HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-07-2000 Called Meeting
CALLED MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
August 7, 2000
The meeting convened at 5:05 p.m., with the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor,
presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Cheek, Colclough,
Kuhlke, Mays, Shepard and Williams, members of Augusta Richmond County
Commission.
Also present were Jim Wall, Attorney; Randy Oliver, Administrator and Lena
Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by the Reverend Hicks.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: We still have some unfinished business from our committee
meetings this afternoon. The next committee that’s up is this Public Safety Information
Committee, so the Chair will declare a recess in the special meeting and turn the floor
over to Chairman Lee Beard.
(Recess at 5:08 p.m.; meeting reconvenes at 6:15 p.m.)
Resolution of condolences to the family and friends of Thomas and Thelma
Allgood.
Resolution of condolences to the family and friends of William C. Calhoun.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I’d make such a motion to combine, to add and
approve the resolutions of condolences to the families and Thomas and “T” Allgood
and to Billy Calhoun, and that motion includes approving the text of both
resolutions and requires that the Clerk spread those resolutions on the minutes of
this body and that copies of those resolutions be forwarded to the families of Tom
and “T” Allgood and Billy Calhoun with the sympathy of this Commission and with
the deep thanks of this Commission for the public service of these individuals to our
community.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objections? So we will add it. Those two items are approved,
then, as presented by Commissioner Shepard.
Motion caries 10-0.
2
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, let’s go to our regular agenda, Item No. 1.
Clerk: Item 1: Approve Special Purpose Local option Sales Tax Contract
with City of Hephzibah.
Mr. Bridges: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, please vote
aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk: Item 2: Approve Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax Contract
with City of Blythe.
Mr. Bridges: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion, gentlemen?
Mr. Bridges: I’ve got one question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Is this the same thing we’ve done in the past, Randy?
Mr. Oliver: No, it’s not. And I can’t answer. This is based on the lost certificate
allocation. My understanding is, is that there was some arrangement worked five years
ago where they got some money or projects or something from another source. The last
in Phase III of the Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax, they did not get a specific
designation.
Mr. Bridges: Is the city of Blythe in agreement with this amount?
Mr. Oliver: Yes, I believe they are.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Wall: We’ve got an exhibit that identifies it. It’s in the package.
Mr. Bridges: It’s in the package?
3
Mr. Mayor: Yes, it’s on the back here, Exhibit A. Okay, we have a motion and
second. Any further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next item?
Clerk: Item 3: Approve SPLOST Capital Projects List.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, you have a copy of the list which was approved at the
last meeting of the Commission. Are there any changes to this list that you want to make
today while we’re going --
Mr. Oliver: I was asked to work an alternative. I’ve given to all of you. It’s
called Alternative A and I don’t know whether somebody wants me to go into Alternative
A or not.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair does not have a copy of Alternative A.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I move that we accept Alternative A.
Mr. Oliver: Alternative A reprograms the jail pod money to about six or seven
[inaudible]. I can tell you what they were.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, that’s your motion to approve Alternative A; is that
correct?
Mr. Beard: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. And is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Cheek: Second, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Oliver: For the record, let me read Alternative A.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Oliver: Just so that it’s clearly understood. It deletes the jail pod partial
funditure in the amount of $1.2 million. It gives an additional $100,000 to the Canal
Authority. It gives $100,000 to the Arts Council, $100,000 to Fore! Augusta, $100,000
to Historic Augusta, $200,000 to the Museum, $100,000 to New Hope Community
Center, $150,000 to the Imperial Theatre, $150,000 to the Mini Theatre, and $200,000 to
Springfield Village.
4
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion on the floor and a second. Gentlemen,
any discussion on the motion to approve Alternative A.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to ask for a roll call vote.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. J. Brigham: The other thing, Mr. Mayor, while we’re at it. My concern is
still the fact that we are not planning for the future as where the jail pod is concerned. I
have some problems with that. I don’t know how we are going to plan for the future if
we do not allocate funds for that. I’m torn because I do honestly believe that the
allocation is a miniscule allocation that cannot accomplish anything. As we are doing
with all of these organizations. We’re giving them enough money to get themselves in
trouble. And I don’t think we’re doing either community -- the public community for
public safety or these non-profits -- right.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. Any discussion?
