HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-05-2000 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
December 5, 2000
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:04 p.m., Tuesday,
December 5, 2000, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Colclough, J. Brigham, Mays, Kuhlke, H. Brigham,
Shepard, Cheek and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hons. Beard and Williams, members of Augusta Richmond
County Commission.
Also present were Jim Wall, Attorney; Walter Hornsby, Interim
Administrator; and Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by the Reverend Matthews.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
DELEGATION:
Mr. Joe Scott
Richmond County Board of Education
Student Council Members
Mr. Mayor: Delegation is Mr. Joe Scott, with the Richmond County Board of
Education, and you have some student council members here with you today. Do you
want to introduce your group, and then the Clerk will read a proclamation and Mr. Henry
Brigham will have a presentation.
Mr. Scott: Yes. Mr. Mayor and County Commissioners, December 4 through 8 is
Human Relations Week. Our theme this year is “Understanding Diversity in the New
Millennium,” and we brought all of these student council members here from Richmond
County and the high schools will receive the one from the county, the middle schools will
receive -- [inaudible] will receive the one from the Senate Majority Leader.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, if you would read the proclamation. Mr. Scott, if
you would come back to the podium, or if you have council representatives who will join
you, Mr. Henry Brigham will present you with a proclamation. Madame Clerk?
Clerk: In recognition of Human Relations Week, Whereas Richmond County
Association of Middle and High School Student Councils are the outstanding leadership
organizations in Richmond County, and
2
Whereas the Richmond County Association of Middle and High School Student
Councils have been distinguished by the services they provide to schools and this
community of Richmond County, and
Whereas this recognition is given to all middle and high school student councils,
and
Whereas the Richmond County Board of Education and the Superintendent, Dr.
Charles G. Larke, comment the Richmond County Association of Middle and High
School Student Council for their accomplishments.
Now therefore I, Bob Young, Mayor of the City of Augusta, do proclaim the
week of December 4 through 8, 2000 to be Human Relations Week in Augusta, Georgia.
In witness whereof, I have unto set my hand and caused the seal of Augusta,
th
Georgia to be affixed this 4 day of December 2000.
Mr. H. Brigham: Certainly I like to thank the Mayor for allowing me to present
this. [inaudible] these young folks [inaudible].
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Speaker: Thank you. On behalf of the Richmond County Association of
High School Student Councils, I would just like to say thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: I’ll add I was out at Butler yesterday to kick off Human Relations
Week, and we had a great time with the seniors out there yesterday. Y’all are certainly
welcome to stay unless you’ve got to go back to class, Mr. Scott. You have one more
presentation. Go ahead, please.
Mr. Speaker: To the Mayor and Council, ladies and gentlemen, I’m here
representing the Honorable Senator Charles W. Walker, who proclaimed this day, this
nd
week as Human Relations Week in the 22 District. His proclamation reads, Whereas
the Richmond County Association of Middle and High School Student Councils are the
outstanding leadership organizations in Richmond County, and
Whereas the Richmond County Association of Middle and High School Student
Councils have been distinguished by the services they provide to schools and the
community of Richmond County, and
Whereas this recognition is given to all middle and high school student councils,
and whereas the Richmond County Board of Education and the Superintendent, Dr.
Charles G. Larke, have commended the Richmond County Association of Middle and
High School Student Councils for their accomplishments,
Now therefore I, Charles W. Walker, Senate Majority Leader and Senator of the
nd
22 District of Georgia, do hereby proclaim the week of December 4 through 8, 2000 as
nd
Richmond County Association of Student Council Human Relations Week in the 22
3
District of Georgia, and further ask that all citizens in the District join me in showing our
appreciation to the Richmond County Association of Middle and High School Student
Councils for the service they provide to our schools and community. Charles W. Walker,
nd
Sr., Senate Majority Leader, State Senator 22 District.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Scott: Thank the Senator. We would like for you to know how much we
appreciate your continued support for our schools. On behalf of the Richmond County
Board of Education, Dr. Larke and his central office staff, we say thanks to you and wish
all of you the best of holiday cheers. Again, thanks to the principals and the student
council advisors. Thank you again.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Scott.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go ahead and pull up the addendum agenda since we have one
item on there that’s on the consent agenda, that’s on the regular agenda. Let’s go ahead
and take a look at the addendum agenda. What’s your pleasure on that, gentleman? You
want to go through that list, Madame Clerk?
Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Clerk:
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
Correction to Agenda:
Item 26: Consider the appointment of Mr. Jack Widener to the Development
Authority of Richmond County to serve the unexpired term of Mr. Monte Osteen.
Additions to Agenda:
1. Discuss Christmas bonuses for employees. (Requested by the Mayor)
2. Motion to approve adoption of the “Profile and Challenge Statement” from
Bennett Associates regarding the Administrator Search. (Requested by the
Mayor)
3. Motion to approve the formation of a Citizens Budget Review Committee for
the year 2002 who will also look for additional sources of revenue with each
Commissioner and the Mayor to appoint a representative to serve on this
Committee. (Approved by Finance Committee November 27, 2000)
4. Motion to approve the adoption of the Water Bill of Rights.
5. Discussion of Greenspace Plan.
4
Clerk: Item 4 needs to be deleted and taken up at the December 19 meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding any or all of these items? None
heard, so these items will be added to the agenda. That brings us to our consent agenda,
Madame Clerk.
Clerk: Our consent agenda, items 1-16.
FINANCE:
1. Motion to approve Walter Hornsby and Keven Mack as the authorized
signatures on the HND bank accounts and substitute Walter Hornsby for
Randy Oliver on all other city bank accounts. (Approved by Finance
Committee November 27, 2000)
2. Motion to approve counter-offer to acquire property identified as Tax Map
37-3, Parcel 106 for $378,000. (Approved by Finance Committee November
27, 2000)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
3. Motion to approve continuing commercial property insurance through
Chubb. (Approved by Administrative Committee November 27, 2000)
4. Motion to approve 2001 Holiday Schedule. (Approved by Administrative
Committee November 27, 2000)
5. Pulled from consent agenda.
6. Motion to approve revised procedure (Option III Joint effort with License &
Inspection, Public Works and RCCI, adds two new staff positions, and
utilizes an inmate crew. (Approved by Administrative Committee November
27, 2000)
7. Motion to approve source of funding and an Ordinance providing for the
demolition of certain unsafe and uninhabitable properties in the Sand Hills
Neighborhood: 2508 Porter Street (District 1, Super District 9); Bethlehem
Neighborhood: 1123 Davidson Lane, 1049-1051 Gregg Street (District 2,
Super District 9); East Augusta Neighborhood: New Savannah Road (Map
nd
73, Parcel 23) (District 1, Super District 9) and waive 2 reading provided.
(Approved by Administrative Committee November 27, 2000)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
8. Motion to approve purchase of property for the purpose of a right-of-way
from Sylvester Mura Bailey, Sr. (Tax Map 110-3, Parcel 220.1) for the
amount of $6,315. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November
27, 2000)
9. Motion to approve payment of invoice in the amount of $52,896.00 from
Cummins South, Inc. for hydraulic transmission and additional work while
furnishing and installing new diesel engine and related equipment at the Raw
Water Pumping Station. (Funded by Account No. 507043410-
5425110/89644260-5425110) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
November 27, 2000)
5
10. Motion to approve Co-Location Lease Agreement with Gold Cross
Emergency Medical Services for VHF Radio Tower Antenna to be located on
the catwalk of the Tower. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
November 27, 2000)
11. Motion to approve option to acquire a right-of-way from Cokesbury
Methodist Church (Tax Map 110-3, Parcel 187) for the sum of $2,357.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 27, 2000)
12. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and
Road Resolution submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments –
Barsim Road. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 27,
2000)
13. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and
Road Resolutions submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments –
Dogwood Estates, Section 2. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
November 27, 2000)
14. Motion to approve to award bids for the purchase of street light poles and
fixtures to the low bidder, Electrical Equipment Company, in the amount of
$117,108.00, subject to approval of product samples. Funds are available in
Account Number 271-04-1610-54.14410. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee November 27, 2000)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
15. Motion to approve the attached quote from Motorola for Mobile Data
Terminals to be installed in the Marshal’s Department vehicles. (Approved
by Public Safety Services Committee November 27, 2000)
PUBLIC SERVICES:
16. Motion to lease 2.89 acres at Wood Street Park to Augusta Rugby Club for
construction of a multipurpose athletic field. (Approved by Public Services
Committee November 27, 2000)
Mr. Mayor: Do we have anyone here to speak on any of these items on our
consent agenda today? No hands are up. Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure with respect
to the consent agenda?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, could we pull number 5, please. I’d like to hear
arguments on that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Pull any others? Do we have a motion to approve the consent
agenda, then?
