HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-01-2000 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
August 1, 2000
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:06 p.m., Tuesday,
August 1, 2000, the Honorable W. H. Mays, III, Mayor Pro Tem, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Cheek, Colclough,
Kuhlke, Shepard and Williams, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission..
Absent was Hon. Bob Young, Mayor.
Also present were Jim Wall, Attorney; Randy Oliver, Administrator and Lena
Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by the Reverend Holcombe.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mays: On behalf of the Mayor and the Augusta Commission, the Mayor is
out of town today. [inaudible]
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mays: Madame Clerk, are there any additions or deletions to the agenda?
Clerk: No, sir, Mr. Mays. Shall we start with delegations?
Mr. Mays: Yes, ma’am.
DELEGATION:
Ms. Pricilla Bence, Coordinator
Safe Communities
Re: Safe Communities Projects
Ms. Bence: Thank you, Ms. Bonner and Mr. Mays, Commissioners and ladies
and gentlemen. I’m speaking on behalf of the Safe Communities Coalition of Augusta,
which works for the Richmond County Board of Health and just want to report briefly on
our progress. We are a fully-funded grant from the Governor’s Office, the Highway
Safety, the D.O.T. funds, and I’m coming to update you for the second time. Every
month, we have a coalition meeting of 30 or 40 people meeting at the Health Department,
learning about different projects and what we can do to reduce traffic injuries. And one
of the projects was Operation Safety Net, which netted in over 600 citations in three
waves with the Richmond County Sheriff’s Department. We’re working with Richmond
County Board of Education to improve aggressive driving teaching in the health classes
in the five high schools in Richmond County this year. And in the coming year, we hope
2
to get into all the health classes for a two-hour segment on that. We have a teen DUI task
force, which has met six times, and we’re interested in the teen court which Dublin,
Georgia has. We want to replicate that. We exhibited at over ten health fairs and talked
about safety belt use and speeding problems. I did a newspaper study from ’98 to ’99.
There was very little written in the local newspaper about traffic injury in Richmond
County. But we found that that increased dramatically in 1999 to over 200 articles from
66 in ’98. And Heidi Coryell, who is in our audience right now, is our new transportation
writer for the city. We’re very pleased with that. We had a lot of speeding surveys done
in 1998, showing the crash locations and these maps have been used by the different
agencies, particularly law enforcement, to crack down on speeding in certain areas and
DUI’s and other problems. Last month, I started looking at the hours that our volunteers
have put in on projects and meetings and every time somebody comes to a meeting or
works on a project, we log in the time that they vested. Teenagers, $10. Adults, $20 to
the hour. And I came up with the astronomical figure it has cost you the taxpayers
$153,000 in 1999. And of course that includes the $60,000 from my grant. And I said is
this worth it? Should we continue in this vein? Actually, we’ve been very fortunate in
the last couple of years. We’ve had a dramatic decrease in traffic injury. We’ve had a ten
percent decrease one year and 11 percent decrease the next year. Of course there are a lot
of parameters. We didn’t have a traffic engineer for several years. Jim Huffstetler came
about four or five years ago, right, Jim?
Mr. Oliver: He hasn’t been here quite that long.
Ms. Bence: Well, for a while, to make a huge difference. And so we’ve had a lot
of signage and road improvements. We’ve had road patrol beefed up to the tune of about
$2 million. And I wrote all these figures down just to let you know that, for the dollar of
investment in Safe Communities, there is like a like $26 change in traffic injury reduction
per year, but it’s not that simplistic, of course. I’m still working on the different
parameters, and if you add all the increase in funding, like in Traffic Engineering, there’s
no increase, Law Enforcement, I don’t have the exact numbers here but I added all these
increases, and we still have a $1 to $1.25 for your dollar, for your tax dollar. That
includes the volunteer work as much as I was able to add to that $153,000 figure that I
gave you. So your dollar investment reaps $1.25. And I’m very nervous, but I do have a
handout here, if you want to look at the statistics over the last year. [inaudible] is also
very instrumental in Traffic Engineering and Captain Powell at Captain Griffin’s shop at
the Sheriff’s Department. We have 30 handouts. Do you need more than that? I’ll be
glad to entertain any questions after the meeting or if you’d like to call me at 667-4691 or
667-4690. We do have the same leading cause of traffic crashes. Following too closely
causes nearly half of crashes. Failure to yield and speeding are second and third. That’s
no new news, but I thought you’d be interested in the cost benefit analysis that we’ve
started. Thank you.
Mr. Mays: We thank you so very much for your information. Do any of the
Commissioners have any questions of the lady before she leaves? Because this group
may be in a meeting for a long time. We wouldn’t want to hold you here until after the
3
meeting to ask you a question. If there are no questions, the chair will entertain a motion
that we receive this as information.
Mr. Bridges: So moved.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mays: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion? I would like to note
when you mentioned about the teen court in Dublin that our president’s theme at the
Georgia Municipal Association with a focus on youth, we had a very good presentation
of members that have served on that teen court our of Laurens County and Dublin and it
was a very, very good presentation, in fact probably one of the best that was at the whole
conference, and so we applaud you for the work that you all continually do. No further
discussion? All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk: Our consent agenda is Items 1 through 27, and for the benefit of any
objectors, if there are any objectors to the liquor applications, will you please signify
your objection by the raising of your hand?
FINANCE:
1. Motion to approve refund of 1997 and 1998 taxes in the amount of $258.60 to
Moses & Willene Holmes for overpayment of taxes on Map 132, Parcel 314.
(Approved by Finance Committee July 24, 2000)
2. Motion to approve refund of 1998 taxes in the amount of $129.29 to Lorenzo
& Sandy Wilder for overpayment of taxes on Map 131, Parcel 313.
(Approved by Finance Committee July 24, 2000)
3. Motion to approve refund of 1997 and 1998 taxes in the amount of
$376.48 to Pointe South Golf Club for overpayment of taxes on Account
No. 2017478. (Approved by Finance Committee July 24, 2000)
4.
Motion to deny the refund of interest and penalty on 1996, 1997 and 1998
overpayment of taxes to Baja Club and refund the amount that is the
difference of the value on Account No. 2036068. (Approved by Finance
Committee July 24, 2000)
5.
Motion to approve the purchase of a Landscape Truck for the Trees &
Landscape Department from Isuzu Trucks of Augusta for $29,400.00 (lowest
bid offer on Bid 00-095). (Approved by Finance Committee July 24, 2000)
6.
Motion to approve extension of audit contract with Cherry, Bekaert &
Holland through fiscal year ending December 31, 2002 and engage firm to
provide various consulting services at 80% of established hourly rates.
(Approved by Finance Committee July 24, 2000)
7.
Motion to approve a professional services contract with Mary Grady for
thirty (30) hours of service, with a twenty (20) hour extension, at a rate of $50
an hour not to exceed $2,500. (Approved by Finance Committee July 24,
2000)
4
8.
Motion to refund the penalty for Crystal Creek , Inc (Map 157; Parcel 4.01-
1) (Approved by Finance Committee July 24, 2000)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
:
9. Motion to approve the reprogramming of $221,416 in CDBG funds for public
services and one public facilities project total amount for other projects
$297,111.93 with the requirement that all funds must be spent by 12/31/00
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee July 24, 2000)
10.
Motion to approve Tier 2 Façade Restoration Grant for $45,000 with the
requirement that all funds must be spent by 12/31/00. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee July 24, 2000)
11.
Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain
unsafe and uninhabitable properties in the Sand Hills Neighborhood: 2432-
2432 ½ Porter Street, 602 Jefferson Drive (District 1, Super District 9);
Laney Walker Neighborhood: 1130 Twiggs Street, (District 1, Super District
9); Bethlehem Neighborhood: 1706 Norris Lane, (District 2, Super District
9); Turpin Hill Neighborhood: 906 Seventh Avenue, (District 2, Super
District 9); East Augusta Neighborhood: 2327 Knox Avenue, (District 2,
nd
Super District 9); subject to funding and waive 2 reading. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee July 24, 2000)
12.
Motion to approve a request for additional personnel in the Utilities
Department to perform maintenance required by Consent Order No. END-
WQ-3681 dated January 27, 2000 (Funds were budgeted in the personnel
accounts under 506043410). (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee July 24, 2000)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
13. Motion to approve Stephen E. Joseph & Sages, Inc. proposal for evaluation
of groundwater quality & landfill gas impact and assessment of groundwater
monitoring program at the Deans Bridge Road Landfill for a fee not to
exceed $21,360.00 funded by Landfill Account #541-
044210/5212115.(Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 24,
2000)
14. Motion to approve the surveying and engineering services by James G. Swift
& Associates for the design of water main relocation associated with the
Highway 56 GDOT Project ($39,130.00 is available in Account No.
507043410-5212115/89800110-5212115). (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee July 24, 2000)
15. Motion to approve a change order in the amount of $506,730.00 for tunneling
and blasting services under I-20 to install the required 30-inch sewer trunk
replacement. Funds are available in Account No. 508043420-5425210.
Change order is associated with the S-2B Rae’s Creek Sewer Replacement
Project (Bid Item #99-108). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
July 24, 2000)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
5
16. Motion to approve purchase of services subcontracts between Augusta
Richmond County and Institute for Family Centered Services to provide
counseling services to juvenile offenders. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee July 24, 2000)
PUBLIC SERVICES
:
17. Motion to approve a request by Angie Harrygin for an on premise
consumption liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with
Tropical Paradise Lounge located at 1365 Gordon Highway. There will be a
dance hall. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee July 24, 2000)
18. Motion to approve a request by Miriam Crawford for an on premise
consumption beer & wine license to be used in connection with Some Place
Lounge located at 2610 Peach Orchard Road. There will be a dance hall.
District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 24,
2000)
19. Pulled from consent agenda.
20. Motion to approve the revocation of the business license held by Charles
Cathcart for T’s Gift Shop located at 3096 Deans Bridge Road for the
following violation: commercial gambling. District 5. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee July 24, 2000)
21. Motion to accept the surrendering of the business license held by William A.
Anderson & Jack B. Gordon for K.C.’s located at 2326 Lumpkin Road for
the following violation: commercial gambling. District 8. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee July 24, 2000)
22. Motion to approve the ongoing second year Scrap Tire Code Enforcement
Grant and Scrap Tire Education Grant Contract as requested by Augusta
Richmond County License & Inspection Department and Augusta Clean &
Beautiful. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 24, 2000)
23. Motion to approve Joint Resolution of the Augusta Richmond County
Commission and the Augusta Aviation Commission authorizing the filing of
an application to amend and approve passenger facility charge for authority
to impose and use a $4.50 passenger facility charge at the Augusta Regional
Airport at Bush Field. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 24,
2000)
24. Motion to approve bid to Heavener Construction low bidder for Main
Library Renovations at a negotiated price of $642,159. (Funds available in
Phase 3 SPLOST, LSTA Federal Grant Funds and Library Investment.
(Approved by Public Services Committee July 24, 2000)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
25. Motion to approve minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held
July 20, 2000 and the Joint meeting of the Augusta Commission and Augusta
Aviation Commission and Called meeting held on July 12, 2000.
APPOINTMENTS:
6
26. Motion to approve the reappointment of Mr. Michael Cooper to the General
Aviation Commission- Daniel Field representing District 4.
27. Motion to approve the reappointment of Mr. Bert Harbin to the General
Aviation Commission-Daniel Field representing District 6.
(No objectors to the liquor petitions noted)
Mr. Mays: Are there any items that any Commissioners need to have pulled
from the consent agenda to be discussed separately? Mr. Brigham? Henry Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: I’d like to pull Item 19. It’s my understanding that [inaudible].
I’d like to pull Item 19.
Mr. Mays: Okay. Any Commissioners on this end need to pull anything?
Clerk: Consent agenda items 1-27 with the exception of Item 19.
Mr. Beard: I move for approval.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mays: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion? All in favor of the
motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same. The chair votes yes.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I’m sorry.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: If I could be shown, Madame Clerk, as abstaining on Number 6. It
came to my attention that Mr. Beaudreau in my firm is married to the sister of Mr.
Plowman, who is a partner in Cherry Bekaert & Holland, and I should abstain for that
reason.
Mr. Mays: It is so noted.
Mr. Shepard abstains.
Motion carries 9-1. [Item 6]
Motion carries 10-0. ]Items 1-5, 7-18, 20-27]
Clerk: Item 19 --
Mr. Mays: Pardon me one second, Ms. Bonner. If there aren’t objections, and if
there are we can leave it in the order that it’s in, but under the Administrator’s coverage,
in reference to the contract for the Chief Tax Appraiser, that goes over into Item 34,
Crystal Lee is here to answer questions in reference to that group, and I believe Mr. Wall
has that ready. If there are objections to moving it, then we can leave it where it is, but if
7
not, I’d like to move 34 up before we start with that hearing. None being, if we can hear
that, Madame Clerk.
Clerk: Item 34: Consider contract for Chief Tax Appraiser.
Mr. Wall: Hopefully most of you, if not all of you, received a fax. We tried to
refax this morning to a couple who did not receive it. In any event, this agreement was
presented to the Board of Tax Assessors yesterday afternoon and was unanimously
approved by them. This is at a salary of $70,000 and I’ll be glad to answer any questions.
It does include an automobile allowance of $150 per month, which is consistent with
what other employees, other appraisers within the Tax Assessor’s office are receiving,
and as I say, it was unanimously approved by the Board of Tax Assessors, and I am
asking for your approval of it.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mays, I’d move approval of the contract with the Chief
Tax Appraiser as recommended by the Attorney with an auto allowance.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mays: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: The Chair recognizes Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: I have no problem with the contract and what’s been stated, but we
have met and talked about the car allowance situation for this government and other
entities of such. I’ve talked to Mr. Wall about this and I’m really concerned. I did not
receive a fax, Mr. Wall, I guess it is because I don’t have a fax machine. So I guess that’s
a good reason not to receive one. But I can’t support any more of this as far as car
allowances on cars that we are paying good salaries for, and I understand that is
something we have been doing in the past. But if you’ve been doing it wrong in the past,
then you need to stop doing it wrong. You can’t do it for 40 years wrong and then turn
around and say, well, that’s been the past practice. I just totally disagree with that. I
think that we need to look at that closely. I’ve talked to Mr. Wall personally about this.
He explained to me that he could not share some information about it and I explained to
him my concern. And I’m not so much against the car allowance as what we are paying
for those services. And on that, I’d like to ask a question of Mr. Wall, if I may. We
discuss about outside work for our tax appraiser and what he’ll be doing other than
working for this government, as far as his own business concerns. Was that addressed?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir, that is addressed in the contract. It is addressed, and I’m not
sure whether you have a copy or not, but it’s addressed in Section 7 and it prohibits the
outside employment either as an appraiser or in the real estate business, with the
8
exception that he is allowed to conclude ongoing matters, and I have a list of the matters
that he is involved in that he will complete. As far as the other activities, to teach the
IAAO course, the GAAO course, and the Georgia Department of Revenue courses, which
would be beneficial to this office, he is allowed to do that. Insofar as teaching any MAI
courses, that would have to be on vacation time. But all of the outside work, he’s simply
allowed to conclude what he’s involved in, and I have a list of that. But beyond that, he’s
precluded from being involved in it.
Mr. Williams: I’ve got no problem with none of those things you mentioned, Mr.
Wall, even if we have to pay car allowance, I mean car mileage for the work, the trips
that he may be taking. But I don’t see in my mind the necessary price of a car allowance.
Now if we wanted to go with car mileage. I mean, I understand if he uses his personal
vehicle that we ought to be able to do that. But I cannot support and I will not support a
$70,000 salary plus the car allowance. I just think that’s unfair to this government. I
think there is too many people that work hard for the money and don’t receive any
benefits and folks who are making good salaries, or better than good salaries, end up with
a car allowance as well. Someone said it’s not about money. Well, if it’s not about
money, I don’t understand why the people who are not making those figures don’t have a
car but people who are making that kind of figures have a car. It don’t make good sense
to me. And I can’t support and I will not vote for that.
Mr. Mays: Any other questions on this end? How about on my left? Quiet
bunch today. That’s good. Are there any other questions with reference to this particular
item? Jim, I did hear you mention in reference to -- and you answered pretty much
everything I was going to ask -- but on the allowance, we still do have allowances within
that particular department; am I correct?