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Mayor, I’d also like to note, for the sake of clarity. The numbers
are the same. They’ve just been changed a little bit, that within each category, since
these are not time-phased, we have increased the cost amount by 12 percent, which is
roughly the 30 month mark. We have put in $102,000 for projects for the benefit of the
citizens of Augusta, about $4.1 million for public buildings, $1.8 million for other
cultural recreation activities. In the previous sheet you had, it was on a project basis.
Obviously we don’t know when those projects may reach maturity. And then $2.6
million for public safety. As I mentioned, the total amount is still $159,942,720. Rather,
this just provides flexibility for addressing the needs of what I called project inflation.
Because clearly, some will be done earlier and some will be done later.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. For a point of clarity, if that can be done at
this late hour, Randy, we are approving only the list that this is Item 3. Item 4 then we
consider the general and specific categories in the resolution, or is this all in one?
Mr. Oliver: That’s correct. No, we will approve the list and then -- aren’t you
going to go to that then?
Mr. Wall: Well, note in the resolution that it refers to this list, so as a part of the
resolution, this list that you’re now voting on will be a part of --
Mr. Shepard: Of whichever one we choose?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct, but it will be a part of either one of them.
Mr. Shepard: Right.
5
Mr. Wall: Right.
Mr. Shepard: But we’re voting twice, once on the list, which is Alternative A,
and then once on whether the resolution wording is correct --
Mr. Wall: Correct.
Mr. Shepard: -- the general form or the specific categories?
Mr. Wall: That is correct.
Mr. Mayor: Correct. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Randy, at what point will we do Tier 1, Tier 2 on these projects? I
mean, if we don’t collect $159 million, I mean obviously, something is not going to get
done and then the public is going to think that we lied to them.
Mr. Oliver: I mean, I don’t have any reason to believe that. I think those
collections will be quite that aggressive, but again, remember there was a case probably a
year or two ago where one county in Georgia, the number was too low, and the levy stops
at the point you either hit the collection cap or the end of the term.
Mr. Bridges: I understand why we’re putting it up high.
Mr. Oliver: So you’ve got to make sure you are high enough.
Mr. Bridges: I understand why we’re high, but we’ve also got projects listed for
$159 million. I’m just wondering how we’re going to determine what’s not going to get
done, Jim.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Well, recognize the numbers that Randy just mentioned represents 12
percent of some number which equals $159,200,000. It doesn’t represent 12 percent of
$159 million exactly, but it’s close to that. So basically what we did was take the total
project total within each category, inflate it by 12 percent. That 12 percent then was put
in a general category, other projects, for the benefits of the citizens, other public
buildings, other cultural recreational/historical facilities, other public safety projects, and
so you have a built-in 12 percent amount that is over the actual projected cost of the
projects. Although, like Randy says, those projects are not time-weighted for the value of
money. So you’ve got a 12 percent fudge factor.
Mr. Oliver: The other thing I would like to point out, even if you -- what I call
net fund, which means that’s the value of the projects today was $142.8 million -- a lot of
this is largely dependent upon the economy and internet sales and the possibility exists
6
that if the economy doesn’t continue at the rate that’s it’s going, that the collections could
be $120 million.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Any other questions, gentlemen? Mr.
Henry Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: Yes, Mr. Mayor, at one time, maybe we were talking out in the
street somewhere, that we would ask the groups to bring in some kind of idea of what’s
going to happen in the next four or five years. A budget. Did we talk about that initially?
Or did I just kind of dream that?
Mr. Mayor: The Chair is not in a position to respond to that.
Mr. H. Brigham: [inaudible] dreaming?
Mr. Mayor: No, that’s not saying that. If you talked about it at the last meeting,
your telepathy didn’t make it to Philadelphia. I didn’t get that. Mr. Colclough, and then
Mr. Mays.
Mr. Colclough: Just a question for Mr. Brigham. What you’re asking from them
is some kind of report of how the money is spent? Is that what you’re asking?
Mr. H. Brigham: That’s correct, yes.
