deal with with security
of this building. Cause what I’m looking at, is the increase we’ve had with deputies, we’ve cut
back and we didn’t cut the Marshal’s folks, it would seem to me that there ought to be a
workable way that we could work out of the sales tax money on tap, cause I’m for the security.
But right now I’m for juggling money, too. In a legal way. And I guess I’m asking that for the
difference in how you work some folk contractually in one area, and I think that maybe needs to
be answered in a public way. And also how we deal with [inaudible].
Mr. Wall: Let me deal with the DFACS question first, if I may. There is no contractual
agreement to pay the food stamps, however there is a letter that apparently was mailed out in
December of 1997 to the Chairman of the various Commission, county commissions throughout
the State. I’ve been furnished a copy of that letter by Ms. Johnson with DFACS. And basically
it was a request for an agreement that the County would bear the cost of the electronic benefit
transfers. The EBT for food stamps. But to my knowledge this was never voted on or carried by
the County Commission. There was never any written contract entered into between the counties
and the State. I think that as you described it, a gentleman’s or an agreement between and
gentleman and a gentlewoman to carry out the intent of this. But there has never been, to my
knowledge, a written agreement obligating the County to pay it. It’s been done pursuant to this
and as a gentleman’s agreement. With regard to the second question, as to the [inaudible] funds,
the monies that have been paid out of [inaudible] were for the administration of the projects
during the construction of them. Not for the operation after completion of the construction. And
so obviously there’s going to be inspection, there’s going to be design charges, review process
charges, things of that nature. And because of the increased workload necessitated by the
[inaudible] program, particularly in Public Works, there were contract employees who were paid
out of [inaudible] funds, which was a legitimate charge of the construction of the project, just
like if you had contracted out for an inspection service or an engineering service to oversee it.
However, once they have been completed, and I’m speaking now primarily the recreational
facilities, the operation of those facilities is an operational cost that cannot be paid for out of
[inaudible] funds cause it has to be a capital expense. Insofar as the security system is
concerned, the metal detectors, the cameras, whatever security measures may be imposed, the
installation of that, the new cabling, new wiring, things of that nature are capital costs that can be
paid for with [inaudible] funds, but once they’re in place and you’re paying a security person to
monitor and to check the people as they come through, that is an operational cost that cannot be
Page 82
paid out of [inaudible] funds.
Mr. Mays: Okay, with [inaudible] Recreation, you just made reference to it, but you also
meant, I guess, including what we did in Public Works as well, right?
Mr. Wall: Yes, the reason I skipped to Recreation is because, I mean, we really don’t
have an ongoing operational cost, as I view it, insofar as roads are concerned or drainage, and so
I was trying to get to a facility where you had an operational charge.
Mr. Mays: My only [inaudible], Mr. Mayor, I’m not against what we did in terms of the
contractual agreements out of sales tax with those employees, but I do think it’s safe to say that
obviously those multiple projects and multiple people, because they didn’t just supervise one
project and I think [inaudible] we’ll see [inaudible] payroll for multiple years. And were paid
out of sales tax money. And they were not under Recreation. I’m not knocking that department.
If they were over in Recreation [inaudible]--
Mr. Wall: I didn’t mean to–
Mr. Mays: All right. Just wanted to make sure. It wasn’t over in there.
Mr. Wall: I wasn’t picking on Recreation.
Mr. Mays: It wasn’t over in there. I can pull up and prove where they were, but I’m just
trying to get to the point that if they refuse in that manner to deal with it [inaudible] manpower,
have we not looked into that [inaudible], looked at increases that we’ve made, whether it be in 68
deputies, and try to work some agreement with the Marshal until we can get to that period of
trying to deal with personnel in terms of what we’ve got. It seems as though that would be both
a plus to the Sheriff over at 401 and also the Marshal could work that through this building,
without dealing with any more people. And if we’ve got $10 million to deal with starting on a
building, it seems crazy to me that we are having to deal with finding something new when
you’ve got seven figures of money, eight figures of money sitting in a pot that you ought to be
able to work the same creative financing that we worked over in that area, work it again. That’s
just my only observation. Now the DFACS situation, Mr. Mayor [inaudible]. While there is no
written agreement per se, have we not cut them checks? Were they not paid to do that work?