Mr. Wall: That is correct.
Mr. Mays: Okay.
Mr. Wall: And this is consistent with what those appraisers are receiving.
Mr. Mays: All right, there’s a motion and a second. Is there any further
discussion? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Wall said something. I’d like to get
some clarification on it. I’m sure he can clear me up. You said those are the provisions
for those appraisers?
Mr. Wall: Correct. Not everybody in the office gets that. Just the appraisers that
are within that office.
Mr. Williams: Just the appraisers within the office?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir.
9
Mr. Williams: Well, there are some folks that we went and addressed already
who was getting -- and I keep say if you were doing it wrong 25, 30 years ago and you
can’t continue to do it wrong because it was done in the past -- when are we going to stop
doing the bad past practice and start doing some things that’s right? I still
wholeheartedly say that that’s not fair, that’s not ethical for this government to sit here
and to pass, to give those type salaries out, and a car allowances. If it’s a past practice
before, we went out and took some cars and brought some stuff in for other people who
had had past practice, and we took those cars, and here we are now going back doing the
same thing that we just done in the past, and it’s a past practice, and we tried to change,
not because we didn’t want anybody to have a car, not because we felt that they weren’t
deserving of the car, but we are paying out too much money, the government paying out
too much money in salaries and then getting the fringe benefits. And it only work one
sided. And it’s time out for that. When are we going to wake up? How long are we
going to sit on this board and act like we just, we blind? I really don’t understand that
and I really wish somebody else would find a better way of negotiating. I even talked to
Mr. Wall about the salary range because I thought what this government would do would
tell you about the car allowance, and then when the car allowance not approved, just add
it in the salary anyway. I wanted to know what the salary was in the beginning so I could
negotiate or figure out which was the salary and which was the car allowance. But I just
think we are simply wrong to even address the issue like that, to come and insult this
government and ask for that kind of money and then ask for a car allowance as well.
That’s just not fair to the taxpayers.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Williams, I made the motion to
include the car allowance, and I think one thing we could agree on is property in McBean
that has to be appraised, there’s property downtown that has to be appraised, there’s
property in west Augusta that has be appraised, and sometimes there’s just no substitute
other than going out and eyeballing it and determining if that’s the appropriate inventory
evaluation, if that’s the appropriate real property evaluation, and since there’s no other
practical way to get there other than automobile, I think this is certainly one position, as
do the other appraisers, that have justification for having such an allowance. This man,
as part of his ordinary and necessary duties in this office, is going to have to go from
north to south and east to west all over this county in order to have our tax digest in
appropriate shape, and I think that it’s primarily our revenue. We sit on the Finance
Committee. Our revenue comes from various kind of taxes, and we need to have the
appropriate appraisals done so that we have our revenue and the appraisers do their job in
a fair manner to the taxpayers, so I think it’s very important that that element stay in,
particularly in this case.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. If I may, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I want
Mr. Shepard to understand that I realize exactly what he said, but we’re talking about an
employee who is going on company time to do appraisals in his personal car. Now I can
understand car mileage, if you want to do that, but he’s being paid a job, he’s paid a high
10
rate of pay to do a job, and if he’s going to use his personal car, then that’s fine. If he
don’t want to use his personal car, there are several cars that we talked about a car pool to
be sitting outside here, that he is more than welcome to get any car and sign it out, take
care of the company’s business, and come back in this company, and then get in his
personal car and go home. I cannot sit here and agree to give a car allowance where a
man making $70,000 a year. If he can’t afford to buy a car at $70,000 a year, something
wrong.
Mr. Mays: So noted, Commissioner. I would like to ask Mr. Levy, Bill, do you
have anything that you needed to ask about?
Mr. Levy: Other than [inaudible] he will be traveling throughout the county in
doing his job. Like all the other employees down there, [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: So there is mileage?
Mr. Wall: At $.08 a mile for in county. And that is consistent with what others
are receiving. So it’s $150 plus $.08 rather than the $.315.
Mr. Mays: So it’s not the high rate that we are paying when you’re doing just
strictly the rate that you’re dealing with on mileage?
Mr. Wall: That’s right.
Mr. Mays: And that was the question that needed to be brought out today, it’s a
difference when you’re doing that. Any other discussion? All in favor of the motion
would do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same. And I’m going to vote for it.
The only thing the Chair would note is that I do think we need to take an examination
after a while -- and this has been somewhat of a criticism -- but I’m going to vote for the
motion, because I think there’s a lot in the field that that chief person is going to have to
do, but I’ll say this, I think after a year’s time we need to make sure that folks at the top,
that if the duties are torn between their staying in an office and being top-level
administrators, if they are not out riding, then we not only need to deal with this one, we
need to deal with everybody else who is getting a car allowance. We don’t need to pay it
just to come to work. But I’m going to vote for the contract that is on the floor.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Mays: If we can, I don’t know where we’re going on the hearing, can we
possibly go to 28 and 29? That would wrap us up with the exception of the hearing and
the items that are under the Administrator’s list and Legal, wouldn’t it?
Clerk: Item 28: Consider approval for Blair Construction to construct a new
sanitary sewer line in Glass Factory Avenue basin as an emergency action at cost of
$118,911. Funds are available in account no. 507043420-5425210/89800550-5425110.
11
Mr. Hicks: Gentlemen, this item is brought before you to try to get it done as
quickly as we can. As mentioned in the background of the order, the consent order that
we’re under requires that we conduct an assessment on the sewer separation projects to
be sure that all the combined sewer overflows have been eliminated. In that process, an
interconnection between the storm and sanitary sewer system was discovered in the
vicinity of Fire Station 5 on Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard that resulted in storm
water being directed to the sanitary sewer system, so during periods of rainfall, this could
result in an overflow to the sanitary sewer system. We are requesting that this new line
be constructed as an emergency measure so we can demonstrate to the EPD that we are
taking steps as quickly as possible to eliminate any cross-connections that are discovered.
We did, on an emergency basis, get quotes from three local contractors, and Blair gave
the lowest of those quotes. So we recommend awarding it to them to go ahead and get
this work done.
Mr. Bridges: I move for approval, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Cheek: Second, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mays: There’s a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? None on the
right. Any on the left? The question I’d ask, Max, and I’m going to vote for the motion,
but I guess I’ve been here probably long enough and old enough now that some of these
things look like they follow you after a while. I left Glass Factory Avenue in the old city
and it’s popped up since I’ve been here. We know that work has to be done, but is this a
situation of new work that we’re dealing in there, because it seems like we’ve been back
not so much this consolidated government, but we’ve been back in Glass Factory Avenue
a lot. And while it needs to be done, and I’m going to vote to do it, and I think the
Commission will be supportive, but I just get a little leery when I kind of keep seeing
some of the same places, you know, every so often, that we’re back in, and if they are
different work scenarios we’re doing, but you know, what’s kind of going on there in that
process? Cause we have been over in there a lot. I had a lot of hair when we started
working with Glass Factory Avenue and I was weighing about 150 pounds. So I mean
we’re here now a hundred pounds later and I can see what I’m thinking about and we’re
back in Glass Factory Avenue and been there two or three different times. I just wonder
if we’re going to keep staying in there. I’m not putting that on you but that’s a repeat
one.
Mr. Hicks: It is. In the sewer separation projects, it was expected that all such
cross connections would be eliminated and steps were taken to try to be sure that all of
them were eliminated. However, from time to time, individual instances such as this do
pop up, and when they do we try to deal with them as quickly as we can. That’s the main
thing I can tell you, Commissioner, is that the whole effort is to totally eliminate any such
cross connections, but from time to time they do pop up. And you’re right, Glass Factory
Avenue is one of those older systems that had a number of intentional connections back
when our sewers were combined, storm and sanitary. And so the elimination has been an
ongoing process.
12
Mr. Mays: Any other questions?
Mr. Colclough: Yes.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Hicks, did this go through Purchasing?
Mr. Hicks: No, sir, it did not. We went out on emergency basis once we
discovered it to get it as quickly as we could and so we solicited prices from these three
firms and got them in as quickly as we could, but we did not go through a regular 30-day
bid and that sort of thing.
Mr. Colclough: I thought that was one of the processes that we voted on, that all
these bids go through Purchasing prior to going out for bid.
Mr. Hicks: That’s right, sir. Except on emergency basis. There is a provision if
you’ve got a true emergency that you can get it done.
Mr. Colclough: With the little rain that we’ve got out here today, would that
cause emergency in that area to flood out [inaudible], a lot of times?
Mr. Hicks: No, sir, it would not. But as we witnessed the other week, with that
four inch rain, you never know when they’re going to come.
Mr. Colclough: We witnessed a whole lot of areas flooding out under that four
inch rain, but we’re not repairing those on an emergency basis.
Mr. Hicks: No, sir, we have not discovered a direct cross connection in any of
those, but once a cross connection comes to our attention, if it should then cause any sort
of an overflow of a sewer, then we would be more subject to EPD fines of a greater
nature if we didn’t go ahead and address it directly as quickly as we can.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, Mr. Hicks, we have a situation out in
Meadow Grove that when it rains, sewer backs up into people’s yards and that’s not an
emergency either.
Mr. Hicks: Well, those, if we could find a direct connection such as this, that is
one pipe, that we could eliminate, then rest assured, Commissioner, we would --
Mr. Colclough: GIS wouldn’t tell us that or anything else or somebody going
down in that area to tell us that there is a cross connection there that causes water and
sewage to back up in people’s yards?
13
Mr. Hicks: They’ve already been in that area and have done smoke testing and
TV inspection and that sort of thing, and any such cross connections that are located, we
try to deal with them --
Mr. Colclough: I’m just trying to get to the emergency issue.
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: What is the gross emergency that we need to do this without
going through the proper channels?
Mr. Hicks: That was what constituted the emergency was the necessity to get it
done as quickly as we could so as to be able to let EPD know that we were indeed dealing
with these as quickly as we could when we discovered them.
Mr. Mays: Gentlemen, if I could jump in for just a moment, the Attorney wants
to address part of that. Jim?
Mr. Wall: Let me point out insofar as the cross connections are concerned. We
are under an EPD consent order to eliminate any cross connections and we also, as a part
of that consent order are obligated to go in and do an inventory of the system to ensure
that we do not have any further cross connections. We have been under the impression
that most of those situations are corrected, if not all. However, as evidenced by some
other spills, it’s obvious there have been some connections that are made that are difficult
to locate and are hard to find, but each time raw sewage does overflow, we stand the
potential for being find by EPD and they are quick to seize upon that. And so I think that
on the basis of that, since we are under an order, that we do need to proceed as
expeditiously as possible to correct any of those situations as soon as they come to our
attention.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: So you’re saying to me, Mr. Wall, that since there is sewer
backing up in folks’ yards that we’re going to make all these connections, all these
repairs emergencies?
Mr. Wall: I’m not basing it on sewer. I’m not basing it on sewer backing up. I’m
basing it on the fact that as I understood what Mr. Hicks said, there is a cross connection
between storm sewer and sanitary sewer, and we’re under an EPD order to correct that.
Mr. Colclough: That I understand, sir, but if we are under a consent order by
EPD to correct this issue because he’s saying that storm water overflowed into the sewer
system, it causes a back up. Now sewage don’t just back up in people’s yards when it
rains without a cross connection or something in there, Mr. Wall, so I’m saying is that
we’re going to go out there and fix this one in Meadow Grove as we do this one. Under
emergency basis. Before EPD get on us.
14
Mr. Hicks: If we find one such as that --
Mr. Wall: If we find cross connections, it’s going to be my advice we correct
them as expeditiously as we can, yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: Expeditiously means that we’re going out there and find a cross
connection or find out what’s out there tomorrow.
Mr. Wall: Well, we’ve got a -- and I don’t remember the time frame, and I don’t
remember whether it’s smoke or TV camera, but we’re under an obligation to explore the
lines to ensure that we don’t have cross connections, and that’s going to be a major
undertaking once that process gets started.
Mr. Colclough: So when do I get a report back on the Meadow Grove?
Mr. Hicks: There has been preliminary data developed. It’s a couple of volumes.
I could --
Mr. Colclough: I don’t want a couple of volumes. I just want a scaled-down
report saying that you’ve done the TV or smoke and you’ve found no cross connection
with causes storm water to go into sewer pipe to back up in these people’s yard under
emergency basis.
Mr. Hicks: I’m going to make a comment and I’m going to kind of be a limb
when I make it because I don’t have the list right before me, but I will say this, that had
we discovered one such as this in that, I feel sure we would have come to you directly,
tried to get that thing repaired just as quickly as we have that this one. That’s the whole
thrust and intent of it, is when you find one that’s as direct as this, you try to eliminate it
as quickly as you can.
Mr. Colclough: This is my last question. So therefore, you’re saying to me that
y’all went in there, y’all did all the tests, the smoke, the TV and everything else, and
there’s no cross connection?
Mr. Hicks: We didn’t find anything as direct as --
Mr. Colclough: You want to give me a short little report of what your findings
are? What you’ve done?
Mr. Hicks: I’ll be glad to.
Mr. Colclough: So that means that there is no cross connection, so the sewage is
automatically backing up?
15
Mr. Hicks: It obviously gets in somehow. There is inflow coming in from
somewhere, but we haven’t been able to discover it the way we were able to discover
this.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] because we might have another threat of rain
tomorrow.
Mr. Hicks: If we could perchance come upon it the way this one came up, why
we’d fix it without waiting for another rain. I can assure you we’d take the same steps
there as we have in this Glass Factory Avenue basin.
Mr. Mays: Anything else, Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: No.
Mr. Mays: Anything else on this end? Okay. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you. Mr. Mays. Max, I’d like to ask a question and I’d like
to make a comment, too. I’m not so much worried about whether or not there’s cross
section or something that causes it. My thing is going out for bids, for everybody to have
a fair opportunity to bid on this work. And even though we are under a court order or a
necessity to do this as quickly as possible, even at that rate, unless there was some type of
emergency where it causes some kind of problem to the residents of that area, I think we
should have went out for bid on this so we would be fair to everybody. That’s what we
trying to do, do a bidding process. I understand that you want to do this and get it done.
I called in to Public Work to get somebody out on Olive Road here. A couple of
neighbors called me about sewage had backed up in the 1900 block of Olive Road, right
in the curve in that area somewhere. That’s been over three weeks ago. Nobody said
anything about doing anything about that. And the lady has explained that it happened
more than one time. And evidently somebody took care of the problem because I didn’t
have any more calls on it. But my thing is, Max, that if we need to do this quickly as
possible, and I understand that, but in all fairness, when we’ve got projects for this
amount of money I think we should always bid this thing out so we can do that. And
that’s going to keep everything on the same team. We’ve got too many times where
people come in and give a low bid or give a bid, they get in there and they get to work.
So my thing is not what causing it, how much rain, is that we ought to go back and bid
this job out so we get a fair bid from everybody who is going to be a participant in this
government.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Any other questions on the right? Bill?
Mr. Kuhlke: Max, am I reading this wrong? Didn’t you get three bids on this?
16
Mr. Hicks: We did. But we did not go through the Purchasing Department. We
did not.
Mr. Oliver: You would have to do a full bid specification, which would be fine.
It would cost several thousand dollars to advertise it, produce the bid documents. If
that’s what the Mayor and Commission want to do, that’s fine. We run the risk, however,
that we’ll be in violation of a consent order and be subjected to fine and further penalty
by EPD. We believe it’s in the best interest to correct these issue on an expedited basis,
using a reasonable process.
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mays: No further discussion? Mr. Williams? I think we’re wrapping up.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. I understand Mr. Oliver, what he just said about
what the bid documents going to cost and what it going to cost us. We’re still playing
ball and everybody ain’t playing with the same ball. It don’t make sense to me. That
what we supposed to do, that’s what this government has set up. If it costs us, it costs us.
But if it’s going to be fair, it’s going to be fair. We can’t do it when it’s pleasing to us
and when it looks good for us, and then at other times it don’t look good and we do it
another way. We need to do it the same way all the time. And that’s the right way.
