HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-05-2000 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
July 5, 2000
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:10 p.m., Wednesday,
July 5, 2000, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Cheek,
Colclough, Kuhlke, Mays, Shepard and Williams, members of Augusta Richmond
County Commission.
Also present were Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Mr. Oliver,
Administrator; and Mr. Wall, Attorney.
The invocation was given by Reverend Williams.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, do we have any additions or deletions to the
agenda today?
Clerk: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have no delegations, so let’s move along with our
consent agenda.
Clerk: Under the consent agenda, Items 1 through 34A:
FINANCE:
1. Motion to approve the purchase of a Diesel-Powered Slope Mower for the
Public Works Department-Maintenance section from Southern Turf
Equipment at a cost of $28,218.00 (Lowest Bid offer on Bid 00-061).
(Approved by Finance Committee June 28, 2000)
2. Motion to abate Department of Transportation’s portion of 1997 taxes,
including accrued interest and penalties (Tax Map 052, Parcel 446),
Account No. 2054733. (Approved by Finance Committee June 28, 2000)
3. Pulled from consent agenda.
4. Motion to deny request of Atlanta Gas Light Company for a refund of
taxes paid in 1996, 1997 and 1998. (Approved by Finance Committee
June 28, 2000)
5. Motion to approve Franchise Agreement with Adelphia Business
Solutions for telecommunications franchise. (Approved by Finance
Committee June 28, 2000)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
6. Pulled from consent agenda.
2
7. Motion to approve the reclassification of the Property and Maintenance
Supervisor 1 position (Pay Grade 43) to Airside/Landside Agent (Pay
Grade 43). (Approved by Administrative Services Committee June 28,
2000)
8. Motion to approve an Ordinance designating the area as an Enterprise
Zone pursuant to the Georgia Enterprise Zone Employment Act of 1997,
as amended, providing Tax incentives and other incentives, designating an
authorized Agency to act in all matters pertaining to the Enterprise Zone
described herein, designating a liaison to act on all matters pertaining to
the Enterprise Zone Act, and outlining Policies and procedures for the
Administration of the Enterprise Zone. (Approved by Administrative
Services Committee June 28, 2000)
9. Motion to approve the reclassification of Chief Cook (41) and Cooks (36)
to pay classification (41). (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee June 28, 2000)
10. Motion to approve hiring a Community Training Coordinator with a Pay
Grade 43 for the Fire Department (additional position) to be assigned to
the Training Division of the Fire Department. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee June 28, 2000)
11. Motion to approve execution of Subordination Agreement in favor of
James B. Cranford, Jr., Eldridge A. Whitehurst, Jr. and Thomas H.
Robertson of façade grant to SunTrust Bank. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee June 28, 2000)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
12. Motion to approve award of the surge tank construction in the amount of
$363,707.50. Funds available in Account #508043410-5425110, Bond
Project W-4B. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 28,
2000)
13. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and
Road Resolutions submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments
for Hollow Keg Subdivision, Section 4, Phase I. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee June 28, 2000)
14. Motion to approve execution of the Georgia Department of
Transportation Maintenance Agreement for Sidewalks on the Wheeless
Road Bridge Replacement Project at Rocky Creek. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee June 28, 2000)
15. Motion to authorize the Augusta Mini Theater Award to execute a
contract in the amount of $20,000 for Phase One on the design of the new
Augusta Mini Theater with 2km Architects of Augusta. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee June 28, 2000)
16. Motion to authorize preparation and advertisement of request for
qualifications for Engineering Services for Windsor Spring Road
Improvements Project. Also approve of CPB #323-04-299823766 in the
3
amount of $1,000.00 for the Windsor Spring Road Project. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee June 28, 2000)
17. Motion to approve Award contract to Mabus Brothers Construction
Company Inc. in the amount of $433,650.44 subject to the receipt of a
signed contract and proper bonds for the Augusta Corporate Park
Project (BPC #323-06-296050020). (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee June 28, 2000)
18. Motion to approve Change Order Number Two to Beam’s Pavement
Maintenance in the amount of $29,255.05, for the resurfacing Various
Roads, Phase VI Project (CPB #323-04-299823069) to address replacing
drainage pipes under Olive Road that are experiencing failure.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 28, 2000)
19. Motion to authorize execution of the Georgia Department of
Transportation Maintenance Agreement for Sidewalks on the Deans
Bridge Road Median and Intersection Improvements Project. (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee June 28, 2000)
20. Motion to authorize execution of the Right-of-Way Deed to Georgia
Department of Transportation for Parcel known as No. 67 on the Deans
Bridge Road Median and Intersection Improvements project. (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee June 28, 2000)
21. Motion to authorize execution of the Revised Local Government Project
Agreement with Georgia Department of Transportation on the
Wrightsboro Road Improvements Project. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee June 28, 2000)
22. Motion to approve “Best Bid” award to Insituform Technologies in the
amount of $345,750 for annual contract for Cured-in-Place Trenchless
Sewer Line Rehabilitation. Funded by New Bond Issue – Account
Number yet to be assigned. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee June 28, 2000)
23. Motion to approve amendment to Underground Right-of-Way Permit to
Qwest Communications Corporation for installation of an additional 615
feet of fiber optic cable on public right-of-way. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee June 28, 2000)
24. Motion to approve Underground Right-of-Way Permit to Genuity for
installation of 858 feet of fiber optic cable on public right-of-way.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 28, 2000)
25. Pulled from consent agenda.
26. Pulled from consent agenda.
PUBLIC SAFETY:
27. Motion to approve a trade of one existing GPS equipment for three units
of newer, more practical equipment from Duncan Parnell, Inc. at no cost.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee June 28, 2000)
28. Motion to approve to purchase ChequePoint as the point of sales (POS)
software for Recreation’s Augusta Municipal Golf Course (AMGC) and
4
Bush Field at a cost not to exceed $38,000. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee June 28, 2000)
PUBLIC SERVICES:
29. Pulled from consent agenda.
30. Motion to deny a request by Wayne A. Glover for a Gameroom License
to be used in connection with Millennium Games, Inc. located at 1511
North Leg Unit #2. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Safety Committee June 28, 2000)
31. Pulled from consent agenda.
32. Pulled from consent agenda.
33. Motion to approve emergency bid procedure for emergency repair of the
roof at the Old Government House at an estimated cost of $30,000.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee June 28, 2000)
APPOINTMENTS:
34. Motion to approve the following District 6 appointments:
?
Mr. Lonny Charles Wimberley, Human Relations Commission
?
Mr. Pat Owen, Augusta Aviation Commission – Bush Field
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
34A. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held June 20, 2000.
Mr. Mayor: Do you have any zoning or alcohol licenses you need to read out,
Madame Clerk?
Clerk: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure with respect to the consent
agenda?
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda. I
think we have some folks who want to pull some items. We’ll just go around the
table here. Mr. Bridges, do you have anything? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull number 3, if I can, for
discussion on it.
Mr. Mayor: Item 3? All right. Mr. Cheek?
5
Mr. Cheek: Item 25 and 26, please.
Mr. Mayor: 25 and 26 for Mr. Cheek. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I would just like to add something to 6.
Mr. Mayor: Number 6? Okay. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: 32, Mr. Mayor. Pull 32.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Henry Brigham? Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: The only thing I just wanted to note, since we don’t have any
scheduled delegations on, but you do have some that come under regular agenda, if
we might be able to move them up to where you deem necessary on Item 35. That’s
th
in reference to the 15 Street/Wooten Road zoning and also in reference to the
planning meeting that we had at the high school.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, very good. Thank you for noting that, Mr. Mays. Did
you have anything you wanted to pull, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: No.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham? Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Nothing.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve the consent agenda, minus Items --
and check me on this, Madame Clerk -- 3, 6, 25, 26 and 32.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, let me add 31 to that, too. I need some
clarification on that, please.
Mr. Mayor: 31, yes, sir. Yes, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: The Attorney thinks we need to have a hearing on number 29.
Mr. Mayor: Number 29 is also pulled. So we have a motion to approve the
consent agenda now, minus Items 3, 6, 25, 26, 29, 31 and 32. Is that correct, Madame
Clerk?
6
Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: We get all those?
Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, all in favor of the consent agenda, please vote aye.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Kuhlke: I’m going to vote yes, but I want the Clerk to note that on Items
7 through 10 I am opposed.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: On Item number 8, just because of my location of both where I
live and other properties, I’m going to abstain on Item number 8.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 9-1. [Item 8]
Mr. Kuhlke votes No.
Motion carries 9-1. [Item 10]
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11-24, 27, 28, 30, 33-34A]
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, if we’ll move ahead to Item 35. That’s where the
Mayor Pro Tem noted we may have some people here in the audience for that item.
Clerk: Item 35: Z-00-42 – Request for concurrence with the decision of
the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Daniel M. McLeod
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) and Zone
B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property
located where the northeast right-of-way line of Wooten Road intersects the
thth
northwest right-of-way line of 15 Street (1959 15 Street). District 2. (Deferred
from the June 20 Commission meeting)
7
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, would you come up here and tell us about this one?
Mr. Patty: This is a carry-over from the last meeting. The question was
what’s going to happen to Wooten Road. There are several problems therein. The
petitioner’s here, and if he could, he’d like to just make a short statement I think will
solve the problem.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s hear from the petitioner. If you’ll come to the
microphone, please, and give us your name and address for the record.
Mr. McLeod: My name is Daniel McLeod. I live at 2917 Bransford Road,
Augusta. I own the property and I requested the zoning change on the corner lot to
have a national chain put in an automobile parts store. I guess I’m having a little
trouble understanding what is wrong with it. I owned and operated an automobile
parts store on this same lot for 25 years, so part of the block is already zoned B-2 and
there’s already an automobile parts store on it.
Mr. Bridges: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, I can’t hear him.
Mr. Mayor: Could you speak more directly into the microphone?
Mr. McLeod: I never dreamed there would be anything but support for this
property, so when I heard there was opposition, I went to the two property owners
directly behind this location and talked to them, and both of them assured me they had
no opposition to an automobile parts store, only opposition to the cul de sac on
Wooten Road, which I have nothing to do with, and which I fully agree with.
However, now I understand there’s a petition from other property owners in the
neighborhood opposing the zoning change. Mr. Mays, you’ve probably been in touch
with your constituents and I respect that. That’s the way it should be.
Mr. Mayor: Address your comments to the Chair, please. According to
Commission rules, that’s where you need to speak.
Mr. McLeod: Okay. I would like to withdraw the zoning change at this time
without prejudice.
Mr. Mayor: The petitioner requests to withdraw this without prejudice. Do
we need a motion to that effect, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a motion to allow him to do this?
Mr. Cheek: So moved.
8
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Any discussion, gentlemen?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I guess, one, I don’t know whether there is a spokesperson that
may want to address from the other side, but out of respect for the petitioner, since my
name was mentioned in it, one of the reasons why I asked that this be brought to the
attention of residents in that area was because in the plan that was presented, you had
both situations there in the same language, per se, even though we were only dealing
with the zoning change. But there was talk of what would happen with the cul de sac
there. A public meeting was called, and in the process of discussion at the public
meeting, and of course Commissioner Williams was there and Mr. Patty, Mr.
Huffstetler from Traffic & Engineering, as well as residents, there was quite a
concern -- and he’s right from the standpoint that only the zoning affects him. But
there are massive public works problems, Mr. Mayor, that have to be addressed in
Wooten Road, some of them that the City’s addressing now, but some concerns are
still going to have to be worked into some major project of discussion for that area.
And it was the feeling of residents from the standpoint of not knowing what the
zoning was going to lead to, because if the zoning is changed, and if the only way
then to protect both of them is to deal with the cul de sac, but yet we’ve not discussed
how we are going to handle their other problems that are down in there, which are
many. Everything from erosion on the right-of-way of Oaks Creek, as well as soil
erosion on some of the private properties’ back yards, as well as to the possibility of
having to widen the street down in there. So there are a lot of uncertainties. Couple
that along with -- and I believe Mr. Patty can probably give us the information -- as to
th
where in this area are we going to have to deal with total widening of 15 Street.
Now that gets us then to another question, in terms of what are we going to have to
buy as far as right-of-way, what the State’s going to have to buy as far as right-of-
I’m going
way. So I think there are a lot of unanswered questions at this point, and
to make a substitute motion, as I promised I would in that particular meeting,
that we move against the Planning Commission at this time and move for denial.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion on the floor to deny the petition as
requested, a substitute motion. Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any discussion on the substitute motion? Nothing heard,
we’ll call the question. Mr. Bridges?
9
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I guess I’d like to hear from George on this as to
what’s involved here and why this is so controversial.
Mr. Patty: My feeling is that it’s a reasonable request but the timing is kind of
bad because you’ve got the problems on Wooten Road that frankly I wasn’t aware of.
We did not suggest that it should be cul de saced or one way or anything like that.
We tried to provide in our recommendation an “if then” situation, where if it’s cul de
saced then something would happen, and if it’s not then something else would
happen. But in answer to your question, the State, we got a letter from the State
saying they would affect this property with their right-of-way acquisition, but they are
planning to build a raised island in front of Wooten Road to make sure the traffic
goes, make sure no left turns into or out of Wooten Road. So it’s going to be a
massive change in that area, and based on his request for withdrawal, I would think
that would be reasonable to give us time to resolve these other problems. At least
have a plan to solve these other problems, and I’m sure these are not short term
problems that can be resolved immediately, but if we had a plan, at least we’d know
we weren’t stepping on ourselves in zoning property.
Mr. Bridges: If we let him withdraw it without prejudice, when could he come
back, and if we deny it when can he come back?
Mr. Patty: If you deny it, you can’t come back for a year for the same request.
He can come back in six months for something else. If you let him withdraw it, he
can come back at the next meeting.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. Are there some people from the neighborhood
here today? Those from the neighborhood who are opposed to the rezoning, if you
object to the rezoning, raise your hand so we can get a count.
[16 objectors noted]
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: I just wanted to hear from the neighborhood. I see some
people that represent the neighborhood. You went right to it.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a spokesman from the neighborhood group who would
like to be on the record? Yes, sir, if you’d give us your name and address for the
record, please.
Mr. Andrews: My name is Amos Andrews. I own the property in the 1500
block of Wooten Road on this end. And we did not have any problem about the
rezoning till it come up they are going to put a cul de sac in our area. And Wooten
10
Road have enough problems. There never was a wide enough street in the beginning.
And to put a cul de sac and everybody coming the same way and a dead-end down
there, that don’t seem fair to us. And that’s why we are opposed to the rezoning
change.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. We have a substitute motion on the floor to deny
the request. We’ll call the question.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: Can I ask this question? Maybe it’s premature.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Mays: And frankly, I can live with either motion. However, I did
promise the neighborhood that I would make that motion to get it on the floor. But I
think it would be interesting to note if the State is not going to affect this one
particular area where we are but yet they’ve got some massive plans to build, I think
the question the Commission ought to ask itself in this situation, whether we’re
spending State money, Federal, or whether we are spending our own, if we don’t
know what the configurations are going to be in that area period and we’re going
ahead with a zoning change to either build a building that’s commercial, to build part
of a building, are we then going to be asked to buy that business back or buy it out if
the State then damages by what they do with the widening? And I think those are part
of the unanswered questions that’s in addition to what the people are asking there in
Wooten Road. And I think that’s a part that we have to play in terms of whether we
change this. And I’ve seen this happen more than once, and I’m not saying it’s in this
occasion. But when we start changing from partial Residential to Commercial in the
right-of-way where we have major plans for highways, who then does [inaudible]
down the road in terms of doing that? And I think that needs to be a consideration in
the whole process, too.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Any further discussion on the substitute
motion? Yes, Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I’d like to ask Mr. McLeod and Mr. Patty at the same time. Are
there any reasonable alternatives to take care of the residents on Wooten Road by not
having a cul de sac? Is there any way to make a through road in that area? And if so,
is Mr. McLeod willing to withhold reapplying for this rezoning until some reasonable
solution has been brought forth?
Mr. Patty: Well, Mr. Huffstetler made the presentation. I don’t believe he’s
here today, but the problems are not going to be simple to solve. There are some
11
horizontal curvature problems in a couple of areas, there’s a limited right-of-way, the
houses sit close to the road, the roadway actually narrows to 11 feet at one point, and
th
then where it enters 15 Street, you’re going to have a left-in, left-out only situation.
thth
It enters right where 15 Avenue, 15 Street, Martin Luther King, and Milledgeville
Road come together. So it’s a major problem.
Mr. Kuhlke: Well, I’m not familiar with Wooten Street, but is it a dead end
street now?
th
Mr. Patty: No. No, sir. It goes from 15 Street to White Road.
Mr. Kuhlke: White Road?
Mr. Patty: I’m sorry, to Eagle’s Way.
Mr. Kuhlke: Why do you have to put a cul de sac in?
Mr. Patty: Well, you don’t. That’s just something that the county might look
at. They indicated to me, when I talked to them about it, seeing that there was a
problem, they indicated to me that that was one potential solution.
Mr. Kuhlke: But what I hear the residents saying is they don’t want a cul de
sac. So is there a possibility to accommodate the neighborhood by not putting a cul
de sac in and also accommodating a business owner with the rezoning? Is that a
possibility?
Mr. Patty: Well, to maintain two way traffic with through -- and another part
of this problem is there’s through traffic cutting through from Milledgeville Road to
th
15 Street. To thoroughly solve the problem, you’d have to widen the road and take
out the curve. Plus you’ve got some storm water problems. You’ve got a bunch of
problems in that area. And I just don’t see any simple solution.
Mr. Kuhlke: But rather than us deny it, is there --
Mr. Mayor: Well, let’s hear from our engineer, Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Goins might
be able to answer the question.
Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll listen to anybody.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Drew.
Mr. Goins: The way the cul de sac got started was a suggestion from the
Department of Transportation because of the issue of the median opening that was
th
contemplated on the 15 Street widening. That’s where the idea of the cul de sac
originated. We looked at three alternatives. One was placing the cul de sac, making
12
limited improvements where we could within the right-of-way. The right-of-way
narrows as much as 20 feet, and as George mentioned, the lane widths are also
substandard. So we can do some things there, including widening the road where we
can, to accommodate. And then the other alternative is do nothing. Just leave it as it
is right now. Those were the alternatives we presented at the public meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Anything else, Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: No.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I think that as we look at this and we look at the
problems that we are facing together because of rushing, and in all due respect, we do
want to help business people in our community. But as I look back over the past
weeks and then things that I’ve read, it looks like our rushing to help some people
have created some tremendous problems for our city that we are going to have to face
in the future. Now I see nothing wrong with the substitute motion in stating that gives
us a little time. You know, the Planning people, the engineers. I haven’t heard
anything that they’ve gotten up there and said yet that would say that we could come
back in the next two or three weeks or the next month and grant this. And until they
come up with some plans, and I think that there’s too much uncertainty in that area
out there for us to rush into anything just because we want to satisfy some people.
And I think we’ve done that in the past and we have found ourselves in trouble. I
think we all want to help, but let’s give it time so it can develop and develop right so
that the next couple of years, whoever is sitting up here, won’t be facing problems of
people talking about you rushed to this and you did that and it was wrong. I think we
need to give ourselves some time for them to work this out, the engineers, the
Planning people, and the person who is involved out there in the business area. A
year is not a long time.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Beard. The substitute motion is on the floor.