Mayor Young: Well, the Chair can’t respond to that, but maybe somebody from
Accounting is here.
Mr. Wall: Maybe Mr. Collins can. My understanding is that we were paying the mailing
costs and it was for the food stamp program. However, when the electronic benefit transfers
came into place, as opposed to a cost savings, there was actually an increase in cost for like three
or four counties around the State, Richmond County being one of those. My understanding is
that we have been billed $102,000 but we have only been paying approximately $60,000. So we
have not paid, as I understand it, from talking with David, approximately $42,000 that we had
been billed for.
Page 83
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] but the only thing I’m trying to do, and I [inaudible] substitute
motion, but I just didn’t want us to get into a situation, and I think we are probably going to have
to revisit, but if we’re contracting, whether if it is in spirit or in writing [inaudible], I didn’t want
us to be put in the situation with receiving money from the State and something that every
county is doing and then the State comes back on us when they get in Legislative Session and
say we’re not doing it and we’re the only ones not doing it, and then they pass so unfunded
mandated on us to deal with DFACS in another way, and then they put it on you so that you have
to pay it. And I’m just saying a paper transaction is not going to last. That’s the only thing I’m
trying to get to.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Oliver: I would note in Mr. Powell’s version that if you go to the Public Works line
item, it’s $82,000, that that does involve the elimination of an operations manager position in
facilities management of Public Works.
Mayor Young: Mr. Jerry Brigham wanted to speak.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Oliver, that was one of the questions I had, was what was the
difference. The other one I have is implement the pay raises on 10/1/99, I mean 2000, you’ve
got two different figures up there. How can we be $11,000 difference in implementing the same
raises on the same day?
Mr. Oliver: I can explain that. Because I was working with Mr. Shepard and Mr.
Powell, and Mr. Shepard had $322,666 in his and it actually is $333,999, and because Mr.
Powell’s version was not quite as refined as Mr. Shepard’s version, because I didn’t view the
amount as material, I deferred to Mr. Shepard’s amount so I didn’t have to back it out.
Mr. J. Brigham: I think we’ll talk about apples and apples.
Mayor Young: It’s 10/1/2000, right?
Mr. Oliver: Yes, that’s correct.
Mayor Young: Okay.
Mr. Oliver: And I can do that. The one other thing, though, I would point out, along
with what Mr. Mays had said a minute ago, with a $500,000 contingency, the operative work is
you’re going to have a number of people that are going to come back in that did not receive what
they felt that they should have gotten during the budgetary process, and there’s not going to be
money to distribute around. So the key word is going to be the requests are going to have to be
scrutinized very carefully and most of them are going to have to be declined, because that
$500,000, you know, will only go so far. But I would expect a number of the people that have
not secured what they want in the budget may ask for that sometime during next year.
Page 84
Mayor Young: Any further discussion? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. J. Brigham: I’ve got several more questions.
Mayor Young: Excuse me there, Mr. Brigham.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Oliver got a little bit ahead of me. I’d like for him to slow down and
let me catch up. On the contingency, since we’re talking about contingency, our contingency I
believe the last three years has been $1 million?
Mr. Oliver: That is correct.
Mr. J. Brigham: And I believe we have expended over half a million dollars in the last
three years every year?
Mr. Oliver: We provided those numbers. Let me pull them out. I think this year, the
thing that threw us over this year was the Commission’s decision not to raise the building permit
fees, which was about $200,000.
Mr. J. Brigham: It don’t matter what the reason was. What I’m pointing out, I think, is
that we spend over half a million dollars in contingency every year sitting on this Commission.
The reasons are various and sundry, but we’ve done it–what the maker of the motion is asking us
to do is basically going into a budget knowing that we spend a half a million dollars in
contingency every year an have a zero contingency. Now the other question I had was about
Clean & Beautiful. I believe that is financed out of an enterprise fund. How does it get to a
general budget?
Mr. Oliver: You may be correct on that. I’m not–
Mr. J. Brigham: How do we get from an enterprise fund to a general fund? Are we
assessing that enterprise fund $10,000?
Mr. Oliver: No, you are correct. As I say, this was put together virtually minutes before
the meeting. That is correct. We would need to make a $10,000 adjustment.
Mr. J. Brigham: Somewhere?
Mr. Oliver: That’s correct.