That’s what we’re set up. We got a program set up and we need to follow that. I don’t
understand, when you say you want to save a few dollars here, but next time you want to
spend on a change order $100,000 when you didn’t want to take $2,000 to get the bid
work out.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Chairman, I’d just like to make the comment that this is
consistent with how we’ve treated everybody in the past. We did go out on bids. This is
what we want to do as a government under an emergency situation, when we run up on
these problems. This is consistent with how we operate as a government, and it’s a very
good system. It works well for us, we get the problem solved, and we don’t delay getting
the problem solved, yet we’re fair in getting bids, and Max, I’d just encourage you and
your staff, I appreciate the job you did on this and I encouraging continue showing the
same integrity and work that you’ve shown on this position.
Mr. Mays: All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed,
the same. The Chair votes yes.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk: Item 29: Consider approval for change order in the amount of
$29,338 to Blair Construction, Inc for the addition of 400 linear feet of water line to
the Bedford Heights project – Bid Item 99-089 funds are available in account no.
507043420-5425210/89800090-5425210.
17
Mr. J. Brigham: I so move.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mays: Anybody need a call on 29? Understand what the motion and the
second is about? There is a motion and a second on the floor. Is there any discussion?
Any on the left? Any on the right? None. All in favor of the motion will do so by usual
sign. Any opposed, the same. The Chair votes yes.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mays: We’re back to 19, I think, now on the hearing.
Item 19: Motion to approve the revocation of the business license held by
Tiet T. Anderson for Hair Professional located at 3096B Deans Bridge Road for the
following violation: commercial gambling. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved
by Public Services Committee July 24, 2000)
Mr. Mays: If you would, state your -- as representative -- state your name and
address for the record, please, sir.
Mr. Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. My name is Ben Jackson. I’m a
lawyer here in Augusta. My business address is 3744B Walton Way Extension, Augusta
30907. I’m here representing Ms. Tiet Anderson. It is spelled T-I-E-T, but it is
pronounced “T” Anderson, and to her right is Mr. Charles Cathcart, who also happens to
be #20 on your agenda. What happened in this matter, I know there are several
committee members from the Public Services Committee that we met last week, but
basically what had happened is Mr. Cathcart was operating a video poker place within
this building. This building is an old First Union building at the corner of Lumpkin Road
and Highway #1. It is sectioned off. Mr. Cathcart had the machines within there. Now I
think May a year ago, Ms. Anderson had a game license. She was charged with
gambling and so she voluntarily gave up her license -- I believe it was May of 1999. In
January of this year, Mr. Cathcart started his business. At this point, I think what we’re
here on is her business license to operate a beauty shop. We’re not here asking for any
kind of game license or anything like that. She has a beauty shop with four to five
operators, which is on a different side of the building from Mr. Cathcart’s building. And
that is what we are here to ask for, is that she be allowed to retain her beauty shop license
to do that. When the police came in, they took the machines that Mr. Cathcart. Mr.
Cathcart apparently -- I do not represent him -- but apparently has not challenged
anything. I think one of the accusations at the committee meeting was, there was
testimony from the police officer that my client received 75 percent of the money. And
that is not true. Mr. Cathcart is here to say that is not true. Mr. Cathcart has provided me
today with a copy of his agreement where he actually paid 50 percent of the money to --
he received 50 percent of the money from the person who owned the machines. I just
received this today so I don’t have copies for everyone. But I think one of the concerns
18
was that the machines are owned by Ms. Anderson’s son, who lives over in South
Carolina. One of the accusations was there was a video tape of a young lady at this place,
when Mr. Cathcart was not there, saying “she” would be back to pay you some money.
There was never any identification of who “she” is. As I said, there are four or five
beauty operators. There is actually a lady, a Ms. Mosely, who worked for Mr. Cathcart
when Mr. Cathcart was not in the business. So, #1, we don’t even know who made this
statement about “she” will be back. #2, at the meeting, there was never any allegation
about my client exchanging money or any money being exchanged. The only testimony I
recall was that on the video it says that some lady says “she” will be back to pay you
some money. We did not see the video tapes. So we’re not sure exactly what those say.
But again, I’m here to ask you to allow her to retain her business license to operate a
video -- I’m sorry, not a video, but to operate her beauty shop. One concern she
expressed to me last week, and I think Mr. Kuhlke asked about this, was how long was
she on the lease. And she told me she has about five years left on this lease, so basically
she’s on this lease. She will not have a business, the other half of the building is vacant
as it stands right now. So with that being said, I would just ask the Board of
Commissioners to consider allowing her to keep a probationary business license. As I
said, there is no other business in the entire building now except for Ms. Anderson’s
beauty shop.
Mr. Mays: Do any Commissioners or Mr. Wall have any questions of Mr.
Jackson before we recognize persons from either the Sheriff’s Department or License and
Inspection?
Mr. Wall: The only comment I would make is this revenue sharing agreement
between Fantastic Games and Mr. Cathcart deals only with the relationship between him
and these owners. It does not have anything to do with any revenue sharing that may
exist between those two individuals.
Mr. Mays: If you would, state your name and address, just for the record, please.
Mr. Cathcart: Charles Cathcart. Sole proprietor of [inaudible] Gift Shop.
Mr. Mays: Your address?
Mr. Cathcart: 2413 Boykin Road, Hephzibah. I did not receive a notice for the
hearing the other week when my license was revoked. It must have been sent to my old
address. I did not receive it. But it was stated that I said I received 25 percent from the
machines and that Tiet Anderson, and it was printed in the newspaper -- I have the
newspaper with me -- received 75 percent. And I never made any such statement. They
took my envelope out of the safe. I opened the safe for them. They took my envelope
out. I said that’s my percentage from the machines. They wanted to know how much
that percentage was. That percentage was 25 percent of what the intake from the
machines was. Larry gets 50 percent, and I have a standing agreement, a verbal
agreement with him, since I am buying the business from his mother, that he takes half of
my wages and pays to her for rent and what I owe her. That’s what was in my envelope
19
was only 25 percent. But I never said or made any statement to anybody that she
received 75 percent of what comes from the machines. And that’s my only gripe.
Mr. Mays: Anyone have any questions? Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Jackson, you say that the gentlemen got the license in
January of this year?
Mr. Jackson: I believe it was in January. He started his business in January of
2000.
Mr. Colclough: Started the business in January?
Mr. Cathcart: I actually got the license last year. The business was almost totally
nothing there. Any I was trying to build it up. Took me a while. I remodeled and
everything and it was only the first of the year, in order to boost sales in the gift shop, I
put the machines in. I did actually buy the business last year.
Mr. Colclough: But you only started operating a business in January of this year?
Is that what I’m hearing?
Mr. Cathcart: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: Any other questions on the left? Anybody else on this end with any
questions? I would like to ask while you are at the mike, you know we did, regardless of
the debate about the committee, we did hear your portion during the consent agenda on
Item 20. You are aware of that, right? It’s on the regular agenda today. I’m speaking to
right to you now. I know you’re a witness for her, but I’m saying that since you didn’t
get a notice you are in this room today and we did hear yours in reference to it being
voted on, and I wanted to make sure you had a clear understanding that in reference to
your license, since you’re at the podium, and you’re here before the folk that took them,
you understand that we did discuss that in reference to your license?
Mr. Cathcart: Are you voting on this now?
Mr. Mays: We’re voting on hers now with the business license, to hear it. But
you made the comment while you were there that you didn’t get a notice, and what I’m
saying is you appeared today but you raised no objections in reference to what we did on
yours because you were on the agenda for Item 20. I’m just trying to find out in terms of
fairness, of being fair to you, do you realize I guess in the scope of what’s happening, do
you know what’s going on, that your license has been taken? On yours now, not on hers.
Mr. Cathcart: I am not going to contest my license. I was ready to close. I even
told Mr. Stoney Turnage I was ready to close.
20
Mr. Mays: Okay, I just wanted to get that on for the record that you’re clear on
that.
Mr. Cathcart: I don’t feel like it’s right for them to close her down by saying that
I said something that I did not say.
Mr. Mays: Okay. We’ll finish dealing with hers in just a moment, but by your
admission, then, you recognize what we’ve done with yours and that you were going to
surrender anyway, so really, whether you came to the hearing or not, it’s kind of a moot
issue. You’re here today and you didn’t contest it today. At this time, we are going to
recognize -- Berry, either you or Stewart can go at this time. And comment in rebuttal or
whatever you want to add to it.
Mr. Berry: The reason we asked that this be put on the agenda, we conducted an
undercover operation back in July. And July 12, we ran an undercover agent through this
location. This undercover agent was paid $20 in currency for points accumulated in
electronic video machines. Upon transaction of this payoff, the individual was an
Oriental female, stated to the undercover officer, and it’s on tape, audio and video, that
“she” will be back, “she” can pay you, “she” just left, and the only somebody that we had
seen leave was Tiet Anderson at that time. We had the place under surveillance. And the
only reason we asked for it to be put on today was that in March of ’99, I executed a
search warrant at the same location, Ms. Tiet Anderson had a game room, she was in
violation of state law at that time for commercial gambling. This time, she didn’t get a
game room license, she got Mr. Cathcart to get a gift shop and that time they placed five
games inside the gift shop. The gift shop is divided by some wall, but there is a big
opening so it’s actually not divided. You can walk in from any of the rooms. The rooms
are not separated by doors. When I interviewed Mr. Cathcart, there was another
investigator there, he told me at that time -- there was two other investigators. He stated
that he gets a small percentage, he never stated what amount, he said he gets a small
percentage of the machines, Tiet Anderson and her son gets the rest. He also stated that
the money was put into the safe, he did not get the money directly from them by him, but
would drop it in the drop box and he would return and pick up his money. Lt. Turnage
went and spoke with him. Lt. Turnage [inaudible] and Lt. Turnage stated that he stated
that he gets 25 percent but he never told me that, he just stated small amount, and that
Tiet Anderson gets 75 percent. I didn’t hear that conversation, but that was what was
related to me. And therefore we ask that the license be revoked.
Mr. Speaker: Describe the set up.
Mr. Berry: When you walk in just like I’m walking in right now, there’s a little
foyer to your right, maybe do nails or whatever, then the next section would be where the
video games are, like a petition on two sides, back room is where the safes are. You go
down stairs. A little safe. Actually, two safes. [inaudible] walk up, the safe, [inaudible],
to your left, walk straight ahead, have the beauty salon to your left. So it’s all like you
can walk in here, walk in here, walk in here. Not separated.
21
Mr. Mays: Any question of the investigator by any of the Commissioners? Mr.
Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I’d like to ask Mr. Barry, since we’ve suspended the license on the
machines and he’s out of business and out of the building and she got her license
suspended last year, right?
Mr. Berry: I think she turned it in but --
Mr. Kuhlke: Turned it in, okay. So that’s gone?
Mr. Berry: Right.
Mr. Kuhlke: What’s your objection to her retaining a business license for a hair
place?
Mr. Berry: I think we need to treat everybody the same in this county. When
they violate the law, if they circumvent the law, in illegal activity, I believe that she was
involved in illegal activity, circumvent the law, she was getting revenue from these
machines, then she needs to be closed. If it was the first time, I wouldn’t try to pull her
business license, which we didn’t before.
Mr. Kuhlke: Right.
Mr. Berry: We just went after the game room license. [inaudible] have
association with this type activity, we would ask that the license be revoked.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: Any other questions from this end? Any other questions down here?
Mr. Jackson: May I ask a couple, please?
Mr. Mays: Go ahead.
Mr. Jackson: Let me make sure I understood what you said. You said that a lady
said “she” would be back to give you money. Did y’all ever actually get an exchange of
money?
Mr. Berry: Yes, sir.
Mr. Jackson: Okay. And was that the marked money you have?
Mr. Berry: I didn’t say I had any marked money.
Mr. Jackson: I thought you said you sent someone in with some marked money.
22
Mr. Berry: No, sir.
Mr. Jackson: Okay. And who did the exchange of the money?
Mr. Berry: You mean from inside?
Mr. Jackson: You said you sent someone and there was an exchange.
Mr. Berry: Right. It was an oriental female.
Mr. Jackson: Do you have that on the video?
Mr. Berry: Yes, sir.
Mr. Jackson: Okay. The video is not my client.
Mr. Berry: I showed you a picture of the individual.
Mr. Jackson: Right. And we decided that was not her in the video.
Mr. Berry: I knew it wasn’t her.
Mr. Jackson: Okay. So you don’t have documents, any photographs, anything
that shows my client exchanged money in there?
Mr. Berry: No, sir.
Mr. Jackson: Thank you.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Walker, do you have anything to add? Gentlemen, we’ve heard
both sides of this particular issue and what’s before us now is in reference to the business
license. What’s your pleasure?
Mr. Kuhlke: I move that we uphold the action of the Public Services
Committee.
Mr. J. Brigham; Second.
Mr. Mays: There is a motion and a second that the action of the Public Services
Committee be upheld. Is there any discussion? All in favor of the motion will do so by
the usual sign. Any opposed, the same. The Chair votes yes.
Motion carries 10-0.
23
Mr. Mays: Gentlemen, at this time, this concludes, with the exception of the
items that are listed under the Administrator. We do have some items prior to that some
items that the Attorney has in reference to litigation, and I think we are probably going to
be here for Items 30 through 33. There is nothing listed under other business. We’ve
taken up 34. But Item 30 to 33 are probably going to take some time. The Chair would
entertain a motion that we do two things, that we go into Legal first before doing those,
and that we take a recess after the legal period, an additional five minutes and that we
resume and that we spend that time working out, gentlemen, whatever we are going to
have to work out in reference to the items that are before us on sales tax. If there be no
objection, the Chair will entertain that motion. If not, gentlemen, we can do whatever
your pleasure is.
Item 36: Legal meeting.
* Discuss possible litigation.
* Discuss personnel.
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Wall: Let the Legal meeting show that it’s for the two items shown.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Would that definition of litigation include the nuisance matter, Mr.
Wall?
Mr. Wall: Potential litigation, yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: Potential litigation?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mays: Motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? If not, all in
favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same. The Chair votes
yes.
Motion carries 10-0.
[LEGAL MEETING 3:06 – 5:05 P.M.]
24
Mr. Mays: Ladies and gentlemen, we will reconvene, and the Chair will
entertain a motion to approve the affidavit, as well as the additions from Mr. Wall, City
Attorney.
Mr. Wall: Need to add the execution of the closed meeting affidavit, to add an
agenda to approve the execution of the EPD consent order and authorize payment of fine
of $25,000 and to rescind the contract award to Insituform Technologies and award the
contract to Reynolds, Inc.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
A. Approve authorization for Mayor Pro Tem to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia’s Open Meetings Act.
B. Approve execution of EPD Consent Order and authorize payment of
fine of $25,000.
C. Rescind the contract award to Insituform Technologies and award the
contract to Reynolds, Inc.
Mr. Cheek: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mays: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor of
the motion will do so by our regular sign. Any opposed, the same. The Chair votes yes.
Motion carries 10-0.
Item A: Approve authorization for Mayor Pro Tem to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia’s Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Wall: The first item, Mr. Mayor, would be to authorize the execution by you
of the closed meting affidavit.
Mr. Shepard: I so move as recommended by the Attorney.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mays: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion
will do so by a regular sign; any opposed, the same. The Chair votes Yes. The motion is
carried.
Motion carries 10-0.
Item B: Rescind the contract award to Insituform Technologies and award
the contract to Reynolds, Inc.
25
Mr. Wall: The next item would be to rescind the contract award for Insituform
Technologies and award the contract to Reynolds, Inc.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mays: Motion and a second. Any discussion? None. All in favor of the
motion will do so by regular sign. Any opposed, the same. The Chair votes yes. Motion
is carried.
Motion carries 10-0.
Item C: Approve execution of EPD Consent Order and authorize payment
of the fine of $25,000.
Mr. Wall: The next item is to approve the execution of the EPD Consent Order
and authorize payment of the fine of $25,000.
Mr. Cheek: I so move.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mays: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Not? All in favor of
the motion will do so by regular sign; any opposed, the same. The Chair votes yes.
Motion is carried.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mays: That clears us up, I believe, Madame Clerk, with the items brought
forth from Legal, and we can return to our regular agenda.
Item 30: Consider Resolution regarding Special Purpose Sales Tax
(SPLOST) Phase IV.