Mr. Oliver: Let me say this. One thing that will have to occur with any of these
outside agencies is that there will be a contract entered into and that contract will specify
how those funds are going to be utilized, and if you don’t believe that those contracts or
that those funds are going to be utilized in the manner in which you see fit, you’ve always
got the right to decline to enter into that contract.
Mr. H. Brigham: What kind of reported figure will they have? Will you put that
into the contract?
Mr. Oliver: You can specify whatever you want in the contract.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, were you about to respond?
Mr. Wall: Yes. We can write that provision in the special purpose contracts that
we’ll have with each one of the outside agencies. Currently we have the right to audit the
report or the accounts and we monitor the flow of funds, but I think you’re correct that
we do not have a specific provision in there mandating that they come back and give us
status reports, but we can add that into the agreements for this next phase, if that’s the
desire of the Commission.
Mr. Mayor: Does that answer your question, Mr. Henry?
7
Mr. H. Brigham: It answered the question. [inaudible] do that.
Mr. Mayor: I think probably when these individual contracts come before us for
approval, that would be an appropriate time to put those requirements in there, when we
deal with each one. Okay, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I’m going to be real quick cause I’m going to vote
for the motion that is on the floor. And I do support the changes that have been made.
Obviously, we all wish we had enough money to deal with everybody’s project, but I
think in terms of where we improve the list, particularly in those items of cultural things,
arts, and those things that do things for people who are not going to jail, help us not only
to attract folk in a positive way to the sales tax, but also show that it’s not all geared in
one or two categories. And I do agree that we may not be able to do everything, but I
think it’s a better step forward, quite frankly, than where we were. One observance that I
would like to make, and I have to make it now because I’m like Henry, I don’t want to
think I was dreaming. I’m getting a little old so I’m going to bring it up while I’m here
now. But on the page where we have Recreation and Parks, and cultural, recreation and
historical facilities, one suggestion I would make, and this may not in final -- I know that
Jim determines what gets before the public of what may be listed -- but on the Bob
[inaudible] boat landing, we might just want to say, Tom, in there (slash)/lock and dam in
reference to those people who go in that area, know specifically what we are [inaudible]
changing the name of it, but that will give some area to where people would know that
that’s a public area and where it is and not mistake it for some private area in terms of
doing that as a part of our system, Mr. Mayor. And the other one is on where we had had
a lot of discussion last week in reference to the Diamond Lakes Regional Park, and of
moving the money there, which I fully support, and I think it’s time, at least through two
sales taxes, that we get this one resolved, particularly on the building and a first class way
to be built. But will we be coming back, my question is, and I guess this is to Randy and
to Mr. Wall, will we be coming back, because we’re talking about $5.8 million, and I --
and I don’t think I speak alone -- other Commissioners are quite concerned that we do
this facility on a first class basis. And we’ve got a lot of land that we acquired out there,
and I want to make sure because I heard we were talking about in terms of the fact that a
lot of this might be going for land and a lot of it for building. And I think there needs to
be some real clarity before we leave here today that if we’re getting enough to do the
building right, then maybe we ought to look, and I say this to the Director and everybody
concerned -- we’ve acquired the land that we’ve got enough to have lakes on it,
everything else out there. I think the additional land would be good if we owned it and
we could do other things in a perfect world with a lot of money. But I think we first need
to make the commitment to solidify and doing the building properly and of getting on
there what we want, and I think it’s enough land out there, may not go on one side of the
field like we want it to at this point, but move it somewhere else, and I think that needs to
be clear. Because there is a little unclarity there about whether we are spending 25 to 30
percent on this on land, and I think if we don’t get a shot this time, Tom, at doing the
building right, we may need to look at doing it and then doing the land at some other time
that we’d like to have. And I just wanted to bring that up, particularly for Andy and
Richard, since they kind of inherited this project coming in.
8
Mr. Oliver: On all these projects, there will have to be brought back to y’all a
proposed budged in the projects or the particular elements of a project that will be
included. And I think Mr. Beck can take those comments and reflect those and bring
those back to you, but on each one of these projects, cause I know that Mr. Beck had
originally asked for $2.1 million for certain things and he’d indicated that about $5.5
million was going to be needed to do the gymnasium, and I think he will need to come
back with a recommendation on prioritization of how far he feels that $5.8 million can
go, and then you all will either need to say yeah, we agree with you, or you need to
change a little bit.