Mr. J. Brigham: Okay. I am not going to vote to approve for the second substitute
motion. I am not going to vote for anything that leaves us with a half a million dollars in
contingency, knowing that this Commission will spend every dime of it and then we’ll have a
zero contingency when the year ends, and until we find a way of increasing the contingency, I
hope y’all have got six votes somewhere else.
Page 85
Mayor Young: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Kuhlke, I wanted to make that as seconder of your motion that your
motion included deleting the requirements for dog fees and dog registration.
Mr. Kuhlke: It doesn’t, but I will include it in my motion.
Mr. Bridges: If you would, I’d keep my second on there.
Mr. Kuhlke: And I’d like to make one other point following up on Mr. Brigham. If you
look at our budget and you look at the contingency built in there right now, it’s 1/10th of one
percent. For the whole year. That’s what our contingency is. That’s ridiculous and fiscally
irresponsible.
Mayor Young: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A question to the Administrator relative to Mr.
Beard’s amendments. Would the growth management department be created under the substitute
motion or would it be deferred?
Mr. Oliver: It would not.
Mr. Shepard: Would not be? It would be deferred?
Mr. Oliver: Until some later date.
Mr. Shepard: Okay. The second thing, I had what I guess you’d call dueling
spreadsheets with Mr. Powell, and I had more money, Mr. Kuhlke, in the contingency than he
did. I also did not give the hospital for Indigent Care purposes as much money as he did. I think
we were $250,000 apart there, Mr. Powell. I think that the two budgets I’ve been through have
indicated that we’re going to have to, on a long-term basis, find a revenue source that’s stable
and find a way of competing this contract out for bids amongst the providers of indigent care, if
there are any. And I wanted to, I know that Mr. Parks indicated that he didn’t like the five
minute rule that we imposed on him, but I want it on the record to know whether the Hospital is
going to receive a payment of about $4 million from an Indigent Care Trust Fund. I may not
have the moniker of that Fund correct, Mr. Parks, but do you anticipate to receive that either
before the end of this calendar year or during the next budget year? I’m understanding from
various sources that there may be an additional payment of $4 million which the Hospital could
get and apply to that need. And I’d appreciate very much if you’d speak to that. I say that
because I think we all realize that a budget is an amendable document and certainly we are
cutting our contingency under the Powell version to the absolute bone, and I’m very concerned
about that. And really what we’re doing that for is to fund the additional $250,000 in Indigent
Care, as I see it. So if Mr. Parks, if I could yield my time to Mr. Parks, if he could answer that
question, is there additional revenue expected that could be applied to this area, Mr. Parks?
Page 86
Mr. Oliver: While he’s coming to the microphone–
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Richard Parks, yes, sir, please.
Mr. Oliver: While he’s coming to the mike, a $500,000 contingency on an $88.4 million
budget is a little over ½ of 1%.
Mayor Young: Richard, can you respond to that question?
Mr. Parks: Sure. Mr. Shepard, we have a one-time disbursement from the Governor of
$4.3 million. That’s retroactive payment for the past five years.
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir.
Mr. Parks: And that’s what that involves. And it does not, it brings us to about break-
even on our Medicaid costs.
Mr. Shepard: Has that payment been received or do you expect it to be received in the–
Mr. Parks: We have not received that payment.
Mr. Shepard: It could be applied toward Indigent Care when you receive it?
Mr. Parks: It could be applied.
Mr. Shepard: So I take it that since we have just a few days left in the year that you may
get it in the year 2000, is that correct? I mean Mr. Taylor might can respond to that. Robert?
Mr. Taylor: I don’t know that we’ll get it by the end of the year, no sir.
Mr. Shepard: By Friday?
Mr. Taylor: By Friday.
Mr. Shepard: But you probably will get it in 2000?
Mr. Parks: We sure hope so.
Mr. Shepard: But that would be Indigent Care money? That would be available for
Indigent Care, would it not, sir?
Mr. Parks: That’s correct, but you’ve got to remember it’s already been spent. It’s
retroactive for five years, so that money is gone. It’s just repaying us for some of our costs.
Page 87
Mr. Shepard: Which, in other words, you had the paying patients subsidizing the
Indigent Care, I take it. Is that correct?
Mr. Parks: That’s the way most community not-for-profits work.