Mr. Oliver: The next item on the agenda deals with the Special Purpose Local
Option Sales Tax. After discussion with a number of you, I have prepared several
alternatives which I have passed out. One alternative was the Shepard Plan 1 and
Shepard Plan 2, and then we had the Commissioner Beard Plan. And I would be willing
to go into any amount of detail that you would like. We have given you the supporting
documentation for the rest of it. These would be the adjustments to maintain balance.
What we need to do is to find out from you what projects you wish to fund, and then what
Mr. Wall and I need to do as it relates to this referendum question is to go back and put
your desired projects and how you want to do it in an actual form for resolution and for
the referendum question, and then we would ask that that be formally adopted on
Monday perhaps, because we think it’s critical that we get this list approved and to give
26
the public an opportunity to take and evaluate it and decide how their interests are best
representing in the September 19 election. I would note on the Beard Plan in the right
column that we’ve reduced the jail pod by $2,450,000. That’s the only thing that’s a little
bit confusing, and that would allow $1,250,000 toward construction of the jail pod.
While that amount is insufficient, it would be a start if and when that becomes necessary.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mays: Go ahead, Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Oliver, in the event that that happens, how would we finance the
remaining balance of it?
Mr. Oliver: Under a court order, assuming that we obtained a court order, you
would, I assume issue COPs, because you would be under mandate from the court to do
it. Obviously, you would be unable to pay it with cash, because it would be too great of
an amount of money. And that is the only way I know to do it. Cash, you could go to
reserves, which I do not recommend, or you could issue COPs.
Mr. Mays: Let me throw this out. All this scares me when we get real silent at
the same time. Did you have something, Ulmer, cause I will yield.
Mr. Bridges: I’m scratching my chin.
Mr. Mays: What I was searching for before the Chair accepts any motions to get
out here into a debate, do we have questions of the authors of either one of the three plans
or if some Commissioners in reference to any numbers that may be up there want to get
into that part of a discussion of where that is before we kind of get into our written in
stone motions on anything, and I’ll start to my right. Steve?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. I was trying to figure out whether I was on your left
side or your right. Positionally or politically. Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr.
Mayor Pro Tem and fellow Commissioners, I’m the author of two plans and the first plan
is really my preferred plan, whether I have the votes or not is another question. But I
have focused in these discussions on the needs of our judicial center, and as you see it’s
distinguished in the lower section of this from the two plans, my second plan and Mr.
Beard’s plan, by the additional funding that it offers for the judiciary of $4,956,363. And
I get that largely from the elimination, the total elimination of the jail pod, which I have
said before that we focused on law enforcement on the street and we hired new deputies.
We have focused through the help of the court order from the federal court on building an
addition to our detention facilities, and I point out that these are detention facilities and
we have talked about the flow of the people who are accused through the system, and
they start out, of course, with a street arrest and they move through the courts, and we are
looking to eliminate in that first plan a commitment to detention because I think we could
better adequately use or better utilize a detention our detention facilities if we had more
courtroom facilities. And so we can’t have more courtroom facilities unless we can
27
finance them, and I have asked you to consider increasing over the $20 million that we
have committed to the judicial center an additional $5 million. I am mindful that there
are other needs in this area. There’s no significant difference between my two plans and
Mr. Beard’s plan as to the canal improvements. I put that in because I thought we could
leverage money. The pension plan, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I think we are particularly
aware, those of us on the Pension Committee, who would be the Mayor, yourself, me, the
Comptroller, and Randy, of the need to deal with the pension property that’s on Reynolds
Street at the river. And we have a group of pensioners who have felt and have reminded
us on quarterly meetings that we do not have a return coming from that property, and of
course, that’s like buying any equity investment, you obtain that return when you sell it.
But I think there is a pretty clear direction coming from them that we have something in
the way of cash that we invest for them and we could obtain market rate returns rather
than have it tied up in an illiquid investment such as the land. So I don’t see any
difference there. I have attempted to put something in both plans toward increase Rec. I
have, as I told my fellow Commissioners, I have played on the diamonds at Diamond
Lakes and like Rec over other necessities of government. The problem is that I see that
law enforcement is a necessity, so I have tilted the plan, the Shepard 1 Plan, toward the
judicial center. Finally, I have appreciated your support in the past for this project which
is moving forward. We have encumbered approximately $100,000 for some switches, we
have had negotiations ongoing with the railroad. I think I can tell you that Jim and one
railroad are close to a draft of an agreement which we should be back with you shortly.
There is one railroad holding out and we want them to come to the table. We have
negotiated with them several times and they will be, I think, back. So I have asked that
the Citizens Committee recommendation be addressed and improved by putting some
more money into the railroad project. We obtained the funding of the railroad project to
date through recapture and I think we should go ahead and deliberately encumber part of
this money for the railroad project. I went through the Public Works and Engineering
Department and what I didn’t see was an adequate interaction of two downtown
signalization projects with the railroad project, because there was still no traffic light or
railroad crossing signals for Telfair Street and there was none at Laney-Walker
Boulevard, and I think the [inaudible] has brought to our attention that we need to deal
with it at Reynolds Street. It’s only if we do better with our signalization and improve the
passage of the train with the hydro switches that we are going to get some relief. The
other alternative is multi-million dollars of expense, which we have no money for. We
certainly would prefer to move them right off Sixth Street, but that is not going to
happen, I think, in the near future. This will give us some relief. It will aid Public Safety
because the cutting of our community in half would not be as problematic as it is now, so
I see the commitment to the judicial center, the commitment to the railroad, Mr. Mayor
Pro Tem, commitments to acting like a city and not acting like a town. I think that we
have been advised that we need to make a strong commitment to the judicial center and I
think we should do that. It is an important part of this government. We have worked on
the other two parts of it and I would commend that to you, and I would, Mr. Mayor, I
would like to make a motion. Mr. Mayor, you indicated you wanted everybody to
discuss, have an opportunity to discuss, but I would like to be first to be recognized for a
motion when the appropriate time comes.
28
Mr. Mays: I will so do and I’m sure you won’t let me forget it.
Mr. Shepard: I’m going to play Willie Mays.
Mr. Mays: Are there any questions before I ask Mr. Beard to make his
presentation? Are there any questions to Mr. Shepard from any of the Commissioners in
reference to either one of the two plans he has presented.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: I’ve got one, and I reckon it really addresses Mr. Beard’s, too, and
it’s concerning the deductions on the fire department, and maybe Randy or Chief Scott
could answer this. I’m concerned about replacing the old equipment and the remodeling.
Does that in any way, Randy, affect the placement of the new fire stations that are being
done, in particular the ones out that we are placing?
Mr. Oliver: It doesn’t affect the new fire stations at all. We’ve left the new fire
stations in because we view those as a critical part of our public safety net. What the
remodeling does, however, is we would defer the remodeling on some of our older
stations that may not either be ADA compliant or may not be able to accommodate
females till the next sales tax due to the fact that we do not have the money for those.
Mr. Bridges: How about replacing the old equipment? Is that something that is
still operational or is that --
Mr. Oliver: I think that Mr. Scott, Chief Deputy Scott, could probably better
address that than I can. I know we have some leases in there and we recommend that
those leases be paid off because of some issues potentially in subsequent years with a tax
cap. But as it relates to the specifics of the equipment, I can’t answer you.
Mr. Beard: To answer Commissioner Bridges, I did talk with Chief Scott on these
items in reference to the ones that we are eliminating for the Fire Department, and I was
informed by him that these are some of the eliminations that they could live by. My only
concern here on the Fire Department was the fire boat, but I was told that EMA had a fire
boat that could be utilized, and that was one of the reasons that I continued to deal with
this elimination of these items in reference to the Fire Department.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, thank you. Just a comment, before
Commissioner Beard speaks, what Mr. Oliver didn’t say is I also sent a plan in that
basically refactored the $20 million for the judicial center back out into things that would
benefit and make Augusta I guess a more user-friendly community, more consistent with
what we see in other cities. It would have fully funded the requests by the museum and
29
the Canal Authority and helped us to complete many of the projects that we had hoped to
complete by now. I’d like to say that the judicial center is something that is necessary.
We have seen a phenomenal growth in our judiciary. However, I am still concerned
about the quality of community issues that make Augusta a nice place to live, make it
competitive with other cities as far as amenities for its citizens, and Mr. Beard’s plan, I
think, provides as much of that as can possibly be done and still meeting a lot of the
judicial center’s obligations, and I am one in favor of that plan and I’d like to see it
passed.
Mr. Mays: Any other comments on that end? Any comments on this end?
Questions as to the plans? Mr. Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mays, I’m going to be very honest with you and with the
people in this audience. We sat here less than a month ago and said we want to either
build facilities or not build facilities. I for one don’t quite understand Mr. Beard’s
[inaudible], I was going to wait until he addressed it cause I wanted to hear what he was
going to do about the jail pod. I see a deduction of $2,450,000. We all know, sitting
behind this bar, we can’t do the construction for that. I would prefer to see it completely
eliminated and not even have any pretense, even though we all who sit behind this bar
also know that we are headed for an overcrowding situation. Now if we’re not going to
fund something, let’s don’t fund it. I would much rather see us give a million dollars to
the library rather than leave a million dollars sitting in the jail that we can’t even use or
either give it to the museum, but I would not think it’s good management on our part, and
since everybody up here wants to talk about what’s good management, to say and tell the
voters that we’re going to put a million dollars into a jail that none of us sitting up here
knows how we are going to build it for a million dollars, and we’re going to sit on that
money for five years, and then expect the public to support it later. That’s ridiculous.
Mr. Mays: I think I better sit down here away from you, every week, cause we
are agreeing more and more and I get further apart from you. It sounds like what I said
last week. Mr. Beard, you want to go ahead with your presentation?
Mr. Beard: Yes, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I make some comments about this. The
Citizens Committee, after they had completed their findings and presented them to us, it
was $134 million. And a few from that, on July 12, we came up with, yes, Mr. Jerry, we
said we wanted to fund everything, we wanted to fully fund everything and we didn’t
want to leave anything out. So we came up with $249 million. Now we’re only
expecting, around $140 million, maybe $150 million from sales tax, and that’s depending
on which way we’re going with the sales tax, and in reference to looking at the potential
of losing a lot of sales tax from the internet and other areas, we don’t even know that. So
now, you know, a few of us got together and decided, you know, $249 million, how are
we going to come up with that money? We going to fully fund everything? So on July
21 we were able to get together, and I think a couple of us got together and came up with
st
a pretty good alternative here and I think that in that 21 meeting, that we eliminated
most of the things that were not fully connected with the government, and we eliminated
those things. And there was the possibility from there, we were able to fund and fully
30
fund most of the other things that we came up with. And of course, we had to make
allowance here for a couple of items in this, and as always, there are going to be
alternatives that you are going to have to turn to, and yes, there were some positions to
eliminate the jail pod completely, and I was one of those who felt like maybe that could
be done. We had already eliminated one of the jail pods so we went to eliminating a
second jail pod. There were some people who felt as of today that were some
compromise there, and I think in any situation when you’re dealing with this type money
or this amount of money, and when you’re dealing with ten, 11 people, that you are going
to have to do some compromising and that compromising was made some today in this
last, the elimination and additions that you received today. And I think that those that
you received today, that we can live with because we’ve looked at the situation and we
feel that those improvements and additions that we could make, we are making those, and
I know that a lot has been centered around the judicial building, and we agreed with the
Citizens Committee that we needed to let the $20 million stay there for the judicial
center, and the whole thought in this is that a lot of us as Commissioners were looking at
and felt that we could not support a judicial center because we thought it was only for the
judges, but I think in that we have to look at the space which two years ago we had the
management study and it was saying that we needed space, so I for one and a few others
felt that we couldn’t just look at this as strictly for the judges or for a judicial center, that
we have to look at this as a space problem. And we would have to have that. So we
decided to go along with the Citizens Committee and let the $20 million stay there. We
also looked at a number of other things. Canal improvements, which is really needed and
it’s a matching fund. We looked at in addition to that some things that have been
committed since the last sales tax, and that was from Phase III, and we thought we could
compromise on some of those. So I guess, Mr. Mayor, that this is a compromise that I
think most of us here on this podium can live with, and it’s something that the people,
more importantly that the people of this community can possibly buy into, because that is
ultimately what is going to have to happen, and I think when we looked at this, we agreed
that this is something that we could go out and tell the people that we are doing what we
possibly can with the amount of money that we have. And I think if you look at the two
plans here, at least one of Mr. Shepard’s plans, anyway, there is not a whole lot of
difference and he and I have talked and we have compromised on a lot of things here, on
both ends of it. But we thought that this is something that we need to move forward on,
th
we need to move forward on it today because we are looking at the 19, and knowing
that it’s going to go before the voters then, and we need time to acclimate the people to
what we’re trying to do. So it is a necessity that we move forward on this and that’s
where we are and I know Mr. Shepard has asked to make his motion first and I’m going
to grant him that, but I hope that the Commissioners would deal with our plan.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Beard, before we even with you or Mr. Shepard, and I am going
to recognize Mr. Shepard first in reference to a motion, but in the swing around, Mr.
Kuhlke had yielded to Mr. Jerry Brigham, and I’m going to recognize Mr. Kuhlke first,
and anybody else who wants to maybe ask either one of you something, and I’m going to
recognize myself last. Mr. Kuhlke.
31
Mr. Kuhlke: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. My concern about Mr. Shepard’s
plan is that I think we could get ourselves in trouble by bumping the judicial center, and I
can’t support that, and I’ve expressed that to Mr. Shepard personally. I have a problem
with Mr. Beard’s plan simply from the standpoint of the jail part. And I think in our last
meeting there was sentiment expressed among a number of Commissioners that they
would not even ever consider a COPs. So I don’t know if we get to a situation that we
have to add this new jail pod, I don’t know exactly how we are going to make it happen.
As a result of that, while there are some things in Shepard Plan 2, he does leave the jail
pod in there. We are paying some attention to Diamond Lakes, which I would like to see
happen, and I think we are creating with some very important issues. And so if that gets
to the floor, that would be the plan that I would have to try to accept.
Mr. Mays: Anyone else on this end? Anyone else on the other end in reference
to questions on either plan? If not, I wanted to ask both of you gentlemen something
because I started to go down to the truck and change ties because I didn’t intend to wear
this tie today. I intended to put my good luck tie on, switched it, and left it in the truck.
And I may get whipped without it. That’s not either here or there. But seriously, can you
[inaudible] back up there again, Mr. Oliver, while I’m asking it, cause I also left my
glasses in the truck. Didn’t go back and get them. So I can see better on that board than I
can -- anyway, I think I remember pretty much most of it. What I wanted to ask, and this
is where I’m not sure whether the donkey is rubbing off on Jerry or the elephant is
rubbing off on me, but we’ve got a very similar -- about a couple of things going on up
here, and I guess I’m searching in here on one or two things. I missed, I looked at the
elimination, when we were talking about the jail pod, and I apologize for the numbers in
there, but I don’t want to make myself out a liar. I said last week that I could deal with
the center and I fought hard to make sure that if we were going to do it, we were going to
do it right. I still think, even though we are finalizing the sales tax situation today or
trying to finalize it, that we just got to still be openly honest and make sure that
everybody knows that we’re talking about more money and we’re talking about getting it
from somewhere and we are far away from dealing with all the projects that we -- not on
a wish list, so much, but those necessities that we are going to have to do. And I think we
are going to have to seriously -- we can put it in any name that we want to, and I agree
with Bill, regardless of how we feel about COPs, if we get to a point of any court orders,
it’s either we’re going to deal with the COPs or the cops are going to be looking for us
because that’s the issue of where the federal judge will put you in. But I agree with Jerry
that what’s left in the jail pod situation will quite frankly, it may make some folks feel
good, and I apologize, Lee, I missed where those numbers, when I saw elimination that
was what I looked at more so than just numbers. The $1,250,000 that we leave in there,
to a certain extent gets us nowhere. It’s probably the only one item that we still have that
if we get court ordered to build a jail, we will mandatorily find a way to do it, or we’ll
end up going to jail. That’s the flip side of that coin. You know other counties have tried
it and they have spent a couple of nights in jail and they came on out and found a way to
build them. So that’s going to happen, if we get to that point. But what I’m looking for,
and I asked the Attorney a few minutes ago, I’m getting back to maybe something we’ve
done, and I say this to both of you gentlemen cause I’m searching and I probably like
where we put back the Diamond Lakes project in order to get it in there and I’m leaning
32
there towards Lee’s plan, but there’s one thing in there that I asked Jim a minute ago, in
reference to those non-governmental entities that we’ve got, and some of the cultural
things in there where we’ve basically just gutted, I think one of the strengths of the last
sales tax as opposed to the other two that helped to get a lot of momentum going on and I
guess I’m getting back to some of Andy’s themes, is that when we did the things, the
proposals of Rec and Parks, where before we were just basically dealing with roads,
infrastructure and jails, it needed to be done but it didn’t excite anybody. We got people
excited about it. We also did some non-governmental things over into the cultural area.