Mr. Cheek: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
6
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor of approving the consent agenda minus
item number 5, please vote aye.
Clerk: Mr. Mayor, as a matter of record, I’d like to state that Commissioner
Marion Beard and Lee Beard are out of the city today attending the National League of
Cities Conference, and Commissioner Mays is on his way.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 7-0. [Items 1-4, 6-16]
Mr. Mayor: We’ll take up item 5 now, Mr. Bridges.
Clerk:
5. Motion to approve the increased salary range of $80,000 - $115,000 for
Airport Director’s position.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, this is quite jump, something like 35% in salary from
where it’s at now. My concern is we’re talking about paying an administrator for the
whole government $125,000 and an airport director, which in my mind is a department
head, $115,000. I was just concerned that the justification for an increase of that size.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anyone here from the Airport Commission who wishes to
speak to this? Mr. Smith, if you’d come up. If you’ll just give us your name and address
for the record, please.
Mr. Smith: My name is Ernie Smith. 253 Greene Street, Augusta, Georgia. I’m
on the Aviation Commission, and with respect to the raise from $80,000 to $115,000, the
necessity is such that the only way we can possibly get a tried and true director to run this
economic engine, we have to be available to pay them for that. The director for aviation
at Savannah and Columbia said that we could them at the present salary that we had, and
as you can see, the growth that they’re expanding and exploding with in Savannah and
Columbia necessitates that. In order to get a leader that has the acumen necessary to run
an economic engine of this magnitude, we have to have someone with experience, and
the only way we’re going to be able to competitively get someone with that experience is
to pay them basically what they’re worth, and that’s why we sought to get a raise to that
level to attract someone of that acumen and that type of [inaudible].
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Smith, the funding for this comes out of the airport funds?
Basically the city is giving you permission, has to give you permission to increase it, but
it’s not affecting the General funds; is that correct, Walter?
Mr. Hornsby: That’s correct.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
7
Mr. Smith: That’s correct.
Mr. Bridges: All right.
Mr. Mayor: What we’re doing today is being asked to increase the salary range,
and then at some point in the future when they make an offer to somebody, by ordinance
we will set the exact salary for that person. Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: You answered my question.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Gentlemen, any further discussion? Do we have a motion?
Mr. Cheek: I move approval.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve and a second. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I had one question.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Smith, if you would comment, how many applicants did you
have in the process? I mean is there a problem in the applicants?
Mr. Smith: Yes, the initial applicant pool, there were 10. It was pared to 6. That
was in turn pared down to 3. And of those 3, we had folks that had operational
experience but no director’s experience, and we talked to the folks that they worked for
and that had experience in that arena, and they said they were good managers but they did
not have the experience to do what we need them to do in Augusta.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? We’ll call the question then. All in favor of the
motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Smith. Let’s go get somebody hired now. All right,
item 17.
Clerk:
17. Consider proposals of medical services contract for Richmond County Jail
and RCCI.
8
Mr. Mayor: I think we all have copies of the proposals in our back-up
information. Mr. Wall, you have sent us a memorandum within the last hour or so as a
result of some negotiations. Do you want to bring us up to date on where we are with
this, please?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: You want to use my copy? Here. Here’s one, Jim.
Mr. Wall: I’ve got it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Wall: Basically we’re recommending that the contract be awarded to the
original low bidder. For those of you who were in the Public Services, Public Safety
Committee meeting you will recall that there was concern expressed about the service
that had previously been delivered by PHS. However, as a result of the negotiations that
we have had over the last several days with both CMS and PHS, but in particular with
PHS, we have built in what I think is adequate protection, and basically they are
summarized in the five provisions that are numbered at the bottom of page one and the
top of page two. We have a 60-day right to terminate at convenience of Augusta.
Basically that means that at any point during the term of the contract if we are dissatisfied
with the level of services that they are rendering, we can give a 60-day notice of
termination and get out of the contract. There is also a penalty provision of $10,000
should PHS fail to maintain accreditation. In other words, if we want to impose the
penalty rather than terminate the contract, we have that ability. There is also a penalty
provision of two times the hourly cost for any medical personnel so that we insure that
they have the staff, or part of the staff a matrix and that they are on the job. If they’re
not, then there is a penalty provision and they’re penalized for that. Then in addition,
there’s a $1,000 per day penalty that would begin after the initial 90 days in the event that
they fail to meet a performance standard, and again assuming that it’s not so severe that
we want to terminate the contract, but we want to impose the penalty so as to impress
upon them the need to meet that performance standard. We have that option. Then
finally, as far as the cost is concerned, we were able to reduce the cost by $40,000 down
to the $2,058,346 by virtue of reworking the cap that was a part of the contract.
Essentially this is a $200,000 aggregate cap, and with any excess cost above the $250,000
for outside medical services, we would pay on a 50-50 basis for the first $50,000 above
that. We would -- there is a total cost -- but also if we only had, if we were fortunate so
that there were no outside medical services during the year we would share equally the
full 50-50 basis on the full $200,000 savings in the event that that were to occur. There
has been some fluctuation over the last several years as far as what the cost of these
outside services has been. It’s been as low as $150,000. It’s been up to around $270,000.
So it really depends upon whether or not you have some inmate who has a major health
condition. We have had a $10,000 cap per inmate in the past, but this would give us the
ability to aggregate that and also to share in any savings. I have discussed this -- not
personally with Sheriff Webster, but through his office have discussed it with him,
9
discussed it with Sheriff-Elect Ronnie Strength, as well as Warden Leverett. It meets
with their agreement. This will result in your only -- I say only, having to increase the
budget by $327,000 rather than the $750,000 that was discussed at the budget workshop
the other night. The budgeted amount was based upon the current contract, which is
roughly $1.4 million. Included in the budget that was submitted was $1,431,000. The
other night you were proposing an additional $750,000. But as I say, that would not be
necessary under this proposal, only an increase of $627,000 would give you the amount
for the PHS contract, and that’s the recommendation.
Mr. Mayor: Jim, let me ask one question. In the second paragraph, you state the
Sheriff’s Department has been unhappy with the level of services provided by PHS.
Then you go down to item number 4 on your list where you say, in essence, they get a
90-day free ride.
Mr. Wall: Well, yes and no. They get a 90-day free ride insofar as the $1,000.
However, if we were dissatisfied on January 2 that they had brought a sufficient level of
staff and their expertise in there, we could give an immediate 60-day notice of
termination and get out of it. It’s just the $1,000 penalty would not begin until the first
90 days. They wanted that grace period insofar as the penalty so that they were able to
get in, get the training people, and get everyone up to the standards that are expected
without incurring the risk of the $1,000 a day penalty.
Mr. Mayor: Well, is the Sheriff comfortable he’s going to get an improvement of
service during those 90 days over what he’s got now?
Mr. Wall: Because of the 60-day termination provision, he is.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Wall: And because of the personnel that they will be bringing in. Their plans
are to bring on board an individual who formerly worked at ACMI. They also have a
consultant on board who will remain on board for some period of time. There’s no
commitment as to what length of time that will be, but PHS is bearing that expense rather
than then going by this contract.
Mr. Mayor: Any questions? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, if I could. Jim, this is something that we
provide because of the consent order in the jail litigation basically and the Constitutional
th
requirements under the 8 Amendment not to incarcerate people in a cruel and unusual
fashion; is that -- that’s why we do this, is that not right?
Mr. Wall: Correct.
Mr. Shepard: At one point, you talked about a $327,000 figure but it looks like to
me that the savings between $750,000 which we were talking about at the budget
10
workshop and the $627,346 is on the order of about $122,000. That’s -- we projected --
Jim, correct me if I’m wrong -- we’d have additional contract expense in this regard for
$750,000 but this would come up that target by $120,000, is that right?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Shepard: At one point you said $327,000.
Mr. Wall: $327,000 was the comparison of the PHS and the CMS contract.