Mr. Shepard: But here again, that would go a long way toward working out your
problem in the 2000 year, and I think you’re right, you say we need to convene a task force, and
I think we certainly need to do that in the coming year and we need to involve the State
Legislators because right now, you have I think the taxpayers of Richmond County, the ad
valorem taxpayers, involuntarily and disproportionately subsidizing that cost, which is incurred
with patients from outside the County. We need to do something and you weren’t very
responsive to my question at the first budget session about an uncompensated care act, but I
think that concept needs to be, I’ve talked to the Mayor about this and others, I think that needs
to be strongly looked at, because you need a revenue source, and this budget is put to the test
every year, largely by this largest item. Not that it’s not an important item, Mr. Parks, but it’s,
you’ve got to be willing to look with us toward a more dedicated revenue source.
Mr. Parks: We’ll be glad to. One other figure I would toss to you is the total
uncompensated care cost for that five-year period is $19,355,000. That’s what I was showing
you on that board at that first budget session, it’s the total uncompensated cost of care.
Mr. Shepard: But it was during those years, I think, the Hospital as a whole made
money. I mean I defer to Mr. Oliver in that regard. Did not, there was not a deficit in those
years, was there?
Mr. Parks: In 1998, we made about $2.5 to $3 million. I don’t remember the exact
number. Income from operations. Our Board requires a five percent return so that we can fund
our capital expenses.
Mr. Shepard: I think our Board is going to require more than1-1/2, more than over a ½%
contingency. I mean I think that’s the danger of this substitute budget and I think I’m warning
you that it’s an amendable document, which we might could revisit if we choose to adopt it. But
Mr. Oliver, what were those figures in those previous years? I thought there was–
Mr. Oliver: I took it from 1990 forward. I think the total from 1990 forward, if my
memory is correct, is about $57 million, excluding depreciation. And then when you add back
depreciation, the number went up considerably.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mayor Young: Let me follow up with a question on that, Mr. Shepard? The $4 million
is coming from the Indigent Care Trust Fund?
Mr. Parks: That’s correct.
Page 88
Mayor Young: People that are indigent don’t get Medicare and Medicaid, is that not
correct?
Mr. Parks: Not in the County contract it doesn’t.
Mayor Young: Well, would somebody who received treatment at the Hospital be
classified as an indigent if a portion of their care was being paid by Medicare or Medicaid?
Mr. Parks: There’s two different populations. One is the County-certified contract, which
we had the stipulations that Mr. Wall and Mr. Oliver and myself and other Hospital officials
have worked on the past two or three years, and then there’s another population called self-pay
patients that do not pay their bills for whatever reason. So it’s about $15 million a year.
Mayor Young: But if it was money for Indigent Care, then I just–you lost me when you
said it was being used for uncompensated Medicare and Medicaid or a shortfall there, because
those wouldn’t be indigents if they had coverage with Medicare or Medicaid; is that not correct?
Mr. Parks: They’re not indigents as per the County contract.
Mr. Oliver: That’s correct.
Mr. Parks: They’re indigents because they don’t pay.
Mayor Young: Or they could be deadbeats.
Mr. Oliver: My recollection is the County contract provides 100% of the poverty level,
isn’t that correct? And there are certain other asset [inaudible].
Mayor Young: Do any other Commissioners have any questions, any comments? Mr.
Handy? Did you want to say something?
Mr. Handy: Yes, I want to ask a question concerning the food stamps from DFACS?
Mayor Young: Yes, sir?
Mr. Handy: Mr. Wall: , do you know whether any other county in Georgia is not
contributing? Are will we be the only one or you have any idea?
Mr. Wall: Well, I personally don’t know. I know what I’ve been told, but I’ve not done
any checking on it. My understanding is the other counties are paying, but I’ve not verified that
in any way.
Mr. Handy: If other counties is paying, why are we cutting ours? For the amount of
money they are bringing back.
Page 89
Mayor Young: You might want to ask the maker of the motion that question.
Mr. Handy: Well, I’m just want to make sure that everybody understands what they’re
fixing to do. That’s why I am asking.
Mayor Young: We hear what you’re saying. Mr. Bridges and then Mr. Mays.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Wall: , my understanding on the DFACS, that is a State program. The
State is the one that gives that out and we’re not legally bound to do so.
Mr. Wall: We are not legally bound to do so.