Mr. Mays: Well, I think one time, and next speaking for Tom -- he may not have
known he was going to end up with $5.8 million in that area in total period, and so really,
in one of the discussions, and I give him credit for that, it’s kind of been an agreement
among Recreation if we couldn’t do it right, then we wouldn’t, Mr. Mayor, do it at all.
But I think at a point in time where maybe now that we will have the money to hopefully
do it right, then maybe we can blanket that in an area of getting that, and then maybe
looking later at what we deal with with land. It may be logistically we have to do some
other things, Tom, but I think, quite frankly, we’ve delayed it before and to delay it again
or to really scale down on it and then have other land, that quite frankly we may not ever
politically get to a vote again, to put the first class building out there, I think we need to
really prioritize it to a point that the building remains at the top of the agenda at that
particular park and then whatever is left that we may deal with that then in terms of
whether it be through that park or through the general area. And that’s just an
observance.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beck?
Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, very briefly. Mr. Mays, thank you for your comments.
One thing that I did want to make very clear with the Commission that our master plan
for the park is $11.5 million to complete the park, making a total master plan $18.5
million for what we hope and we know is going to be the top regional park facility in the
southeast. One thing I do want to make perfectly clear is that even $5.8 million with the
master plan for the facility that has been planned out there, the $5.8 million, probably will
not build that facility, and we do have some other elements of the master plan that are
going to have to be done. You’re going to have more parking on this next phase that’s
got to built. There is some pond work that’s got to be done. So I did want to make that
clear at the onset, that $5.8 million probably will not allow us to complete a building in
this phase of monies, but again, this is preliminary at this point. We haven’t had
architectural plans drawn up to see what we can done potentially in a phase position out
there, but I did want that to be made clear.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beck, you have a reputation in this chamber for being able to
find money to get things done when they need to be done. And we know that you will
live up to your reputation when it comes to this project. Mr. Cheek?
9
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a comment on some -- just food for
thought on this. The Health Department has expressed some interest in using some of the
land potentially if we get that additional parcel, a possibility for the new south Augusta
library. Within four years, we’re going to begin four-laning Windsor Spring Road. I
think it’s a possibility, whether we build the building or complete the other portions of
the master plan, to make Diamond Lakes, as Mr. Beck said, the envy of the Southeast, the
regional park that is the envy of the South. We’re moving in that direction. There are
tremendous strides to be made, and anything that we continue toward that master plan is
going to be a source of pride for this entire city.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Anyone else?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: You know, while we’re on Recreation, there are some areas in
this county that have been promised recreational facilities for 10, 15 years and have
received none. I hope they are as first-class as some others are. The other concern that I
would have is that are we going to come back at a later date and prioritize how this
money is going to be spent, over what projects? When is that going to take place? Last
time I missed out on it, and I don’t plan on missing out on it this time.
Mr. Oliver: Once we, you adopt a project list we can do that, but that’s going to
take us probably two weeks to do that, and it’s going to be forecast based on collections.
We had that done once for the Citizens Committee and we can use part of that
information, but obviously your priorities have changed a little bit.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Oliver, I appreciate your concern, but you know, if all my
projects is in Tier 2 and in fifth year of collection of sales tax and we don’t collect it, I
have very little to offer my voters, and that’s my concern. And I have a feeling that’s
going to happen.
Mr. Mayor: Any other comments, gentlemen? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just one brief comment. I would encourage and support
th
any efforts made by the Commissioner from the 7 District to turn the canal park into the
jewel that it really is and I started this process by advocating monies for that. I wish that
we had money for a lot of these other things. That is jewel, Mr. Brigham, and I’d be glad
to support you on that effort any time.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s move along then. We have a motion on the floor that’s been
seconded. That’s to approve the Option A, I guess is the best way to describe it. The list
you have in front of you. All in favor of that -- oh, I’m sorry, we did want a roll call vote
on that, so Madame Clerk, if you would call the roll then.
10
Roll Call Vote
Mr. Beard: Yes.
Mr. Bridges: No.