Old city had projects on, old county had them on. I’m wondering out of that $1,250,000,
and what I was asking Jim, Lee, if we could deal with a general category temporarily in
reference to dealing with those cultural situations, of still leaving $1,250,000 in there,
because with or without a court order, $1,250,000 is not going to build us anything on the
jail. It won’t even get a plan if you had to deal with one to a certain extent. And then if
we want to fine tune where exactly that $1,250,000 is going, whether it’s to some of
those community entities, be in museum, be it Springfield Village, be it those that we’ve
committed into, that we have some money in order to deal with those, because I get back
to my beauty contest statement a week or so ago. That hasn’t really changed. A lot of
this stuff that is going up there is going to have be somewhat of a popularity contest
because people like to be excited about something in order to vote for it. I am worried
about where we zero that out totally. It doesn’t get us back into the neighborhood of
where we were, but it gives some bright spots in there, and I’m just wondering if any one
of y’all are amenable -- I’m hustling right now -- to backing those numbers out to a point
of what we’ve got left and deal with some of those cultural activities. I think to a point
since their numbers are less, they can far do more within some categories, if a group has
asked for 100 and you can give them 50, to stretch that in fund raising and deal with it, as
opposed to somebody needs $7 million to $8 million and they can’t deal with but a $1
million, they are still short of it. And I’m just looking at that maybe in there as a general
to do that with.
Mr. Beard: I do understand that million and something, million two, whatever it
is that we have left there and dealing with the jail pod is not going to be substantial there.
Hopefully we won’t have to deal with that, and I know realistic, the way things are going,
you can cross your fingers and hope, but it may happen. But to get back into, and it’s
almost like you are saying, a million even for the cultural events, I think you are going to
get yourself in -- it’s okay to have that type of surplus there, but with the amount that I
looked back over and the requests that were made, the decision was made to either do it
or don’t do it. And what I mean by that, either we try to give them, at least all of them
some of what they asked, but to me, we’re putting the Commissioners into picking and
choosing of what cultural events you’re going to get involved in, and believe me, we
have many. But my thought here and the thought of those that assisted in this was that
you know, maybe in the next sales tax, you could really go into a nice performing arts
theater, you could go into a pavilion down there wherever you want to put it, and I think
when we have people who can’t get to their houses and the drainage and the space for a
government complex, those type of things, you know, I just believe people can buy into
that and know that this is what is needed at this particular time. But when you get back
into -- and we can fill this room with people in the cultural area, the arts and all the others
33
asking for money, so how are you going to split that million and something that you have
as kind of cushion there? But I’m open to whatever want to be done. As I say, this is the
art of compromise. I’m willing to listen and I think what you’ve said has some validity.
But I’m trying to give you a rationale of why we didn’t get into, why that decision was
made.
Mr. Mays: I can understand. I’m just to the point where I’m being real realistic
about folk who are going to get out, quite frankly, and enthusiastically support a tax
extension, and at the same time know that a tax increase is coming down the road to deal
with paying for drainage projects that are so needed. I would much rather turn on the
folk with a cultural charm than turning on the folk that are going to jail. They are not
going in $1.2 million going to be able to build anything out of it, and that’s why I asked
the question earlier about us wording this referendum, because if we back it in there and
don’t have anything to do with it, we have just got $1.25 million basically sitting in there
to a certain extent that we can’t do anything with. I’d almost rather give it to the judicial
center, all of it, be $21.2 million, and let the jail be fought out in a court-ordered
situation. Because I guess having the chairman when we reprogrammed the old county
Commission and Bill was there and the citizens committee chairman, it’s just a thing that
it just bothers me that -- I think we spent a whole lot of money building a jail. We are
still paying for the old one that is ragged, and as long as it’s over there it’s still going to
drain money, and something ought to go in for the rest of these folk. I said the other
week, and I’m sorry I missed that, not being a total back-out. That’s my mistake. I
should have put my glasses on. But I made the statement the other week I just couldn’t
support any plan that was going to deal with a jail unless I was going to be forced to build
one, and we are going to spend $40 million to put a judicial building up, $20 million out
of this and $20 million out of something else, then I think we need to be trying to work
towards some alternative means on some of these cases, and then if we can’t and the
whole community goes crazy and you’ve got a bunch of folk that have got to go to jail,
then put me under court order and we find a way to build one. But I’m just not for
freezing that $1.25 million over in there in a jail. I think to a point we can deal with the
cultural folk to a point that you eliminate those that may need a whole lot of money and
can’t do anything reasonably with a smaller amount. Some of them can deal in some
facets of getting some of those projects, that’s the reason I asked Jim about it being legal,
that if we generalize it, it would at least give them a time, within a week’s time, by the
time you write the resolution or to bring it back, then we would have a way then that
some are in, some are out, but in this case, all are out. We are not dealing with any of
them, and we’re back to a point of where it’s [inaudible] jail [inaudible] market and to a
certain extent, the jail is out, too. Because there is nothing you can do with it at all. Not
one thing. It’s just sitting over there. And I would much rather have half the folks that we
are doing something positive or happy to a point of getting out and saying this entity is
going to be helped, then we get beat up to a point that the jail folk that is over in there and
not really getting the support out of there, because this is going to end up being a
popularity situation, whether we like it or not. And you start talking about taxing folks in
two places, they got to feel good about what you’re doing, and that is just where I’m
coming from and if those are the only two games out there, I might have to do it to where
34
the lesser one is on the numbers, but I’m just throwing that out there to a point of trying
to get it out in there. Mr. Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I was just wondering, even if we garnered enough
votes to go back and put it out there, how would we distribute it, with the number of
organizations that we have, what mechanism could we use, cause some ask for one thing,
some would ask for another. I think even if we got support to put that out there, what did
you have in mind as far as how we could distribute?
Mr. Mays: I guess my [inaudible] on that is about like I asked the same question
as how we are going end up building the jail out of $1.25 million. The ones that you
know you can’t make an impact on, that you are [inaudible] let some of them fall by the
wayside from the very beginning, if they are all or nothing projects are there, where it’s
got to have everything that they are going to do, then those are the ones that you
realistically you cannot deal with. But I’m going to say this, and I wasn’t planning to get
this blunt with it, there are some sections in the community, quite frankly, that we have
been under the gun on everything from how we invest money, how we spend it, how we
do some other things. You’ve got some folks that quite frankly, unless you’re under a
court order, they’re not going to be that enthusiastic about you going out here and locking
that kind of money or any kind of money down until another jail house and you don’t
have some of these other things done. That’s just a fact, now, and y’all can ignore that
fact, but it ain’t going to turn some folks on, and I think when you put a cross section of
citizens in here that went through this thoroughness as they did, and somehow or another,
even though we may be talking about putting a lot of this money back in place, one thing
that came out of there was zero dollars for putting in that jail. Zero. Nothing came out of
there [inaudible]. And if we get into that position to do it, we’ve got a means to do it.
We are court forced, you put it down there on the tax book that that’s how you’re going
to do it, and that’s how you pay for it. But I think to do that and lock it in there, I think
you are going to get more out of a [inaudible] card, I guess that’s what I’m getting to,
with some of the entities of where it’s helping people as opposed to where you’ve got it
in there and you’re totally locking up folk. And I [inaudible] bad folk that are worst
degree, they ought to be put where bad people are. And we ought to have room to do
that. But also people out there who are decent and law abiding, if they going to ask to
support two different levels of a tax, they ought to be the first ones on that priority list to
do that. That’s all I’m just saying.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, sir?
Mr. J. Brigham: You know, I guess our elephant and our donkey aren’t really
rubbing real good together, cause I disagree with you tremendously. I think that the jail
is a public safety issue in this community and I don’t want to have to spend a night in jail
to understand a federal judge and the needing of planning for the future of criminals in
this community. It’s not something that we can blame necessarily on the state but
legislature is crowding our jails in doing the public good, who is making sure the people
35
that are getting a DUI spend the night in jail, which I think they need to do. But that’s
taking up space for other prisoners. And what I’m concerned about is I don’t want to
have to go to jail to plan for something that we know that we need, and that this
community will understand that we need. Now likewise, I do think it’s bad politics
[inaudible], we agree on, I think it’s bad politics to commit money that we know that
can’t do anything other than sit and draw interest. That burns me up. I think the sales tax
is about doing public good and that we ought to complete projects with it, we ought not
hold money is escrow. That we are in agreement on. But other than that, I don’t think we
are in agreement at all cause I am very much supportive and plan to vote for the Shepard
2 Plan and nothing else at this point.
Mr. Mays: Anybody else? Anybody else on this end? The Chair recognizes Mr.
Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mays, I am going to put first in play which I will see how far
this goes, but my original commitment was more to the courthouse than to the jail. My
belief is that the courthouse, if it is more fully funded, will make us better able to
efficiently utilize the jail which we presently have. I also think we have got some
facilities possibly at RCCI that we could utilize, so for my first motion, I’m going to try
Shepard 1, and so I would move that we adopt -- and make sure I’m right on this, Randy,
I want to make sure -- that we adopt the recommendations of the Citizens Committee --
and which I want to commend them at this time publicly for their hard work -- with the
adjustments indicated in Shepard Plan 1.
Mr. Mays: There being no second to Shepard 1, it does for the lack of a second.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I understand all that has been said here in
reference to the jail part, and I do think we have one or two options here. You can
either put the money in the -- put it up for grabs for more cultural events or you can
put it somewhere else. I just don’t know where to put it at this time, and I don’t
know what the sentiment of this group, so I’m going to move that the Beard Plan be
accepted at this time.
Mr. Williams: Second it.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mays: There’s a motion and a second on the Beard plan. The Chair
recognizes Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: I’d like to make a substitute motion that we implement the Shepard
2 Plan.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
36
Mr. Mays: The substitute motion that we recognize the Shepard 2 Plan.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I want to call for a roll call vote.
Mr. Mays: We’ve got a motion and second on the substitute. The roll call vote
will be recognized. Are there any points of discussion on the substitute motion?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: The sales local option sales tax is dependent on the local economy
almost entirely. Over the last five years, we began to move away from that by building
things in this community to attract people from outside. If we are to overcome the
economic downturns that are sure to happen from time to time, the more we are able to
draw people from other cities to invest in our economy, the more we are able to buy jails,
pipes, pumps, drainage equipment, recreational facilities, fire boats, and other things.
The fact of the matter is the less we do that by building things that do not attract people to
this area, we become wholly dependent on the local economy, which if you read the
paper today you notice that unemployment went up about a point, a percentage point and
a half, so I wholly encourage this Commission to vote for the Beard plan because of the
plans, it does the most to do things for this community to make it a better place, to attract
people from other communities, to make Augusta competitive, not only as a second city
in land mass, but second to none when it comes to some of our facilities.
Mr. Mays: Anyone else with any discussion? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, what I want to point out in the Shepard 2, there is no
additional funding for the courts building, but there is funding -- there’s no deletion from
the jail. That’s not something that I’m especially happy about, but I think it’s here again
a necessity of government. I do note that there is additional funding in the Shepard 2
Plan of a million dollars for a particular facility that we have talked about a lot today.
That’s a million dollars extra for Diamond Lakes. It’s an attempt to work that economic
development argument in, and I would secondarily commend that to you. Since I didn’t
[inaudible] the second on my first motion.
Mr. Mays: The only thing I’d like to say before the Clerk calls the roll is the fact
I’d like to get a ruling from the Parliamentarian. In case neither one of these motions
pass, are we still open to deal with other motions and compromise to sit here, since we
are here, and I think this is our agreement, Mr. Beard, this is something we are going to
have to work out tonight, but --
Mr. Wall: The answer is yes.
Mr. Mays: Okay. That’s all I wanted to know. Madame Clerk, it’s on you. We
vote on the substitute motion first on a roll call vote.
37
Clerk: The substitute motion is the Shepard 2 Plan and a motion by Mr. Kuhlke
and seconded by Mr. Bridges.
Roll Call Vote on Substitute Motion:
Mr. Beard: No.
Mr. Bridges: Yes.
Mr. H. Brigham: No.
Mr. J. Brigham: Yes.
Mr. Cheek: No.
Mr. Colclough: No.
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes.
Mr. Mays: No.
Mr. Shepard: Yes.
Mr. Williams: No.
Mr. Beard, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Cheek, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Mays and Mr. Williams vote
No.
Motion fails 4-6.
Clerk: Main motion. The Beard Plan.
Roll Call Vote on Original Motion:
Mr. Beard: Yes.
Mr. Bridges: No.
Mr. H. Brigham: Yes.
Mr. J. Brigham: No.
Mr. Cheek: Yes.
Mr. Colclough: Yes.
Mr. Kuhlke: No.
Mr. Mays: No.
Mr. Shepard: Yes.
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Mr. Bridges, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Mays vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mr. Mays: It passes. Let the record note, Madame Clerk, I will not
enthusiastically support a sales tax with a jail on it. And I want that as part of the record.
Mr. Speaker: I move we adjourn, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Oliver: I think we need to make some decisions on the GO, potential GO-
Bond issue. I think we’ve got two other issues, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mays: Go ahead.
38
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I believe a motion to adjourn [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: We’re on the agenda. We are not through. I did not hear that. The
Chair didn’t have his glasses so he can’t see and he don’t have a hearing aid and he didn’t
hear. We’ve got agenda items that are still on there. Anybody that needs to be excused
can.
Item 31: Consider Resolution for General Obligation Bond (GO-Bond).
Mr. Oliver: The next item on the agenda, the Mayor and Commission can, the
Mayor and Commission several weeks ago asked us to do calculations as it relates to a
potential General Obligation Bond for drainage. We have done that. If you go to your
agenda pack, about four pages from the back you will see a page that starts with the
Wheeless Road Detention Facility. If you turn to that sheet, it would probably be easier
to read than the detail on the screen. What we have done is we have identified, if you’d
look at about the first six, seven projects, six of the seven are in the sales tax issue that
you previously adopted. We have thrown a running total out to the side to try to address
the drainage problems. I would note again that these are order of magnitude estimates
because we do not know and have not completed the precise engineering studies, but we
have identified approximately $77 million, $78 million in drainage improvements. If you
go to page two of that, if we got with a one mill and we need to be conservative as it
relates to our estimates, recognizing that we may generate more money based upon
market conditions of the time we go to market, based on the current market, we can
generate $39.4 million at one mill. Based upon the current market plus one percent,
which I think is prudent, not knowing what interest rates may be when you go to market,
you need to overstate it rather than understate it, because you can go to that limit but you
cannot go over it. You would generate $35.8 million. Let me go to [inaudible]. That
would take us through the Harold Road/U.S. 25/Peach Orchard Road to Coleman Avenue
project roughly at $36.2 million. If we did one mill. If we did 1-1/2 mills, it would take
us, in our estimation, to Rocky Creek Tributary #6 detention basin, and if the market
conditions were like they are right now, we could even get through Rocky Creek
Tributary #7 detention facility. I would note that we moved Phinizy Swamp down about
four or five places, feeling that that was less important it would have more public support
with these other projects than the Phinizy Swamp projects [inaudible] $10 million and we
do not think that that is something that is going to be detrimental. I guess what we need
to know is direction about what projects, if any, you would like to include, whether you
would like us also to prepare a resolution for a General Obligation Bond, and if so, at
what level you would like to fund it at.
Mr. Bridges: Randy, I’ve got a question. On that page two, when you add the
Phinizy Swamp Basin in there, you’re adding $58 million, yet you come to $46 million in
the total column.