Mr. Bridges: And what the State DFACS is concerned about then is that if we, and we
may be the only county that does this, but if we do it, then the other counties will follow?
Mr. Wall: No. Well, sure. I think so. I mean that concern apparently has been
expressed through the Administrator’s office.
Mr. Bridges: But we’re under no legal obligation to do this? It’s a State function.
Mr. Wall: There is no State statute, there is no contract in existence. The only thing that
I’ve been furnished is a letter which purports to express an agreement, but that letter was
addressed to the Commission Chairman back in 1997.
Mayor Young: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, two questions and I won’t take up any time. One, I’d like to ask,
as much as this is in a chopping block phase, and I think the reason why [inaudible] that time, I
think it’s still a little confusing to the ramifications of where we’re headed with that, and I would
ask, I would like to question Mr. Parks, but also maybe if Ms. Johnson wants to add something to
it, I think rather than the Attorney trying to figure out where we stand with DFACS, he’s got
enough stuff to figure out where we stand with the legal stuff, she’s the Director. Maybe we
ought to hear from her as to what the position is and once it’s dropped, then where we go at that
point in DFACS. I think we may need to hear that side of where that puts us since she’s here.
The other thing is I’d like to ask Mr. Parks, since he’s here [inaudible], but if we don’t
[inaudible] have a motion that passes under substitute or a motion that passes on the original,
what I’d like to know about Indigent Care and its finality, is that if we don’t reach a contract,
what then becomes of those who are in the indigent status who reside and live in Richmond
County? Transient situation that comes in, some other county, some other state, I’m not
concerned about that. But I think we need to hear that from the Hospital to the point that if we
don’t reach a contract, then what are we doing at that point? I think that needs to be discussed in
a public forum and I’d like to hear what Mr. Parks and the Director over at DFACS might have
to where this takes us on this program.
Mayor Young: All right, well very briefly–
Page 90
Mr. Mays: I have no rebuttal.
Mayor Young: All right, thank you, Mr. Mays. Please, for the record, if you will give
us your name and your address and then respond to the Commissioner’s question.
Ms. Johnson: My name is Linda Johnson. I’m the Director of the Family and Children
Services office here in Richmond County. That address is 520 Fenwick Street, Augusta,
Georgia. Very briefly, the agreement is between the County and the State. It’s been a long-
standing agreement. Attorney Wall and I have talked. I guess the major consideration is we’re
talking about $59,061 for a return of $27 million. DFACS is a business and while we are a
social program providing social benefits to individuals in need, any other business in this
community with a $27 million return, that’s how much food stamps we had in this community, if
the food stamps were not in this community, then the grocers, some grocers would suffer. And
so we’re talking about that kind of benefit for this community. Richmond County, being the
second largest in the State, would also be the first county not to contribute. The Federal
government pays for the food stamp benefit for customers. So they would receive their benefits.
The Federal government only pays 50% of administrative costs. The State and the Counties have
assumed the other 50%. And so what Richmond County is being asked to pay is one-half of the
50% and the State of Georgia is paying the other half. What would happen if we do not pay that
amount? People will still get their benefits. I don’t want to mislead the Commission and the
Mayor. The individuals will still get their benefits. The ripple effect is that if every community
does not pay to that cost, then of course it reduces the amount that the State has for other
program areas in terms of working with those who are needed. And I guess I appeal, why I have
a commitment to both issues, indigent care, because I serve that population of individuals, as
well as to the food stamp program, I would appeal to you to consider the fact that this is $60,000
for a $27 million return. And all of us are business people in this room and I think we know
that’s a bargain. Thank you.
Mayor Young: A point of inquiry from the Chair. Could you tell us about your
caseload, since the Welfare to Work Program has started; has your caseload gone up or down?
Ms. Johnson: They’ve gone down. We’ve had a 45% reduction. You saw an article,
probably, in the paper yesterday, focusing on those who are left. I like to focus on those who
have gone off. We had initially–
Mayor Young: So you’re not distributing as much in food stamps then, since that
program started?
Ms. Johnson: That’s correct.
Mayor Young: And so you’re administrative costs have probably come down?