Mr. H. Brigham: Yes.
Mr. J. Brigham: No.
Mr. Cheek: Yes.
Mr. Colclough: Yes.
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes.
Mr. Mays: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: Yes.
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mayor Young: Just for the record, the Chair doesn’t have a vote, but the Chair
would vote in the affirmative if he had a vote on this. Let’s move on to the next item on
the agenda then.
Clerk: Item 4: Approve Resolution to provide for the calling of an election
to determine the question of the imposition of the Special Purpose Local Option
Sales Tax.
Mr. Mayor: We have two options before us. Mr. Oliver, Mr. Wall, would
you like to explain the two options that we have?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir. If you would, anticipating that y’all might pass
Alternative A, what you have is pages 3 and 6 that would be substituted in your
specific categories resolution. You have two resolutions that should be before
you. One has captioned at the top specific categories. The other one has
general listed at the top. And the primary, or the difference, really, is on page --
the paragraph beginning at the bottom of page 3, and perhaps starting with the
general, you will note on that page three that there are no dollar amounts by the
various categories, and I speaking now of the general one. You have the same
six different categories but there is no dollar amount by each one of those areas.
And then the next paragraph simply says that the projects are those that are
contained in the list that y’all have just approved, and that they are to built over
11
a period of five years, that conditions may change which make a proposed
project no longer feasible or increasing the cost of that project to an amount
exceeding the funds that are available as listed on that list. And in that event,
you can change the size and the scope of the project to make the project one
which is feasible and the cost of which are within the funds that are overall
available throughout the sales tax, or transfer the funds to a different project.
You’re not limited to a category, and so you’ve got basically $159 million of
money, you’ve got a project list that has been proved, but if you wanted to take
Recreation funds and move them to a public building project, you could to that.
Or if you wanted to take Recreation funds and move them to a road project, you
could do that. Or if you wanted to take road money and move it into your
Recreation Department projects, you could do that. So you’re not limited to the
categories. You’re simply saying we approve this project list, that’s how we
intend to spend it, but if for any reason one project comes in at a greater cost
than what we’re projecting, then we can move funds anywhere within the
overall project list to that.
Mr. Bridges: This is the one that’s headed general?
Mr. Wall: That’s the one that’s headed general.
Mr. Mayor: And that’s the one we’re using now for the current?
Mr. Wall: No. That’s not correct. The one we’re using currently is the
specific.
Mr. Mayor: The specific?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct. And you will note on page three that I just
handed out, as well as the continuation that’s part of the original resolution that
12
I furnished to you earlier, you have specific dollar amounts that are by each of
the categories, and so therefore you are confined within that category -- I mean
that’s the maximum amount that you can spend within that category. Then in
the language beginning the specific projects, the paragraph that is at the bottom
of the page, you say that the total amount of proceeds of the tax to be spent on
the projects in each of the categories shall be the total amount specified for each
such category. In other words, you can’t shift money between the two different
categories. And then you can shift the money between projects within that
category if for some reason the cost of the project goes over or if you simply
don’t have enough money to fund a project or if your needs change. And that,
in essence, the next paragraph is just a continuation of the same type of
statement, saying that you can change the size and the scope or you can
reallocate, but it has to be within the same category. So that’s the difference
between the two resolutions.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any questions? Let’s start down here with Mr.
Bridges and we’ll go around.
Mr. Bridges: I was going to make a motion, Mr. Mayor, I’ll just wait for
the questions.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I had a question. Jim, I noticed in the ballot question, if you
go to that section on page four, it says not to exceed for the [inaudible] more than
$85,766,968, then the remainder of the paragraph says not exceed -- right at the
end it says not to exceed five years and the [inaudible] not more than
$75,873,952. What is the significance of having an $85 million figure stated in
the first portion of the ballot question and a $75 million also? I mean, I have
trouble enough understanding Constitutional amendments on the ballot and as
13
you’ve pointed out, I’m a lawyer, but why the two different figures stated in
that question? And it’s in both.