We’ll go ahead and call the question on the substitute motion, and that is to deny the
petitioner’s request. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Shepard, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Bridges vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Madame Clerk, if we could go ahead to Item number 6.
I think the Solicitor is here for that item, and we need to let her get back into the
courtroom.
13
Clerk: Item 6: Motion to approve reclassification of positions in Solicitor
General’s Department. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee June
28, 2000)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, you asked --
Mr. Beard: I’m going to move for approval, Mr. Mayor. The only thing
I’d like to add is the approval that reclassifications not exceed the midpoint.
Mr. Oliver: Well, no, that’s not exactly the way that that would work.
Normally in a reclassification, if it’s increased one pay grade, for example, the five
percent between pay grades, the salaries between the people would go up five percent.
If you want to give the Solicitor total discretion to set those salaries or wish to do
something differently, you need to tell me and make it part of the motion. But what
I’m saying is if you go to Item number 6, the normal course would be, for example,
on the Investigator II position, going from a 44 to a Chief Investigator 47, that one
would go up 15 percent because you’ve increased it three pay grades. The
Investigator II to Investigator I is one pay grade, going from a 44 to a 45, and that
would go up five percent. And so on. And if you wish to do something different
from that, my suggestion would be to make it part of the motion.
Ms. Jolley: Would you like for me to address that? Good afternoon,
gentlemen. Basically when we submitted these amounts, most of these employees
have been long-time employees with the county, so they’re not paid at the minimum
of the salary grade that they were in. And so going to the midpoint of the suggested
salary or the requested salary upgrade put them at a point where they received a
minimum adjustment. If we just merely change the classification from one grade to
another, it would not necessarily result in the modification that we had initially
structured, and we had set forth the cost of that and again had covered that with
lapsed salaries and out of our victim - witness assistance monies.
Mr. Beard: My motion still stands.
Mr. Oliver: So the motion as I understand it is that the Solicitor be given the
discretion to go to the midpoint of the new range for all these employees?
Mr. Mayor: I think he wanted to cap it at the midpoint.
Mr. Beard: Not to exceed the midpoint.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Williams: I second it.
14
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a second to the motion. Mr. Henry Brigham,
you wanted to say something?
Mr. H. Brigham: I was just going to ask the maker of the motion would he
reconsider since a lot of these people, I understand, in this department have not been,
their salaries have not been raised for some time.
Ms. Jolley: That’s correct.
Mr. H. Brigham: And if we could work out something to get them, and I was
going to ask the maker of the motion if he would reconsider that at this point because
some of the people who have have basically not been paid what they should have
been.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Steve Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, if the Administrator could
clarify the difference between my colleague’s motion that Mr. Beard has made and
the action of the Committee. This was an item that was approved by the
Administrative Services Committee. How, if at all, maybe the Solicitor could help us
there, too. How does this present motion differ from what was done by the
Committee?
Mr. Oliver: I don’t know the numbers, but let me give you an example. Let’s
assume that the salary range is $20,000 to $30,000, and you have someone that is at
$20,000 and you increase the salary grade one grade. It would permit that person to
be increased five percent if it went up one grade from $20,000 to $21,000. Under the
motion that’s currently on the floor, and there may be nobody in this particular
situation, I don’t know, it would permit the Solicitor’s office to go from $20,000
essentially to the midpoint of the new range, which would be $25,000. My only thing
is you need to weigh the consequences that may occur in other departments and the
requests you may get from them.
Mr. Shepard: Sheryl, do you want to speak to how that --
Ms. Jolley: Financially, I think it just is clarifying. When we determined the
amount of money that it would take to make the raises, we based that on the midpoint
of the grade level. It’s just that apparently the written request doesn’t state the word
midpoint. But that was the way we calculated the raises. That’s how we determined
the amount that we needed. It’s really more of a clarification rather than an
amendment or change or additional cost or anything of that nature.
Mr. Oliver: That’s all covered in your $11,375?
Ms. Jolley: Um-huh [yes]. Actually it’s $7,--- --
15
Mr. Oliver: From lapsed salaries, $3,792 from victim - witness, so that would
be a total of $11,375?
Ms. Jolley: That’s correct. That’s $3,792 out of victim - witness and $7,237
out of lapsed salaries. That was with an effective date of June 1, and so since we’re
past that date it would actually be reduced by a percentage.
Mr. Mayor: Am I hearing you correctly, Ms. Jolley? You’re saying what Mr.
Beard’s motion does is give you what you wanted?
Ms. Jolley: Right. It really only clarifies the exact amount that we’ve
requested. It’s just that the written motion did not clarify midpoint.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right. Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, on this motion are we saying that we’re changing
our policies as to what takes effect? Are we saying this only affects this one
department? If we affect this one department, that is not an appropriate change in my
opinion. If we are saying we are changing our policies, I don’t think that’s an
I’m going to make a motion that we go back to the
appropriate motion, so therefore
Administrator’s recommendation, which is our current personnel policy, and so
move for it.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the substitute motion?
Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll second that motion, Mr. Mayor, and I’d like to say
something, if I could.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: In the Administrative Services Committee, and I expressed this
to Ms. Jolley, it seems to me that we as a Commission ought to be very firm as far as
when a budget is set that we don’t change the budget in midyear. I think all of these
things may be appropriate, but I think they should come up at the appropriate time
and that’s during the budget process. And that’s one of the reasons that I’m going to
support Mr. Brigham’s motion.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: I’m back to the original motion. The motion that came out of
Committee, would it cost more money or less money than Mr. Beard’s motion,
Randy?
Ms. Jolley: It would cost the exact same amount of money.
16
Mr. Oliver: No, it would be somewhat less. The only thing I want to make
sure you all are cognizant of is this would be different than what has been done in
other areas in the past and you may subsequently get a request to do similar things,
and you need to be aware of that.
Mr. Bridges: How is what’s being requested in this case, then, different from
number 7 or number 9 or number 10?
Mr. Oliver: Because on those particular items, again, as I cite, if a pay grade is
increased from a 43 to a pay grade 44, the normal policy is we would increase the
person’s salary five percent because there’s five percent difference between a salary
range on a 43 and a salary range on a 44. As I understand Mr. Beard’s motion, he
wanted to give the Solicitor’s office the flexibility to permit the person to go to the
midpoint of the range. And I can’t answer where these people are individually within
the range. I don’t know.
Mr. Bridges: So what you’re saying is if you go to the midpoint, it could be an
increase based on what came out of Committee?
Mr. Oliver: Frankly, to be fair, I don’t think the Committee, because of the
time limit, got into as much detail as you all have. I just assumed it was going to be
handled according to current policy unless you all tell us something different.
Mr. Bridges: Tell me the current policy based on the Mr. Brigham’s motion.
Mr. Oliver: The current policy is that if a position was a pay grade 43,
regardless of where the person’s paid in the range, and the position was regarded to a
pay grade 44, their salary would be increased five percent because the pay range is
being regarded based upon that. It would not matter whether they were at the bottom
of the range or the top of the range.
Mr. Bridges: So number 7, 9 and 10 is based on that policy?
Mr. Oliver: That’s correct.
Mr. Bridges: And the motion on number 6 would be contrary or be a
precedent to that standard policy?
Mr. Oliver: It would be something that is based upon some unique
circumstances that you all determine should be handled differently.
Mr. Mayor: Any other questions? All right. The substitute motion is on the
floor and that is to approve the item as approved by the Committee. All in favor of
the substitute motion, please vote aye.
17
Mr. H. Brigham: As it came out of Committee?
Mr. Mayor: Right. The Committee version. As it came to us from the
Committee.
Mr. H. Brigham: And the Committee version was to give you what you think
was acceptable?
Ms. Jolley: I’m not sure --
Mr. Oliver: She prefers, Mr. Brigham, the one that was mentioned earlier,
which would allow her the flexibility to go to midpoint.
Ms. Jolley: My understanding would be that under Mr. Oliver’s interpretation,
that if it changed to pay grade, it changes to five percent and that’s all that it changes.
Is that my understanding?
Mr. Oliver: That is the way the policy is currently providing, that’s correct.
Ms. Jolley: That was not what I submitted to the Committee.
Mr. H. Brigham: Right. And I was trying to think what’s the difference
between that and what Mr. Beard said.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Beard’s motion would give the solicitor’s office the flexibility
to go to the midpoint of the range, regardless of where the person is within the range,
but she would have the flexibility to go to the midpoint of the range as long as she
didn’t exceed it.
Mr. Mayor: Figured out what you want to do, Mr. Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: If it came out of Committee, I guess I’d better --
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. Shepard, Mr. Cheek, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Williams, Mr. Brigham
and Mr. Colclough vote No.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion 2-7-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion. Any discussion on the
original motion before we vote? All in favor of the original motion, which would
approve the Committee recommendation with a cap at the midpoint of the pay grade,
then please vote aye.
18
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Bridges vote No.
Motion carries 7-3.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, may I tell the Clerk something?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, you may.
Mr. Kuhlke: We haven’t voted on the consent agenda yet? I don’t have a
problem on 7. 7 is okay. I don’t have a problem on 8. I don’t have a problem on 9.
No on 10.
Clerk: No on 10?
Mr. Kuhlke: Right.
Mr. Mayor: Next item? Try to take them in numerical order here, Madame
Clerk. Number 3. Commissioner Williams, you had asked for this item?
Item 3: Motion to approve the sale of excess equipment to the West
Augusta Little League for $1,000.00 subject to approval of the Attorney.
(Approved by Finance Committee June 28, 2000)
Mr. Williams: I just wanted to ask a question, Mr. Mayor. I think it’s in the
backup information that it talks about how much repair that this equipment is going to
need, and I want to hear from Harry. If we’re going to sell this equipment to the West
Augusta Little League and they can repair it and use it, I can’t see why we can’t find
some source of way of using that equipment. Can you explain that, Harry, to me?
Mr. Siddall: Yes, sir. Both of these pieces of equipment have a life
expectancy normally in a government entity of about five years. And based on that,
these machines are both uneconomical to repair as far as we’re concerned. Now what
West Augusta Little League plans to do is just as they come to us to try to get this
deal for them, they’ll in turn go to other sources throughout the community and try to
get them to give them free components and so forth, free services, to repair these
units.
Mr. Oliver: For example, they may get a donation of labor to repair the engine
or they may get somebody to donate the parts for completing the repair.
Mr. Williams: Harry, I needed to hear from you on that, and I wanted to just
try and understand. I’m not against that. I need to know the reason behind it. I’m
certainly sure again, and in your department you know that age don’t always means
that it’s through. I mean there is a lot of us up here, if we went on our age, we
wouldn’t be still functioning. And we talked about that before, about our equipment.
19
We can’t change because it’s a new year. And all I’m asking is, your explanation said
that they get other resources from other places to try to do some things with it. I
mean but if our government can’t take the funds that we’ve got and save money and
it’s cheaper than buying new equipment, I’m not for repairing every week and that
kind of thing, but I’m sure we ought to be able to have some people in some positions
to be knowledgeable enough to know that it’s cheaper to replace an engine than it is
buy a whole car. Same thing with lawn mower.
Mr. Siddall: Certainly, sir. But as you said, some of you are older than others
and some of you work harder than others. So based on that, you fall apart a little
sooner. Some of this equipment, in particular this equipment has been assigned to a
department that had very rough use, so this equipment is actually much more worn
out than what you would normally expect in just a generic department. We do every
day reject and do agree to rebuild and repair equipment of all sizes. In these cases,
these were ones that we determined based on the needs of the department, based on
the usage of this particular machine, that it just did not warrant us putting that kind of
money in it, because there were, in turn, other items that could be major components
that would fail right after this, so we would just be putting good money after bad.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Is there someone in your department that inspected that
or do you do this?
Mr. Siddall: This is inspected by the shop. They perform an analysis, give me
the documentation. We review it. If we need to, we go out and actually look at the
equipment.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Any other questions? We need a motion.
Mr. Shepard: I move approval, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I want to make a substitute motion that we
just give it to them.
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion just to give the equipment? Mr.
Attorney, let me ask you about giving --
Mr. J. Brigham: Make a donation to West Augusta Little League of this used
equipment.
20
Mr. Mayor: What does the Constitution say about that?
Mr. Wall: Well, don’t use the word donation. If you want to give it to them as
a part of the overall contract where you assisted the Little League in the past, then that
would be appropriate.
Mr. J. Brigham: I want to make this piece of equipment available to them
to maintain the improvement that we’ve made at the West Augusta Little League
field.
Mr. Williams: I’m going to second that motion, Mr. Mayor, because I’m sure
there are other entities and other departments outside this government that are going
to need some donations as well, so I’m going to support that. I’m going to second
that motion.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Any discussion on the substitute motion to transfer
the equipment to the West Augusta Little League? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I sure do. I feel like Mr. Williams does, but I can’t vote like Mr.
Brigham wants me to vote. I’ve been raked over on the technicality and to the
extremeness of gratuities, of donations, and I think if you’re going to in the middle of
determining what a contract is, if you’re not fixing to back a contract out and reword
it, I think most of us have made enough trips to the third floor already in terms of
testifying under oath and out from under oath, and while I agree with that, Marion,
but if the attorney is going to rule that we are going to be able to start now giving
stuff away, we’ve got a whole lot of folks with hands out that can do the same thing.
Now I think we can still help them by the original motion that’s on the floor, but it
ought to be dealt with as excess like we’re dealing with anybody else. I don’t even
want to open that door to go there to deal with that. And Jim know where I’m coming
from, and that’s one of these creative ways today to make something work, and I
don’t think we ought to be doing that. I think we ought to stick to it, just like we’ve
been doing. If we’re going to be technical enough, like we were the other week, on
whether or not an event had occurred before folks had applied for the money, when
we knew it was a worthwhile event but we ruled against that even though they
qualified for it, then we’re going to determine today how we’re going to deal with
donations? Uh-uh. No way. Y’all go to the third floor and deal with that.
Mr. Williams: I was just trying to think about those particular things, Mr.
Mays, and maybe when those things come back, we won’t have the problem that
we’ve been having when it’s not favorable to some groups.
Mr. Mays: I said I felt for you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry Brigham?
21
Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Mays, for the record, would you let the audience know
what’s on the third floor that we’ve been so much a part of?
Mr. Speaker: Fourth floor.
Mr. Mays: I always get off on the third because it’s a quicker trip getting up
the stairway and to avoid everybody’s looks when you go there.
Mr. H. Brigham: What is on the fourth floor so the audience will know
exactly what we are talking about? I think they all know me on a first name basis,
I’ve been down there so much. Probably the only other person is Chief Few. For the
record, could you let the audience know?
Mr. Mays: That’s where you go for the Grand Jury, testify whether or not you
gave away some money or whether you did it the right way or whether you violated
something. I don’t need another trip voluntarily in dealing with that.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. Any further discussion on the
substitute motion? All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Bridges, Mr. Beard, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Mays, Mr. Cheek,
Mr. Shepard and Mr. Colclough vote No.
Motion fails 2-8.
Mr. Mayor: So that takes us back to the original motion. Is there any
discussion on that? All in favor of the original motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, I know we have the Sheriff sitting out here today.
If we could jump ahead to Item 37. Item 37. If we could take that up so we can get
the policemen back on the street.
Clerk: Item 37: Motion to approve execution of Agreement for
professional services between Justice Benefits, Inc. and Augusta, Georgia for
recovery of monies under federal program at no cost to County. (No
recommendation from Public Safety Committee June 28, 2000)
Mr. Huffman: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Chairman, Honorable Commissioners, my
name is Chester Huffman. I’m with the Richmond County Sheriff’s Department. I
apologize first to the Public Safety Committee for being here late so I could not
answer your questions on this item when we had it on the Committee agenda. And
I’ll try to be as brief as I can. This would brought to my attention a few months ago.
22
We had a person from Justice Benefits who is with me now, Kathy Fitts, who came to
the office with a presentation that involved the reimbursement of monies that
Richmond County spends for services that primarily the jail spends on inmate care,
medical, legal, you name it, whatever money we spend, and y’all know it’s a lot of
money. They have a program that involves no expense on the County’s part, where
we sign a four-year contract with them to go in and apply through different federal
programs to seek reimbursement in many different ways, ways that we’re not
budgeted to do. I don’t have staff to try to do that. We’re not familiar with all the
federal programs. This was outside of grants that we’re already involved in, and any
Social Security Administration rewards that we receive under contractual agreements
that we’re involved with now. Their contracts indicate that they’re paid a percentage
of the money that they recover or get reimbursed to Richmond County. The money
comes directly to Richmond County from the federal government. The company that
we would contract with would receive their payment after Richmond County received
their payments. She presented a figure that I would call ball park. However, it was
nice to hear. It’s money that I would say we don’t have to spend any to get. What
they receive, they receive based on what Richmond County gets. If we don’t get any
money, they don’t get any money. If we decide to get out of the contract, we can get
out of the contract, and the only stipulation in there that if we get money after we get
out of the contract, based on any work they do, they would still get their percentage.
And I can tell you the number that I was given as a ball park. Based on the
population of Richmond County and the inmate population, number of bookings and
potential for this region, it’s somewhere in the neighborhood of I’ll say $400,000 to
twice that amount. The reason for the urgency in trying to get it on the Committee
agenda last week was there are some federal plans available that have deadlines to
submit. We would have to be involved in those contracts in a short period of time so
that they could get the ball rolling on their end. I’ve spoken to several law
enforcements, sheriff’s departments in Georgia. One is a very small county. They
received $100,000 after their first year. And she could address any other questions
with respect to who got how much money. I know the process normally takes at least
12 months before we realize any rewards. I’d like to cal it a win-win situation. We
won’t spend any money. That that they need to initiate the program is from jail
records that we’ve already provided the Social Security Administration. They’re
easily reproduced on a computer in about three minutes. We don’t have to hire
anybody to manage the program.
Mr. Oliver: They get 22 percent of whatever they collect.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke, you have a question about the free
money?
Mr. Kuhlke: Chester, the money that is recovered through a grant or whatever
it may be, does that come back to the general fund?
23
Mr. Huffman: Yes, sir. It is not a grant, and it’s directed to the general fund.
It can’t come to the Sheriff’s Department. It has to go to the county general fund. As
Mr. Oliver mentioned, 22 percent. That’s the fee that the company gets, and I know
that that was looked at before, and I’m sorry, but I’ll tell you this, 22 percent of
$500,000, we still have a lot left over. 22 percent of nothing is nothing. But 22
percent of $100,00 is $78,000. Mr. Mayor, I’m looking at the optimistic side, and I’m
thinking based on what they’ve done for other sheriffs. Recently, Cherokee County
has gotten involved in it, but it’s too early to tell. A lot of larger county governments
and smaller ones have gotten into this with positive results. I thought this was
something we need to know about.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Motion to approve, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to approve this. Any discussion, gentlemen?
All right, Mr. Jerry Brigham and then Mr. Mays.
Mr. J. Brigham: Chester, I’ve got a couple of questions.
Mr. Huffman: Yes, sir?
Mr. J. Brigham: Not all of them addressed to you, either.
Mr. Huffman: Yes, sir.
Mr. J. Brigham: But the first one is, are there any local matches required for
any of these funds?
Mr. Huffman: No, sir. This is not a grant. They go after different federal
reimbursement programs. I do a lot of grants. I’m involved in a lot of local grants,
and I wouldn’t have a clue where to start. There’s no match, no buy back, no
percentages we have to meet up front. They basically take the money that we spend
based on our records and go after, in many different areas, for juvenile protection,
legal defense, HIV/AIDS medical, many different areas. And whatever they get
comes directly to us. And we’re not involved in it other than to receive the funds. Of
course, we’d be required within a certain period of time to give them their 22 percent.