Ms. Johnson: They’ve come down some. It used to be higher than this. But is has come
down some in terms of the administrative costs. I also have, if you’d like, and I’ll give you a
Page 91
copy of, this details Richmond, although we’ve not signed a formal agreement, Richmond
County, and I received this from the State on Wednesday, showing what Richmond County has
paid since we started EBT’s. So by virtue of us paying, we have in essence agreed to pay. And I
guess one of the things that I would at least like to request, if the County elects not to pay, that at
least there be some communication with the State office as opposed to just cutting it off without
any notification.
Mayor Young: Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Mr. Mayor, to follow up on what she said. If you compare the three months
of April to June of 1998, it was $22,167. July to September of 1999, it had dropped by $5,000
down to $17,105. So the food stamps issuance costs have dropped $5,000 in the last 18 months
roughly.
Mayor Young: Thank you.
Mr. Oliver: And part of that has to do with the fact that they’ve gone with the electronic
fund transfer instead of doing it by paper.
Mayor Young: And Mr. Parks, Mr. Mays had a question for Mr. Parks. The gist of it
was, what would happen if there is no contract with University?
Mr. Parks: I think the key is access. Anybody seeking health care in this country needs
access to it. And while our community contribution could be through the emergency department
and just admit patients if they need to be an inpatient, that’s the most expensive form of care.
Most of these patients do need a primary care physician and/or referral to a specialist, and that is
the problem.
Mayor Young: Do those answer your questions, Mr. Mays, from Ms. Johnson and Mr.
Parks?
Mr. Mays: Yes, that basically answered it.
Mayor Young: Okay. All right. Thank you. Mr. Kuhlke, you had your hand up next.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor: you know for four years I’ve been on this Commission. For
four years we’ve come down to the last minute and we talk about Indigent Care. And I think in a
way that’s unfair. It’s unfair to us, it’s unfair to University Hospital. It appears to me that at
least for the foreseeable future that either this Commission gets serious about Indigent Care or
we get out of the Indigent Care business. If we get serious about it, what we’ve got to do is
we’ve got to look at the total budget. We can’t look at little small items. We can’t play with the
numbers and so forth. And as a result of what we’ve been going through for the last four years,
we get bad press, University Hospital gets bad press. My personal feeling is that we are not in
the health care business. I’m sympathetic to the Indigent Care problem that we have here. But
unless we get serious about it and unless we cut expenses to cover the costs of indigent care,
Page 92
we’ll never make any progress. The proposal that Mr. Powell has got here is a temporary
proposal. The cuts in regards to moving when we pay is a one-shot deal. It doesn’t do anything
for us. So all we’re going to do is be back at the same place next year, battling over this, unless
our Legislative Delegation does something for us. But I think that Mr. Powell, you know, Mr.
Powell is not going to be here. He’s the one that’s made the motion. We got to live with the
budget next year. And it’s Mickey Mouse stuff. So I urge my fellow colleagues to reject Mr.
Powell’s version of the budget.
Mr. Powell: Mr. Mayor–
Mayor Young: Just a moment, Mr. Mays. Just a minute. Mr. Powell is next.
Mr. Powell: I’ve been overlooked twice.
Mayor Young: I’m sorry.
Mr. Powell: I yield to Mr. Mays if he’s going ahead.
Mr. Mays: I’ll be very quick. [inaudible] a lot of those are services of the indigent care
program. [ inaudible] getting serious about it. But we ought to get serious about everything, Mr.
Mayor, and I’m going to be very quick when I say this. We cannot be conservative when we
want to be conservative and ultra-liberal when we want to be ultra-liberal. We are not
[inaudible] in this community. A short time ago, and this was within the last four years, to get a
return on the $7 million that we gave away in terms of private business investment, which we
walked away and [inaudible], we had an opportunity to get something back out of it. We chose
not to. Now basically the same people, same Commissioners did that. But we shouldn’t play
games about getting on soap boxes and wanting to save the taxpayers money. We want to cut
expenses one year and then all of a sudden in some years, depending on who has got their hand
out, we’ve got a whole lot of money to give away. And I just think we ought to let every mule
carry its own backpack. Unfortunately, there have been some mules or maybe in some cases
jackasses that have escaped with a whole lot more of their share than some other citizens have in
this community. So I just want to say that. We ought to be [inaudible] and conservative when
we’ve got something to give away as in the year when we don’t have anything to give away.