Mr. Wall: In the sales, in the Code that sets forth the procedure, it has five
questions, and roads and bridges are dealt with differently in the sales and use
tax provision than the other. What I did you will note on the third line up, you’ll
see “and” in all caps. So you’ve give the five year -- reading the ballot
question you’ll note that it says that it shall be for a period of time not exceeding
five years for the raising of not more than $85,766,968 for the purpose of -- and
then it lists A, B, C, D, and E, all of which are projects other than road and
bridges projects. And then it has an “and” and it repeats the same language
about the five years and raising not more than $75,873,000, a total of those is the
$161 million that is anticipated to be raised under the sales tax.
Mr. Shepard: So the short answer is you add the two figures together?
Mr. Wall: The short answer is you add the two figures together because
the Code requires roads and bridges to be dealt with separately.
Mr. Shepard: But I thought the issue was for $142 million?
Mr. Wall: Well, no, sir. You approved a total list of Richmond County
projects --
Mr. Oliver: Without Hephzibah and Blythe.
Mr. Wall: With Hephzibah and Blythe. Of $159,942,000 and you add in
the Hephzibah and Blythe and you come up with a total of $161 million --
Mr. Oliver: -- $161,649,020.
14
Mr. Shepard: Just say a million here, a million there, pretty soon you’re
talking about real money. Some Congressman said that.
Mr. Wall: The total of those two amounts is $161,649,020. If you add up
the summary, the itemization of the categories, you’ll come up with the same
amount, although I like to never found a dollar that’s in there.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: That’s all I had. I think Mr. Williams had that dollar.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Jim, I wanted to ask you this. And I’m not trying to be funny
on this. But if I were to have so much confidence in the people, my colleagues
here, and I am a general voter, I’m not so sure -- it appears to me that if you
don’t go specific and you go general, the perception of the general public is
we’re putting a barrel of money out there and we’re going to spend it our
discretion. And to me, that could have a very negative impact on how the voters
perceive this sales tax. I don’t know whether anybody else has a feeling that
way or not.
Mr. Williams: I agree with Bill. I feel the same way. When you go general
on it, that people tend to think differently from what your intentions are and I
wholeheartedly agree with that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges, I think you wanted to make a motion.
15
Mr. Bridges: I make a motion we go with the specific which is what
we’ve got now, which I think is good. We move Recreation money in
Recreation or we move Public Works money in Public Works. I think that’s the
way it should be. I don’t think we should be -- it’s not really co-mingling of
funds but it is mingling of funds for different departments, and I make a motion
we go with the specific.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second to that motion. Further discussion? We
have a motion on the floor to adopt the resolution delineating specific categories.
All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
Mr. H. Brigham out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next item?
Item 5: Approve Resolution to provide for the calling of an election to
determine the question of issuance of $59,855,000 Aggregate Principal General
Obligation Bonds to fund Drainage Improvements.
Mr. Oliver: The next item is for the general obligation bond. It provides for
net proceeds of $59 million. The $855,000 relates to the cost of issuance. It’s
proposed that they be issued in three series. One in 2001, one in 2002, and one
in 2003. A $20 million, a $20 million, and a $19 million. The purpose of that was
to spread it out so that we could get the design done, meet some Internal
Revenue requirements as it related to expenditure of funds. The list has been
passed out. Based upon current estimates, and these are gross order of
magnitude estimates, we will be able to fund down through the solid black line on
page two, which is funding $3,659,600 for Phinizy Swamp, of the total project
there of about $10 million. And this would be a separate question. It equates to
16
about a mill-and-a-half obviously since it’s three issues. It is phased in so the
impact will be slightly less than that, and we have made the numbers in there
what we believe to be high enough to be able to accommodate some fluctuation
in the market.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair would ask that a copy of this list, Madame Clerk,
be attached to the resolution that we approve today so it would be in the record
for future reference.
Mr. Oliver: I gave Ms. Bonner one.
Mr. Mayor: So we know the projects that we’ve delineated.
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second.
Mr. Wall: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Wall: If I may. Could I ask you to not attach it to the resolution
because it will be a part of the record in connection with the resolution?
Mr. Mayor: Well, we’d like the people to know that this is the list that
we’ve set today and that’s what this money is going to be used for.
Mr. Wall: I understand that.