Mr. Shepard: Okay. But the net savings going here, which is the cheapest -- this
is the cheaper of the two alternatives -- is $122,000 and change?
Mr. Wall: Under what we, under what y’all were --
Mr. Shepard: Anticipating in the budget.
Mr. Wall: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Jim, what would be the advantage in going with a higher price? In
other words, if we’re displeased with the service we’ve got or the one we’ve got now, but
we’re going with them because they’re cheaper, but is there a reason that it would be
better to go with CMS that would more than make up for the difference in the dollars?
Mr. Wall: The answer to that, I think, is no. Otherwise we’d be recommending
going with a higher one. Without these penalty provisions and without the right to
terminate, I think that we probably would be recommending CMS frankly, because we
have had situations where nursing personnel or physicians were not there. As a result the
jail staff was having to get involved in giving instructions for medical services that
frankly they should not have been involved in. And we were very frank with PHS that
that was the concern we had. We did not want to experience that situation again. And so
as a result of that, we built in these penalty provisions, as well as getting them to agree to
a 60-day right to terminate at our convenience, which we feel like gives us the leverage to
ensure that they step up to the plate and do what they have to do. Otherwise, we’ll send
them out the door and contract with someone else. Now if there’s a disadvantage, it
would be that at some point during the next year we might have to take that step, which is
to terminate the contract and then bring a new provider in. But with a $300,000 savings,
I think it’s work the risk.
Mr. Bridges: My concern here is we’re having to put in these provisions to give it
to this person, whereas my understanding is we probably wouldn’t have put this in for
CMS.
11
Mr. Wall: And that’s a fair statement. We did not have these provisions in the
request for proposals. They are built in there to ensure a performance level by PHS.
However, with these provisions in there, we think that there is adequate protection so that
the Sheriff’s Department can ensure that the personnel are there, that they meet the
performance standards, and that they’re responsive to our needs. And if they’re not,
they’re out the door.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I was concerned about the level of staffing that they had at the
jail. What I noticed is that both of their proposals, the jailer [inaudible] at some point,
medical person get angry and they wouldn’t show up so they had to hold other people
over. I mean we talking about, whether we looking at dollars or care, you know, you
have the [inaudible] care there and one of the inmates passed on, and we get sued you
still got to pay the dollars. Rather than going with the cheapest one, when the jailer is
saying that we don’t get adequate services, you know cost is one thing but you’re talking
about care. And the level of staffing that you had in this jail, I don’t think those people
are even qualified to do the care that they had, according to their own proposal.
Mr. Wall: The staffing level -- CMS does have a higher staffing level than PHS.
We did have the discussion with PHS. PHS, it’s really an allocation of the personnel
among the three facilities rather than one having this professional versus that
professional. The difficulty perhaps insofar as the delivery of services by PHS or at least
what they believe is the problem insofar as their delivery of services has been what I refer
to as the medical director, and that may not be the exact terminology, but basically the
person who is responsible locally for the delivery of services. The individual that PHS
has had over the latter part of this contract has unfortunately suffered bouts with cancer
and recurrences and has been out because of treatment, was not a local individual who
was perhaps -- wherever Greenwood is, an hour-and-a-half maybe, away, thereabouts,
and having to commute. And with the illness, was simply not able to be here. With a
commitment to hire somebody locally, have them on board, then the hope is, and the goal
is, that you’ve got someone who can deal with those personnel problems and issues of
someone getting angry and not showing up. In addition, you’ve got penalty provisions of
two times that employee’s salary that you recoup, so management is going to be
compelled to deal with it because of the profit bottom line, and if they don’t deal with it,
you’ve got the 60 day provision that you terminate and bring somebody else in.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: You’re talking about having a medical doctor on staff, a jail full
of folk, two hours, you’re talking about having a level in nursing care in the jail for a few
hours a day, you’re talking about consultants, you’re talking about medical directors, who
are going to actually provide the services for the inmates when the inmates get sick?
When we question the individuals in the meeting, you know, if something need to be
12
done then we send them out. Why are we paying them if they can’t provide the services
in the infirmary?
Mr. Wall: Well, I’m -- as far as sending them out -- to a certain extent, to the
extent that there can be a cost savings in sending them to either ACMI or to the Mental
Health Center where we’re not charged for it, then that’s simply utilizing the other
services that are available in the community to reduce our overall costs. As far as the
liability, and I failed to address that, the concern that -- understand that the contract
provides that they will provide insurance and will provide indemnification insofar as
failure to render appropriate medical care. The concern that some of us expressed in the
Public Safety Committee was that there would be a spill-over effect of having complaints
from inmates for things other than medical services unless you rendered quality medical
care. Again, with the 60-day out provision, if we see that that’s a problem, then again,
you terminate the contract and bring somebody in. The 60-day out provision, I think, is
the guarantee that we have that we can control the quality and the level of services
sufficient to meet not only the Constitutional needs, but also the needs of the jail insofar
as preventing other litigation, and if we run into, if we foresee a problem, then you
terminate the contract like I say and you get the savings on the front end, and that’s where
the protection hopefully lies.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke, and the Mayor Pro Tem Mays.
Mr. Kuhlke: I yield to the Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Wall, let me say this first of all. Mr. Mayor, I think the Attorney,
along with Mr. Ellison in his office, both need to be commended in terms of trying to
negotiate these numbers, and I think Jim, probably more than anybody else, doesn’t want
to see us back under a situation of court order. I remember when we gave this proposal
to PHS and I was very critical because -- and the minutes will reflect so -- that there was
such a drastic drop in what they bidded versus what the other two companies were neck-
and-neck at that time. I even went a little bit further and I think Jim went out of his was
to assure the Judge that we would be monitoring this situation, in terms of the fact that
the other company had taken us from the Dark Ages into a point of where we were
accredited. Now I was a little bit disturbed last week to a point that if this contract had
been in place this long that we are the ones who are ultimately -- even though the Sheriff
fits in with the Court order, but the point where we’re here after somebody has had a
contract for almost three years, that it’s been terrible for two of those three years. One,
that should have been brought to our attention by somebody, other than a point of being
30 days before we getting ready to deal with a contract. Now I already had my jailhouse
rumors enough from my sources to know that they were having certain problems over
there. But, you know, it irks me a little bit to a point that I think we’ve done a good job
in terms of trying to get the numbers down, put in the penalty, but a couple of questions I
want to ask. Jim, what was our original getting-out day? Was it 90 days before rather
than the 60-day period we’re talking about?
13
Mr. Wall: Well, it was two things. It was 90 days before the termination, the
expiration of the contract, so that we could not get out of the contract let’s say in
February, we had to wait until September to give notice that we were going terminate the
contract at the end of December. Now we have a 60-day right to terminate at any point
during the year.
Mr. Mays: And I think that’s a good point of getting to that. My other question
would be when we left the table last week, we talked about the point of -- and I know we
were going to negotiate with PHS, but were there any other alternative figures that were
brought about by the company that did do us a good service?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir. CMS reduced their proposal down substantially and came in
with a new proposal, which was the $2,387,000. That was a new number that was
negotiated with them, which had a different cap, was not the $200,000. They worked
with us insofar as looking at the staff needs, looking at ways that they could reduce their
costs, and they did get it down by approximately $300,000 from the $2.6 million down to
the $2,387,000.
Mr. Mays: That’s where we got to the [inaudible]?
Mr. Wall: Correct.