And I ask that question of Mr. Parks of what we do about it and I do dispute the question, the
answer rather, that maybe we’re not in the indigent care business. Even though we consolidated,
even though we may be a municipal form of government, Mr. Mayor, I would ask my colleagues
that in the absence, the absence of a full, written charter which we still do not have but we
operate under the auspices of a [inaudible] that there is a commitment to county government in
Georgia which does entail the public safety, health and welfare of the citizens we serve. How
broad based or narrow that might be is in the eye of the beholder, but there is a legal commitment
to dealing with those necessities, and they are ranked above whether we feel we’re doling it out
to private businesses. And I’m through, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Young: Thank you. Mr. Powell?
Page 93
Mr. Powell: Mr. Mayor, thank you. Gentlemen, we have an obligation. We have an
obligation to people who have served their whole life in this government, and they’ve retired.
We have an obligation to continue to support them. We have an obligation in this community to
support the Indigent Care. I mean, some of us up here make a big Mickey Mouse, but I go home
every night and I get up and I look at myself in the mirror, and if I were to cut those people that
need health care, I don’t think I could look at myself in the mirror that morning, even though I
look like Mickey Mouse. I definitely can look at myself and I can’t say that for some of the
others up here. Now, I’m going to say this. Gentlemen, we have worked at this budget to try to
come up with a compromise. I spent many hours on it. Mr. Shepard’s version here is a good
version. He spent many hours on it. Mr. Oliver spent many hours on the original budget. But
the one factor that you’ve got to plug in is a human compassion factor and a reality factor. The
reality factor is we’ve got people who are sick in this community and they’re poor. And if you
can solve that, great. I’ll serve on any committee you want me to and give you any time that I
can give you. But right now, you don’t have a solution. You’ve got a problem. And Mr.
Kuhlke, I’ve always heard, don’t bring up a problem unless you’ve got a solution.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question.
Mayor Young: All right, the question has been called on the substitution motion, which
is the Powell version of the additions and cuts that are listed and the amendments as stated by
Mayor Pro Tem. Does anybody need the motion read back?
Mr. Handy: Would you do that for me, please?
Mayor Young: All right, Madame Clerk, if you can read back the–
Clerk: Mr. Handy, do you have a copy of this?
Mr. Handy: Yes.
Mayor Young: If you can read back the amendments that Mr. Beard put on the budget.
Clerk: The amendments to Commissioner Powell’s motion was that Riverwalk special
events would change and answer to the direction of the Deputy Administrator, that the
management study recommendations be taken out of the basic budget, the creation of the Growth
Management Department be considered at a later date, Risk Management will remain the same,
and the contracts administration specialist position be deleted.
Mayor Young: You’ve heard the motion.
Mr. Oliver: And one clarification. The Public Works reduction includes the elimination
of an Operations Manager in the facilities management portion.
Mayor Young: The question has been called on the motion. All in favor of the
substitute budget motion, please vote with your green light.
Page 94
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Kuhlke vote no.
Mr. Handy not voting.
Motion carries 7-2.
(Mr. Handy later changes vote to yes.)
Mayor Young: The motion passes. Is there any further business to come before the
Commission? If not–
Mr. Oliver: I think we need to adopt the rate ordinance for utilities, Mr. Wall.
Mr. Wall: Well, included in the budget were two items. One would be a first
reading of the saying that rates for water and sewer that were set forth in the budget would
become effective on April 1, and so we have a proposed ordinance which would establish
the rates that are part of the budget. The second Ordinance is to put a surcharge of $1.50
per ton on the Landfill fees, and again, this was included in the budget which was just
adopted.
Mr. Oliver: We would ask for first reading approval.
Mayor Young: Can we take those two together and spread them on the minutes as being
voted on separately? Can we get a motion to do that?
[Ordinance saying that rates for water and sewer that were set forth in the budget would
become effective on April 1]
Mr. Bridges: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mayor Young: All in favor, please vote with your green light.
Mr. J. Brigham votes no.
Motion carries 9-1.
[Ordinance placing a surcharge of $1.50 per ton on the Landfill fees]
Mr. Bridges: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mayor Young: All in favor, please vote with your green light.
Mr. J. Brigham votes no.
Page 95
Motion carries 9-1.
Mayor Young: Is there any other business? If not, we’ll entertain a motion to 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 Augusta Richmond County Commission held on
December 21, 1999.
Clerk of Commission
Page 96