Mr. Oliver: I think when Walter maybe copied it down, it didn’t copy correctly.
39
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Oliver: Yeah, I think we’ve got [inaudible]. I think we’re going to have to
correct the cumulative total, but I still believe that the totals through those specific
categories will hold and we will correct that through in our preparation of the resolution.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mays: Go ahead, Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Bridges: Randy, so on the GO resolution, what we’re considering is strictly
drainage, nothing else; is that right?
Mr. Oliver: Strictly drainage and the first six of seven projects, these are utility,
also Augusta utilities-related issues, relating to the drainage, so it’s a combination of
utility projects as well as associated utilities that are in concert with that cause we don’t
want to go back and do the same thing twice. I also want to be perfectly clear that the
Corps of Engineers study will not be done until 2002, so certain of these projects will not
get started until 2002 or 2003. Until we get that data back, and we would propose to
serialize these bonds, meaning that we would sell these bonds in at least two different
increments, perhaps half one time and then half two years down the road. We don’t see
any point. There are some IRS problems with it, of selling all the bonds and just having
the money, because we’ve got to comply with some Internal Revenue codes, and what we
need to know from you is what projects you wish to fund and what millage level you
would like to go to so we can communicate it. One mil is $35 on a $100,000
homesteaded property. 1-1/2 mills is $52.50, again on a $100,000 homesteaded property.
We proposed a 25 year term rather than a 30 year term. We don’t think that a 30 year
term for what you get is worth it. We think you wind up paying a significant amount of
interest unnecessarily.
Mr. Bridges: My thinking on this is that our staff should prioritize these projects
as they’ve done here, and then we can consider those factors that may have related to the
recent flooding or something like that. As long as those projects are in there, I don’t
think you’re going to have a lot of changing in what the staff had recommended. My
thinking as far as the millage, if the people are going to turn down -- they’re going to pass
or turn down a mil-and-a-half just as quickly as they will a mil, and I’m thinking in order
to get to some of the major projects here that I’m seeing, it’s going to take a mil-and-a-
half. The GO is something that is placed to the voters. They get to vote whether they
want to do this or not, so I mean I think we should just present the mill-and-a-half to
them and see if these are projects that they want to do. It will be up to the taxpayer at that
point.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Well, I guess we’ve had fellow
Commissioners and Mr. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem the opportunity during our meeting today to
40
see two of the political realities that are always present in this town, it seems like. We
heard the whistle and for whom does the whistle blow. Certainly it’s blown for this
Commissioner and also we’ve seen the tremendous rainfall this afternoon and I think
we’ll have reminders in the news tonight as we’ve had over the years that drainage has
not been a thing that’s been fully addressed in this community. We want growth. We
have promoted growth. I think it’s time we deal with some of the growth. Quite frankly,
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I think we should spend the mill-and-a-half. It’s $52.50 a month --
Mr. Oliver: A year.
Mr. Shepard: I’m sorry, thank you, Randy. A year. Thank you. And it’s 25
years, which I think we borrow the money for the shortest time and save some interest
rates, so I would ask that we adopt the Administrator’s recommendation that we go out
for 25 years for a mill-and-a-half and the projects that we do and go through Project #86,
Rocky Creek #7 Detention Facility, with the exception of the Phinizy Swamp Basin
Project. I’d put that in the form of a motion and commend the GO to the voters.
Mr. Cheek: Second that.
Mr. Wall: We need to go with a dollar amount.
Mr. Oliver: Let’s go with a dollar amount. I would suggest you make it
$58,923,800. $59,000,000.
Mr. Mays: We’ve got a motion and we did a second on that. I’m going to
recognize Commissioner Williams down there first. Ulmer, and then we are going to go
back to this end.
Mr. Bridges: Got a question, Randy. We are one short of a project that’s dear to
me that we thought was going to be done on a previous sales tax and drainage projects.
That’s 86.1. Is there any way we could go down through using this list as the priority list
and go down through 62734, and if we don’t collect that, we just don’t get to that project,
or how does that work?
Mr. Oliver: You have to approve a maximum debt service is the issue.
Mr. Wall: That’s the reason I wanted to correct the motion. The millage rate will
be set to raise a certain dollar amount, so you need to set a certain amount of debt and as
a part of that, when the resolution will be brought before you, there will be an amount of
debt service and a maximum interest rate, and then once that’s approved, if it’s approved,
then you will have to set the millage rate each year to raise that amount of money
depending upon what assessment you’ve got it [inaudible].
Mr. Oliver: And the millage rate will go down in future years because the
assessed values, due to new property, due to reassessments, go up. So the millage rate
will go down as the years go on.
41
Mr. Bridges: At what point do we determine which projects we are doing? Are
we doing that now, today?
Mr. Wall: No. The only thing you need to do is set the dollar amount of debt that
you’re willing to, that you’re recommending be on the referendum.
Mr. Oliver: And we’re saying these are the projects, but you could change the list
at a later point if that’s what you want to do.
Mr. Wall: And the only reason the millage rate is being talked about today is to
give you an idea of what it would take in order to retire that indebtedness.
Mr. Bridges: Randy, if maybe Drew and Teresa and whoever is doing the list
could look at 86.1 and see if there is a way that they could move that project up into the
list in place of another one. And maybe they need to let me know and see what
Commissioner I need to politick on or that type of thing. But that is one that I’d like to
see done.
Mr. Mays: My, my, my. Too late for me to go get that tie. Swing to my left
here. Any Commissioners? Mr. Brigham or Mr. Bridges?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I do have a question. Do we have an
amended motion on the table? Is that my understanding or not?
Mr. Mays: I believe we just have a motion and a second.
Mr. Oliver: $60 million would be to go out for GO.
Mr. J. Brigham: It is to do an item number and not a dollar amount is my
understanding.
Mr. Wall: That is correct.
Mr. Oliver: I would suggest we give it a dollar amount.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I want to make a substitute motion.
Mr. Mays: Hold just one second, Jerry. What I was trying to do, because Jim as
the Parliamentarian stepped in, and I was trying to give him a chance on the original
motion, if they wanted to, to go ahead and for the sake of being on the floor, I’m still
going to recognize you if you want to put that on there first, if they want to put a dollar
amount in the motion that’s on the floor as opposed to the project numbers.
Mr. J. Brigham: I would much rather it be that way.
42
Mr. Shepard: Well, I haven’t had a chance to speak. You can’t get a word in
edgewise -- [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: I swung around. The last time I recognized you, you [inaudible] and
got me, so I swung this way. So I recognize Mr. Shepard. Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: With the consent of the body, I would amend my motion to set
forth that dollar amount. I would set it at $62 million if that would work. Would that not
work?
Mr. Oliver: We’ll run the numbers, but I want to tell you that based on my
preliminary analysis of $62 million, you’re going to be above a mill-and-a-half.
Mr. Shepard: Well, then, I better back it to $60 million.
Mr. Oliver: I’m going to be a stickler. But $59 million at current rates works out
exactly to be a mill-and-a-half. As I say, if the rates go up or down, that changes the
parameters of this.
Mr. Shepard: $59 million is the max we can go?
Mr. Oliver: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: Under your calculations?
Mr. Oliver: Based on current rates, $59 million.
Mr. Shepard: So if the interest rates go down, we’d have more money generated
by that rate?
Mr. Oliver: That’s correct.
Mr. Wall: Well, no. You would have the potential, but you’re setting the
maximum debt in the resolution, so you’re setting that number at $59 million. So even
though the rates may go down and you say, oh, gosh, I wish I had made the resolution for
$65 million, you can’t do it.
Mr. Shepard: Then with the consent of the body, I would set it at $59 million.
Mr. Mays: Any objections? Okay, that’s on there. I’m going to recognize
Commissioner Jerry Brigham.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mays, I think drainage is near and dear to my heart and I
plan on supporting this very much. I don’t know of a Commissioner up here that
drainage is not near and dear to them, but me particularly.
43
Mr. Mays: Mr. Colclough? You okay?
Mr. Colclough: I’m okay.
Mr. Beard: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: I think you might better, Mr. Beard, cause we got next year coming,
Ulmer is saying who he can politick. I think me and you better politick cause if you’re
looking at them numbers down there, your vote mine be with mine this time cause it’s
stopping in east Augusta. I recognize you, Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: I don’t know. We need to go back, I guess you can’t get it back up on
the board.
Mr. Oliver: Sure can.
Mr. Mays: While we’re waiting, Jerry, this is why I didn’t want to adjourn.
Cause I knew when these other numbers started rolling, it’s going to get some minds to
thinking about where we done been already.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mays, I thought we were not talking about the project
dollars today.
Mr. Mays: This is a political body, and if they had stopped talking about
projects, it will be the day that everybody up here is deceased at the same time. That’s a
human nature deal and it’s going to happen. And that’s what I knew. That’s what I knew
when we were picking and choosing that we were going to get back to this bill, too. It’s
human nature. If it’s a [inaudible] let’s be honest about it.
Mr. Beard: From the book you can -- there are a couple of things --
Mr. Oliver: Let me change --
Mr. Beard: No, we can do --
Mr. Oliver: There’s a mathematical problem in the cumulative total, is the
problem, because --
Mr. Beard: I guess I’m just a little confused on all this at this point and maybe
Jim, you want to --
Mr. Wall: May I suggest that you separate the two issues. One is vote on the
project list, as far as what you want to include in the funding. And then as a separate
motion, approve a maximum amount of indebtedness that you want to incur and the term
of the debt. And that way, I mean these are ball park numbers and you may not be able to
[inaudible].
44
Mr. Beard: Let me just ask this for clarity. We’re talking about projects, right?
And we talked about projects. But now on the last time, you had $10 million in the bond
issue and that’s what we discussed the last time --
Mr. Wall: $10 million in the bond issue.
Mr. Oliver: I think I’ll make both of you happy based upon this. How about with
that motion if we can include both Sherwood Subdivision and east Augusta roadway
drainage improvements and move Phinizy Swamp down? I can make those numbers
work.
Mr. Wall: Again, we need to do two separate motions. One is to approve the
maximum amount of debt and a term of the debt, and then as a separate motion, approve
the projects to be funded out of that money.
Mr. Beard: Okay. Well, just let me get some clarity because I understand what
you’re saying but I’m still not --
Mr. Wall: And I apologize.
Mr. Beard: We’re talking about -- let’s talk about the amount. You’re saying $59
million. Let’s take that $59 million or $60 million.
Mr. Wall: Correct.
Mr. Beard: Okay. Will we be able to do all the [inaudible] and the [inaudible] of
this sales tax? I know that’s more or less for the engineers.
Mr. Wall: Assuming that you get the Corps of Engineers backing, you’re not
required to do this within the five years, but it is anticipated that you would be able to do
these projects within five years or less. But it’s not tied to the five year term of the sales
tax.
Mr. Oliver: And it will take five years to do part of these, because some of them
you’re not even going to have a solution on until 2002, a preliminary, even conceptual
solution.
Mr. Beard: So if we go down through the 86 or whatever we’re talking about
here, the numbers here, I would like to know, and I know we’re talking about amount, but
how do we go about prioritizing these?
Mr. Oliver: I think I’ll be able to [inaudible].
Mr. Wall: And I think that needs to be in the second motion that these are the
projects that you want to fund out of the $59 million, and then either as Mr. Bridges said,
45
have the staff prioritize them or y’all take them in the order that they are listed here and
prioritize them yourself.
Mr. Beard: And we’re saying we’ve got to have a mill-and-a-half in order to do
all of these projects?
Mr. Wall: That’s the estimated millage that would be required in order to retire
the debt, and it’s like everything else, that’s an estimated millage rate. That would be set
annually as far as what was needed in order to pay that bonded indebtedness.
Mr. Beard: But you know, we were told before that you would need a mill.
Mr. Oliver: We gave you a dollar figure before. It really depends upon how
many, if you go back to the table on the following page, General Obligation Bond for
Drainage. That’s the table that was provided for you before.
Mr. Beard: Okay. I guess I’m following you.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Let me ask this question. Your recommendation from legal counsel
is to split the motion into a dollar figure to debt service?
Mr. Wall: Correct.
Mr. Shepard: And then we could go -- it looks like all of these projects are
important. They all are important, but it seems like to me they are all in developed areas
with the exception of the Phinizy Swamp Basin, which returns water, I think, to the river;
is that correct, Randy?
Mr. Oliver: Yes, sir, that is correct, and what we were talking about doing was
taking anything that may be left over and applying --
Mr. Shepard: What about putting that at the end of the order of magnitude?
Mr. Oliver: That’s what we’re going to try to do right now.
Mr. Shepard: Go through the order of magnitude, the way it is.
Mr. Oliver: That’s what I’m going to do right now.
Mr. Mays: Just out of curiosity, while you are getting that screen in order there,
let me ask you a manual question. Just a hypothetical question. What are we talking
about, you know, we said a minute ago folk looking at one mill versus one-and-a-half
mill, just in terms of the numbers? What are we looking at when we look at two mills?
Not about making any motion, not about putting anything out there, just what are we
46
looking at in terms of numbers with it? And my reason, gentlemen, for asking that, is
that what you’re going to find in human nature is if y’all go with these drainage projects
and you’re talking about the numbers we’ve got down here now, if we are ending up way
short in doing them, that was why I asked Jim earlier, we were talking earlier in the day
about the possibilities of two different proposals, or in terms of where you’re really
looking at possibly having the money to do all of it. I think the question is now whether
you can get all of it done in five years, cause sales tax proposal is what we’re looking at
in five years, but I think in terms of the fact that you’re not going to be able to go back to
this well again, period, for a long time. And we might need to look at, if what we are
dealing with in totality, at least honestly looking at the numbers.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mays: Yes, sir?
Mr. Cheek: Just a quick comment while we’re looking over these numbers. One
of my concerns, and I guess dealing with hydrology and these creek basins, we are
looking at all these neighborhoods and it sounds like we are potentially going to do them
first, which is going to increase both the velocity and volume going into these creeks,
these creek basins, and I know that in Butler Creek, for instance, we have some homes
that flood periodically, but if we increase that inflow without doing the channels as a
priority, we’re potentially going to raise that water level in those neighborhoods, and I
know that’s probably true for Rae’s Creek, Rocky Creek, and Spirit Creek.
Mr. Mays: Anybody want to address that?
Ms. Smith: The comment I want to make is that four of the projects that you’re
looking at here is in priority order for funding and not order of implementation.
[inaudible] take that into consideration [inaudible].
Mr. Bridges: What does that mean, Teresa? What you just said? Does it mean
Sherwood may get done first or what?
Ms. Smith: That’s a possibility. What we’ll do is we’ll take a look at it, as Mr.
Cheek has indicated. Get all the water down to the creek [inaudible] improvements to the
creek, [inaudible] on floods, so in some instances we will look at how we need to do it
based on the basin, but we may be doing the creek channel work before we do the
tributary work to make sure that we don’t create another problem [inaudible]. I can’t
[inaudible] for sure.
Mr. Bridges: Yes, but as a possibility, 91, even though to do it on this list it would
be $77 million. 91 could get done first before the others because you’re going through
these, the way you’re doing this; is that right?
Ms. Smith: That is correct. The thing that we need to take into consideration is
that there is a lot of money in here for basins that are included in the Corps of Engineers
47
study. We have to wait two years on those, so on some of these we’re going to be able to
go in and doing some of your neighborhood type flooding problems before we get that
work [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: Then it won’t do us any good to prioritize, I mean, because it’s
going to depend on the projects that your department and your people get together and
work out with the creek basin and everything else.
Ms. Smith: The prioritization that you have now is for funding. It has nothing to
do with the order of implementation to do, to actually do the work.
Mr. Cheek: Do any of these projects fall into a priority of those that have been
designed and are ready to go?
Ms. Smith: I don’t think any of these have been completely designed. [inaudible]
Mr. Hicks: [inaudible]
Mr. Oliver: The other thing I would caution is some of these projects, because
they require the approval of the Corps of Engineers, will take a year or longer to permit.