17
Mr. Mayor: We don’t want some researcher two or three years from
now not be able to find the list and then the money is spent willy-nilly or however,
whoever is down here wants to spend it. I mean we’re making promises to
people and we want to make sure that they get what we promise them.
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir. And we’re going to have to validate this proceeding
and the bond resolution needs to be in a form that’s acceptable to bond
counsel so that we don’t run into a challenge to the bond resolution, and I am
suggesting that it be made a part of the part of the record in connection with this
but it not actually be physically attached to this resolution.
Mr. Mayor: That’s fine. As long as it’s spread on the minutes of the
meeting, I think that’s the important thing and that’s the intent there.
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Gentlemen, we have a motion to
approve. All in favor of the motion, please --
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Excuse me, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I voted for the motion last week. And I’m
going to vote for it this week. They whipped me a little bit while you wasn’t here
cause I didn’t have my lucky tie on.
Mr. Mayor: I see you had your clock, though.
18
Mr. Mays: My clock, it didn’t do me no good. They beat me the first
round. I got a chance to get what I needed back this week so we are all even.
But I just wanted to make this observation, that I think in our questions that we
answer, because we cannot deal with -- that has be done by a neutral outside
agency. We definitely won’t get into how we deal with sales tax. But I think
there are going to be questions asked of us, that’s obvious, in reference to
where do we go from this point with the judicial center. And the amount of
money that’s being appropriated. And I think we need to at least --
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, with all due respect, we’re voting on a general
obligation bond issue for drainage, not the judicial center.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, you weren’t here and I will get specifically to the
point. [inaudible] a one-and-a-half mill situation, Mr. Mayor, on dealing with
drainage projects, which I do support, but you also need to somewhere answer
the question as to whether or not we are going to deal with the $20 million of the
judicial center, build it for that or not, or whether or not we’re going to entertain
in an honest statement whether or not we have to come back and deal with an
increase to fund that. And that’s the only thing I asked last week, and I’m
asking the same thing now. I’m going to vote for what’s on the floor, but I
think realistically, if we are going to have to return to this situation, we shouldn’t
be returning to the point that we are asking voters to do what they are doing on a
sales tax extension and a deal with a mill-and-a-half, when we know or do not
know what’s going to happen with the other extension when we were talking
about $20 million versus $40 million. That’s the only observance. And I agree
with you, that was done in terms of the public revelation that we are not -- in
other words, we may be back with this gun again, and that’s the only thing. I
didn’t want us to leave here with doing all of this in terms of a tax increase and
a tax extension, to the point that we may not return again, when it’s already
been publicly stated to a point that at some point we’re going to have to deal
19
with COPs or something else to finish financing the judicial center. And we’re
not talking about $2,000 or $20,000. We’re talking about $20 million maybe.
Or $15 million to $20 million. That’s my only observance, and I’m going to
vote for what’s there. But I just wanted to make that a part, just like you made
that a part of the record -- I wanted to make that a part of the record that we
know that we may have to return again to deal with another half mill to fund
what’s going to be on there on the judicial center.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go ahead and complete the vote on the motion to
approve the resolution for the general obligation bond issue. All in favor, please
vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is for water and sewer rates.
Item 6: Approve Ordinance to amend the Augusta Richmond County
Code, Section 5-2-45, to provide for Water and Sewer Rates to be established in
the adoption of the Budget or the Resolution in conjunction with financing for
Water and Sewer Improvements (First Reading).
Mr. Oliver: This is the first reading of an ordinance. The bond people like
an element of comfort and as it relates to -- normally we adopt our rate increases
effective as part of the budgetary process in December. What they are going to
want, we plan on selling these bonds about September 15. What they want is
they want that adopted as part of the resolution for the bonds and all we’re
going to be doing is doing the approval a couple of months early, but it will not be
effective until April 1. In order to do that, we need to change the resolution that
enables our changing of the rates, and we would recommend approval.
Mr. Bridges: So move.
20
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second to approve. Any questions?
All in favor of the motion then, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Any other business? Do we have a legal meeting?
Mr. Wall: No.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will entertain a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Shepard: So move.
Mr. Mayor: We adjourn without objection.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true
and correct copy of the minutes of the Called Meeting held on August 7, 2000.
Clerk of Commission