Mr. Mays: Okay. I still commend you for getting us that far and doing it, but I
guess I’m kind of like old folk when they say the horse throw me the first time, you
know, it might be the horse’s fault. If you get thrown by the same horse again, it’s kind
of your fault. I think that the stipulations would help us a whole lot. I do feel like we got
a little bit snookered from the standpoint that I think these folks took the proposal and
they drastically underbid the proposal, they knew exactly what they were doing. We’ve
had dissatisfaction from them and I don’t take a Federal Court order and a consent decree
very lightly. I don’t think any of us do. And I think you have somewhat, whether it’s by
accident or not, some element to a point of putting us behind the eight ball, because I
think it would have put us in a better position had we probably negotiated and I tried to
impress upon certain persons at that time, that it may have been better to deal with a best
quote situation then, rather than now, because if somebody else is coming back into the
picture, they’re not going to be taken out of the picture for three years and then come
back in and maybe give you the best figures that they can totally get. I think if they had
been left alone, probably would have been able to do that. So while I do applaud you,
and I know you were going to do your best with it. You’ve been there, you’ve been over
there in that office, Bill’s on the Jail Committee and served as that Chairman and did a
good job with it. There were those of us who don’t want to go back to the Federal
Judge’s office, but I just have a problem to a point, is anything going to be done in this to
where the Interim Administrator and the incoming Administrator, along with Mr. Ellison
or either you, Jim, in this process where if it goes wrong we won’t know about it way
down the road? Because I have problem with that, and not from anybody sitting up here
and not from you, but to hear that the other day, to a point after two years that they came
in wrong and then all of a sudden we get caught with it, in a budget crunch time, I think
14
that we probably could have had some room to negotiate, not only with PHS or CMS, but
maybe somebody else. But when you cock that gun to somebody’s head, it’s almost like
playing Russian roulette and leaving one bullet in there. That’s kind of how I feel today
in terms of dealing with this one. And I applaud you on it, but I’m going to think about it
a few minutes, and I hope with the low number we got here, we got six votes to go
[inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall and then [inaudible].
Mr. Wall: I think that yes, I think that the people who are responsible for
administering the contract, and I am speaking specifically of Chief Toole, I think that his
level of patience is such that if we continue to have a problem, I think we’re going to
know about it, and I think we’re going to know about it in plenty of time. I think by
virtue of the penalty provisions and the reports that will be required in order to determine
whether or not there is a credit that would be due us or a penalty, that we’re going to have
the financial reporting that would indicate whether or not there is a problem. So yes, I
think the means are there to monitor it and to ensure that they are performing to an
acceptable level.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] we go into Court order, is there enough money that if we
are placed under Court order? I mean is that a slap on the hand penalty or is that
something that we -- cause we’re going to absorb it if we go under it. [inaudible] is
$10,000 enough?
Mr. Wall: I think that going under the Court order would be as a result of
overcrowding. It was overcrowding that put us under the Court order before, not the
inadequate delivery of medical services. I don’t anticipate and don’t foresee that we
would get under a Court order for having inadequate medical services. What would
happen at that point is you are going to have an inmate who is going to sue, you’ve got a
liability policy and an indemnification provision from PHS to cover that, so the
overcrowding issue is what goes us under the Court order, and I don’t foresee how we
could get under a Court order for having inadequate medical care. Because again, there
are plenty of lawyers who want to take those type of cases and sue on behalf of an
individual inmate if there’s inadequate medical care.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s hear from Mr. Hornsby.
Mr. Hornsby: Mr. Mayor, if we indicate [inaudible], if we indicate in the letter of
transmittal [inaudible] approve it, that the jailer and the warden both be very critical or
extremely critical of that and of the services being rendered, the medical services being
rendered, as well as indicating to them that they let us know immediately of any kind of a
problem with the services being delivered, in that contract. Would that satisfy you?
Mr. Mayor: Well, I think y’all will make that very clear to them. Mr. Cheek had
his hand up.
15
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m very concerned about us returning a contract back to
someone who has been a poor performer. Jim, it sounds like you’ve done a good job in
trying to make sure that there are measures in place to make them perform better. I kind
of like what Mr. Hornsby is saying. I wish we had a formalized process by which if they
had one strike or two strikes, that that would be reported to us and certainly at some level,
whether that’s three strikes or one strike, that they’re out of here. I wish that we had a
formal, a more formal process. It sounds like the folks at the jail are going to be
monitoring that. Will there be adequate documentation of non-conformance, you know,
do we have something built in that says you will report to us when you get one problem
or two problems where we can prepare?
Mr. Wall: The actual contract agreement is going to have to be developed. The
performance standards are going to have to be in there. We’re going to have to build in
the reporting requirements insofar as the staffing and other things. The bottom line is
when these complaints occur about inadequate medical care, the staff knows it, the jailers
know it. Because they have to address it in some way and deal with it. And so again, I
think with these provisions in there and knowing that they’re not locked into a contract
for a year, I think they’re going to report problems up the stream, up the chain of
command, and I think it will be brought to the appropriate individual’s attention if they
continue to have problems.
Mr. Mayor: I think another way to look at this, too, is that we have a committee
system here and there would be appropriate oversight for the Public Safety Committee to
make regular inquiry into this of the Sheriff’s Department, especially during the early
months of this contract, to make sure that the improvements have been made and the
staffing is there. Mr. Kuhlke, did you want to take your time back from Mr. Mays?
Mr. Kuhlke: Well, if you don’t mind.
Mr. Mayor: All right. And then we’ll go to Mr. Mays for the final [inaudible].
Mr. Kuhlke: I wanted to ask Jim this. It appears to me that we built in $750,000
in the preliminary budget for medical services. What you’re saying is we’re going to be
able to cut that. But the way I read this, assuming that we’re six months into the contract
and we have to make a switch, wouldn’t it be prudent on our part not to build some
contingency, it appears to me, in this medical contract, because if you’ve got to go back
out and replace these people and it happens to be CMS, we’re looking at a substantial
difference in cost.
Mr. Wall: You are looking at a substantial difference in the cost, and I don’t
know whether Al Slavens is here or not. I spoke to him briefly about it, but there’s
roughly $400,000 in Contingency in the Sheriff’s Department, and as he pointed out
when I discussed it with him, that’s the reason you have the Contingency, in the event
that that happens, then you go to that Contingency.
16
Mr. Kuhlke: Should that Contingency be designated? I don’t want the Sheriff to
come back to us and take it out of our Contingency if we have to do that. If he’s
exhausted his Contingency by that time. I’m just bringing that point out for Mr. Shepard,
since he’s Chairman of the Finance Committee, he can deal with it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, you want to respond to that?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, to advance the discussion, I want to make a
motion that we approve this contract with PHS as recommended by the Attorney.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Shepard: And Bill, we’re going to save $122,000. Not save it, just not
expend it.
Mr. Mayor: You’re not going to send that to the Sheriff, right? We’ll get to keep
that?
Mr. Shepard: No, we’re going to keep that. We don’t need it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays and then we’ll call the question.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, just a friendly response to my good buddy, Mr. Wall.
While I agree that jail overcrowding did get us in that predicament in the first place, I
think he also would be the first to agree that improving the medical and getting it
accredited was one of the tradeoffs that we did in order to get out from under the auspices
of the Georgia Legal Services and the plaintiffs. We were able to do double bunking, we
were able to do the new jail at a smaller size so therefore it was a tradeoff that was in
there. And my point is that if you violate part of what the tradeoff is, then in essence you
have done something then that puts you in harm’s way of the Court order, so while I
agree you may be technically right, medical was one of the major tradeoffs that we made
and I think we all left the Judge’s chambers knowing that he said for us not to come back.
So I don’t like jails and I don’t take this real lightly, Mr. Mayor, so I wanted to put that in
in the form a record that that was a concession that was made on behalf of the plaintiffs,
that we trade that off and that we keep up with the standards in medical.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We have a motion on the floor. One last word, Mr.
Cheek, and then we’ll call the question.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just not to take anything for granted. Did I hear that
we’re going to get monthly reports back from the jails to make sure that these people
perform at a level of competency?
Mr. Mayor: Well, I think that’s something that the Public Safety Committee can
work out with the Sheriff, the [inaudible] reporting through our committee oversight
process.
17
Mr. Wall: We can build in a reporting requirement. You are going to have to
have some type of reporting requirement insofar as the penalty provisions in there,
because this is invoiced on a monthly basis. [inaudible] something in there that will
indicate as to whether or not there are staffing problems, and if the Public Safety
Committee would desire us to have a monthly update, we can arrange for that and have
someone from -- either the jail personnel or PHS if necessary, if needed, to come down
and render any reports.
Mr. Cheek: I would just feel more comfortable with a definite report back on a
monthly basis until we get them operating at a level of quality and consistency.
Mr. Mayor: That would be a good project for the Chairman of the Committee to
take up when he gets back from the National League of Cities with the Sheriff. We’ll call
the question on the motion, and that is to approve PHS’s proposal at the amount indicated
by Mr. Wall in his memo. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to the next item, number 18.
18. Motion to approve an agreement for one year with the Augusta Rugby Club
for the operation of the Augusta Skatepark on Damascus Road. (No
recommendation from Public Services Committee November 27, 2000)
Mr. Hornsby: Number 18 is basically the same as what you had in the book, with
the exception that there is a financial impact and that’s the portable toilets that will be
utilized. Mr. Beck is here and can discuss that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beck, would you come forward, please, and talk to us about the
portable toilets?