Mr. J. Brigham: Okay. Second question. Are these reoccurring programs?
Do we pay the same 22 percent year after year on the same program?
Mr. Huffman: The contract is four years and we would pay 22 percent on any
money that’s brought in, regardless of it’s a reoccurring program or if it’s funds
24
returned from the same federal place every year or a new one. Yes, sir. They would
continue --
Mr. J. Brigham: So the 60 days that we have to file for our own in here, we
can’t file for programs that we’ve already received without paying the 22 percent?
Mr. Huffman: Well, I’ll say that ---
Mr. J. Brigham: Maybe I need to ask that to Mr. Wall.
Mr. Huffman: I was going to say that the programs that they go after or
become involved in will not affect any programs that we are currently involved in.
They’re totally separate. These would be anything that we’re not already receiving
funds over. If the Social Security Administration were to contract with them, by
mandate, those won’t affect any of our local law enforcement block grants or Weed &
Seed or any other grants that Richmond County is involved in. This would be new
and untouched areas that we would not go after.
Ms. Fitts: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Excuse me, would you come over to the microphone and give us
your name and address for the record?
Ms. Fitts: I’m Kathy Fitts from Justice Benefits. If there is a program that you
all are currently involved in, and we take a look at it and feel that that program is
being maximized, we’ll baseline the program on what you all are currently receiving
without our help, we’ll start it from there. If we feel we can maximize it over and
above that baseline, then our 22 percent only comes out of what we are able to receive
over and above that baseline.
Mr. J. Brigham: I like you, but I don’t like giving you 22 percent year after
year.
Ms. Fitts: You’re aren’t [inaudible] the money.
Mr. J. Brigham: May not be, but I still don’t like it.
Mr. Mayor: Any other questions?
Mr. J. Brigham: The other question I have, Mr. Wall, is are we [inaudible] a
future Commission with a four year contract?
Mr. Wall: No, you’re not. First of all, this has got a termination provision in
there that you can terminate at any time. The other thing, I mean, we’re not -- we’re
25
paying monies as a contingent fee so that the fees are being paid out of monies that
would be recouped, so we’re not paying any current funds that are being spent.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I think in any grant writing area or professional area
that we can get some money, whether we pay the cost directly or indirectly, it should
be a good thing. But to follow up on Jerry’s question, I would ask -- a couple of them
are already answered -- but is there any, just off the wall, is there any particular
reason for the amount of years in the contract? And the reason why I ask that is
because many times, particularly with new ventures, we are usually looking at one
year, we’re looking at 24 months, and I didn’t know in terms of your even being able
to, with time invested, since the situation where if no work is produced, naturally you
don’t turn over any money. But I’m looking at a four year situation. I’m not so much
concerned about what binds us as I am of the length of it and why we particularly
need to deal with four years in it. Because we’ve often frowned up, particularly in
those new ventures. And this may be a good new venture. Maybe we need to deal
with it in the fours years. I’m just asking the question.
Ms. Fitts: Let me address that. The reason for the four years, some of these
programs involve us going into contract with the State. Some of the funds come back
to the State. As you know, dealing with the State, of course, is a very lengthy
process. And some of these programs also run anywhere from quarterly all the way
through two and three year programs. So the reason for four years, some of it
requires a set up and some of the programs actually run that full length.
Mr. Mayor: You answered my question there. The other question I have, Mr.
Mayor, is that on continuing programs, because sometimes we get into situations
whereby we accept a certain amount of money, and say for instance if it’s like under
the old [inaudible] provision and you get to hiring and you pretty much incorporating
that into you regular budget, are we then obligated -- because you say it doesn’t cost
us -- but if we’re into a continuing program and say your funding grants us program
money for a year in order to get a half million dollars, are we then looking at the
commitment to the federal agency or the state agency for a situation of whereby we
are committed on the continuing basis of the contract for 78 percent, or are we then
obligated then to say hire those folks then at the 100 percent number? Because if we
are hiring them at the 100 percent number and in whatever year we pick up and start
assuming that as the budget, I guess what I’m getting to is then, do we assume then
the full responsibility of it or does it go for 78 percent, the money?
Ms. Fitts: No, the only -- and I think that even stipulates in the contract about
the two years. I think that was actually a question, is one of the line items in the
contract says about a two year limit. Basically, to simplify it, what that simply means
is that if there is any work that we have done, if we have collected data, if we have
26
put together some numbers, and we have actually made the filing with the federal
government, that is the only time that you all are bound to us for that 22 percent.
Mr. Mays: Okay. I guess what I wanted to make sure, say for instance on a
half million dollars and we got $378,000 and it’s a continuation of it, that when we
take over in the second or third year, do we then have a budget obligation because
we’ve signed with the government even though you’ve been paid by them as
somewhat of a professional grant writing fee? Are we then obligated on the city’s
budget at that point to hire folks to the tune that would continue at a half million or
are we hiring them at 78? What’s the government’s responsibility in terms of looking
at us on the pay back?
Mr. Huffman: And I want to respond. That was a major concern up front.
First, they are not grants. They are reimbursement programs. We don’t hire from
them. We’re not going to obligate Augusta-Richmond County into any future
expenditures. It is entirely financial reimbursements for money that we are spending
right now and y’all are going to continue to spend it as long as there’s an inmate
population and the juveniles that we have to deal with. So we’re not going to get into
any they pay the first two years, we’ve got to pay the next three years and guarantee
that we’re going to maintain a personnel staff of 150 more than we have now. That
was an initial concern with the Sheriff and Mr. Wall. So I can say that it’s not a grant
program. We’re not using the word grants at all. That was the first scare word right
there. No, it’s not a grant. This is reimbursement.
Mr. Mays: Stop while you’re ahead.
Mr. Huffman: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Any other questions?
Mr. Cheek: Call the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called on the motion. All in favor of the
motion, please vote aye.
Mr. J. Brigham votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: I think our next item is Item 25.
Clerk: Item 25: Motion to ratify the emergency repairs to culvert on
Alexander Drive at Rock Creek at an estimated cost of $18,500. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee June 28, 2000)
27
Item 26: Motion to ratify the emergency repairs to culvert on Northwest
Frontage Road at an estimated cost of $25,000. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee June 28, 2000)
Mr. Mayor: I think Mr. Cheek asked that that be pulled. 25 and 26.
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir, 25 and 26.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek, go ahead.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, we not too long ago invested -- and I’ll have to ball
park it -- somewhere around $30,000 to $40,000 in emergency repairs to Alexander
Drive. My question is, it’s my understanding we’re still a couple of years away from
the actual project going in, are we going to be in the situation to where we’re
continuing to band-aid this thing with $18,000 and $20,000 over the next few years
until the project comes in, or are these repairs going to see it through the long haul?
We know the types of flows, the types of pressures, and everything that we
experience in these 1” to 2” rainfall per hour rates. My question is, are we going to
fix it for it to stay fixed, or are we going to continue to pour money into this black
hole?
Mr. Goins: The $18,500 includes paving of the down slope with asphalt
concrete, which will prevent the down slope from washing out, Mr. Cheek. That is
what happened in our latest rain. The repairs that were done by the contractor back in
April were held in place with the exception of the down slope shoulders which
washed out because the water topped the road again. The contractor had sodded the
earth that he put on the shoulders but the water was sufficient to scour the slope out,
but we’re going back with asphalt concrete which will act as emergency overflow and
will keep the shoulder from washing out.
Mr. Cheek: And so that’s going to act as a raceway and pretty much control
the flow with no type of erodable material in there?
Mr. Oliver: All it’s going to do is protect the bank. If we still get a heavy
rain, it’s going to go up over the road and that’s going to continue that way until the
repairs are made by Georgia D.O.T.
Mr. Cheek: Probably 90 percent of our flood area is going to continue to go
over the roads. I guess my question is are we going to have to repair this again or is it
going to be fixed? It’s the same for Item 26. Are we repairing this to where it’s
going to stay repaired or are we going to continue to pour money into it?
Mr. Goins: Item 26? We are going to be put in a box culvert and take out
these undersized existing pipes that are under there. That’s the reason why we are
28
treating Item 26 a little different than 25. 26 is going to be actually upgrading the size
to allow the water to go through a box culvert rather than topping the road.
Mr. Oliver: 26 is addressed.
Mr. Cheek: And we are sizing it to compensate for 20 or 30 percent additional
flow that may occur over the next few years?
Mr. Goins: Yes.
Mr. Cheek: Or are we just sizing it for the flow we’re having right now?
Okay.
Mr. Mayor: What’s the source of funding for these two?
Mr. Goins: We’re using Street & Drainage Basin Paving Fund that the
County [inaudible] contingency. We have some money that’s left over on the
contract for the Butts Bridge, which we originally used that money from the Basin
Paving account and we’re using money we have left over for handling these
emergency repairs.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Goins, as Mr. Cheek asked, is this going to repair this
project for good or is a band-aid? How much money would it cost to repair this
project permanently?
Mr. Goins: The Alexander Drive culverts are going to be removed when the
new Alexander Drive relocation is going to take place in about two years. So the
Alexander Drive culvert itself will be taken out in about two years and there will be a
new bridge built over Rock Creek.
Mr. Oliver: And that’s what needs to be done for a permanent solution. I
mean, clearly, you need to get more water under that particular road. The cost of that
is quite substantial and I think the D.O.T. is paying, what, Drew, all the construction
costs? We provide right-of-way and design?
Mr. Goins: No. On Alexander Drive, that’s a county contract. Typically it’s
about 60/40.
Mr. Colclough: So this road, Mr. Mayor, will go in in another two years and
we’re just fixing this right now or repairing this right now until the new road goes in?
Mr. Goins: That’s correct.
29
Mr. Colclough: And we really need to spend the money to get this water out
of the highway?
Mr. Goins: Well, sir, if we have another rain like we did last week, then we
could lose the road.
Mr. Colclough: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke? Did you have your hand up?
Mr. Kuhlke: I was just going to ask Drew the schedule on the Alexander Road
project.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I don’t think we have a motion. I move to
approve 25 and 26.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I just want to ask Drew one question. We’ve been talking about
these change orders, and I want to make sure that we done looked at this band-aid that
we’re doing the work on this now, that this has been looked at thoroughly, that this
amount of money will take care of it and we won’t have to come back and try to do
something else. I mean this will take care of what we planned on doing right now?
Not repairing it but we don’t want ---
Mr. Goins: Well, sir, you never say never.
Mr. Oliver: 26 is fine. 25, I mean, clearly, is an interim solution pending the
relocation of that road and construction of a more substantial structure, and all this is
is to try to maintain the life of that particular road.
Mr. Williams: Drew, what I was saying again was that for what we’re doing,
we already said that this money is going to take care of this project. I’m just thinking
about a change order when this project come back and saying $25,000 is not going to
be enough to do what we already set to do here. It don’t look that good, right? That’s
all I want you to say.
Mr. Goins: The $18,500 is a firm quote from the contractor. The estimate on
Item 26 is just that. It’s an estimate. When we get our prices in from the contractors,
we’ll be coming back to you and getting you to allow us to award a contract for the
30
culvert. I will tell you that our additional, initial $25,000 may be a little low. But we
are getting quotes from contractors for a permanent fix on Item 26.
Mr. Williams: You answered my question. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: One more question, Drew. When we increased the flow size on
Item 26, are we going to create any downstream problems from increased volume in
that creek basin?
Mr. Goins: We have asked a consulting engineer to take a look at that for us
and we believe that the secondary impact will have subsided by the time they get to a
next downstream feature on the drainage basin.
Mr. Oliver: We requested no rise certification, Commissioner Cheek, and
obviously some engineers have difficulty with no rise certification, and in the coming
weeks that’s going to become a term that you all are intimately familiar with, I
believe.
Mr. Cheek: And this isn’t someone that’s done these calculations for Rae’s
Creek or Crane Creek or some of the other problems, is it?
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, any further discussion?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I definitely, and I know how long Jerry has been on this one, and I
could not vote against us doing the work on that, but I just want to ask from a lay
standpoint, Drew, and not knowing anything about what you need to deal with
professionally in there. $25,000, since we’re looking at an interim situation and we’re
also looking on the other side of that coin, two years down the road, and two years is
an estimate that doesn’t have any considerations for all types of other catastrophic
things. Two years. Is there anything else that we need to be doing that we would not
have to totally in terms of close out down there on Alexander Drive, but with the
piping situation underneath there, because I heard us talk about some cosmetic things,
and that sounds good and it looks good, but if we are going to be going back doing
those things every four months, every six months, every time the good Lord blesses
us with a lot of rain in a short period of time, in 24 months these $18,500s could add
up. And I’m just wondering if this is not a situation, Mr. Mayor, where we need to go
back and talk with D.O.T. in common sense terms -- and I hate to keep bringing this
up -- like we used to, on a regular basis, so much so, even though they used to write
about it, but we brought about good money when we went. Whatever it cost us to go,
31
we brought back in seven figures. Am I right, [inaudible]? There are other folks that
are passing one percent sales tax now that deal with roads and their projects. Our face
needs to be there. We can’t depend on whether it’s the Delegation or anybody else.
We got a good Commissioner in Mr. Lester. He tries real hard and produces, but I
think this is one that we talk about two years down the road, along with some others.
If we are going to see an emergency, it wasn’t long before we saw the emergency.
Natural occurrences happen. We’re going to see an emergency again. And I’m just
wondering if there is something else from the lay person to the professional that we
can do in this interim of two years down the road that may end up costing us a little
bit more money, but might get us past the next rain storm without having to come
back and deal with $20,000. Cause if this is interim and you’re talking about just
heavy rain. Well, I hope we do have some heavy rain. I may not want all of it at one
time, but no, we need water, we need rainfall. So if we’re talking about that to the
tune of $20,000, are we then going to be replacing this over and over and over again
in 24 months, with the 24 months, might be 30 months, might be 36 months. We
could be looking at two to three years. And I’m just making that. And I’m going to
vote for the motion but I think somewhere in there, Mr. Mayor, we need to get back
on a different dialog with D.O.T. and us, even to the point that if we have to end up
doing part of it out of some recaptured, and then ask them to reimburse when we get
to that. I’m just searching for a better answer than coming back to this thing every
time I see a cloud in the sky.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Your point is well taken. And let me just
say for the record that I was in Commissioner Coleman’s office last Wednesday. He
and I had a very nice meeting at the D.O.T. in Atlanta. On some Augusta projects.
Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’m very concerned, as Mr. Mays and as Mr.
Cheek is, about this project. I’m going to vote for it. It’s a project that we’ve got to
have. Either we’re going to do this project or we’re going to eliminate a major artery
in this town, and I’m not in favor of doing that. The other thing that I’m going to do
is -- Mr. Mays, it’s not going to be two years. It’s two years till we get plans to start
construction. It’s probably four to five years before we see construction finished. But
I’m going to go on and call the question.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called on the motion to approve Items 25
and 26. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us, by my reading, Madame Clerk, to Item 29.
Clerk: Item 29: Motion to deny a request by Barry L. Stewart for a
Gameroom License to be used in connection with Regency Café located at 2417
32
Regency Blvd. Unit C-1. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee June 28, 2000)
Mr. Mayor: Did that come from --
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I had that pulled on the recommendation of the
Attorney that we give this petitioner a full hearing before this body for due process
reasons.
Mr. Mayor: Right. Let me see where the item came from. Did it come from
the Sheriff’s Department?
Mr. Harris: It came from License & Inspection.
Mr. Mayor: Is Mr. Walker here today?
Mr. Harris: No, sir, he’s on vacation.
Mr. Mayor: Are you going to fill in for him?
Mr. Harris: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: You want to tell us about this, then?
Mr. Harris: Yes, sir. This is a request from Mr. Stewart for a gameroom
license at Regency Café located at 2417 Regency Boulevard, and we did initially
recommend approval, but based on new information brought to our attention by the
County Attorney, we are changing our recommendation and we’re going to defer to
the County Attorney for decision.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Mr. Mayor, in the Committee meeting, when this application was
considered, questions were asked of the applicant as to whether or not he had made
any plans to open a café, whether he had a business plan. The purpose of the inquiry
was to demonstrate whether or not he had reasonable prospects of generating more
than 50 percent of his income from something other than the gaming machines. And
the response at that time was that he had not made an application for a food service
permit, had not made inquiry or application for a restaurant license. We have had it
checked. As of today, there still is no application for a restaurant license, and I
submit that this is a license for the purpose of video poker, and under State law, he
cannot generate more than 50 percent of his income from game machines, and it was
on that basis that I recommended denial of the application and I again recommend
denial of the application. This clearly is for the purpose of video poker. There is no
33
business plan or any business proposal that has been submitted for a restaurant or a
café or anything. I think it’s there purely for video poker and recommend denial.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Wall. Is the petitioner, Mr. Stewart, here?
Mr. Little: Mr. Mayor, I’m Kevin Little. I represent Barry Stewart, and Mr.
Stewart is here with me.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Little, did you want to address the Commission?
Mr. Little: I do, thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission. We
filed today on behalf of Mr. Stewart a position statement. I have copies for everyone
here if they would like to take a look at it, which in greater detail specifies what we
believe, that the ordinance concerning Augusta-Richmond County Code section 6-6-
45, and proposed application of this ordinance in this instance would be
unconstitutional. But in short, there’s no requirement under this ordinance or any
other Richmond County ordinance or State law that Mr. Stewart provide a business
plan, whatever that is exactly, in submitting an application. This ordinance is clear
about what the requirement for the application process is. Mr. Stewart reviewed those
requirements. He reviewed State law. He reviewed this ordinance in advance of
investing a considerable amount of money and time in starting his business, and he
also received assurance from certain officials on behalf of the County that his
application appeared to have [inaudible] with County ordinance and State law, relying
on those assurances also, he proceeded with the business. He has met each and every
requirement of the ordinance without question, and there is no basis under the
ordinance for denial of his application for this arcade license. And on that basis, we
would ask that the motion to deny the application be rejected, and that the application
be approved. And I have copies of his position statement if you’d like to see it.
Mr. Mayor: Did you have any witnesses or any evidence you wanted to
submit to the Commission today, Mr. Little?
Mr. Little: Mr. Stewart will be happy to answer any specific questions that the
Commission has regarding his application. I believe the application and the
attachments to the original application speak for themselves and show that he has
satisfied all of the requirements for the arcade permit that he’s applied for.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Mr. Mayor, there is one other thing that I would like to put on the
record, and I mentioned this to some who were in the committee hearing last week.
Mr. Kevin Little is married to an associate in our office, Lee Little. This happens
from time to time. It happened when we hired Lee Little from anther law firm.
There’s a practice called the Chinese wall, which means basically I will not discuss
with Lee any aspect of the arcade ordinance so long as this is going on, have not
34
discussed it with her prior to this time, and basically takes steps within the office to
ensure that there is no communication between myself and Lee that might get back to
Kevin. As I say, it’s an expression that they use, Chinese wall. And again, when you
hire associates who happen to have a spouse who practices law, it’s a practice that
you have to put in place or if you hire a lawyer from another firm, it’s a practice that
you have in place, have to put in place, and it’s a fairly common practice, and we’ve
instituted that in our office so as to eliminate any possibility of confidentiality being
released.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you for putting that on the record. So Mr. Little, it’s your
representation to this Commission today that you’re not opening up a video gaming
parlor?