Mr. Bridges: So, Jim, really, we don’t need that second motion, then, do we? If
what I’m hearing Teresa say is true, we don’t need that second motion to prioritize the
projects since --
Mr. Wall: Well, you may not need it today, but at some point you’re going to
need to know in which order you’ve got to get the engineering work done, the permitting
process started, etc. It’s got to be started in an order. And recognizing that you are going
to do the funding in probably two issues, I mean, you are going to borrow X amount of
dollars in the first time to construct certain projects. Yeah, they need to know which ones
to start getting the engineering work and permitting process and all that.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Colclough, and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I thought we were doing the overall, the $59 million.
Is that per year or per project? Maximum total for --
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] is $59 million.
Mr. Mays: And after that, it’s over.
Mr. Colclough: I think we need to go ahead and look at the total number and
allow Public Works and them to go ahead and work on what they need to do, and then we
come back and kind of look at the prioritization list. If we’re talking about a maximum
48
total money, I mean we can approve that amount and let these folks do what they need to
do, and then come back if we need to look at the prioritization list. If we sit here and do
it today, I think we’re taking something away from what they need to do.
Mr. Mays: You made the statement, Ms. Smith, in reference to the priorities for
funding versus the fact that they may not be done in that order, particularly on some of
those we took are permitted. But when professional staff put the whole list together, 1
through 91, I guess what I’m going to ask, maybe the third question out there, is there an
order of importance of the ranking of where they are done?
Ms. Smith: That was one of the factors that we took into consideration when we
were doing the prioritization. We took into consideration things like property damage,
safety issues, [inaudible] to get emergency equipment in, incidence of flooding,
[inaudible], the economic impact, people getting water in their houses, things like that.
So those are the things that we primarily took into consideration in determining all four
of the [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: I think Richard has a point, and in all fairness to Public Works, I
think -- and she can explain it better professionally cause that is what she does. But I
think the Commission needs to really seriously keep in mind the fact that when the list
was put together on drainage, knowing that there was not a source out there at that time,
other than what we were talking about in terms of sales tax, that the GO Bond was not
even on the radar screen, and so some of it has been formulated from the basis of what
they thought they could get funding for, and at that particular time. So I’m somewhat
with Richard to a point that you’ve got these numbers down here whereas all of it’s
important, then if you’ve got some on the list that’s been put together because of the fact
that the funding mechanisms were dictating some of it, and in fairness to them, they
couldn’t predict that we were going to even entertain the idea of doing something other
than sales tax. That’s only something that hit the radar screen in the last three weeks. So
I think if you’ve going to look at that and get into the prioritization business today on 1
through 91, we are going to be in a whole lot of trouble. That again is going to get into
Phase II, I believe, of your priority list and you’re going to run short. Cause if you’re
talking about $59 million and you really don’t know where you want to put it, then you
may deal, I think you come out safer dealing with a number or maybe dealing with
nothing till you look at where you are going to prioritize if you’re going to do all of it.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I think we have some numbers, but again I
agree with you from this standpoint. At this point, these estimates are very rough order
of magnitude estimates in that we don’t know exactly what needs to be done. One of the
things that we were talking about was the fact that we believe that part of the Phinizy
Swamp issue needs to be addressed because that is what’s addressing some of the
flooding issues in Hyde Park and Virginia subdivision, and without addressing that you
could further exacerbate that problems, and we just don’t know those answers yet. But to
get back to what we were talking about earlier, at this point, if you put Phinizy Swamp
down after this, and we were recommending funding for $4.5 million for Phinizy Swamp,
49
$59 million, if you neglected Phinizy Swamp at this point, would take us through Little
Spirit Creek.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’m sorry. Look here. If we come up with a number of
$59 million or whatever, a mill-and-a-half or whatever you use, if that’s the consensus of
this group up here, why don’t we look the engineering people, knowing how much
they’ve got to work with, and maybe you don’t want to do this, but in all fairness, then let
them come up with a prioritized list based on what’s needed in this county and the way it
is. To me, let’s let them deal with that better than we are going to try to come up with a
list of our own.
Mr. Oliver: And we could bring that back with a resolution.
Mr. Beard: Plus, they know, once we vote on the figure of what we’re going to
have, if it is $59 million or what have you, then they know this is what they’ve got to
work with, they can go over this list and see what is best for this county, where the
emergencies are, what they need to alleviate and this kind of thing, and work it out. To
me, that would be kind of a simple way of doing it, if we have that confidence in our
department.
Mr. Mays: Well, I guess then, and I probably ask this question of Ms. Smith. If
that be the scenario, just hypothetically saying we’re going to stick with the $59 million
figure, then it’s obvious common sense then, that there are some seven-figure projects on
there that are important that are going to get bumped off this list; am I correct?
Mr. Oliver: That is correct.
Ms. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Mays: I just wanted it in there for the record that that’s where we are going.
And my only comment to that is we are looking at two elections, you’re cutting a lot out
of sales tax already, you come out here with a GO Bond, gentlemen, and you go back into
$59 million and you’ve got $89 million out there, you’re leaving a lot of water
somewhere. And $39 million you say you’re short, and Randy, you’re saying to a point
we don’t know what it’s going to be and where it’s going to go, well, if I’m John Q.
Citizen and we don’t know, then I ain’t fixing to give you the $59 million nor the $89
million. The only people I’m going to trust in the deal, at least the folks in Public Works
have outlined what we’ve got to do. That’s why I’m going to get back to the original
question I asked sometime ago, and I know you’ve been trying to get the screen straight.
Give me some numbers on where two mills takes us, whether that flies anywhere or not.
I just need to know what those numbers are and I’ve got a reason for asking it. Where
would two mills go, because if we’ve got $10 million back in there in drainage, this is
what I was trying to bring up earlier to a point, gentlemen, we may need to look back in
there at where we’ve got the $10 million and deal with a whole GO Bond that is going to
take care of all the drainage you’ve got.
50
Mr. Oliver: Two mills, based on current market rates, would generate $78.8
million. Two mills, the current rates, would be $78.8 million. At current rates plus one
mill, it would be about $72 million. So somewhere between $72 million and $78 million.
As you can see, our total identified drainage needs are $77,747,000.
Mr. Mays: Let me just go back to a little Ninth Street math for a minutes. The
$59 million deal with a mill-and-a-half?
Mr. Oliver: $59 million dealt with a mill-and-a-half. That is correct.
Mr. Mays: And two mills only takes us 13 more million dollars higher?
Somewhere in there, let’s put some [inaudible] math and some Ivy League math in there
together. Something doesn’t add up in that fashion. $72 million takes us one place, $59
million takes us another. You’re talking about one-and-a-half versus two.
Mr. Oliver: Okay, wait a second.
Mr. Mays: Get that pen out there, doctor. Don’t trust the calculator. Do it with
the pen, because something in there, one mill, to me in old math, you double one mill and
you get what you get with two.
Mr. Oliver: I believe that could be correct, Mr. Mays. The one mill is
$39,365,000 based on current rates, so it would be twice that, so it would be $78.6
million. Based on current rates plus one percent, it would $71.6 million, almost $72
million. So it would be between $72 million and $78 million. I believe that to be correct.
Mr. Mays: One takes us to $39 million and two takes us to -- it should take us to
$78 million.
Mr. Oliver: That’s right. That’s what I said.
Mr. Mays: You were talking about $72 million in there.
Mr. Oliver: That’s based on current rates -- you have to remember that we have
done numbers two ways. One is based on current rate. I don’t know that even if we went
to bond issue immediately, we may not go to market on these bonds for 30 or 60 days.
What the interest rate may be at that point in time, if I knew that, I would be working on
Wall Street making, doing very well.
Mr. Mays: And I’d leave with you.
Mr. Oliver: But I don’t know. So when you prepare these resolutions, you need
to prepare for what I consider to be a case where the interest rates may be higher. What
we have suggested is current rates plus one percent. Based on current rates plus one
percent, you could generate at two mills almost $72 million. Based on current rates, 25
51
years, you could generate approximately $78 million if the market conditions at the time
we ran this analysis were consistent, we would generate $78 million.
Mr. Mays: You gentlemen comfortable with your motion of $59 million? I’m
ready to carry it if that’s where you’re going, but I still think it gets back to a human
nature factor.
Mr. Beard: I understand what you’re saying about the $78 million, that would put
us -- I mean you’re taking care of all the drainage problems, all that you possibly
anticipated. My problem with that is when you are talking about two mills -- my concern
is the voters, I guess, and what they will support at this time, and I think that is one thing
that kind of bothers me. That is what is bothering me. But even if you went with the $59
million, and I know you could say that we are half doing it and not completing it, but I
think that if those people, and I don’t want to put them on the spot, so you don’t have to
answer this. But if they thought that that would -- I don’t think we’re going to ever clear
up all the drainage problems in this county, and it’s just one of those things I feel. What
would the citizens of this community support? Do they want to go that route, the two
mills, a mill-and-a-half, and know we’re saying that ain’t much different, if you go a
mill-and-a-half you might as well go to two and do the whole project, but that’s the only
thing that bothers me, and really I can go either way on this.
Mr. Mays: Steve?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mays, I share Mr. Beard’s feelings that we are going to be
going in tandem for two major things to the voters, the SPLOST and the drainage.
And to me, the number is more important than the actual list at this point. I think
what our Administrator is saying is we could have a prioritization list come back at
the time of the resolution. I think what we need to do today is approve a $59 million
General Obligation issue and then let the Administrator and the engineer at the
time of the resolution come back with a priority list. That would eliminate the
confusion we’re having today and with the consent of the seconder of my motion, I
would eliminate the project portion of it and just suggest that we authorize a GO
Bond of $59,000,000 with a 25 year term, because that’s going to save us interest
cost, which is going to save the taxpayers money.
Mr. Mays: So what I’m hearing is we’re putting up a number. In other words,
we are going to shake hands today but we’re going to fight later. Is that in essence what
we are doing? Because what you’re doing, you’re putting a number out here that’s easy to
vote on today, but you can duck this priority list, y’all can, whenever you want to, but
just like Ulmer said down there, he wanted Sherwood, somebody else is going to want
something else, and let’s face it, unless we are going to turn up and be some different
people when we meet to prioritize, you’re shaking hands today, but y’all are going to be
fighting like hell in terms of when you know that $30 million of something in there is not
going to be around and something is going to get bumped, then that’s what you are going
to start looking at. So the selling deal is, do people want to give you the right to go ahead
and at least do what’s out there that you know, are you going to tell them you going to
52
[inaudible] out there hanging, cause somebody is going to get bumped, gentlemen.
That’s human nature. Somebody is going to get bumped, and like Lee said, you still
haven’t identified all of them. You’re not going to stop all the darn water that’s in there.
But I think when you leave that much laying on the table, you’re asking for trouble. And
you are going to ask for two elections to deal with that and I don’t know, do whatever
y’all want to do. What day are we going to come back and deal with prioritization to get
this into the $59 million?
Mr. Oliver: As I said, I think we’re up against the wall time-wise, and my
suggestion would be that we either do it the end of this week, or I’m afraid we are not
going to have enough time to devote to is on committee day.
Mr. Mays: I don’t think so, either, unless we are going to start in the morning at
8 or 9 o’clock and we open up and we take a break. I’m open to deal with it whenever
we do it.
Mr. Oliver: And my suggestion would be perhaps to deal with it Thursday or
Friday of this week even. I think it’s important that we get both of these issues behind us
so that the maximum amount of time can be available to provide information to the
public.
Mr. Mays: I think we should, and if nobody else has any discussion, the motion
and a second is out there with whatever amendments. Does everybody understand the
motion? All in favor of the motion, do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Beard: Is that the $59 million?
Mr. Oliver: $59 million. 25 years.
Mr. Mays: The Chair doesn’t vote. I ain’t giving y’all $59 million unless I know
where it’s going. I’ll vote on the day when we prioritize where we are going to put it.
Mr. Kuhlke out.
Mr. H. Brigham abstains.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Oliver: The next issue on the agenda -- you want to make that? I think there
was a consensus for Thursday at 4 o’clock? Does that work for everyone? I heard a no.
Mr. Bridges: You’re talking about this Thursday?
Mr. Oliver: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridges: No.
53
Mr. Mays: Let me just ask this. If we’re going to come back in two days to do
the prioritization, are we going to -- let me just ask y’all this in public. Are we going to
make the priorities or are we going to let Public Works set the priority list of what they
are faced with? Are we going to get in here and deal with a beauty contest of picking and
choosing and dropping off? Cause there are going to be some casualties in the thing.
Mr. Oliver: Public Works will make a recommendation, and then I think you all
will approve a list as you see appropriate.
Mr. Beard: My suggestion was -- I don’t know -- y’all are pushing for Thursday.
We need to push it. But my thing was to let them come up with a list and then let’s deal
with it, and I think that we have to respect that they know this county, they know where
the problems are, and I know I’m putting y’all in a predicament here, but you know what
the needs are and you know where they are and you know what’s going to create the next
level, and then we can fight over it, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: What I’m saying is if we are going to respect the list, then maybe we
ought to take an oath here today that we won’t call out to Public Works, all of us, and
politick to change the list now. And if you want to add that to the motion, then I’ll accept
that one to be passed, and nobody calls Teresa and Drew and Doug, and we let them
make the decision and we come back and vote on it. If we’re going to be that candid
about it, because we all play in where we think we’ve got some water, and gentlemen, it
is going to get into where me and Bill think something should go in 9 and10 and where
y’all think it ought to get in 8. That’s the human reality of it. And either respect what
they’re going to do or either be honest enough to say we are going to get in here and we
are going to dismantle that list and get enough to go this place and that one. This is a lot
different than some of the other specified projects. We are talking about water pouring
down on everybody, in every part of this community. That’s an emotional thing, it’s one
that is physical with damage, and either we ought to agree to respect that or we ought not
tell them to come back with a list at all. We ought to just come back in with some boxing
gloves and be ready to fight.
Mr. Oliver: The list that you have is the list you’re going to get back with the one
exception of phasing Phinizy Swamp. There will be no changes in that list except for
possibly phasing Phinizy Swamp and moving it around just a little bit. But that list is
going to remain unchanged.
Mr. Mays: You mean in terms of the order that it’s in or just what’s on there?
You need to make that clear now.
Mr. Oliver: In the order.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: Let me let him finish that a minute, okay.
54
Mr. Oliver: What he was talking about was the order in which it’s accomplished,
and the order which it is accomplished is going to be based upon when the design is
completed and when we get the permits, so the number one project, we may not get
permitted for three years and the number 20 project we may get permitted in six months.
So the order in which they get done will not be the order on the screen. The order on the
screen is the order of the priority in which we think they are to the overall well-being of
the county.
Mr. Mays: Well, that’s what I think we have to deal with and that’s what needs to
be clear. And whether or not that order is going to come back from them or whether that
order is going to be dictated by us. Because we’re working within a $59 million frame.
And if you’re talking about a difference of $25 million, $20 million or whatever, then
that means that something has got to drop off the radar screen. It doesn’t matter when it
starts, nor when it ends. Mr. Colclough? And then Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to get a clarification. Mr.
Oliver said that the list will be coming back the same and that really wrung a number in
my ear here. How can the list come back the same if the Public Works are going to get in
there and depending on what needs to be done and where it needs to be done?
Mr. Oliver: Public Works provided this list.
Mr. Williams: I understand that.
Mr. Oliver: This is their list right now.
Mr. Williams: I understand, but it wasn’t prioritized on this list. I mean these
were projects that was considered, but they had not been prioritized. Is that right?
Mr. Oliver: No, this list is prioritized. The only problem with the list was the
issue relating to Phinizy Swamp because there was an error when a cell was copied, and I
think that confused the issue. The other issue we want to look at is phasing Phinizy
Swamp to try to do it -- it’s such a big and complex project, it’s about $10 million -- we
want to look at perhaps splitting Phinizy Swamp project. That’s the only thing I think
we’re going to look at -- correct me, Drew and Teresa, if you feel otherwise.
Mr. Williams: So it’s not going to do us any good anyway to sit here and debate
and prioritize the list if the list is going to stay like this. I mean it’s already set up.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Colclough and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Colclough: I’d like to ask Teresa. I was under the impression that we were
just going to vote on the total amount of the projects and you guys were going to go and
55
take this list and go back and look over it and bring it back to us in a different form. I am
hearing now that the list is already prioritized and we are going to get the same list back.
Ms. Smith: We’re talking about two different issues.
Mr. Colclough: All right. Let’s hear it.