Mr. Beck: I’ll be glad to, Mr. Mayor. Sometimes I think I’m an expert at that
around this town. As you are aware, this proposal would install a new skatepark facility
on Damascus Road. And as instructed by the Public Services Committee, we sought out
an operational partner very similar to some of the other operational partners we have at
some of our other facilities, to operate a skatepark that would be opened and closed on a
regular basis and not just left open. And we did enter into negotiations with the Augusta
Rugby Club to provide that service, and they have agreed to do so. Mr. Mike Harrison,
who is a member of the Board of Directors with the Rugby Club, is here if you have any
questions for him. In direct relation to the question about the portable toilets, that is the
only expense that we are showing from Recreation and Parks that would be an
operational expense for this facility. As you are aware, there is a $10,000 State grant
through the Governor’s Discretionary Fund that would actually build and install these
facilities, which would be our responsibility to get up and running. From that point is
18
when the Rugby Club would take over the operation, the daily operation of the facility
which would include fees and charges that would be charged to actually participate and
use this facility. But portable toilets are the only thing that we have agreed and are within
our operating budget for 2001 to actually provide for this service.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, discussion? Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I wanted to ask Tom. I know it’s going to be a responsibility to
furnish one portable building for headquarters also.
Mr. Beck: Yes, sir. That is an existing portable building that we have within the
Department now that is not being utilized. It was a portable concession building that we
were utilizing at our Fleming Field V, and once Diamond Lakes Park was opened that
building was not being utilized.
Mr. Kuhlke: You’ve already got it?
Mr. Beck: That’s correct.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Do you have to run utilities to it?
Mr. Beck: Right now we are not anticipating any utilities going in this facility
because it will only be open during the daytime hours, during after school as well as
weekends. We are not anticipating any night activities at all at this facility. This is a
daytime usage, so there would not be any utilities for any operational costs.
Mr. Kuhlke: One-year contract?
Mr. Beck: This is a one-year agreement for the Rugby Club to operate this
facility. I think one note that I would want to make is that these facilities, should this
arrangement and this particular activity not go, the expenses from this State grant, I
believe, can be reutilized in other forms. For example, the skatepark facility, the ramps
themselves, after the end of the year, should they be in a condition to be reused, they can
be resold to other skateparks across the state. The fencing that is part of the budget can
obviously can be taken up and used other placed. The concession building is a portable
building anyway. So we feel like this is a prudent measure fiscally as far as this is
concerned. Again, we have an operational partner to see it move forward.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: He answered the question.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any other discussion? Tom, I would just like to say here that
I think y’all have done a good job in trying to find a home for the skateboard folks, but on
19
the other hand I’d like to say, too, that I certainly hope that the Rugby Club will be
diligent in keeping that area clean, because we had an awful experience, an ongoing
problem with litter and so forth with the skateboard park up on Central Avenue and I
hope the folks take the responsibilities seriously and have a first class operation out there
and keep it clean.
Mr. Beck: Your point is well taken, Mr. Mayor, and part of the agreement is for
litter control with the operational partner, and with the First Tee facilities as well as the
Aquatics Center on Damascus Road, I think that’s going to be one of our main priorities,
too, because the whole area is improving dramatically.
Mr. Mayor: It sure has. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I was just going to move to approve.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve and second. Any further discussion? All in
favor, please vote aye.
Mr. J. Brigham votes No.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Why don’t you read these next four alcohol licenses and let’s
see if we have objectors to any of these. These are new applications. I was going to ask
if we had any objectors. If you’d just read the captions out and let’s see if we have any
objectors here and then we can -- let’s just do that. Then we’ll go from there.
Clerk:
19. New Ownership: A.N. 00-53: A request by Kyong Y. Reifenberger for a
retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with Kay’s Stop
& Shop located at 1902 Windsor Spring Road. District 8. Super District 10.
20. New Application: A.N. 00-54: A request by Walter Noriega for an on
premise consumption liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection
with Woodstock Rock Bar located at 1102B Broad Street. There will be a
dance hall. District 1. Super District 9.
21. New Application: A.N.00-55: A request by Emily S. Beck for an on premise
consumption beer & wine license to be used in connection with Chow
Restaurant located at 1032 Broad Street. District 1. Super District 9.
22. New Ownership Application: A.N. 00-56: A request by Joe H. Zagar for a
retail package liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Joe’s
Package Store located at 3001 Peach Orchard Road. District 8. Super
District 10.
20
Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors here for any of these four applications?
Okay, the Chair sees no indication of any objectors here. So we’ll go ahead and proceed
with Item 19.
Clerk:
19. New Ownership: A.N. 00-53: A request by Kyong Y. Reifenberger for a
retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with Kay’s Stop
& Shop located at 1902 Windsor Spring Road. District 8. Super District 10.
Mr. Harris: Please give your name and address for the record, please.
Ms. Speaker: [inaudible].
Mr. Harris: This is a new ownership request by Ms. Reifenberger for a retail
package beer and wine license to be used in connection with Kay’s Stop & Shot located
at 1902 Windsor spring Road, District 8, Super District 10. This is an ongoing business
which was purchased by Ms. Reifenberger and it meets all the qualifications and we
recommend approval.
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. J. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion?
Mr. Harris: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Walker is here, did he want to add anything? You don’t have a
problem with this? Okay. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, why don’t we have the benefit of a Committee
recommendation on these four?
Mr. Harris: We had a miscommunication with the Administrator’s office and
didn’t know that the deadline [inaudible] and I didn’t [inaudible] and when I found out
they weren’t on the agenda, I called and [inaudible] but they passed them on to this body
without recommendation.
Mr. Shepard: I don’t see they’re passed by the Committee as no rec or anything.
I don’t see they made that.
Mr. Mayor: They never made it.
Mr. Shepard: Never made it.
21
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Bridges: Where is this located at? Is that at the curve on Windsor Spring
Road?
Mr. Harris: It’s down by [inaudible] stop and shop and [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, can we get a commitment from the owner to make sure
we don’t have loitering or on-premises consumption by people walking around in the
parking lot with their brown bags?
Mr. Mayor: You may so inquire of the license holder. You’re here. She’s free to
respond to that.
Mr. Cheek: Will you make sure we don’t have people hanging around the
parking lots or the adjacent properties drinking in public or loitering around?
Ms. Reifenberger: [inaudible].
Mr. Cheek: Well, I know that’s a concern for the neighborhood around there, and
that you’re going to chase them off or call the police. Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion. There’s a motion to approve this and a
second, all right. So we’ll call the question on the motion, then. All in favor of
approving Item 19, please vote aye.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Item 20.
20. New Application: A.N. 00-54: A request by Walter Noriega for an on
premise consumption liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection
with Woodstock Rock Bar located at 1102B Broad Street. There will be a
dance hall. District 1. Super District 9.
Mr. Harris: For the record, please.
Mr. Noriega: Walter Noriega. [inaudible] South Carolina 29841.
Mr. Harris: For the record, this is a new application and request by Mr. Noriega
for an on-premise consumption liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection
with Woodstock Rock Board located at 1102B Broad Street. There will be a dance hall.
This is the former location of the Country Club and the Garage. There was a license
22
there in the year 2000. And it meets all the qualifications and all necessary [inaudible]
and we recommend approval.
Mr. Mays: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the
motion, then, please vote aye.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Item 21.
21. New Application:A.N.00-55:A request by Emily S. Beck for an on premise
consumption beer & wine license to be used in connection with Chow
Restaurant located at 1032 Broad Street. District 1. Super District 9.
Mr. Harris: State your name for the record.
Ms. Beck: Emily Beck. [inaudible] Heath Street.
Mr. Harris: This is also a new application, a request by Emily Beck for an on-
premise consumption beer and wine license to be used in connection with Chow
Restaurant located at 1032 Broad Street, District 1, Super District 9. This is the old Pizza
Joint location which has just transferred to 1245 Broad Street and it meets all the
qualifications and we recommend approval.
Mr. Shepard: I move approval, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Motion, do we have a second?
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion, gentlemen? All in favor then, please vote aye.
Motion carries 8-0.