Mr. Little: It’s my representation, Mr. Mayor, that Mr. Stewart is applying for
an arcade permit pursuant to the clear terms of the ordinance which may include
video poker games as he’s allowed to do under this ordinance.
Mr. Mayor: Well, then maybe I should ask the question more directly of Mr.
Stewart. Mr. Stewart, would you come forward, please?
Mr. Stewart: Sure.
Mr. Mayor: Is it your representation today that you are not going to open a
video gaming parlor?
Mr. Stewart: That is correct.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Henry Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Attorney, I don’t want to get involved in the Chinese
law. I would like to know if the food is the main thing that’s keeping him from
getting an license. If so, that’s what we need to [inaudible].
Mr. Wall: Again, considering the application under the ordinance that was in
effect at the time he applied, we do not have the delineated the specific objective
criteria that we now have in place. However, he still has to comply with State law.
Under State law, it is required that more than 50 percent of his income come from
sources other than game amusement machines. And I would anticipate someone who
comes in saying that they’re going to have a café and they anticipate generating more
than 50 percent of their income from something other than game amusement
machines would have figured out whether or not he can get a food service permit for
that location, have some idea of what kind of café he’s going to open, what kind of
meals he’s going to serve, have some idea about what kind of income he can generate
from that so that he can anticipate that, and I think that based upon his failure to
produce that, then you’re entitled to judge this on what it is, and that is, he’s come
35
forward with video poker machines, he’s saying I may at some point in the future
open a restaurant and a café, and I think that without some firm evidence before you
of a reasonable prospect of his generating that kind of income, you’re justified in
turning it down.
Mr. H. Brigham: He has beer and wine or whatever. Do you have a beer and
wine license?
Mr. Wall: No.
Mr. Oliver: He had not applied at the point -- he’s not applied for anything
other than this particular license.
Mr. Wall: And hasn’t applied since the meeting last week.
Mr. Stewart: I was at a standstill until we talked again.
Mr. Little: Mr. Mayor, if I could respond briefly to Mr. Wall.
Mr. Mayor: Just a minute. We’re allowing the Commissioners to ask some
questions. We’ll let you give an argument here in a moment. Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Wall, my understanding from committee last week that
this is a discretionary license, it is not a license that we do not, we’re not obligated to
grant.
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. J. Brigham: And the discretion -- I’m going to be a little -- if we see
discretionary the fact that you’ve got blue eyes and we don’t want to issue a license to
blue eyes, that isn’t a good reason.
Mr. Wall: Exactly.
Mr. J. Brigham: But if we know there’s a State law that says you’ve got to
have 50 percent, whether it’s -- and I think it’s law now, right?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. J. Brigham: After July 1? And this is July 5. And we can possibly deny a
license for no business plan that says you’re going to have more than 50 percent of
your sales for non-gaming related activities. Am I correct in my understanding?
Mr. Wall: That’s the analysis.
36
Mr. J. Brigham: This is very similar to a Sunday sales license, is what you’re
telling me?
Mr. Wall: It’s similar to a Sunday sales license from the standpoint that if
someone came in, did not have food service permits and says I want to serve here on
Sunday and I intend to open a restaurant sometime in the future, then in my opinion
you’d be justified in denying the Sunday sales license. And in essence, that’s what
this gentleman is doing insofar as the arcade license. He obviously intends to put in
the video poker machines. He’s not taken any steps to institute a restaurant or café.
And based upon that, I think that you’ve got a reasonable basis for turning the
application down and that’s my recommendation.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Wall, let me follow up just one step a little father. Is this
similar to Johnny’s Supper Club where we denied a Sunday sales license based on the
fact that he didn’t seem to have a history of generating -- is that a similar situation to
what we’re doing now or are we in a speculative mode? I’m asking because I’m
looking for some legal guidance.
Mr. Wall: Johnny’s Supper Club, if I recall correctly, and I may be wrong
about this, had actually revoked the license because he had not maintained the 50
percent sales. If I remember. And then he came back and applied, and based upon
the prior history. In this case, I mean I think you judge the application based on what
it is. He says he talked with the County and talked with them about the requirements,
yet he didn’t apply for a restaurant license. It just doesn’t [inaudible].
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Little, y’all still have not presented any kind of business
plan or anything to our --
Mr. Stewart: I haven’t been given any time.
Mr. J. Brigham: You’ve had a week.
Mr. Mayor: I think the simple answer is yes or no to the Commissioner’s
question whether you supplied one or not.
Mr. Little: We have not submitted a business plan. It is not a requirement of
the ordinance that we do so.
Mr. Mayor: Well, it’s our advice from our counsel that it is a requirement.
And the question was whether you had submitted one or not. I think at the
Committee meeting that was also mentioned. So the answer to the question is no.
Mr. Brigham, you have some other questions?
37
Mr. J. Brigham: The other question, I believe it’s already been brought out. I
believe we did ask about whether or not there had been any food service permits
applied for. This business is --
Mr. Little: We have an appointment tomorrow at 2 o’clock with the Health
Department.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. J. Brigham: I’m going to make a motion, Mr. Mayor, that we deny.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to deny. Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Henry Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: Motion has been made, but he says he has a meeting
tomorrow. There are some of us who might want to help, but we’d have to have some
more information. Now you say you are meeting with someone tomorrow with the
Health Department?
Mr. Little: Yes, sir.
Mr. H. Brigham: Are you going to apply for a food license for the café out
there?
Mr. Little: Yes, we are. When you talk about the games, the games do not
have [inaudible] required. [inaudible]
Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: If I’m in order, that’s a dying area out there.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. H. Brigham: We would like to do something to help but I don’t know
how I can do it. Mr. Attorney, how can I make a motion to give him a little time to
bring us back something that would be justifiable?
Mr. Wall: You would make a motion to postpone this to some later meeting to
give him an opportunity to bring whatever information you would like to have before
you.
38
Mr. H. Brigham: I’d like to make that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Mays, you going to move
up here and second this for us?
Mr. Mays: I’ll second my colleague’s motion to get it on the floor.
Mr. Mayor: All right, it’s on the floor. Thank you, Mr. Mays. We had some
questions or comments down here. Mr. Cheek? Let me do this. Let me ask the TV
camera men to move out of the way, because y’all are blocking the petitioner from the
Commissioners here. Thank you.
Mr. Cheek: Question. How many games will be video poker and how many
will be other arcade type games?
Mr. Stewart: There will only be eight games in the building. The application
that I have before you calls for more than that. But with all the opposition that I’ve
received, I’m [inaudible] the application.
Mr. Cheek: My guess my question is, do you plan on having any games that
are typical arcade games apart from video poker? You’re calling this an arcade and I
have two teenagers and I’m familiar with most of the arcades in the area, and they
don’t have video poker games, and so I’m just wondering, are you going to have
games other than video poker games in there?
Mr. Stewart: There will be a golf game and no more than two or three young
adult type games.
Mr. Cheek: So you’ll say less than 50 percent of your games will be non-
poker machines? And I guess to follow that up, what age group are you targeting for
this business that you’re trying to open?
Mr. Stewart: I’m targeting the 21 and older that can lay the games.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: There’s some confusion here. I keep hearing arcade. And on
this application, it says café. There’s a difference between an arcade and a café that
he applied for. It says Regency Café. Is that correct?
39
Mr. Mayor: Well, that’s the name, but if you look down at the bottom of that,
underneath where he’s got his name, it says restaurant and gameroom. It says café at
the top.
Mr. Colclough: The business name is café.
Mr. Oliver: Regency Café.
Mr. Colclough: That’s the business name?
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Cheek, to answer your question, or to expand upon it, the
number of machines is not regulated. Once you issue a gameroom license, there’s not
a restriction on the type of machine as long as it’s legal, nor the number.
Mr. Cheek: Well, the reason I asked that is to establish whether this is going
to be a genuine arcade to attract a variety of people or a video poker parlor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I guess I’m a little confused also, because we started
off talking about a gameroom license here and we are denying a gameroom license,
am I to understand what it is here, and all of a sudden we’re entering café and all this
other stuff, food and other stuff into it, but to the Attorney, what are we talking about
here? We are talking about a gameroom license?
Mr. Wall: You are talking about a gameroom license which has to come
before the Commission and they use the expression gameroom license, but the Code
refers to an arcade and that’s one and the same thing. It’s where you have ten or more
coin operated amusement machines. And Mr. Colclough, to follow up, yes, café is in
the business name, so you would think based upon the fact that he intends for it to be
a café that he’s done something insofar as applying for a restaurant license and that’s
my point. I think it really is a video poker parlor based upon what you’ve been
presented thus far. No effort has been made to get a restaurant license.
Mr. Beard: Well, then, in that regard, I think I would have to stick with the
gameroom license here and support the denial on this. Simply because I think we’re
going to have to be very careful of these gamerooms coming into the county. I think
all of us understand that. And I think we’re going to have to make sure we know
what we’re getting into before we delve into this. And I know that we need
businesses in all of the areas around here, but we still have to be cognizant of the fact
of what type businesses are coming in. And I think until we kind of clear this up, I
don’t see how I can support this.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Mr. Williams?
40
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ve got a couple of questions. The
first question I’d like to know from the petitioner, have you ran or have you indulged
in this business before? Have you had experience in this?
Mr. Stewart: In the restaurant business or video gameroom?
Mr. Williams: We’re talking about video gaming right now.
Mr. Stewart: I’ve had ten years of experience in video gamerooms in South
Carolina.
Mr. Williams: In South Carolina?
Mr. Stewart: Right. I never had any problems.
Mr. Williams: I understand that.
Mr. Stewart: Can I explain another thing to you?
Mr. Mayor: Let Mr. Williams continue his questioning.
Mr. Williams: Let me try to bring another issue, and I’m like Mr. Beard, I’m
in support of businesses, but at the same time, we’ve got to be extremely careful.
You said you are catering to 21 and older. There was such a place out on Gordon
Highway, I think at one of the plazas, Cherokee Plaza, where there was a gameroom
and it was catering, I think, to 21 and older but it had the tendency to draw the
younger crowd, I’d say from 16 on up, and it was illegal for them to go into this
place, and it really got out of hand. If you’re talking about video poker, if you’re
talking about the type games that younger people are going to be attracted to, then
convert right on over to the video poker, I’m really not in support of that for that
reason. It’s been proven that it won’t work, it has not worked out there. They had a
real nice place, but it created more problems than it was worth. The law was there
almost every week. The crowd really flocked in there, so to speak, but it was a
negative rather than a plus for us, in this city, and it eventually closed down or maybe
the law department closed it down or whatever, but it’s no longer there. I’m going to
call for the question, Mr. Mayor. I think we need to go ahead and vote on what we’re
going to do on this. Let’s move on, please, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. The question has been called. So the issue comes
before us for a vote.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, the question has been called. I give you 30 seconds,
Mr. Mays.
41
Mr. Mays: Well, I haven’t had any. The other fellows have been discussing ---
Mr. Mayor: Well, your colleague jumped in and called the question, so under
the parliamentary procedure, we move ahead to the vote. That’s the protocol that the
Commission adopted.
Mr. Mays: But you know the Chair is still in charge.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. And that’s why I’m giving you 30 seconds.
Mr. Mays: Well, I seconded the motion because obviously there was some
more discussion that needed to be done. I just want some clarity on probably why are
we denying. Because what I’m getting to in this, and I can support the denial, but I
want to know why we are denying and also if we deny it on the basis of the food and
that plan of restaurant, does this then prohibit the person from going ahead tomorrow
where there is an appointment, to go ahead and apply for food and then be back here
in two weeks, if that’s why you are denying it? And I think, Mr. Mayor, that needs to
be clear. Because if there’s not a path for what you are denying for, I think we all
need to know that. If you deny it on that, you come back in two weeks and deal with
this again.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, can you answer that in 30 seconds?
Mr. Wall: First of all the reason it’s being denied, if you choose to do so, the
recommendation is based upon the fact that there is no showing that more than 50
percent of his income is going to come from anything other than amusement
machines. Now, as to the second issue, he can open up a restaurant as soon as he can
get his food service permit and go in there, and frankly, he can have video poker
machines in there, he just cannot have the concentration of them. And that’s what the
ordinance is designed to prohibit, is the concentration of them.
Mr. Mayor: I think, too, Mr. Mays, you should note that this gentleman is a
businessman who has done a substantial amount of business in South Carolina. He
knows how to run a business. He made an application over here on May 11 for this
business, almost two months ago to the date, and he’s just now getting around to
having a meeting with the Health Department. So this is a smart businessman who
knows how to conduct business, and I think it’s obvious as the City Attorney has
explained to us what is going on.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, that reason of knowing he’s smart, I wanted us to be
smart enough that we make a smart denial and not one that we are either going to be
faced with constitutionally or it will come back in two weeks and have to deal with
this again. And that’s why I asked the question that I asked.
42
Mr. Mayor: All right. The question has been called on the motion, and that’s
the motion to deny the request. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. The
substitute motion, I’m sorry. The substitute motion is Mr. Henry’s motion to
postpone it. Substitute motion is to postpone it.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Colclough, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr.
Shepard, Mr. Williams and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion fails 1-8-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion. Any further discussion
on the original motion? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: No, Mr. Mayor, you highlighted the point. I noticed that the
th
application was on the 11 of May. For a gameroom.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? All in favor of the original motion to deny it,
please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. H. Brigham votes No.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 8-1-1.
Mr. Mayor: Next item is Item 31. That was Commissioner Marion Williams.
Clerk: Item 31: Motion to approve Master Plan for Wood Park.
(Approved by Public Services Committee June 28, 2000)
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, I wanted to get Mr. Beck to give me
some clarification on this motion to approve the master plan for Wood Park. I think
they had a meeting. I was in Savannah at a conference and I did not make that
meeting. I want to just be clear on whether or not -- in the backup, it talks about the
neighborhood, the Recreation Department and the Fire Department getting together.
If Mr. Beck could just enlighten me.
Mr. Oliver: The Committee met with the neighborhood in here that particular
day, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Beck can explain the master plan. But I would note as a
point of clarification at this point, within the $45,000 currently available, the only
thing that’s funded in the master plan is the walking track, the playground, and the
demo of the old park house. Those are the only three items that are funded and any
other action as it relates to that master plan would require approval of the
Commission and identification of funding.
43
Mr. Williams: Well, we’re talking about voting on the master plan. Mr. Beck,
can you explain this?
Mr. Beck: Yes, sir, Commissioner. We did meet with the neighborhood
association twice, last week I believe. The Committee meetings were last
Wednesday, I believe, and we met Monday and Tuesday night of last week with the
full neighborhood association. The neighborhood association approved the master
plan that we presented at their neighborhood association meting with those elements
that Mr. Oliver just mentioned, about already being funded in this phase of the
SPLOST program, $45,000 worth, which is the walking track, the playground and the
demo of the old park house. But the neighborhood association did approve the master
plan, which was presented in Committee last Wednesday.
Mr. Mayor: Is there some reason we don’t have a copy of the master plan in
our backup? The agenda doesn’t address any specifics at all.
Mr. Oliver: It was passed out at the meeting and I --
Mr. Beck: No, the master plan was presented on a big GIS board last week as
a rough draft, and we’re now having that master plan redone professionally
subsequent to the Commission approval.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: My question, following up on Mr. Williams’, is that we in
actuality are not approving the master plan, we’re only approving the work that we
have funds for, because if I recall correctly, the master plan calls for an expenditure of
about a million and a half dollars.
Mr. Mayor: Well, the agenda item says to approve the master plan for Wood
Park.
Mr. Kuhlke: I don’t think that’s what we approved.
Mr. Beck: Well, what you approved, it was my impression, what we’re asking
you to approve was the conceptual plan for what that park would exist of in the future
as to the fire station going in one part, future community center, future walking track,
green space, and what was presented in Committee. But of course that is all subject o
funding.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
44
Mr. Williams: I’m a little confused because the backup, like Mr. Kuhlke said,
did not show a master plan, and when it says to approve, a motion to approve master
plan for Wood Park, I can’t vote for a plan that I have not seen. I know there was
some discussion. I know that Mr. Beck and the neighborhood got together. We had a
meeting that Saturday up there and talked about some things, but what’s going to take
place pending the funding, I have not seen that. If I vote for this plan and it’s not
even what I voted for --
Mr. Oliver: Might I suggest you just postpone this until the next meeting, and
that that be included in the next agenda item, if that would make you more
comfortable? I would note, though, that that will delay the relocation of the park
equipment. Is that correct, Tom?
Mr. Beck: The playground equipment process will begin this Friday being
relocated. The playground equipment will. That will not have any cost associated
with it. So that would not affect that.
Mr. Oliver: So long as the understanding is that that playground equipment is
going to be moved, my suggestion, if it makes you feel more comfortable, would be
to postpone it for two weeks and we’ll put that back on there.
Mr. Williams: Well, I’d like to make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor,
that we delay this until we can look at the master plan that we are going to be
approving, as long as that is not going to upset the plans to relocate the gym set,
the playground equipment that we discussed already.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Is it your intention to bring it back here or send it back to
Committee?
Mr. Williams: Bring it back here so we can vote on it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Beck: We can do that.
Mr. Mayor: You’ll have that for the next meeting?
Mr. Beck: We should have that probably tomorrow. But we did not have it
ready for today.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mays?
45
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, with all due respect to the makers of both motions,
does either one of them mind splitting part of their motion so that the work that’s
entailing the $45,000 on the immediate stuff, that they are in the process of doing, that
we’ve been in the middle of dialog and to the point of argument about in some cases
over the last three to four weeks, can we approve that part of it to proceed and go on
since some of that work is probably being done even as we are speaking right now?
And then the process of the master plan and all that, I don’t have a problem with that
being brought back. But there is some work that does not need to be put on hold,
because we approved something in Committee the other day and I remember asking
the question two or three different times of the neighborhood and of Tom, is that
something you have been over, something y’all discussed? Okay, there were no
dissenters. I don’t mind that coming back for people who were not on that Committee
or may not have been present in the room, but there is some work that is proceeding
that at least -- and I don’t see the Commissioner from that District -- he’s not in here
right now -- but this Commissioner does not need to rewrite that piece of history all
over again, to have to go up there and deal with that. So if one of y’all would at least
include getting that part of the work done and then postponing the big project to come
back so that everybody can see it, I don’t have a problem with it. But let’s get what
we are doing off the ground and not put this whole thing in one bag so that everything
stops.
Mr. Mayor: Let me ask Mr. Beck a question. Would the effect of the motion
to revisit this at our next meeting, would that delay any ongoing work at the park?
And what work and to what extent?
Mr. Beck: Again, there were three elements that are funded in the $45,000
that’s a part of the master plan. One is the playground equipment and it will be
moved this Friday. We have a playground equipment installer that has agreed at no
charge to come in to help.
Mr. Mayor: So that would not be affected.
Mr. Beck: What it would affect would be the demo of the building. There is
cost associated with that. I have spoken with Public Works in regards to the
construction of the walking track, and we had put a time element of October 15 for
that being constructed, and they do feel like before that time frame that that could be
done. So it really would not affect that part of it.
Mr. Mayor: So primarily it’s the demolition you’re talking about?