Ms. Smith: The first issue is prioritization for spending $60 million, $59 million.
When we go back and we take a look at spending the $59 million, the list is going to be
exactly the same with the exception of the funds to be allocated for Phinizy Swamp. That
changes [inaudible]. The second issue that seems to be of concern is the order in which
the work is going to be implemented. That would be another list, with the same projects
on it, saying when the work is going to be accomplished.
Mr. Williams: But it may not be -- Mr. Mayor, help me out again.
Mr. Mays: Hold on one second. Did that answer your question there, Richard?
Mr. Colclough: Yes.
Mr. Mays: Okay. And then Andy had his hand up before you, Reverend. You
are on the swing around first.
Mr. Cheek: I yield.
Mr. Mays: You are yielding, Andy?
Mr. Cheek: I’m yielding if I can have it back after you.
Mr. Mays: You can have it right back.
Mr. Williams: I just wanted to get a clarification. I understand about the two
things, the two different issues, about the funds and all that. But once the funds are
allocated to whatever project, then the list is going to change then because of the funds, is
that right? If you’ve got money to do Gordon Highway and the funds are there to do that,
and that is something that you know need to be addressed, and Mr. Bridges has
Sherwood--
Mr. Oliver: Here is what I’m saying. If you have 50 projects that are within the
$59 million, okay, and that’s what is on the prioritization list, project 50 may be done
first because we can get the design and the permits before we get it for project 1, because
some of these projects are much more complicated. For example, the Corps of Engineers
has some studies that they’re doing that aren’t going to be done until 2002, and so we
won’t even begin on doing anything until 2002.
56
Mr. Williams: You answered your own question. But my question again, you
answered it different, Mr. Oliver, if the list, if project 50 going to be because of the
convenience of whatever reason, the list is not going to be the same, and that’s what I
was asking.
Mr. Oliver: What I’m saying is what we’re representing to you is the 50 projects
that you approve in the $59 million will be done. Okay. What we’re saying, however, is
we are saying that project number 1 is the most important project, but the complexity of
the project may make it so that it’s not the first project started nor completed.
Mr. Williams: I understand that. So the list won’t come back the same. Will not
come back the same is all I’m saying.
Mr. Oliver: I don’t think we can tell you when many of these projects will
actually be completed at this point in time, because there are a lot of things beyond our
control.
Mr. Williams: We understand. We’re not talking about completion. Ms. Smith,
what was you going to say?
Ms. Smith: What I was going to say is that based on what I’m looking at here as
far as the list is concerned, if we go down through project number 86, that is
approximately $48.5 million. If we move the Phinizy Swamp basin and we add in
Sherwood, that brings us to $59.3 million.
Mr. Oliver: It’s $52.3 million.
Ms. Smith: $52.3 million. And if we add in [inaudible] --
Mr. Oliver: $55.3 million.
Ms. Smith: $55.3 million. And if we add in $4.5 million or whatever is left for
the Phinizy Swamp basin, that’s the list that you will get on whenever that meeting is.
Mr. Oliver: I agree with that 100 percent.
Ms. Smith: As to what projects will be funded with the $59 million, that is not
the consideration [inaudible] the projects that are actually [inaudible] designing
[inaudible].
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Bridges?
57
Mr. Bridges: Randy or Teresa, as I understand it, then, with this new calculation,
if we pull Phinizy Swamp Basin out on the list we’ve got, the only things that we will not
be able to do is Phinizy Swamp Basin, 89, 90, and 91. Is that right? Those four things?
Ms. Smith: 88 through 91, and we are funding $4.5 million or so of Phinizy
Swamp.
Mr. Bridges: So if you didn’t do Phinizy Swamp at all, it would through basically
88? Pretty much thereabout, so that would get Sherwood, it would get east Augusta, it
would get Sand Bar Ferry, and it really doesn’t make any difference to us in what order
they are done, it’s just that they are done in the most expeditious manner as we’re able to
do them?
Mr. Oliver: That’s correct.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Cheek: Unless, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mays: Go ahead, Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Unless these figures are low and then it costs more to do certain
projects and we run out of money, that’s going to be the only problem. I was just going
to ask our engineers and Public Works that we will be pursuing all permitting and
environmental impact statements and anything else we need concurrently and not
consecutively? For instance, if the Corps is doing a study on Butler Creek, can we do
any kind of other permitting at the same time?
Mr. Oliver: Not on Butler Creek per se.
Mr. Cheek: Also, we’re going to be doing the major trunk renovation during out
sewer rehab for Butler Creek. We’re going to already be in that basin through that same
swamp where the sewer pipes are 20, 30 feet from the creek. Is there any way we can
take that into consideration when we look at our priorities?
Mr. Oliver: I think that’s a valid consideration and we’ll try to do that. The key
in that is going to be for the Corps of Engineers to cooperate with us, because the
difference is going to be you’re going to be working within their parameters for that
where you won’t be with the sewer projects, I don’t believe.
Mr. Cheek: And lastly, I’ll say this and I think I’ve said this about a dozen times.
The past practice on creek drainage channelization has been to go in there and five years
later it’s a forest, and the same dirt goes back into the same creek. Are we going to go in
and put a road in where we can maintain these sewer lines along these creeks?
58
Mr. Oliver: There is a tremendous amount of work that needs to be done and one
of the biggest tasks is going to be to secure the necessary right-of-way. I mean that’s
going to be a monumental task. The other thing that I think that needs to be addressed as
a Commission is on many of these creeks, the property owners own to the middle of the
creek. And I do not think from a maintenance standpoint we want to take on the
responsibility of maintaining the banks to the creek. The dredging of the creek I think is
a different issue, but I think at some subsequent point you’re going to have make a policy
decision as it relates to who the responsibility is for those banks. Now when you’re
going in and dredge it, I think that there is some latitude to perhaps get it to the standard
that it should be, but I would strongly suggest you consider that that be a responsibility of
the property owner to maintain the vegetation and that type thing, rather than it being our
responsibility, absent a funding source.
Mr. Cheek: Well along Rae’s Creek in the Berckman Road area, that’s nice,
because there are yards and homes, but when you get into Butler Creek between
Meadowbrook Drive -- the Meadowbrook Drive area -- you’ve got one property owner
that owns the lion’s share between Windsor Spring and Highway 1, for instance, and
from the banks come the trees that clog the creek, that build up the sediment, that spread
the creek out into everybody’s yards. If you go down Crane Creek on the other side, on
the south side of I-20, you’ll find where a tree has fallen in that channel that we just went
in and cleaned out. If we don’t maintain the sides of the creek, then we can’t assure the
channels stay clear in the creeks, and that’s why I’d like to see us take that in, use
Greenspace money or whatever funds there are, to go ahead and take that in, make the
walking trails and bike trails, but maintain it with a bush hog and not a chain saw.
Mr. Oliver: I think that that’s something that we need to address, but I think after
the passage of this, what we’ve got to do is to identify the funding necessary to do that,
cause clearly with existing forces that’s not possible.
Mr. Wall: There is also an issue that you’re going to have to become involved in
that, that’s a policy decision. Heretofore, we have allowed people to come in and build
fences and things of that nature. If you’re going to maintain those with a bush hog or
whatever, then you’re going to have to -- we’ll have to stop that.
Mr. Cheek: It would have to be a common area, no doubt. That’s the only way to
drive down them. If there are fences, you can’t cruise the creeks and make sure they’re
clear.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Colclough has the floor.
Mr. Colclough: Just a point of clarification. From my understanding on Butler
Creek, the Corps of Engineers is already in there doing some work or has been in there
for quite a while; is that correct?
Mr. Hicks: [inaudible] but we have not got [inaudible].
59
Mr. Colclough: But from my understanding from the previous Director, which I
was informed when Meadow Grove was flooded, that some permits had already been
obtained and the Corps of Engineers was already in there doing the study. Butler Creek.
Mr. Hicks: I am not aware of that, sir. [inaudible].
Mr. Colclough: And where is that at? Do you have any idea?
Mr. Hicks: It was at Windsor Spring Road.
Mr. Colclough: Windsor Spring and what?
Mr. Hicks: Meadowbrook.
Mr. Colclough: And that’s where CVS drug store is?
Mr. Hicks: [inaudible]. That’s the only permit to my knowledge [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: That answer your question, Richard? Okay. We are still back to our
motion, if everybody -- the only question I’d like to ask Randy, do we need to come
back? Do we need to really even come back if there is --
Mr. Oliver: You need to approve the sales tax resolution.
Mr. Mays: I know that, but what I’m saying now, we were talking about coming
back and dealing with this whole priority business. If we’ve gone through this list from 1
to 91 and we are basically talking about in order of importance, regardless of when they
get done, if we’re taking and backing Phinizy down further because we’re looking at
hoping to get Corps money and other support money to deal with that big project at some
point down the road, and the last two to three of them that’s down there and we’re going
to respect that list, do we need, gentlemen, to really come back and do that, if that’s in the
order now, we’re going to respect what Public Works is going to do?
Mr. Oliver: We’ll come through Sand Bar Ferry Road and fund about $3.6
million for Phinizy Swamp. That makes the $59 million. And if that’s the will of the
body, that’s good enough for us.
Mr. Mays: And I’m just asking that for the sake of saving a meeting because it
that’s going to get everything that we’ve got on the list, other than where we are down
there, there’s no need us coming back in here and wrecking the list to try to figure out
how we are going to deal with the bottom two or three of them.
Mr. Shepard: If that’s a form of the motion, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, which you can
make a motion, I guess, or if you won’t, I will. I’ll put your recommendation in the form
of a motion to go down through that -- what number is that now?
60
Mr. Oliver: That would be through Sand Bar Ferry Road with $3.6 million
from Phinizy Swamp to make up the difference.
Mr. Shepard: I’d put that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mays: There’s a motion and a second. And Steve, we were raised by old-
timers, Billy Calhoun and the late B.L. Dent. I will not make that motion while chairing,
but I’m glad you did.
Mr. Shepard: I’m glad you mentioned that, because I hope that is one thing we
include on our agenda next week is a resolution of condolence for the Calhoun family.
Mr. Mays: There is a motion and a second. Is there any other discussion in
reference to respect that list, even though we’ve got to come back and deal with sales tax
resolution, but we can put this particular issue to bed.
Mr. Oliver: We can do that.
Mr. Mays: The only thing I would add, Madame Clerk, now that these
gentlemen have respected that list, without putting an autopsy on it, you can change my
previous non vote to yes, because I can respect that if we’re not going to butcher it and
carry it back. But I did not vote on the $59 million. I didn’t vote at that time because I
said I wouldn’t vote on it not knowing where we were going. We know where we are
going and we are going to respect the list and I’ll change my vote to yes on the previous
motion. All in favor of this motion will do so by the usual sign. And the Chair votes yes.
Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Item 32: Consider Resolution for Certificates of Participation (COP).
Mr. Oliver: The next issue is, I think, a non-issue because I don’t think, unless
someone wants, that we need to take up any issues relating to Certificates of
Participation.
Item 33: Discuss structure and rate Resolution for Water & Sewer Bonds.
Mr. Oliver: The final issue is an issue that’s necessary for the bond resolution and
bond things we’re doing for utilities and the bonds we’re going to go to market with some
time in early to mid September. What this resolution does essentially, right now we have
a requirement that your water and sewer rates be set as part of the budgetary process by
the second meeting in December. Because we’re going to a bond vehicle, we will be
required to set those rates for next April as part of the bond vehicle, and all this does is
give us the authority to set those rates when you adopt the bond resolution, so we will be
61
doing exactly what we said we were going to do. We will just be doing it a couple of
months early, and that makes the bond rating agencies and the bond insurers comfortable
that we’re going to do what we committed to do.
Mr. Wall: The only clarification I’d make is this is actually in ordinance form,
because you’re amending the ordinance, this would be the first reading of that ordinance
it apparently got lot in transit over here. It should have been available to you. But that’s
what the ordinance says.
Mr. Mays: Can we do that on that day, Jim, when we do the resolution and do
that as a first ---
Mr. Wall: You can do it as a first reading then and a second reading on
[inaudible].
Mr. Mays: and then come back at the regular meeting and then finalize it at that
time? That get us two in and only separates it a week apart?
Mr. Wall: We can do that.
Mr. Mays: Okay. Randy, the only thing I’ll just say about 32, you’re right and I
agree with you that that is something we don’t have to deal with today. But I believe in
the democratic process and you win some, you lose some, when all that’s over, I’m glad
we’ve gotten where we are today, and I think a lot of time went into it, the compromise,
you give some, you take some, but we’re moving on. But gentlemen, I’m just going to
say for the record, and nobody else won’t say it, we may not address 32 today, but we
might as well be honest, we’ve got $20 million more hung out there at some point,
possibly on dealing with what we are going to have to deal with on the judicial center.
We’re not under court order to build a jail as yet, but we know that probably we are going
to have to return and deal with that, so I think we ought to at least be honest enough with
the general public that if are fixing to go out there and deal with a mill-and-a-half on an
increase that deal with $59 million, and we’re going to ask them to extend a sales tax, we
ought to at least say that that is a very real observation, that at some near point in time,
we are going to have to return or either some Commission and some Mayor is going to
have to return and deal with some other financing effort in order to participate in that. I
don’t think we can play a game of sneakeroo politics, deal with a GO Bond, deal with a
sales tax, and act like a COPs at some point is not going to happen. And I think they will
appreciate us much better for saying that’s where it is, that’s what we are going to have
deal with, because we’ve laid that out and we know we can’t do it and we are not going
to be able to do it with play money. So I think if they understand that going it, that you’ll
get more support out of the two measures that you want to get out, and that’s the only
comment that I have about it. Mr. Shepard had his hand up.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, could we not agree that we could have the shortened
version of the meeting to approve the resolution on committee day, and now that we’ve
done the list, could we not do that on Monday, Randy and Jim?
62
Mr. Wall: There will be three items on there, to include the SPLOST resolution,
and now recognize we may have some discussion about how specific that resolution is
going to be. You’re going to have a cafeteria. Now that may invoke some discussion.
Then number two would be the resolution on the GO Bond, and number three would be
the first reading on the rate ordinance. And the fourth thing will be approve a contract
with the City of Hephzibah. That needs to be formalized.
Mr. Shepard: Couldn’t we do that the end of committee day and just as Chairman
try to move our agenda so that we clear the boards for -- we’re here on 7 o’clock plus
tonight, we could do that Monday? Jus do it all in one day, gentlemen, if we could.
Mr. Mays: I think we can accomplish that. I mean those things are pretty
general. The only thing I would ask, you mentioned the City of Hephzibah. Are we clear
on the other city we’ve got in Richmond County? Is anything coming forward from the
City of Blythe? Is that one that -- I think if we’re going to do it, that’s something we
need to either leave that open to deal with, because you’ve got Richmond County
taxpayers out there, and I don’t have a vote out there, but I’ve always supported helping
those folk in whatever manner that they wanted to deal with how they paid their sales tax,
cause they had a right to either come in the united government or now. They opted not
to, but they’re still a part of Richmond County, and they are still going to be dealing with
taxes on their property and they still are in this same Richmond County family, whether
they are in the consolidated government or not. And I’m just asking that question, will
they be included in that or [inaudible]?
Mr. Wall: We’ll bring a contract forward with them as well.
Mr. Mays: I’m just asking. I think it should be considered.
Mr. Beard: You said you’re going to bring a contract, but I think what we were
asking was that have we really checked to see if they are to be included or not.
Mr. Oliver: They were not included the last time and that’s the only reason that
we did not include them this time, but I don’t know the history of that.
Mr. Beard: I understand there was a reason why you didn’t --
Mr. Wall: Apparently there was and so we’ll include them this time and use the
same percentage that we used on the other one.
Mr. Mays: And what their history was on that. I mean it’s not secret we made
financial transactions of where we were able to do certain things with Richmond
County’s government [inaudible] for Blythe and therefore it was a better option for them
and it wasn’t confusing because sales tax wouldn’t do it, we were able to do it out of
General Fund monies and be able to get them what they needed, so they opted out of that
63
point to be able to do it, so it was agreement that basically was there in place. [inaudible]
and I think, Jim, that’s probably about right on that, isn’t it?
Mr. Wall: Yes.
[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 minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on August 1, 2000.
Clerk of Commission