21. New Ownership Application: A.N. 00-56: A request by Joe H. Zagar for a
retail package liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Joe’s
Package Store located at 3001 Peach Orchard Road. District 8. Super
District 10.
Mr. Zagar: Mark Zagar, 3995 [inaudible].
23
Mr. Harris: This is a new ownership application requested by Joe H., Mark H.
Zagar for a retail package liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with
Joe’s Package Store located at 3001 Peach Orchard Road, District 8, Super District 10. It
is also an ongoing business that has been purchased by Mr. Zagar and meets all the
qualifications and has all the necessary [inaudible] and we recommend approval.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen?
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, is that near Boykin Road? Is that where that is going to
be at?
Mr. Harris: [inaudible].
Mr. Bridges: Okay, I know where it is.
Mr. Mayor: Who is Joe?
Mr. Harris: It was a mistake. It should be Mark. Joe is the name of the package
shop.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right. All in favor of the motion then please vote aye.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: All right, that brings us to Item 23.
Clerk:
23. Consider appeal hearing request regarding the denial of an on premise
consumption of liquor, beer and wine license for Distinctive Catering &
Events, 2603 Washington Road, Augusta, Georgia. (Disapproved by the
Commission on October 17, 2000)
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams, you’re back before us with an appeal on
this, so this is your opportunity to state your case, call your witnesses, whatever you
care to do.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners. I’m [inaudible],
Joe Hamilton is down here as a witness for us, and I’m going to let him go ahead and
24
get out of here. He’s been waiting around, so I’d call him to the podium. Would you
state your full name and your occupation?
Mr. Hamilton: Joseph William Hamilton. I am Vice President of Sherman &
Hemstreet.
Mr. Williams: And how long have you [inaudible]?
Mr. Hamilton: 28 years.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible]
Mr. Hamilton: I think I know probably most everybody here. I’ve been in
commercial real estate business since 1973. Have been involved in a number of
different arms of it in commercial sales and investment properties and developments
and have been, I reckon you would call it moderately successful.
Mr. Williams: Are you familiar with the Washington Road area?
Mr. Hamilton: Yes, I am.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible]
Mr. Hamilton: [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] permanent license [inaudible] on premises
consumption of beer and wine and liquor [inaudible]?
Mr. Hamilton: I have never known personally of granting a liquor license
where it adversely affected property values. [inaudible] I don’t think that granting a
liquor license would adversely affect that property, nor have I ever known it to affect
adversely property values in any area.
Mr. Williams: That’s all the questions I have for him.
Mr. Mayor: Do you have any questions of the witness?
Mr. Bridges: I don’t have any questions of the witness. I do have, want to
make sure I understand where this is located at.
Mr. Williams: I’ve got a map [inaudible].
Mr. Bridges: Okay. Well, I’ll yield then.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, do you have a question for the witness?
25
Mr. Cheek: I listened with interest to your comments about the liquor license
not adversely affecting property values. Do you take into account the additional
vehicles that would be parked onto the streets that have been there in the past, that
block traffic in that neighborhood, in the National Hills neighborhood and the trash
that is thrown in the yards and the loud and boisterous patrons walking from the
restaurant or wherever to their cars? Do you take that into account when you make
that statement?
Mr. Hamilton: The question was asked to me was in my opinion would it
adversely affect property values, and my answer to that is no. I have actually, since I
was asked to make the presentation, I have interviewed 11 other commercial real
estate brokers and two appraisers, and I’ve asked every one of them the same question
you just asked me, and everybody has made the same comment that I have, that they
have never known it adversely affect property values.
Mr. Cheek: How many homeowners that were selling their home and saw a
diminishing value perhaps or at market or less than market value have you
interviewed?
Mr. Hamilton: Are we talking about this particular area?
Mr. Cheek: In this type of situation, which I think you gave your information.
Mr. Hamilton: If I owned a home in that particular area, I would be delighted
to see what was going on here because I think the values will be escalated rather than
diminished. Does that answer your question?
Mr. Cheek: In a way, yes. I
Mr. Hamilton: I don’t want to be evasive now.
Mr. Cheek: Well, you know, again -- well, I’ll ask you the original question,
just rephrase it. In areas where you’ve sold real estate that have places that do not
have adequate parking, where parking spills over onto the streets of a neighborhood
where trash and different things are thrown into the yards and routinely you have
patrons late at night walking down the street, does that increase property values?
Does that impact property values in those neighborhoods?
Mr. Hamilton: I don’t think I’ve ever sold a piece that would, that that
happened to.
Mr. Cheek: I guess in the broad spectrum of your experience, sir, have you
every known any situations where that has occurred, where property values have been
enhanced by that type of behavior?
26
Mr. Hamilton: I don’t know what would cause the property values to go up,
but I don’t think I’ve ever known it where it went down.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke, you have your hand up for a question?
Mr. Kuhlke: No, sir. But I do. Mr. Harris, does this facility meet all of the
ordinance requirements that we have on the books?
Mr. Harris: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kuhlke: And Mr. Williams, there are activities already being held at this
particular facility, are they not?
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] for the last seven years, this facility has been leased
out for special events. It has had a number of special event license [inaudible].
Mr. Kuhlke: And they have access off of this property other than just directly
into Washington Road?
Mr. Williams: [inaudible].
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to move approval of the issuance of this
license.
Mr. Shepard: I’ll second the motion.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion and a second to approve the issuance
of the license. Are there any other questions of this witness? I think Mr. Hamilton
needs to go make some money. Okay. We’ll dismiss him. Mr. Williams, you may
continue with your presentation and we’ll know we have a motion on the floor to
approve.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. I appreciate that. I would ask the County Attorney to
stipulate that the prior record of the initial meeting in October be made a part of this
record.
Mr. Wall: Absolutely.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I am going to save my client a
little bit of time. [inaudible] I’m going to submit this as an exhibit, but first I’d like to
explain to you [inaudible]. The [inaudible] is the location [inaudible]. There’s
actually two lots [inaudible] survey [inaudible]. This is Washington Road and this is
27
[inaudible]. This is the property. Two lots here. A driveway [inaudible]. What
we’ve done is we got the zoning map to show you [inaudible] and you’ll notice there I
no residential zoning that is adjacent to this property. And there is only one
residential piece of property in this area of Washington Road. This is the shopping
center, Big Tree Shopping Center, which has three locations that sell alcohol. You’ve
got the Clubhouse [inaudible] which has the same type license as we have. They do
basically the same type of business. It’s special events. Not open to the public. It’s
not a bar that anybody can walk into [inaudible] civic clubs [inaudible], business
meetings, [inaudible]. This is where the Whole Life Ministries Church is [inaudible].
At the last meeting they were the ones primarily opposed to it. [inaudible] Texaco
station and they sell beer and they sell wine, also. Harry’s Half Shell, the old Gin
Mill Lounge, [inaudible], even got a package store. This is National Hills Shopping
Center. This is the area. I might note to you that the [inaudible] strip shopping center
where the church is now located had a grocery store that sold beer and wine and an
Eckerd Drug Store. I think the Sheriff’s Department [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you do have residences on the back side of that
location, do you not?
Mr. Williams: Yes, all this back here is residences. R-1A.
Mr. Mayor: How much parking do you have available on that site for on-
premise activities? How many spaces do you have there?
Mr. Williams: [inaudible]
Ms. Boulus: [inaudible] about 50 to 75 cars in at one time, but we also have
valet off away from there as well. And when we have a function, we always offer
valet service.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just a quick question. 50 to 75 cars. Do you have parking in the
rear of this business?
Ms. Boulus: Well, one lot is completely vacant. If you’ll notice on the
[inaudible], that one lot is completely vacant now. We also have [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: Asphalt [inaudible]. [inaudible] located on one lot and the
other lot [inaudible] and off-premises parking with valet service.
Mr. Cheek: To give you my reference, my grandmother lived on Magnolia
Drive. I’ve been going there since 1956. I’m very familiar with the area.
28
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] tax office and researched any recent sales of
property and the value of those properties sold [inaudible] and includes [inaudible]
and I think this is [inaudible] and they’ve been there a number of years. And
[inaudible] of the property where the Clubhouse is located, it sold for over $4 million.
[inaudible] wrong that the granting of the alcohol would adversely affect property
values, and I think again with the [inaudible] submitted to the [inaudible] to show you
that this is not [inaudible] residential neighborhood and the granting of this license as
the granting of the other licenses does not change the character of the neighborhood.