Mr. Beck: Right.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to amend my motion so it would
include to allow Mr. Beck to take the $45,000 of the money that’s already
appropriated to continue the work that needs to be done, but before we approve
46
the master plan that that would come back to us, that we’d be able to look at that
so we can vote on that. I don’t think there will be any problem in it, but I’m like
Mr. Kuhlke. I wouldn’t want to vote for it and have not seen it. So if we can
include that where it will stay so Mr. Beck can continue to do the work at that
park, Wood Park, that’s the demolition of the building, the playground, and the
other money, so we can continue to move on. Like Mr. Mays, I was at the
meeting Saturday morning. I don’t want to revisit that, but if we can do that I
amend my motion.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to amending the substitute motion to
include that language? None heard. Any further discussion on this item? The vote
will be on the substitute motion. I’m sorry, the main motion. The vote will be on the
main motion. All in favor of the motion as amended, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next item is 32.
Clerk: Item 32: Motion to approve request from the Richmond County
Sheriff’s Department that the business license held by Sonya Granger for the
Tinted Windows Club located at 1505 North Leg Road be placed on six month
probation for the following violation: loud music, shootings in parking lot,
patrons loitering on the outside. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by
Public Services Committee June 28, 2000)
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I asked that this be pulled. Mr. Mayor, this
attracted my attention as the Commissioner in that area when I had several calls from
constituents, and I’m going to pass some photographs to my right and my left which
indicate the condition of the parking lots in the bordering businesses surrounding this
Tinted Windows Club on Sunday mornings following the shootings. I first noticed
this when the Chronicle, as we refer to the daily -- I don’t know if Sylvia’s in -- but
they reported that three teens were arguing with four victims in the parking lot of the
Tinted Windows nightclub back in May, there were semi-automatic guns drawn, and
there were shots fired. It said that Jason Ivey and Seletha Warren were injured during
the confrontation and two bystanders, Grady Allen and Samuel Sadd, were injured by
stray bullets. And I guess I didn’t have the opportunity to go to the Public Services
Committee, and I noticed that none of the people in the neighborhood really came out.
This was added in the Public Services Committee as an add-on and didn’t really
attract the attention of the folks in Forest Estates and also in Ridgewood, but I want to
hand to the Clerk, and I previously furnished you, members of the Commission and
Mr. Mayor, a petition which bears the transmittal of Esperanza W. V. DeLeon, who is
47
the secretary of the Forest Estates Subdivision Homeowners Association and is also a
homeowner there. It was my understanding, and correct me if I’m wrong, Mr. Harris,
that your department, you and Mr. Walker, recommended that there be a suspension
of this license, and I think that’s what we have to do. I am concerned with loud
music, Mr. Mayor. I’m concerned with loitering. I’m concerned with the gross
littering that’s occurring in other businesses in this area. The Auto Zone manager,
who manages a business right in front of the Tinted Windows Club, has sent I believe
an e-mail to you, Mr. Mayor, and I think I got a copy of it. Maybe it’s only to me.
But he complained about the litter that occurs every Saturday night. I can personally
tell you that I’ve been up there after the church hour, about 11 a.m. on Sundays, and
I’ve found beer bottles in the parking lot. This is a club that caters to a non-alcoholic
crowd, yet there is plenty of mischief going on in the parking lot, as evidenced by the
numerous beer bottles that are left behind on the parking lot of the shopping plaza
where Tinted Windows is located. It’s evidenced by the bottles left behind in the
Auto Zone parking lot, which this Commissioner has personally seen. It’s also
evidenced by the litter on our right-of-ways, Mr. Mayor. It’s also evidenced by the
beer bottles in the parking lot in front of the old Food Lion store. And I’ll tell you,
Mr. Mayor, that to me, the wake-up call has already come to this Commission in the
form of the shootings, and I cannot support a mere hand slap when there have been
shootings and there have been innocent bystanders and innocent persons injured and
the aggravated assault offense has been committee. If you go up there at night, and
I’ve been up there at 11 o’clock at night -- I don’t go up there much later than that --
but down at one end of the parking lot, there’s good lighting and down at the end by
Tinted Windows, there’s no lighting. It’s dark. It’s a hard problem for the Sheriff’s
Department to cope with. I’ve talked with the beat officer. He said this is a problem,
it’s a problem every Saturday night, and I just don’t want the blood of any innocent
so I make a motion that we suspend this
victims on the hand of this Commissioner,
license because of what’s happened. They don’t have control of this situation.
We’ve had our wake-up call. We either ignore it or we heed it. I suggest we heed
it.
Mr. Mayor: And that’s a suspension for how long, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I would suspend it for six months.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. Let’s hear from the Sheriff here.
Mr. Harris: As the Sheriff said, he asked me to get some information on this.
I investigated it. I spoke with the individual that owns the club probably a week or
two weeks prior to the shooting incident. I advised them that summer was coming on
and the loitering had to stop in the parking lot or we were going to have serious
problems. About two weeks later, the shootings occurred. I spoke with Mr. Shepard,
got it on the agenda. Two weeks before we got it on the agenda, Ms. Granger, she
48
hired two more deputies. She also got a golf cart in the parking lot and the crowd
hasn’t been as bad as it was. There’s practically no loitering now. But there was a
serious problem before and I go along with whatever the Commission decides to do.
Mr. Mayor: Let me understand this. This place does not have an alcohol
license; is that correct?
Mr. Harris: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: It does not have a license for off-premise consumption of any
alcoholic beverages in the parking lot; is that correct?
Mr. Harris: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: Somebody have a hand up down here? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, after receiving some communications on this several
weeks ago, I began on my outings in the evening going by and looking and certainly
there appeared to be as many people loitering in the parking lot as there possibly
could have been inside, and this was not a unique experience. It was on the Saturdays
that I went by, every time. And that’s to me a formula for disaster.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I guess really I want to hear from -- if this is the young lady that
represents the club, I would like to hear from her. Because I think in all fairness, we
can go by any parking area any time in this city on any weekend and you’ll find the
whole thing loitering, and I’d just like to, for my part, hear from her to see whether
there are any corrective measures. Because I think we can again rush to judgment,
and are we going to close every establishment that has these people out there in their
parking lots and that all over town? So I think I would first like to hear from her and
then I would like to come back and make some more comments.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We will in just a moment. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I’ll wait. I’d just like to ask the young lady some questions.
Mr. Mayor: Any other comments from the Commissioners? Is this the license
holder, Ms. Granger?
Ms. Granger: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: And what would you like to say about this?
49
Ms. Granger: I would like to speak on behalf of our teen club and say that the
accusations made to me are a vicious dissection of what’s going on there. Now this
parking lot is inhabited by two clubs. One that has 21 and above. It has a liquor
license. I did not bring the outlay of the map today, which I should have brought, but
it shows that both customers, both patrons of the club, they utilize this parking lot.
Furthermore, on Sunday, the whole entire plaza is closed. Therefore, if I’m guilty for
a bad choice of housekeeping, I don’t have my employees work on Sunday, but all of
the businesses there that are actually in the plaza, the Auto Zone, the back of their
business faces the plaza. Now Auto Zone’s parking lot is also utilized by Club
Millennium’s patrons, too. All of the businesses in the plaza, where our business is
run, can attest to that they do not come in Monday morning, when they open their
doors, that the parking lot is not clean. Now the documentation or the footage that
you have or the pictures all show that yes, this parking lot has litter on Sunday. But
parking lot, the whole plaza, is closed. It’s not in operation. And on Monday before
anybody unlocks their door, from Mike’s Auto to the Salvation Army to Badcock, the
litter is removed. Also I want to address shootings. The club has been open for a
year and a half. It has anywhere from 600 to 1000 black and Latino patrons on one
night. I think that that is a far better place for them to be in, a supervised recreational
facility, than on the streets. When I wrote a business plan and wanted to open this
business, which I had to present to my leaseholder, one of the things I incorporated
was I would make sure that we had a safe environment, because as you all know,
teens are mischievous and volatile. Now on my staff I have six Richmond County
police officers. I am doing everything that I think is humanly possible to make this a
safe environment for these teens. Now as far as the loud music and loitering, I would
just have to disagree. Loud music, we’ve had tickets written. Also if you were
talking about a residential area, we are 1000 feet from the residential area. It would
seem to me that if there is loud music, it could possibly be coming from the patrons of
Club Millennium. They have 21 and up. 21 year olds still play their music loud. As
far as alcohol, who’s to say? None of the customers out in the parking lot have been
interviewed are you a Tinted Windows patron or are you a Millennium? Now like I
said, other than the shootings, there has only been one occurrence, and it’s on record.
Yes, innocent bystanders were hurt, and I’m glad that they weren’t hurt any more
seriously than they were. But this is from somebody who came to our club after
hours and this could have stemmed from a neighborhood beef. Who knows? But
they came to the parking lot after the club was closed and the police officers were
doing whatever they usually do to clear the parking lot and this argument occurred
with some people, and some teens coming from our club, and they were fired on.
And I think that’s kind of unfair because when you have after-hour facilities, things
like this occur. And I just don’t want a dark cloud hanging over our teen facility
because it’s not a bad place. Shootings occur at the mall, shooting occur in the
schools. I just want the Commissioners to consider these things, that this is not a bad
place. And whenever I was addressed with the issue, there is loud music and
loitering, I didn’t point a finger and say oh, that’s Club Millennium. I took measures
as a business person to rectify that. I hire more police officers. And in addition to
that, I also hired a golf cart so that my police officers could have better mobility
50
throughout the parking lot, and I [inaudible] parking lot on the Millennium side. I tell
my police officer, hey, if they’re in the parking lot, they’re in the club. If they’re not
in the club, they’re off our property. So I think a suspension is a bit harsh. That’s all
I have to say.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Ms. Granger, do you deny that last Saturday night about 11
o’clock the lights on your side of the parking lot were out?
Ms. Granger: Yes and can I --
Mr. Shepard: You do deny that?
Ms. Granger: No, I do not.
Mr. Shepard: You do admit that they were out and --
Ms. Granger: Yes, and can I address that?
Mr. Shepard: Just a second. Let me finish my question. They’ve been out
every Saturday night before that, isn’t that true?
Ms. Granger: Absolutely.
Mr. Shepard: Why do you and your landlord, if you have a business plan,
have the priority to turn on the lights in front of your club?
Ms. Granger: I’m going to say this to you and I can provide documentation.
It’s a Georgia Power thing. Do you think that we would have a club knowing,
knowing the personalities of teens and not light it? It would be far more cheaper for
us to pay a light bill than to keep adding police officers to our area to make sure
they’re safe. Those lights are not functioning, and to show you the pettiness of Club
Millennium, that have two lights that stand toward our parking lot, and they cut those
lights out to be nasty. They could shed light on our part of the parking lot which
those four lights that you see, they’re not functioning.
Mr. Shepard: In my opinion, you should have corrected the darkness. When I
rode by there, the only thing I could see was the blue flashing light of the police
officers. Otherwise, there was no attempt to adequately light that parking lot in front
of Tinted Windows. It was [inaudible] lit in other parts, but it was very dark in front
of your business.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
51
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to make a couple of
statements. First of all is that there is another business that’s adjacent, that’s next
door there, and if they’re not alcohol beverages in this teen club, I’m not saying that
teenagers don’t get it from maybe next door. If you’ve got two facilities there, I don’t
think closing or suspending the license, I think that something should be done. I think
that she should maybe pursue Georgia Power and find out what the cost is going to
be, between the landlord and getting those lights on. I think that Sunday, even though
you say before Monday morning it’s cleaned up, you can’t wait until Monday to do
that, I think that once the parking lot is there, you can’t say that somebody is not
going to come through on Sunday because it’s closed. If you have a problem, I think
you as a proprietor or owner should make it your responsibility to have someone at
midnight or whatever time, you have got a golf cart there, they’ve got lights, you
ought to be able to clean your area up. Also your adjacent person’s. I think that
something ought to be done, Mr. Shepard. I’m in agreement. But if we close this
place, if we close it for six months and they take up another spot, I know some worse
places. We talked about a place over on Gordon Highway, Cherokee, who had a big
problems. And teenagers are like anybody else, they think that they are going to be
able to do what they want to do, and they get out and they’ve got the attitude that
they’re grown. We need to, if she’s got these police officers there, she needs to have
these lights on, she needs to have the place cleaned up. Also the same ought to go to
the club next door to her. I think we ought to give her probation. If she fails this, I
think the Sheriff’s Department ought to monitoring them, and being able to do
something with swift action, but I think we need to give her probation and not
suspend.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, as I said, I have two teen-age boys and so I have the
opportunity to travel and see some of these areas by taking my boys there. There’s a
skating establishment on Washington Road that does not allow loitering. They don’t
have the problems. There’s one on Bobby Jones Expressway that doesn’t have the
loitering. They don’t have the problems. There’s a Monday night teen dance
establishment on Washington Road that does not allow the loitering. They do not
have the problem. They have mixed ages in some of these establishments that have
consumption of alcohol and non-consumption of alcohol in these establishments. My
concern is the loitering. Months ago when I drove by, it looked like the party was
outside and not inside. Whether it’s your establishment or your neighbor’s
establishment, anybody that allows this kind of loitering, in my opinion, until the
authorities have to call it down, is putting kids at risk. This is a dangerous situation
when you have alcohol and teenagers with hormones raging, whether they are from
the neighborhood or from the club, when you allow them to participate in activities in
the parking lot longer than walking to their car in a reasonable time and leaving, then
we’re opening a door for trouble. That’s my concern that we resolve it. I want the
kids to have a safe place to go. I know there are many safe places and the formula for
success is constant adult supervision and not allowing loitering.
52
Ms. Granger: Commissioner Cheek ---
Mr. Mayor: Ma’am, just a moment. Let the Commissioner speak. Mr.
Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, as I said, I wanted to hear from the young lady
because I think that everybody needs the opportunity, especially if you’re in business,
to correct that. And it appears from my knowledge this is the first time that I’ve heard
this. And I think, I agree with the probational part of this. I think that each business
is responsible for what goes on outside that business. And I think that we’ve heard
enough around the table and she should have heard enough to know that unless she
corrects that problem, that the license would be suspended. But I’m in agreement
with giving her the opportunity, a young person herself who is trying to do something
for other teens. I think it would be helpful and supportive and hopefully that she
could use corrective measures to do this, and if she can’t use the corrective measures
to do this, then I think she should suffer the consequences. It’s unfortunate, as I
understand from hearing, I’m not familiar with the place, but that you are located
between two establishments that are serving alcoholic beverages and I know you have
a problem there, but then it would be up to you to assist in alleviating that problem,
and if you can’t, if you’re lucky enough to get the probation, then you ought to do as
you’ve done, but you’ve got to go a little farther, as I understand this today.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I’d like, Mr. Mayor, for Mr. Harris from the License &
Inspection to put his recommendation on the record. We haven’t heard from him and
I’d like it on the record.
Mr. Harris: We talked with Officer Berry about this, when we heard about it,
and I’ve also spoken with Ms. Granger. And with all the preventive measure that
she’s put in, it would be kind of hard for me to ask for anything other than probation,
because I talking with her I found out that she had to pay double what every other
establishment in Richmond County pays for special duty officers, which I thought
was kind of funny. But she does. She pays $25 an hour and she has six officers and
she has the go cart every Saturday night. And I can understand the point about the
lighting. Something really needs to be done about that. But as far as her as a business
person, she’s a school teacher. And from talking to her, I think she has a deep concern
for children. And she really thinks that she is giving them an opportunity for what’s
going on. And her location is not the only location in Richmond County where we
really need to tighten up on. I think she’s trying. And we recommended probation
from the very beginning. The Sheriff’s Department had no recommendations so we
looked at the evidence that they provided us and the only alternative we could come
up with was probation cause we could not see putting her out of business and she was
doing everything she could to try to keep the business open.
53
Mr. Mayor: Any further?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I make a substitute motion that we approve the
action taken by the Committee.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve. This would be --
Mr. Mays: That was the probation period of six months.
Mr. Mayor: Of six months.
Mr. Beard: I second it.
Mr. Colclough: Could we put something in there that the lights be corrected in
a minimum amount of time?
Mr. Oliver: My suggestion would be 30 days. I see no reason why they can’t
be fixed.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: In the Committee minutes, there was something I started to in
Committee. I backed out of it. I even told the owner, cause I didn’t know what the
situation was with the tenant and the people in that particular plaza in reference to
lighting. I think that that’s something that we may want to through our offices,
whether it’s the Sheriff’s Department, Randy, through an element of Public Safety, or
whether it’s through Licensing, lend some assistance, too. Because I think it’s a little
bit more, Ms. Granger, than the Georgia Power thing. But at the same time, as both
of these License folks can tell you, and Barry probably a little longer than Larry on
where that was in the old county, but for years you’ve had two to three, even alcohol
establishment licenses that have been in that same location in which, whether it be
ownership or whoever was in charge of lighting in that plaza, it has always been a two
tier situation, one end being dark, another one being lit up. I’ve never known whether
that’s the choice of the person renting to do it or whether that’s a decision that the
plaza made or whether it’s two sets of ownership in the plaza. But I do think in some
means, Mr. Mayor, of public safety, because if she goes back and is a tenant and says
I want them on, and obviously if she’s paying double fees on the special duty folks
and renting the cart and putting on six of them, I think that is an element of trying. If
you do that, then I don’t think you --
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, let me offer this suggestion. At the same time, why
doesn’t our Inspection Department put the owner of the property on notice with
54
respect to providing adequate lighting because of the activities going on in the
parking lot of his property?
Mr. Oliver: I think we can offer moral support, but I don’t believe we have an
ordinance in place that requires any minimum lighting level in any commercial
establishments. And Mr. Wall can correct me.
Mr. Mayor: We’re talking about activity in the parking lot that is owned by
someone who is in business to make money from these leaseholders.
Mr. Oliver: A number of different communities have minimum, have lighting
requirements for parking lots and say you have to have so many lumens of lighting at
certain levels.
Mr. Mayor: Well, if we wrote the owner and told him that his parking lot was
creating a public nuisance, don’t you think he’d do something about the lighting? We
might have him in here to take away his business license to run a shopping center.
Mr. Beard: We don’t have to have an ordinance for everything to write a
letter.
Mr. Oliver: We can write a letter of support, but all I want to point out is I
don’t think we can require them to do that.
Mr. Williams: If it’s good for one, Mr. Mayor, it ought to be good for
everybody and we ought to write the letter and then at least try it. That’s a effort. I
think we ought to let -- not only that, the Sheriff’s Department needs to monitor both
of those facilities closely with the beer bottles and the trash, not only coming from
one source. We need to let them know that it’s their responsibility as well in that
area. It has to be an equal share, equal partnership in there.
Mr. Mayor: Absolutely. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just to follow on with what Commissioner Williams has said. If
you’re doing your best to clean up the area and not getting cooperation from your
neighbors, we need to know that and perhaps we need to revisit their license, as well.
Mr. Mayor: We had a motion, a substitute motion. Do we have a second to
that?
Mr. Colclough: I second it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Colclough. Are we ready to vote on the
substitute motion? The substitute motion is for probation for six months as
recommended by the Committee. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
55
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Shepard, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Bridges vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, you’ve got a copy of the petitions for the record,
right?
Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Did you get a copy of this newspaper article for the record?
Okay.
Mr. Oliver: And I will write the letter to the landlord and express our concern.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Oliver. We’ve been here for about two hours
now and we’ve still got some business to go. The Chair will declare a five minute
recess so we can all catch our breath.
[Recess]
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go ahead. Come back to order please, and proceed with the
order of the day, Madame Clerk.
Clerk: Item 36: Approve reorganization of the Facilities Management
Division of Public Works in accordance with the attached Organizational Chart.
In summary, the changes include reclassification of a number of positions to
improve operational efficiency. For fiscal year 2000, costs are covered by lapsed
salaries. Please note that the changes indicated on the attached Organizational
Chart sheets are in bold type with bold borders. (No recommendation from
Engineering Services Committee June 28, 2000)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Oliver, Mr. Acree, did y’all want to address this?
Mr. Oliver: I’ll let Mr. Acree address this. As I mentioned before, my
comment applies the same as the previous one.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Acree?
Mr. Acree: Last year the Commission approved an overall rework of Public
Works. This is a refinement of that as it pertains to Facilities Management. What this
essentially does is reclassify one of the operations manager’s position to be an
operational assistant to me, and to look after some special projects. I lost one
operation manager positions earlier this year as part of the budgetary process and that
gentleman’s responsibilities have fallen on this employee. In addition to that, in the
56
construction shop I hope to create some foreman positions and provide some guidance
and assistance to the supervisor of that operation, as well as provide a career path for
the employees in that operations group.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Acree, if I could ask one question. Last year, we approved a
reorganization of the Public Works Department.
Mr. Acree: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: Was your department included in that reorganization?
Mr. Acree: We were, with express instructions not to address any kind of
personnel reclassifications.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Motion for approval, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We do have a second. Mr. Beard, your hand is up?
Mr. Beard: I’ve just got a couple of questions. I’m concerned, maybe I’m just
concerned about Public Works in general. I just noticed that I believe the Director
has been gone for about three months or so and we still don’t have a Director out
there, and in that interim I feel that we’ve done a number of changing or reorganizing
or whatever we have here, and I’m just wondering, is this one of those things that
seems mighty strange that we’re doing all of this, first of all, it’s taking us a long time
to advertise for a Director. And I know that we were doing a national search for this
and all of that. I just have a little apprehension about the reorganization at this point
in time when we’ve done it a couple of times before, and a number of times after the
Director left. And it looks like to me if he had wanted this, he would have done it
before he left. And I have a little problem with 36 at this particular time.
Mr. Acree: Mr. Beard, this action was put into place prior to Mr. Murphy’s
departure.
Mr. Oliver: The applications for Public Works, by the way, they closed June
30, which was last Friday. I have thinned those down to eight people who I sent out
today to the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem to initiate the first round, Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: But it did take a little time there. Three months? How long does
it normally take? Six weeks?
57
Mr. Oliver: We advertised nationally, and I will say this, we got a number of
highly-qualified individuals who applied.
Mr. Beard: Good, then.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, just to follow up Mr. Beard. It appears to me that we
really started this process a number of years ago, trying to get things organized. And
we’re only looking, we’re not really looking at the Public Works area. We’re looking
at one division of Public Works. Am I correct?
Mr. Acree: That’s correct, sir.
Mr. Kuhlke: And Mr. Acree is really the Director of this particular division.
So I encourage my colleagues to support this recommendation.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to ask Mr. Acree some
questions about the job that has been advertised, the Director, whoever he or she may
be in this position. What effect would this reorganization have on that person? If a
person came in and wanted to do something differently, would they have to do
another reorganization or another?
Mr. Acree: Are you referring to the new Director of Public Works?
Mr. Williams: Right.
Mr. Acree: Depending on who you hire in the position. I can’t answer that
question without a crystal ball, but Facilities Management, from my tenure here, has
been kind of an add-on to Public Work. Public Works is perceived more as roads and
bridges, that sort of thing. Facilities has been lumped in with Public Works but more
because it doesn’t really fit anywhere else. It doesn’t really affect the operation of the
other divisions of Public Works at all.
Mr. Williams: Would it hurt, then, since we’re narrowing it down now, Mr.
Oliver just said that we finally got some closure to that job offer, would it hurt to
postpone this for a couple of weeks until we can maybe get a Director in that position
and then you and them can look at some things together rather than go back later to
redo some things that have been done or whatever? Would it hurt to postpone it for a
couple of weeks? If so, what’s the urgency?
58
Mr. Acree: This is not something that if it doesn’t happen today the entire
division is going to fall apart. No, sir. There are some issues with some employees
who I believe have not been treated fairly in terms of reorganization that postponing
this prolongs, I think, something that addresses some things that should have been
dealt with a while back. That is your prerogative.
Mr. Williams: This is something we’ve been dealing with for a while, so a
couple of weeks won’t hurt is, that’s my point. Can we postpone it for a couple of
weeks. Not saying anything, just postpone it.
Mr. Acree: Certainly that is your prerogative to do so, but I would caution that
a couple of weeks is -- you haven’t even conducted interviews, so you’re probably
looking close to two months before anything happens with that position.
Mr. Williams: Well, I think if we could just delay this for a couple of weeks,
it gives me more time and Mr. Oliver, who is a sharp man on these numbers, maybe
he can whittle that time down a little bit since we took so long to get to this point, to
go ahead and move with a little speed, since we got the ball rolling, to get with the
Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem and try and find someone. I just think we are going to
get a Director in that department and I think we ought to be in sync with each other
and talk and make sure that we don’t have to go back and do something else all over
So I’m going to make a motion, Mr. Mayor, that we postpone this and
again.
bring it back and look at it at another time.
Mr. Mayor: Bring it back to the next meeting?
Mr. Williams: Next meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Beard: I second it.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion on the substitute motion to carry this over?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, yes, sir, go ahead.
Mr. Mays: We talked about this some in Committee last week and we were
kind of in the same time frame of two Committees until you heard one going over real
long and some of us moving between places last week that serve on two difference
Committees and some interests may have been at the same time. I agree with Mr.
Acree’s wanting to correct any situation where we may have employees that are
treated unfairly. Now that hits another light in my mind, because if that’s what we are
correcting, then not only in this area, if we’ve got some folks that are being treated
59
unfairly, then these type of things don’t need to linger around for six months, a year,
or whenever they are being dealt with. Now I’m not in a position to solve it today,
because if it’s that much unfairness, maybe now, Mr. Mayor, where has the unfairness
been? And to whom? And in expressed in Committee the other day, I was not called
names in there, but that I’ve had some complaints, but I’m told I’m a policy maker
and I don’t deal in day-to-day activities. So I take my raft out here where it’s
supposed to be. But people are still human. They do bring you complaints. So if we
got an admission that there is some unfairness, then maybe we do need to postpone it.
Maybe we need to hear where the unfairness is. And then maybe we need to correct
all the unfairness at the same time. If there is some unfairness. Because if it’s drifted
this long, then somebody needs to have brought it to our attention before now. If
there’s some unfairness there.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. We have a substitute motion on the floor
to carry this over to the next meeting. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Shepard, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Cheek vote No.
The Mayor votes No.
Motion fails 6-5.
Mr. Cheek: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called on the original motion, and that is
to approve the reorganization as presented. All in favor of that motion, please vote
aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Williams and Mr. Colclough vote No.
Mr. Beard, Mr. H. Brigham and Mr. Mays abstain.
Motion fails 5-2-3.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll see it back at the next meeting then.
Clerk: Item 38: Motion to approve proposal from Law Study
subcommittee regarding the Proposal of Services from Attorney Caryl B.
Sumner funded from Lobbyist Acct. (Approved by Law Study Subcommittee
June 12, 2000 not to exceed 24 hours at $125 per hour plus expenses. No
recommendation from Public Safety Committee June 12, 2000 and a no action
vote by the Commission on June 20.)
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
60
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Gentlemen, discussion? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, either we can save $3,000 now and we’re not going
to pay Ms. Sumner, or I could have saved a lot of effort back when I did this
memorandum on May 25. It was my understanding from the Law Department
subcommittee that I was to proceed ahead and draw a draft document for a law
department. I did that in cooperation with Mr. Wall, and basically I don’t see
anything here new that Ms. Sumner is going to do that I haven’t already done or we
couldn’t take my memorandum and do. So what we’re going to do is just spend
$3,000 with Ms. Sumner. We’ve had this studied, we’ve had it studied by a special
subcommittee of volunteers in your predecessor’s administration. It came back. We
were asked by the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Beard, to come up with the crafting of
a hybrid document. I just don’t see where we are advancing the process of forming a
hybrid law department by hiring Ms. Sumner and spend $3,000. If y’all had told me
beforehand, I could have saved a lot of effort. So now I’m just asking to save $3,000.
it’s not often that we get an opportunity to save $3,000 in the budget and I think we
should take that opportunity now and simply move ahead and draft this up in house.
We’ve got plenty of expertise right here. We’ve already paid for it. Got Mr. Wall.
We’ve got Mr. Oliver. We’ve got HR. We can do it. And we’ve got our committee.
So I don’t see any reason and spend yet another fee, even though she is a very
competent attorney and I have a great deal of respect for Ms. Sumner, basically it’s
already been done. So why reinvent the wheel, gentlemen?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I just want to say that I concur with some of the things
that Commissioner Shepard has said, and I want to express my appreciation to
Commissioner Shepard for his work that he did on this. But let me just go back a
minute or two and just try to bring this to some type of order here. This
subcommittee that was established, and I think it was appointed by the Mayor, Mayor
Pro Tem, togetherness of the two, to look at this and see what we were going to do
because a lot of people, a lot of Commissioners were interested in following the exact
intent of what the bill had called for, and that was for an in-house law position. In-
house law counsel. And in that, as we met, I think it was the agreement of the entire
Commission that we would come up with a hybrid effect here, that is having an in-
house counsel and utilizing an outside counsel also. It was also, and the majority of
the subcommittee agreed, that we would bring Ms. Sumner in and we’re just not
picking her off the street. She’s been in before. And she worked with us and she
gave us some good ideas on that. And we were asking, other people of the
committee, to present these, and Mr. Shepard was good enough to work up a very
good position almost, and we’re thankful for that. But at the last committee meeting
it was put on the table that we approved that Ms. Sumner, that we would bring before
this body Ms. Sumner as a recommendation for her to put this together. And I don’t
know, but I think the committee was thinking let’s remove this from in-house and
let’s get a neutral person to come in, look at this, and put something together. Now
61
she may put something together very similar to Mr. Shepard, which may happen. But
I think this removes all the politics from it, we’re bringing in a neutral person, a
person who does not know anything about this county other than the material that
she’s going to be given, and let her come up with a recommendation and we can still
vote that up, vote it down, but this is what came out of the last committee meeting,
that we would put this on the table. And we have it on the table and I hope that you
will support it.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. To my good friend and my cohort, Mr.
Shepard, who is one of our finest Commissioners, but he’s got a little advantage over
us. Being sharp minded that he has presented himself to be, I think it’s a great
disadvantage to the rest of us who sit on this panel who are not at that same status. I
give him high praise for the work he has done and I think he did a good job, but at the
same time, I want to make sure that he’s thinking along with the other attorneys who
may be thinking along the same line he is, it would be to our advantage to have
someone who is not affiliated with this government in any shape, form or fashion, to
bring their input or their insight into this and just compare with what Mr. Shepard has
already done. I feel sure that all attorneys probably think alike in some respect or
another, and if that’s the case, I would certainly like to have somebody from the
outside to be able to present and give us and just compare to see. You’re probably
going to get the same thing, but then it will be fair to everybody. Can’t nobody say
anything about that. I think that we ought to support this effort and have her come in
and see what kind of hybrid situation she can bring to us.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, thank you. I can remember a few short months ago
when we made a suggestion to save taxpayers three to four times this amount by
parking a few cars a night, that it was like pulling eye teeth. I’ve looked at the
studies, studies that come from the Augusta community indicate things that wouldn’t
have changed from the current system. You look at other cities, larger cities, cities
that are growing. They have a hybrid system or in-house department. If you look at
the information from the different municipal entities in the state of Georgia, you get
mixed reviews, and I think that $3,000 to get a comprehensive study from someone
outside, whether it’s recommending the same thing as Commissioner Shepard has
done, which is a marvelous work, or something different, is a good investment. It
certainly is a lot less money spent than we’re quite willing to spend on gasoline these
last few years to allow a few people to drive home, so I think it’s a good investment.
Mr. Williams: I call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called, so we need to move ahead with the
vote, gentlemen.
62
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, that is not a fair debate. You looked to one side
and not the other and they get to call the question.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham, I looked down here and I didn’t see any hands up.
I looked down here several times. I’m going to give y’all 30 seconds apiece. Is that
fair enough?
Mr. Mays: No, Mr. Mayor, I don’t think that’s enough.
Mr. J. Brigham: No.
Mr. Mayor: How much time do you need, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I’ll yield to Mr. Brigham, but I don’t think it’s fair when a side, a
Commissioner calls the question -- I ask for the parliamentarian to step in -- it is the
right of the Chair to rule. And I think in the essence of fair debate, that is not a fair
ruling.
Mr. Wall: There’s an expression that when the debate is not completed, there
is the opportunity to [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Under rule 2.02, you’ve got two minutes, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: The only thing I wanted to say, Mr. Mayor, in all due respect to
Mr. Shepard, I think he’s done a commendable job in terms of working with this
Committee, and I think many times over the years governments have referred to
people who are in various professions to give advice and lend to those governing
bodies. I think they are to be applauded for that. But I don’t think that is necessarily
to be the usage of it. I’ll borrow a little something from you, Mr. Mayor, I think a
city of character, a city of ethics -- in some quarters, that’s been a joke, but I think this
is the fair standard now. That hasn’t been mentioned about this situation. The two
gentlemen in their profession, the City Attorney that’s there, the attorney that is on the
Commission with us, honorable people. Their canon of ethics is probably higher than
most professions are. So they know exactly where I’m coming from and all the rest
of us. $3,000 in common sense terms, it keeps it clean. It makes it be neutral. It
makes it be above and beyond reproach. I don’t think that’s too much to ask. I think
Mr. Shepard’s services have been honorable and they should be heeded to and we
should pay attention to it. But I think in this process of what it represents and
something that we ignored as a Commission until very recently, to take a hold of what
was voted on in a bill to bring this a final head should be decided in this realm by
neutral parties. That way, it keeps us off either going to the third floor, headed to the
fourth floor, and it keeps a separation of power as to where the attorney’s powers
reach, maybe into dealing with the influence of the Commission, and I think that’s a
63
very clear point under ethical standards and that’s why we should support the action
of the committee.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mays, I understand your point and I understand the other
Commissioners’ points. Mine is very simple. Commissioner Cheek talked about the
money we saved on the cars and I have had a constituent complain that we didn’t
have Public Work people that were available because we took the County cars away
from them. Now I don’t know if that’s a fact or not, but at the time of the debate that
was part of it. And it was mentioned. The other thing that I have is I hate to see
government waste money on reports. There’s fixing to be a referendum on this very
question, at least in one party’s primary. I’m waiting very anxiously to see the result
of that, because we have never had an up/down vote on the legal department by the
constituents anywhere in this community. It was contained in a bill, like many things
are contained in a bill, that has not been enforced for years. I don’t see why we’re
singling this out for a political vendetta or whatever. I’m not planning on voting for
it.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Any further discussion before we move on to the vote?
I don’t want to leave anybody out. All right. None indicated. We have a motion on
the floor to approve this. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Shepard, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Bridges and Mr. Kuhlke
vote No.
The Mayor votes Yes.
Motion carries 6-5.
Clerk: Item 38a: Consider recommendation from Chief Few regarding
Interim Fire Chief.
Mr. Mayor: Chief, thought you’d left already.
Mr. Few: First of all, Mayor, I want to thank you and the Commission for
three years that I’ve enjoyed. I wouldn’t have missed this for the world. I want to
introduce two people that I feel like can take and perform in the interim and move it
forward, and that’s two of my deputies. This is Deputy Chief [inaudible] and Deputy
Chief Scott. And to tell you a little bit, in our department, the two people that actually
run the divisions in this department are the two deputy chiefs. At that level, that’s the
highest level up under the chief that we have in the department. Both of them are
very capable. One of them wants to be the fire chief and one of them doesn’t. I do
want to put a plug in as I leave this mike, and I do want to say that Deputy Chief
Mike [inaudible] would make you an excellent fire chief as I leave here, too, and I
hope you give him an opportunity to serve at that point. I’m just going to submit that
I’ve got two deputy chiefs. Either one of them would be capable of handling the job.
64
And everything that I’ve done in that department, all of us have shared. We share
everything. I never have anything close to my vest. If we made changes or anything
we felt like that would be [inaudible] in our department, we shared together so they
know all the plans of the department. I don’t think that I’ve left out anything. We’ve
talked even this week. They’ve done a tremendous job. I’ve got to tell you. A year
ago [inaudible] and you guys don’t ever call me any more, and I want to thank you for
not involving yourselves in the day-to-day operation of the fire department. Once you
saw that Mr. Oliver gave me permission to try to run one, nobody every
micromanaged. I don’t think anybody ever gave me a call to even ask me about
[inaudible]. Nobody has called me. I feel like a Maytag fire chief because nobody
every called me, just gave me the opportunity to make some tough decisions in the
department. And I appreciate that. You really don’t know how much I appreciate
that. Because at one time I think we had too much involvement with other outside
people who sometimes wanted to use their influence by sometimes politicking. It
hasn’t been that way in the department. You’ve treated me equally and fairly and I
want to say that again. So I’ve got you two great fire chiefs who have done a good
job of putting our department together. I didn’t do it alone. I never have. And I think
I’ve given you two excellent employees and I think that’s pretty much all I want to
say, but I do want to put another plug in for Mike, because I do want to see him as the
fire chief for this community at one point. But I leave you with a single ranking
deputy chief, deputy chief of operations and one of technical services. And I guess
that’s why I have to run out very quickly. It has been an excellent opportunity here in
the Augusta area. And I do have my [inaudible]. Mr. Brigham, I do appreciate the
words of wisdom you gave me the other day.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Chief. We certainly appreciate you being here today
and your fine comments about your deputy chiefs and appreciate all the service
you’ve provided to Augusta-Richmond County. It’s kind of awkward for you to
come in here and talk about an interim chief and you’re still our fire chief. Are you,
have you some timetable you can share with the Commission so that we can move
forward with the future of our city fire department? Not that we’re trying to rush you
out of here.
Mr. Few: But if you’re going to go, then just go on out of here.
Mr. Mayor: No, sir, I didn’t say that. But Mr. Oliver has some things he
needs to do to set in place for a selection process for a new chief and we’re waiting to
hear from you.
Mr. Few: At the conclusion of this meeting, I will be handing my resignation
to Mr. Oliver. I will also give one to Mayor and Commission. I’ll be doing it at the
end of this meeting. He has a busy schedule. I wanted to put it in his hands. I didn’t
want to just send it over here by a courier. But I will be doing that. I know that this is
probably going to be my last Commission meeting.
65
Mr. Oliver: And [inaudible] start the process nationally and people who
would like to apply internally, as well as those that are outside the community, will be
free to do that.
Mr. Mayor: Any questions or comments for the chief or Mr. Oliver?
Mr. J. Brigham: I move we receive this as information.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk: Item 38b: Consider approval of Grant agreement between
Richmond County Board of Health and Augusta, Georgia, Richmond County
Fire Department for the Health/Smoke Detector Program.
Mr. Oliver: And it should be just Augusta-Richmond County, not the Fire
Department.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk: Item 39: Consider a request by Jack B. Gordon for a Gameroom
License to be used in connection with Diamond Redemption Center located 1719
Gordon Hwy. District 5. Super District 9. (No recommendation from Public
Services Committee June 28, 2000)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Harrison?