The character of the neighborhood has long been established. If you want to look at
what was there [inaudible]. Here is a map that shows property values. [inaudible]
everybody understands because I think there was some confusion about where this
place was and what it looked like, and we’ve got a number of photographs, and we’ve
got them numbered on the back [inaudible] and I will hand her photographs and ask
her to just briefly to describe [inaudible].
Ms. Boulus: This is our sign that [inaudible] building. The Double Eagle
Club Building.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible]
Ms. Boulus: This is the very front as you go into the entrance.
Mr. Williams: From Washington Road?
Ms. Boulus: From Washington Road.
Mr. Williams: And you’ll notice [inaudible]. [inaudible] photograph number
two?
Ms. Boulus: This is the front of the building taken from across the street, right
in front of the Augusta National.
Mr. Williams: I think I failed to mention [inaudible] right across the street
from this property is the Augusta National, which I’ve had the pleasure of being a
guest at before. They do serve alcoholic beverages and I think anybody who has
attended the Masters® Tournament, they probably serve a couple hundred thousand
gallons of beer during the Masters® Tournament. I hand you [inaudible].
Ms. Boulus: This is the exit from the Washington Road side.
Mr. Mayor: I’d like to ask Mr. Patty a question while this picture is going
around. George, we have regulations concerning the height of a fence in the front of a
property. Do we have the same restriction on the heights of shrubs that are used for
screening and fencing in the front of property?
29
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir, [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: All right. Would you take a look at these pictures and give me
your opinion whether these exceed the restrictions of our zoning? I think you’ll see a
4’ fence down at the end.
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir, that appears to exceed 4’ in height.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: I understand. Thank you, Mr. Patty. Go ahead, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] photograph 4?
Ms. Boulus: This is from across the street looking to the right of the building.
It appears to be a house but it is actually zoned Commercial. That is next door to us
and then a little bit further down is the Clubhouse.
Mr. Williams: I’ll try to be as quick as possible. Photograph number five?
Ms. Boulus: This is the entrance into the building.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Sure.
Ms. Boulus: This is standing in front of the front door of Whole Life
Ministries, taken across their parking lot, over to the side of our building.
Mr. Williams: Number nine, is that another view from Whole Life Ministries
toward the property?
Ms. Boulus: Yes, it is. It’s from the parking lot of our place looking over.
Mr. Williams: And does number ten [inaudible]?
Ms. Boulus: Yes, it does.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] this is one that [inaudible].
Ms. Boulus: Are you talking about the house that I just mentioned?
Mr. Williams: [inaudible]
30
Ms. Boulus: Right. This is the driveway.
Mr. Williams: This is [inaudible]?
Ms. Boulus: Right. Exactly.
Mr. Williams: Is Mr. Harris still here? [inaudible]
Mr. Harris: Larry Harris, Senior Alcohol Inspector.
Mr. Williams: This business and this applicant [inaudible]?
Mr. Harris: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: And it’s true in the past this business has had Special Event
licenses that allowed alcoholic beverages to be served on premises?
Mr. Harris: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Are you aware of any problems that have ever been associated
with [inaudible] licenses with this location over the years?
Mr. Harris: Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Williams: Thank you. Let me just make sure -- [inaudible] , you heard
me make a statement to the Commission about the operation of your [inaudible]. Did
I state that correctly? [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: One of the questions, too, because it doesn’t say it in the caption
or the back-up material here that we have today, this does include Sunday sales, is
that correct?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, and we’ve asked for a dance hall license. I would
suspect that [inaudible]. You know what it is, is somebody playing an [inaudible].
They’re not going to have [inaudible] dancing, [inaudible] dancing, anything of that
nature.
Ms. Boulus: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right. Gentlemen, we have a motion on the floor. Is
there any discussion? Any questions of Mr. Williams? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, where is the -- Bill, where is the off-premise parking
at that you mentioned?
31
Ms. Boulus: It’s at Garrett Elementary School.
Mr. Bridges: You’re using a public school for off-premise parking?
Ms. Boulus: That’s [inaudible] and also [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: [inaudible], they have to have a lease agreement with the Board
of Education.
Ms. Boulus: [inaudible].
Mr. Bridges: Is that a County rec center right there too, where you’re parking
your overflow parking at?
Ms. Boulus: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: There’s a gym there that we share and so forth.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Williams: Can I add something here?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Williams: I want to make clear the way they route traffic here is that the
traffic comes in off of Washington Road and exits on Azalea to get back to the traffic
light. There is no exit out of the place onto Washington Road. And during Masters®
Week especially, the traffic coming toward town, they have to turn left, they turn left
at the traffic light at Azalea, goes down to Apricot, up to Magnolia and back to
Washington Road and turn right. So there is never any traffic that’s allowed to just
turn across lanes coming into Washington Road and no traffic leaves this property
without going to the signal at Azalea.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, and I was thinking this was the same location that
had come to us before. I have a couple of concerns here. One is noticing from the
map, Bill, that this location is closer to the church than I thought. I thought there
were a few doors in between that and the church. It looks like it’s basically across the
street from it.
Mr. Williams: You’ve got the church’s parking lot, you’ve got [inaudible],
you’ve got [inaudible], you’ve got a lot on the corner, you’ve got our parking lot, and
then you’ve got our building. And the way it’s photographed, you can’t hardly see
the place over there.
32
Mr. Bridges: And I’ve been by there physically to look at it, and that’s a
concern of mine is the proximity to a church. The neighbors, too, when we held this
meeting before, the people that live in that area, they came down and complained
about when there are special events held, about some of the traffic, the litter, that type
of thing. They don’t want that. They did not complain, they have never come down
and complained when we’ve given a Special Events for this location, but they don’t
want it to be permanent, and I can understand and appreciate that. I don’t think we’ll
be denying anybody the consumption of alcohol if we deny this license because as the
attorney has pointed out, there are already other places in that area that serve alcohol,
and it’s one thing for something to be grandfathered in, but it’s another matter when
the only chance you ever have to control a situation like this for the quality of life that
the people want in that area is when you initially apply for it, such as in this case. So
given those reasons, and I want those reasons entered into the record, Jim, as well as
the ones we’ve mentioned at the previous meeting, and that’s it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Bridges. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, thank you. To echo what the neighbors said, I think
that there is a real concern about parking. Apparently y’all have made your plans but
you don’t cover or there is no way to cover those that do come up there and park on
the streets and do leave a mess, and while everyone is quite happen within that area
for one week a year to enjoy the Masters® as the carnival environment it creates in
the city of Augusta, the neighbors feel and I feel, too, that this would impact the
National Hills neighborhood there, which is a very established neighborhood in an
adverse manner, and I don’t feel like I can support it.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, one other comment I can make, if I could.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridges: It concerns me that the people that were here before to oppose
this are not here today, and it’s probably because they weren’t aware of it and didn’t
know it, but I wish we could do a better job. I don’t know what we need to do or how
we need to do it, but a lot of people don’t realize that these people who are denied an
alcohol license or a zone thing get an appeal, mean to say get to come to another, get
another chance at having this passed, and I think we need to do somehow a better job
at communicating that to the neighbors and maybe having a point person stay in
contact with the Clerk of Commission as to when this item comes up or something in
that regard. But it concerns me that they weren’t notified.
Mr. Mayor: We have incorporated into this record --
Mr. Bridges: I understand.
33
Mr. Mayor: -- the comments that were made by the objectors at the public
hearing. This is actually not a public hearing, this in an appeal from Mr. Williams to
give it one more shot. Gentlemen, any further discussion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I would just like to ask either you or Mr. Wall
have we put anything in writing or has something changed, and I guess it’s probably
maybe clear what Ulmer and those are talking about on that end from the standpoint
of hearings and appeals because we’ve been, we mentioned when we opened this
thing up it [inaudible] but in the case of due process, you know, I’ve seen this where
we have had hearings and in the case of where you’ve had objectors [inaudible], but is
there a process when we’re doing this that we are doing a part of notification, just like
we do in zoning, so that when one side, and you have sides [inaudible], that there is a
notification process, because I heard this in the point where we had a hearing on a
previous situation and it was mentioned that the folks on the other side of the hearing
did not have to be recognized, and I’m wondering if that’s something that we put in
and incorporated or is that a position that the Chair took that day or if it’s one that we
need to maybe at some point in the future take some written action on to a point that
where we clarify that, because that was a bone of contention when we had this occur
in another situation. I guess I’m just trying to clear up do the folk have a right to be
here today or even to a point of where we’ve done it out of courtesy, and I know
we’ve done that, particularly in the old County in the past where if there were
objectors there, in the course of fairness then you extended that opportunity to folks
and just the people who were on one side, the other side had a chance to make its
presentation.