Mr. Harrison: Mr. Mayor, this is an application by Mr. Jack B. Gordon. It’s
for Diamond Redemption Center at 1719 Gordon Highway. Initially we
recommended approval, but based on new information brought to us by the County
Attorney, we [inaudible] at this time.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: At the Committee meeting, a list of equipment that was to be
placed in the Diamond Redemption Center was presented to the Committee, and
66
based upon that information, as well as the fact that this was going to be a lottery
location and there were a number of machines that were identified as being ones that
would accumulate points, however the statute specifically binds that the points that
are awarded, those can be redeemed for tokens for machines or gift certificates, they
would fall within the 50 percent category, so the question is whether or not in one
instance the representation is that 50 percent of the income will come from the lottery,
because that seems to be the only other activity that is there, and I find it difficult to
believe that 50 percent of the income is going to be derived from the lottery. And
perhaps Mr. Hibbard would address that. But in addition to that, and as additional
grounds for recommending that it be denied, included on the list are three Cherry
Master machines, and I’ve asked for the Commission, Mr. Mayor, for Investigator
Berry to come up and explain how the cherry masters work.
Mr. Berry: Cherry Master is a game where you put your money in, mash a
button, it stops, mash a button again, and different fruits line up. You actually don’t
control when it stops. It stops when it gets ready. So it’s actually not a game of skill.
Just pressing a button.
Mr. Wall: And Mr. Mayor, with that, the only thing that is allowed in Georgia
are games of skill. This clearly, in my opinion, is one that does not involve any skill.
Therefore this would be an illegal machine. The fact that they have offered to bring
an illegal machine in here I think says something about the application, and based
upon the fact that they intend to come in with an illegal gaming device, as well as the
fact that I don’t believe that it’s reasonable to anticipate that they are going to make
50 percent of the income off of the lottery, as compared to the other machines that
they have, it’s my recommendation that this be denied.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Wall. Is the petitioner here, Mr. Gordon?
Mr. Hibbard: The petitioner is present, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: And you represent the petitioner? If you’d give us your name and
address for the record, please.
Mr. Hibbard: My name is Scott Hibbard. I’m an attorney at law.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hibbard, what would you like to say in response to Mr. Wall?
Mr. Hibbard: In response to the assertion regarding the legality of the cherry
master, certainly we can substitute another machine that meets Mr. Wall’s approval of
a redemption nature. All of our machines are legal and are [inaudible] by the Georgia
Bureau of Investigation and also the Georgia Department of Revenue. But if there is
a problem with a particular machine, we can substitute another machine of a
redemption nature. We have a significant number of machines on the list that drew
interest during the Committee meeting, these being machines of a point accumulating,
67
redemption nature. These games are [inaudible] Mortal Combat, Hurricane pinball,
Indy 500 pinball, and Bullets football. These machines are not gambling machines,
gentlemen. They are the same type machines that you might have in your home.
These are the Pac-Man machines, the Space Invaders type machines. They’re pinball
machines. Yes, they do accumulate points, but their purpose is not gaming, it is not
redemption. Every machine in the location will be legal and in conformity with law.
We have no delusion about the nature of law enforcement in this county, and what
this establishment will be put through in terms of scrutiny. Certainly I think that they
can expect a great deal of enforcement, to maintain compliance with the law, and we
anticipate that. The lottery is a great revenue enhancer. There are probably a number
of businesses in this county that would go under without the lottery, and I think it was
carry significant revenue. There is no way to tell at this time whether or not a
redemption game will even be popular. Certainly they’ve been popular across the
border in South Carolina, but they’re going to be a totally different thing here.
Georgia law does not permit a cash payout at all of any type, and it’s yet to be seen
whether anybody will play these machines. It could very well be the lottery is the
only source of revenue at this location, when it comes right down to it. But the new
State law in effect as of July 1 clarifies, and my understanding of this -- and maybe
Mr. Wall [inaudible] -- is that the Georgia Department of Revenue requires that for
the retention of a [inaudible] license you must derive 50 percent of your revenue from
a non-redemption machine source. Gentlemen, we contend that these pinball
machines, these Pac-Mac machines, these Space Invaders, those are not gaming
machines. Certainly you could bet on that, gentlemen, but we find these machines in
Chuck-E-Cheese and we find these at Funsville. These are places where you may
have taken your children or your grandchildren. It’s the same thing. You’ll have an
adult audience here, with the lottery and with the redemption games, but gentlemen,
these other games are not betting machines any more than they would be in the
context of your local mall arcade. We would like to present this application as timely
filed, as filed properly under the old ordinance, as meeting every requirement of
county ordinance and state law and submit it to you on that basis.
Mr. Wall: Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe in the Committee, you did
point out that a number of these would accumulate points, and as I understand it and
recall, the points could be exchanged for either another game or for tokens or gift
certificates.
Mr. Hibbard: No, that’s not correct, Mr. Wall. These points will accumulate,
certainly. But they can only be exchanged for replays on the same game on the same
machine. If you rack up 10,000 points on Pac-Mac, you may be able to play all day
on the thing. But no, there would be no situation such as an employee walking over,
reading the thing, and making a payout. I don’t know of any place that would do that.
Certainly I don’t think that would be consistent with the intent of these machines or
even the compliance with the State law. And I want to once again emphasize,
gentlemen, we want to run a legitimate business here. We want to comply with each
and every letter and spirit of the law and certainly expect there will be a great deal of
68
attention from law enforcement, until they at least understand what type of business
we have it. But we don’t want any trouble. We don’t want to get in trouble. We just
want to have a legal establishment, provide a service, an entertainment service to
residents of this community, and I must emphasize that under Georgia law, the only
thing that you can legally receive, by the way, of a bet or reward or a prize is a $5 gift
certificate, a piece of merchandise that does not exceed $5 in retail value, or a free
replay on the machine. It’s all you can have. You can’t go to big-time Las Vegas
here in Georgia and do it legally.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Mr. Hibbard overlooks the subparagraph (a) of the new Georgia
statute, which specifically states that no business owner or business operator shall
derive more than 50 percent of such business owner or business operator’s annual
income from the business location in which the amusement machine or machines are
situation from amusement machines that provide for non-cash redemption as
described in subsections (c) and (d) of another Code section. That other Code section
specifically includes game machines in which there is redemption for replay, such as
the point system. So therefore every one of the machines that are listed, with the
exception of the Cherry Master which I submit is an illegal machine in Georgia, count
in the total as far as computing income and the Attorney General’s opinion has
indicated that where there is a free replay, such as an exchange of points, that is to be
considered as part of the game amusement machines and in my opinion would count
toward that income, and so the only thing that he is seeking to offset the income that
he will make through the amusement machines is the lottery, the income from the
lottery. But in addition to the fact that I don’t think that would justify granting the
license, I think he submitted an application and submitted information that he intends
to have a machine that is illegal in Georgia. And based upon those two facts, I
recommend denial.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: I hear the recommendation. Is it based similar to what we
had on the other situation out there?
Mr. Wall: Well, in the other -- yes, sir, in part because of the income. Before,
the applicant indicated that he intended to have a café, but he had never applied for a
restaurant license and not applied at that point for a food service permit, had no plan
in operation. Here, the only thing that this applicant is able to demonstrate as far as
how he intends to derive 50 percent of his income to offset the monies paid into the
amusement machines would be the lottery, and I just don’t think that there is any way
in the world that you can accept that as deriving 50 percent of his income from lottery
sales. He’d have to get everyone in Richmond County, I believe, based on what I
hear they make out these amusement machines and video poker machines. Secondly,
the fact that he’s got an illegal machine and has come forward and said I intend to
69
bring a machine that I believe is illegal. Then he steps forward and says well, if it’s
illegal, we’ll substitute it. Well, then you are into a situation at the outside where you
are going to be policing this applicant where you know he’s going to try to skirt every
provision in the law that he can.
Mr. Hibbard: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham? Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hibbard?
Mr. Hibbard: Mr. Wall may have misspoke in regard to my statement. I think
what I said was we [inaudible] that all of our machines are in compliance with
Georgia Bureau of Investigation rules and Georgia Department of Revenue rules. We
don’t wish to make an argument at this point in the application procedure, we wish to
cooperate fully. We don’t wish to skirt anything at all. We want to maintain a clear
distance from any gray areas and stay certainly on a legal side in this matter. But
notwithstanding inclusion of non-redemption machines, in the 50 percent of revenue
that must be obtained from a non-redemption source, the lottery is a huge source of
revenue. We don’t know if video poker machines or video game machines are going
to make any money in this store.
Mr. Mayor: What is your annual estimated income from the sale of lottery
tickets?
Mr. Hibbard: We have no idea.
Mr. Mayor: How can you do a business plan for your business if you have no
estimate at all? If it’s going to be 50 percent ---
Mr. Hibbard: There’s no history on the gaming side of it.
Mr. Mayor: You haven’t done any market studies or anything at all?
Mr. Hibbard: There’s no way to do it.
Mr. Mayor: How do you write a business plan if you have no idea how much
money you’re going to take in?
Mr. Hibbard: I’m trying to explain, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Please do that.
Mr. Hibbard: They just shut down the video machines in South Carolina last
week. That’s totally changed the dynamics of the gaming industry. When those were
70
operating over there, where they could make a cash payout, there was absolutely
nothing to attract people to Georgia machines.
Mr. Mayor: I’m talking about lottery tickets, not machines.
Mr. Hibbard: You asked a two-part question. I don’t have any sources on
lottery. Some locations do well. Some don’t. This is going to be a location on the
Gordon Highway. It’s not going to be a border location. But then again, it is on a
six-lane highway, near a very busy intersection. But for me to stand here and tell you
we can expect what lottery sales from this location, it would not be honest and I
wouldn’t go down that road. But once again, also with respect to the lottery
machines, there has never existed this type of market before where there were no
Carolina cash payout machines to compete with Georgia machines. Now Georgia is
the only game in town. It remains to be seen whether anybody will play these
machines, given the fact that they can’t pay out cash. You can’t really do anything
with them except give out Wal-Mart gift certificates or little stuffed animals.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, you asked part of my question. But I want to
carry it to a little further refinement. Does your client have any experience in selling
lottery tickets?
Mr. Hibbard: Mr. Gordon, do you want to answer that?
Mr. Gordon: [inaudible]
Mr. J. Brigham: Do you have idea what the commission rate is on lottery
tickets?
Mr. Hibbard: We understand it can be a very lucrative business or it can be --
Mr. J. Brigham: I think the Commission is saying whether it’s lucrative or
not.
Mr. Hibbard: I have no idea. Maybe Mr. Wall knows what the commissions
are.
Mr. Mayor: Five cents a ticket, something like that. It’s not very much.
Mr. J. Brigham: That’s what I thought. Five cents a ticket. What I’m
concerned about is, I’m concerned about, since this is a license that has prerogatives
in it whether we issue it or not, I don’t want to issue a license that I know that next
year I’m not going to issue that license to you, and I want some assurances from you
and your client that I’m not -- if I vote to do this -- that I’m not next year going to be
71
taken your business away from you and have you up here complaining about
something else.
Mr. Hibbard: I can give you a guarantee on that.
Mr. J. Brigham: But you’re not giving me a business plan or anything that
suggests that you are going to have any substantial revenues.
Mr. Hibbard: Our ultimate plan, Mr. Commissioner, is to monitor the
revenues from redemption and non-redemption sources as they occur and then to
adjust accordingly. We may have to shut the whole thing down if it doesn’t make
money. But if we’re going over the 49 percent on redemption machine income, we’ll
simply unplug the machines until we come back to that level. At the end of the year,
if we don’t show 50/50 on these machines -- these machines can be monitored by the
Georgia Department of Revenue, and the Revenue Commissioner will pull the master
license and there will be no license from the State to operate at all.
Mr. J. Brigham: I am still concerned. We as Commissioners will hear if we
grant you a license and you sit there unplugging the machines because your revenue
source isn’t high enough, that concerns me.
Mr. Hibbard: We’d be concerned that we wouldn’t make any money there.
Certainly.
Mr. J. Brigham: No, I’m more concerned about consistency. I know I’m
basing my judgment on your records. I know you have no records.
Mr. Hibbard: There are no records in existence.
Mr. J. Brigham: There are no records in existence?
Mr. Hibbard: Anywhere.
Mr. J. Brigham: Has your client previously run a gaming business anywhere
else? You don’t have any idea?
Mr. Gordon: New venture.
Mr. J. Brigham: New venture completely, and you have no idea of
guestimate? You have no guestimate as to what your revenues are? Do you have any
idea what your rent is?
Mr. Gordon: Yes.
Mr. J. Brigham: How much is your rent?
72
Mr. Gordon: That’s a very personal question.
Mr. J. Brigham: I don’t think it’s that personal. Do you have a lease?
Mr. Gordon: Yes, sir. Have a tentative lease.
Mr. J. Brigham: Is it more than a $1,000?
Mr. Gordon: Yes.
Mr. J. Brigham: Is it more than $10,000?
Mr. Gordon: No.
Mr. J. Brigham: Is it more than $5,000?
Mr. Gordon: The exact figure is $1,500 a month.
Mr. J. Brigham: Okay. So you’re telling me that you’re expecting to earn
more than $1,500 a month just to pay your lease and not to pay any salaries or
anything. That’s what you’re telling me. That’s what I’m getting at.
Mr. Gordon: I’m [inaudible].
Mr. J. Brigham: I understand that. I work for myself, too, and there’s weeks I
don’t get paid, also. But that’s not the question I’m asking you. What I’m trying to
do is I’m trying to visualize in my mind what kind of -- if you’re telling me that
you’re going to have $1,500, if you’ve got 5 percent in lottery sales that you get a
commission from, that means you’ve got to earn more than $750 a month in lottery
commission to me, is where I’m coming from. And to do that at 5 percent, I think
we’re talking about $15,000 sales a month. Am I off on it that much?
Mr. Hibbard: Your background is in accounting, I believe.
Mr. J. Brigham: Right.
Mr. Hibbard: And your business experience, and I think you would find that
many of your clients would advise to expect to stay in the red for two years.
[inaudible] My client has capital in the business. He has enough to last out for a
couple of years and give it a good go, possibly, and if it’s not making money and he
sees it’s not making money, he’ll probably get out of this business, but he would like
to give it a try.
73
Mr. J. Brigham: All I’m trying to do is, is I’m trying to visualize in my mind a
way to vote for your plan. And I’m trying to get you to help me with that.
Mr. Hibbard: We have capital to run [inaudible] period of time. If it looks
like it’s not going to work or does not comply with the law, he will get out of the
business. He hopes to stay in business. It’s a new market. There’s never been
anything like it before in this area in particular. There’s never been the dynamic of no
competition from South Carolina. We don’t know how it will go over in this area in
terms of the video gaming redemption idea. We do know the lottery is very popular.
The lottery has done well, and with other features, proper marketing, good business
sense, and keeping costs low [inaudible] people come out for an evening’s
entertainment.
Mr. J. Brigham: What other features?
Mr. Hibbard: Sir?
Mr. J. Brigham: What other features are you talking about?
Mr. Hibbard: Putting in a few tables and a café in the future. Not saying
we’re planning to do that now [inaudible]. It’s not on the table. This may be like
Funsville for adults. Chuck-E-Cheese for adults.
Mr. Oliver: I would note on his application that he disclosed two pieces of
information. One is that he anticipates his gross receipts for the years, because this is
used to compute the amount of business license due. Oh, okay, Mr. Wall says I can’t
do that. And that the lease amount according to this, unless something has changed,
is $2,250 a month.
Mr. Gordon: It has changed.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke had his hand up next, and then Mr. Mays.
Mr. Kuhlke: I don’t know anything about the lottery business, but based on
the information we have, and if five cents a ticket is what you get, you think you can
sell 75,000 lottery tickets a year?
Mr. Hibbard: There’s also a commission on winnings.
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes. That’s few and far between, isn’t it?
Mr. Hibbard: I don’t know if that’s the case or not. I don’t know if we can
sell 75,000.
74
Mr. Kuhlke: I tell you where I’m coming from. I voted against the lottery to
and I make a motion that we
start with, and so I’m going to be vote against this,
deny it.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to deny and a second. Mr. Mays, you wanted to speak?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Let’s talk a second or two about gambling.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Mays: Whether we’re talking about the legalized form the state’s in or the
one we don’t want to see happen or any other one that’s going on. We’ve got a
lottery. And just a few observances. I’m not going to make a motion. But I do think
that the predicament through law that the State has left many counties in -- and I don’t
think anybody in Georgia, particularly a borderline city like Augusta -- wants to see
every other building that doesn’t have somebody in it right now, lit up and we deal
with what South Carolina had. But on the other hand, I do think with a law regarding
it, the State has set us up to have to regulate a new form of business. Now whether
we want the business or not, that’s a whole other issue. Some things that are deemed
legal are not necessarily left up to the folk as to whether or not you want. You
patronize if you want, you don’t if you don’t. But I think it lies in the area of control,
and that’s why we voted for the ordinance that the Attorney put together, in terms of
the fact that we would have some regulations in order to deal with this. I would think
from observance, Mr. Mayor, number one, if you’ve got a lottery situation that the
State is controlling, you’re probably going to have the State in and out of that building
more than you will any other building. I really don’t know enough about the
individual machines because I don’t play them. I love my money, so I take gambling
on legalized stuff personally, I know that’s a contribution to my daughter’s education
because you don’t win, but the thing is, for those who like to sit and play them, that’s
their business. But I think if we are going to be in the business of regulating and turn
it down, that’s why we’ve got zoning. They don’t need to be any and everywhere. I
think that’s why we’re dealing with our own ordinance of what we have in this
situation. But I’d like just for somebody to tell me, the Attorney, one, are we going to
end up, if businesses meet whatever rule that the State puts in, and rules that we may
put in in conjunction with it, if folks apply, is there an avenue for them to be in this
kind of business?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir, there is an avenue for them to be in the video poker
business, provided they are, under the new ordinance it will be within certain distance
requirements of residential neighborhoods -- residences, not neighborhoods.
Residences. Within certain distances of churches, within certain distances of
playgrounds, within certain distances of schools, etc. And provided that it is not a
business designed to attract video poker. That’s the purpose of the statute. Fifty
75
percent of the income has got to be from something other than game amusement
machines, and it’s not redemption machines. It’s amusement machines. Game
amusement machines, which includes all the golfing things and the point things and
all that that’s included in here. He could just as well put video poker for every one of
them and I suspect it won’t be long before you’ll see video poker in place of every
one of those machines, based on what you read as far as the earnings. So yes, what
we’re doing is regulating where they are, but you are also regulating that it is a
legitimate business coming in here that has video poker as an amusement machine,
not as a gambling device. And that’s the difference. If you have a concentration of
them and that’s all that’s there, then they are attracting them there for one purpose,
and that’s gambling on winning that gift certificate that they can go out and buy a $1
item and get $4 in change. And it’s $5 per play. Every hand that you play is the
potential of winning $5 per play. It’s not $5 per session or anything else. So you’re
talking about the potential for big money to be won and big money to be lost. And to
anticipate that he’s going to generate 50 percent of his income from lottery sales, I
think in unrealistic. And I think you already have the evidence of the fact that one of
the machines I submit is illegal, because it doesn’t involve skill.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, the problem I have with that, and I appreciate Jim’s
expertise on the machines, but I have a problem, -- let me just ask this, and I’m really
searching for a way to vote one or another. I didn’t vote in committee because some
things weren’t clear to me that day, Mr. Mayor, but this machine, getting into Georgia
-- am I correct, either you or the attorney -- has it already gotten a stamp from the
State? Will there be other machines of this type that will be there? Because what I’m
saying is, if I’m going to design something, I don’t want it to pop up somewhere else
and then based on what you’re saying, it’s a gambling machine, but then based on
what he’s saying, to a point that the State is going to regulate and give him a stamp to
deal with it. Now if I’m going to deny something, and you know, Jim, I want to be
strong enough that we aren’t back here, back in a legal session three months down the
road with this thing up in our butts, and we’re trying to figure out a way to get out of
it. And I’m being really point, Mr. Mayor, as I can be about it. It needs to strong.
Because if they’re going to be in here and you’ve got a State law dealing with it, then
you’re right, they can deal with the regulation. But I’m sitting here looking at the
point where you’re talking about where somebody issues [inaudible] speculation on
whether a person can fail or succeed, I don’t think it’s where you can draw grounds in
making a determination on anything. It’s like me building a new funeral home and
saying I’m going to speculate on the death rate, and I can do that on what the death
rate possibly may be, but that’s not saying that those clients are coming to me. And
I’m just trying to get a clarity when we deny it, that you’re strong when you deny.
Mr. Wall: Mr. Mays, the type of machine -- and I may in error on this -- but I
think I can bring a slot machine in Georgia. And as long as I didn’t give out points
for a replay or I didn’t give out a gift certificate, and I just want to sit there and pull
the lever for my personal entertainment, then that would not be illegal. Mr. Hibbard
has stated that you will get free replays off of these machines. Those free replays,
76
under the Attorney General’s decision and under the statute, amount to getting
something in exchange so that you come under the definition of having to meet the 50
percent requirement from other sources. Now --
Mr. Mays: One second. Does it say from other sources, Jim -- and that’s my
hang-up of trying to help you -- but you’re saying from other sources or are you
saying the machine itself is illegal? Because what you’ve given me to support you on
other sources is based on your speculation of what they are earning, and that’s not
where I can go.
Mr. Wall. No, sir. I’m saying that if you use a cherry machine, a Cherry
Master machine, that either gives token or give points that are redeemable for another
game, that is illegal in Georgia. That is a game that does not involve skill. It is
simply mashing a button and waiting for the wheels to stop turning and hoping that
they lined up with three cherries, I assume. And so that machine, if it used for the
purpose of giving something in exchange for playing it, i.e.., points or tokens, it is
illegal in Georgia. The machine, if you wanted to sit there and not give points in
exchange, not redeem merchandise, it would be a legal machine because you are not
giving anything in exchange. So it’s not whether or not a machine is legal or illegal,
it’s whether the actual use of the machine is legal or illegal and where you’ve given
something in exchange, such as the free replays. That is illegal.
Mr. Hibbard: If I may, Mr. Wall. A couple of points. [inaudible] for
merchandise. There’s no potential for huge amounts of cash to flow out the door of
Wal-Mart to clients of my business. Second, there are Cherry Masters in Richmond
County right now. We don’t want to do anything to skirt the lines. We don’t want
Mr. Berry’s colleague, Investigator Stoney, coming down. Mr. Wall, as you know, I
have spent much of my time in the past few years representing people who have had
their machines taken because they do things they shouldn’t do. I know all the things
you shouldn’t do. And we don’t want to do those things. We want to be a legitimate
business, and my client wishes to not have any entanglements with the law. He
doesn’t wish to pay me any more fees than he must. One of the bad things, you have
to pay your lawyer. But we just want to run a legitimate business. Keep the revenue
50/50 between the amusement machines and the lottery tickets or whatever we must
do to comply with the law. We want to keep our State license. We want to stay in
good graces with everybody and just start a new business [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: All right. What we need to do now is move the debate now to the
other side of the table here and give these folks a chance to chime in. Mr. Beard and
then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Beard: I just want to ask him a question. If you’re not going to give any
gifts out and nobody is going to win anything, what would be the purpose of putting
the machine in there in the first place?
77
Mr. Hibbard: The major purpose is entertainment, Mr. Commissioner.
However, you can give a non-cash prize that is of a retail value of less than $5, or you
can give a gift certificate -- and a Wal-Mart gift certificate is a popular -- Mr. Wall is
correct in that -- or you can give additional plays of the machine. You cannot give
liquor, tobacco, cigarettes, and until recently you couldn’t give lottery tickets as
prizes, although now Georgia Department of Revenue, Lottery Commission, has
[inaudible].
Mr. Beard: So you have nothing else but lottery and machines?
Mr. Hibbard: Lottery, the non-redemption machines. Mr. Wall says those
come under the 50 percent --
Mr. Beard: But I’m saying that’s all you’ve got in this establishment? Lottery
and the machines?
Mr. Hibbard: Lottery and the machines that have a redemption feature, and
then the video games, such as the Pac-Man and Mortal Combat, Space Invader type
games that your children and grandchildren may have played. Same thing that
Chuck-E-Cheese would have. We have those three components in there initially.
Mr. Oliver: And it’s $5 per play, not $5 per [inaudible].
Mr. Beard: But you’re not selling anything else in there? I mean there are no
other items being sold?
Mr. Hibbard: Don’t plan to have anything else in there at this point. Basically
video arcade for adults.
Mr. Beard: Maybe I’m just -- I don’t see the point of this unless there is some
other ulterior motive in there.
Mr. Hibbard: Some people are very attracted. They’re very popular.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d just like to get a couple of answers
from the Attorney here. First I’d like to know how many times can you win? I mean,
you can win all night if you’re lucky?
Mr. Hibbard: If the chips, the computerized chips ---
Mr. Williams: But you can win numerous times?
78
Mr. Hibbard: Yes, you can, but it’s all up to how the chip is. The chip is set.
It cannot be changed by the operator.
Mr. Williams: No, no, no. I’m not talking about whether it can changed. I
want to know how many times can you win. You can win several times, right?
Mr. Hibbard: You can theoretically sit down and win every hand in a night.
It’s strongly against the odds, but [inaudible] and it can’t be changed by the operator.
Mr. Williams: And when you win, you can redeem the coupons or the tickets
or the game for lottery tickets, is that right?
Mr. Hibbard: You can do that.
Mr. Williams: So in other words, you can give out -- and since there is going
to be lottery-type set-up there, you can win 20 lottery tickets in a night and sit there
and scratch them off? Possible?
Mr. Hibbard: Strongly against the odds, but yes.
Mr. Williams: But possibly? So what I’m saying is that the gambling is still
going to be taking place. I mean either way you look at it, if you win a $5 ticket and
you ain’t going to take that $5 ticket to Wal-Mart cause it is going to cost you more
than that in gas. You are going to turn around and probably get a Lotto ticket, scratch
it off, get the money from the Lotto ticket, put it back in the machine to try and win
the -- whatever the big [inaudible].
Mr. Hibbard: I think what we’re looking at is [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: That’s my question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Any other questions? I think we’ve discussed this pretty well.
We have a motion on the floor to deny the license for the Diamond Redemption
Center. Call the question on the motion. All in favor of the motion to deny it, please
vote aye.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Hibbard: Thank you, gentlemen.
Clerk: Item 40: Consider appointment to the Savannah River Regional
Diversification Initiative Board.
79
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, we have two appointments to this Board, and one is
vacant at this time, and the term expires in January of 2001.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to nominate a young man that has had a
lot of interest particularly in this area, working with them, communicating some
things to us, in an unofficial capacity, and while I guess today we’ll take all the
free advice we possibly can, I am going to nominate Commissioner Andy Cheek.
Mr. Colclough: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Andy Cheek has been nominated. Are there any
other nominations?
Mr. Kuhlke: I move they be closed.
Mr. Mayor: You want to move they be closed and he be elected by
acclamation, do it all at one time? Okay. Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Colclough: I second that.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of that motion, vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Mayor: One more meeting to attend. You’ll do a good job, Andy. Let’s
go ahead and take Item 42. I don’t know if the Chief wants to stick around until after
the legal session.
Item 42: Discuss scheduling of fire hydrant inspections.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go ahead and take that up before we go into closed session.
Mr. Few: I appreciate that, Mr. Mayor. As you know, we checked the water
pressure and we continue. I have had a conversation with [inaudible]. The only thing
I will say is when you don’t test it twice it year, then if somebody [inaudible] and did
80
some repair and turned it off and didn’t turn it back on, then you would have a
[inaudible] problem. [inaudible] That’s normal. The thing you’ve got to do is
you’ve to check it [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Chief, I appreciate the presentation and your concern. My
question would be is this something that needs to be handled administratively, Mr.
Oliver, or by the Commission?
Mr. Oliver: Inspecting the fire hydrants twice a year is clearly appropriate,
provided the Fire Department has got the time and the staff. I agree with the Chief
that at a minimum they need to be tested once a year.
Mr. Mayor: Does that require action from the Commission or you guys just do
that?
Mr. Oliver: No, I think the Fire Department just does it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hicks, did you want to be heard?
Mr. Hicks: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Hicks: Gentlemen, a lot of good information has come from the hydrant
testing program. I support it fully. My only comment to the Chief was that when we
tried to test hydrants during the time of year such as we’re having now, I don’t know
if we’re going to have another two or three years of drought or not. But if he tries to
test the hydrants when you’re on otherwise water restriction and water conservation
plan, then that really doesn’t help a lot for any of our public relations, but if we could
test it early in the year and then in the fall, test it at those two times, other than the
peak use times, then I have no problem whatsoever with it.
Mr. Oliver: I disagree with Mr. Hicks on that, because I firmly believe that the
fire hydrants should be tested at the lowest point of level because when there is fire,
and if it’s at time where there’s an irrigation going on, it’s at that point you need to
test your water system. I understand the public perception part, but I think the public
safety part is compelling enough to do it during that period of time. Now the one
thing I would add is that the Fire Department does have a pumper truck attaching to
the fire hydrant, so it will essentially pull almost every drop of water that’s available
out of the fire line, but I think we need to test them clearly during distressed periods.
Mr. Hicks: I don’t have any additional comment. Being an engineer, I can
understand what Engineering recommends and what the Administrator is saying. If
you’re going to design a system, you test it during the low period and you test it
during the high period. And I have no problem with that approach. It’s just that in
81
dealing with it on a practical matter, if we’ve got times when we’ve got water
shortages already, then to come in a do hydrant testing at that time really places an
additional burden on our department. I certainly am in favor of anything we can do
for public safety and once we get beyond the situation we’re in now, say if we get
down the road two or three years and we’ve got the planned upgraded [inaudible],
we’ve got the new plant down on Doug Barnard Parkway, we’ve got the new
[inaudible] supporting the south side, then certainly we would have the water to do
the luxury of the testing that we’d like to do. I think the once a year should definitely
be done, without a doubt. It should be tested once a year. But until we get the
additional supply, I would rather the testing twice a year be done at other than peak
times.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Hicks.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, any questions? Any comments? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Did I understand correctly that we have an annual inspection
program established now and in place to check all of this fire hydrants in Augusta-
Richmond County?
Mr. Few: [inaudible]
Mr. Cheek: And that’s going to be reported back to us on an annual basis?
Mr. Few: Correct.
Mr. Cheek: I know there were some problems with breakage on hydrants and
repair. That’s also incorporated into a maintenance schedule and training for hydrant
operations and so forth?
Mr. Few: That’s correct.
Mr. Cheek: Okay. Maybe we can address some of our other problems with
spot testing in some of our areas during our drought periods, but I agree with Mr.
Oliver as far as low flow. It’s something we need to characterize. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I probably will end up definitely voting for both
motions and it may be that there is only one on the floor, cause I’m going to make one
when I finish. And if it fails, I’m going to vote for the other one because --
82
Mr. Mayor: Excuse me, Mr. Mays, before you start. There are no motions on
the floor.
Mr. Mays: Okay. It will probably when you finish. And I say this because
the Committee meeting, last week, Mr. Mayor, there was some discussion in
reference to whether or not the motion should even deal with any detail at all and we
just leave this to where we deal with it administratively. I think Mr. Oliver has been
in full support of trying to get this done. I did want to make sure that I’ve told him
both privately and publicly, I think something of this serious in nature, also he needs
to know where the Commission stands on it and to give him the backing in it, because
this is not a political situation. It’s one of safety, of the public safety. Over a year
ago, I asked, right in this same seat, before the heat index got to a certain level, Mr.
Mayor, I asked for three departments to sit down and come together and to give us a
plan, not only on drought, but give us one on how the hydrants were doing and what
we were going to deal with in emergency situations. I named them. I said Water and
Utilities, Fire Department, and Public Works, as to where that stood. That whistled
around for about a month. And I’m going to be as candid as I can be with you, just
like I was in the Committee meeting. I came back. We played with it for a while,
Mr. Mayor. We can back with it and all of a sudden there was the attitude that this
was going to make some folks look bad. Number one, we were looking bad already.
You were getting most of the complaints, the Commission getting the rest of them,
and it got us to a point where I don’t think you can put -- if you’re going to get
criticized, at least get criticized, I think, Mr. Hicks for doing right and of know where
you’re going with something. To sit back and just all the time take and be in a
defensive mood, you never score. Don’t win games with 0-0. I asked that this be
done. Only one Commissioner [inaudible]. We finally got around to this year and
where we were talking about dealing with the hydrants. It came up, Mr. Mayor, in
Committee the other day that some of this information be forwarded on in reference
to the bond program that we were doing so the information could be regarded with
this. Well, if it was that serious for us to want to put that into those bond things, I
would think that water would have had a driving force to want to have it then, and we
ought to had it backed up to put our foot down to say this is where we should know
where we’re going with it. If we’re going to deal with us being the policy makers,
then I think we ought to at least deal with it. I know you’re talking, Randy, where
you’ve got one decision, one department maybe recommending one thing, one
recommending another. But if I’m hearing Mr. Oliver correctly in talking about
water retention in terms of being able to pass back through the mechanisms that they
are doing, I think it boils back to a point of time and service as to whether the Fire
Department can do it. I think our citizens will be much better served and are more
concerned if they are living in an area, particularly, gentlemen, those of you who
represent areas south of Tobacco Road, of knowing that you’ve got a problem
already, one that has not been thoroughly solved yet, even with the new line coming
on. I would much rather want to know that my department of Fire and Rescue has the
ability to rotate its units if I’ve got a bad problem in my area when the heat index is at
110, rather than guessing with it, and hope that when the heat goes by, we’ll check it.
83
You need to know whether or not there’s water there or not. So I don’t think this one
should be a war of where the personalities of the departments end. The safety has to
come first, and I think if you [inaudible], if they’ve got the folk to do it and to do it
twice, then I think at least they’ve gone out and put that together when in ought to be
tested. And I’m still waiting on the other two places to give me some kind of plan
about where they are on it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Perhaps it’s appropriate for this
Commission to forward this issue to the Engineering Services Committee, which has
jurisdiction over the Water Department, and let that Committee come back to the full
board with a recommendation.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to let my motion, and I’m going to
make it. I make a motion, sir, that we approve the recommendation of the fire
chief who is still here until July 10, and that the testing be done on a semi-annual
basis.
Mr. Colclough: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor: And that semi-annual basis [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] some peak time to know where we are.
Mr. Mayor: I think that needs to be spelled out in the motion.
Mr. Mays: I’ll include that in the motion.
Mr. Few: Our testing, as we have it now, is June and December.
Mr. Mayor: June and December. Okay. We have a motion and a second for
the testing twice a year, roughly June and December. And that’s been seconded. Any
discussion on that motion? None heard. Let’s take a vote on the motion then.
Mr. Hicks: [inaudible] March, April, May? See, that’s prior to the peak
season. [inaudible] I have no problem with that. That’s March, April, May, and then
it would be tested again probably September, October, and November.
Mr. Bridges: Maybe I need some clarification on it. You’re testing in June or
you’re giving your report in June?
Mr. Few: [inaudible]. Two reports. June and December.
Mr. Bridges: So you are actually doing the testing the months previous to
June?
84
Mr. Few: [inaudible]
Mr. Bridges: Okay. Just wanted to clarify that.
Mr. Mayor: Just a moment, we still have some discussion. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just a quick question. But then that doesn’t consider the low
pressure months typically of the heat of the summer? Can we do some spot profiling
or something to check that without completely --
Mr. Few: April and May are going to be very hot, too, and they start watering
then.
Mr. Cheek: But the tanks don’t show peak demand until late May. Excuse
me, early May. Late April.
Mr. Few: We are going to have to do it for three months. It will take us three
months. April, May and June. I got to tell you [inaudible] especially now [inaudible]
Masters Week. It’s going to get better now because since they checked it once, they
got everything down so it goes a little bit faster than it has in the past. And then I got
to tell you, the history of the hydrant, I’ve got a person now just keeping a history of
th
that hydrant, so if you got back and ask me on the corner of Broad and 9, to give you
the history of that hydrant, I can pull it right up out of the computer and tell you
exactly what has been done to it for the last three or four years.
Mr. Mayor: Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Chief, I remember this discussion from Committee and I
want to make sure that I’m voting the way I understand things are happened. What
we’re saying is we’re going to do semi-annual inspections and that we’re going to
receive reports in June and December, but this does not prevent you, if you feel like
there’s testing that is needed in the system, to have you test areas of the system.
We’re talking about a complete system testing, not a section of the system being
tested.
Mr. Few: Right. Yes.
Mr. J. Brigham: That could happen whether we were in the middle of a
drought or in the middle of a snowstorm?
Mr. Few: That’s right.
Mr. J. Brigham: I’m comfortable with the motion, I just wanted to make sure.
Cause what we said in Committee was, the Committee’s recommendation was that it
85
would be an annual inspection, but you weren’t going to be limited to an annual
inspection.
Mr. Few: That’s right.
Mr. J. Brigham: This is a variation. I’m comfortable with your variation, I
just wanted to make sure that I understand that you may be testing systems within the
system for flow other than times of the annual or the semi-annual inspection.
Mr. Few: [inaudible] get the history on it and then test it [inaudible].
Mr. J. Brigham: If we discover we have a problem, we may be doing testings
other times a year?
Mr. Few: Right. [inaudible] flow pressure.
Mr. J. Brigham: I’m comfortable with it.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion? Any further questions with
respect to the motion to test twice a year, receiving reports, the Commission receiving
reports in June and December? All in favor of that motion, please vote ay.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Few: [inaudible] to give us the money. I got to make sure we keep that
in place cause I don’t want to put any burden on Mike when he takes over.
Mr. Mayor: Well, Max might send you a bill for the water you flush through
the hydrant, Chief. That would kind of like a wash out, wouldn’t it? I feel confident
that the testing program will be funded. We’ll see that that gets done for sure. Mr.
Wall, I believe you’re next.
Item 41: Discuss real estate matter. Discuss personnel. Discuss potential
litigation.
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir. I have a real estate matter, one potential litigation, and a
personnel matter that I didn’t put on but I see it there and ask for a legal meeting to
discuss those three matters.
Mr. Shepard: So move to go into legal meting for the purposes stated by
the lawyer.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second. All in favor, please vote aye.
86
Motion carries 10-0.
[LEGAL MEETING 5:45 - 6:40 P.M.]
Item 43: Motion to approve authorization for May to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia’s Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mays: We have a motion and a second to approve the affidavit. All in
favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Shepard and Mr. H. Brigham out.
Motion carries 7-0.
[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 Wednesday, July 5, 2000.
Clerk of Commission