Mr. Wall: Well, first of all, the appeal right is granted by State law. It’s not
an ordinance, a creature by ordinance. It is something that is provided under the
Georgia statutes. Insofar as the notification is concerned, when someone applies for
an alcohol license, as all of you know, the property is posted and so therefore they get
notice of the hearing, the Committee meeting as well as the Commission meeting at
which it is granted. The appeal is for the process of the applicant to submit additional
evidence. And to have an evidentiary hearing. And your point is well taken that
maybe we need to develop some mechanism by which the objectors realize that there
is a right of an appeal by the applicant and that it may come back. We don’t know
whether or not everybody is going to appeal. I mean a lot of the denials never result
in an appeal, but the advertising is dong with the initial application, and as long as the
record is incorporated into the subsequent, I mean unless they’ve got new evidence,
which typically by the time they’ve gone before the Committee as well as the
Commission, you’ve heard what their points of contention are and so therefore it’s in
the record.
Mr. Mays: I guess what I’m looking at, too, in there, Jim, and I have no
problem with going past the time limit in terms of extending courtesies, but I think
that’s something that everybody can’t get in the same place to do work on the same
day, but I think what I wanted to be clear on is when we do this type of thing, that if
34
I’m sitting there as president of a neighborhood association, if I’m monitoring the
situation [inaudible] and it’s not come before that particular body in the so-called
process hearing time and it’s passed, and by assuming that because it’s not been
placed back again, maybe I’m monitoring as that neighborhood president and it
doesn’t come up, I assume then that no appeal is being made [inaudible] because it’s
not been placed back on an agenda again, and then it goes passed that particular date
and it comes in, as say we’re here today doing that, then it could be to a point where
whether we extend the courtesy or not, if neighborhoods are monitoring that and are
doing that, then if passed the appeals date and we do it out of courtesy, then I think in
terms of courtesy, the situations ought to work both ways. And I’m not saying that’s
been violated in any way, but I’m just saying that it puts us to the spot where we do
have it. I know it’s mentioned a lot in reference to the church. My concern was more
in the situation of where you had some neighbors that were in there and whether or
not they were notified. Not to say whether we going to vote one way or the other, but
I just think in that process, Mr. Mayor, we [inaudible] there ought to be a balance in
there of what we do. That’s all I’m saying.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Any discussion on the motion to approve
the license?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, excuse me.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Before y’all vote, [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Go right ahead and then we’ll call the question.
Mr. Williams: I’ll be real quick. First of all, Ms. Boulus did not get noticed
[inaudible] time frame, and we have appeared here today without waiving any right
we have to object to that [inaudible]. And I would suggest to the Commission that the
evidence in this case is patently clear that Ms. Boulus is a qualified applicant, that the
location is qualified, that there is no evidence to support any grounds to deny the
license, and to the deny the license would deprive her of her due process rights
guaranteed by the U.S. and the Georgia Constitution, and I would suggest it would be
arbitrary and capricious. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams, with respect to your argument about not
being given notice. I believe that we were going to schedule this hearing for an
earlier meeting and we postponed consideration unless today at the request of the
petitioner, is that correct?
Mr. Williams: No, sir. No, sir. The original matter was heard by you on
October 17.
35
Mr. Mayor: Right.
Mr. Williams: The first notice Ms. Boulus got was dated October 30. The
ordinance requires five days from denial that she be notified in writing [inaudible],
and you graciously accommodated me initially after we filed the appeal, which would
have been heard at the previous meeting, because I had Court time.
Mr. Mayor: Right.
Mr. Williams: That may sound like I’m ungrateful, but I raise my point.
[inaudible]. I’m not trying to be ugly.
Mr. Mayor: I understand. I just wanted the record to show that we had an
opportunity to hear it earlier but there was a conflict on your part, so that’s why it’s
taken two more weeks.
Mr. Williams: That was two weeks [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Okay. That’s fine. We have a motion to approve on the floor.
All in favor of the motion to approve these licenses, please vote aye.
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Mr. Colclough votes No on Sunday sales portion.
Motion fails 5-2-1.
Mr. Mayor: You didn’t get six votes today. You got five votes. You have to
have six votes.
Mr. Williams: Why don’t you vote for it?
Mr. Mayor: I can’t vote. Can’t vote.
Mr. Williams: Do we have the right to bring it before a full Commission?
Mr. Mayor: You have the right to go to Superior Court, I think, from here.
Mr. Boulus: [inaudible] come back on the agenda for next time?
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
Mr. Boulus: [inaudible]
Mr. Wall: You can ask for a [inaudible].
36
Mr. Williams: Well, I’d like to have a shot of getting [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Let me suggest this. You can see how people voted today. You
know who is absent. Why don’t you talk to them when they come back from the
National League of Cities and see if you can pick up one more vote, and if you can
then we’ll rehear it. If you can’t, then go from now.
Mr. Mays: I don’t have a problem, Mr. Mayor, with reconsideration under one
stipulation. If there’s going to be both sides notification in the particular case. I can’t
where I’m absent of a neighborhood association highly represented, and we’re doing
this on one basis, and that’s not the petitioner’s fault in this, but I think it’s a part of
our procedure. If we’re going to hear it again, I don’t have a problem of doing that
from that means, but I do think the other side ought to be notified in terms of fairness.
We’ve done that in every particular zoning case. We’ve done it with alcohol where
you’ve had the terms of objectors in there. I just think that’s a point of fairness and
balance. And if it’s brought at the end of the meeting for reconsideration I have no
problem voting for that, to do it and to put it on for the next Commission meeting.
That way, at least, she’s got a chance up or down to be able to get license or no
license before the end of this year, and to be on for the [inaudible].
Mr. Wall: Let me suggest something so that we don’t get confused in the
process of the procedure. Would you be receptive to a motion to schedule a
further hearing on this matter for the next meeting with the provision that notice
be given to the church as well as to the neighborhood association and bring this
matter back before the Commission on December 19? That way his appeal time
in Superior Court does not start running. Otherwise he’s got to file suit within
30 days or take his chance. That’s the purpose of that motion.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to make that motion, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Henry Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: I was going to ask a question. She’s operating now, is that
right?
Mr. Williams: Well, she can [inaudible] apply for and get a Special Events
license like has occurred in the past. She does have catering jobs there, corporate
functions, doesn’t serve any alcoholic beverages. She provides food there.
[inaudible] She rents the place out [inaudible] or you can apply if you want to have a
party there and have folks there to get [inaudible]. She can’t [inaudible]. That’s the
way it’s been going on for years.
37
Ms. Boulus: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion and second on the floor. Discussion
on the motion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: That also, I think, gives them an additional opportunity for maybe
something that hadn’t been said, and I think you brought that in your last statement
[inaudible] in reference to your being able to [inaudible], and I think that would
[inaudible]. I think there was some controversy to whether you’re dealing with the
permanency or the status of where you’re doing it on Special Events. I think that
gives some time, [inaudible], Bill, in terms of where those objectors are, to a point if
it’s going to be there and if it’s doing it on a regular basis temporarily, if there is an
assurance of that particular stability in terms of the owner, I think that you may be
able to get something positive out there, and that’s what I want to [inaudible], and that
gives them the right to still be able to object if they so want to.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Call the question on the motion. All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: So we’ll see you back here in two weeks.
Mr. Williams: Let me ask you, do I need to [inaudible] anything?
Mr. Mayor: No, you don’t. It will be a continuation of the evidentiary hearing
and if there is new evidence -- it will not be a public hearing.
Mr. Williams: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Well, he’s got two weeks to do that. Commissioner Beard and
Commissioner Williams I’m certain would love to hear from you. The next meeting
we’ve got to get out budget out. Remember our priorities.
Clerk:
38
24. Consider proposal to create a Charter Commission. (Requested by Mayor
Young)
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, if you’ll recall at the last meeting, I suggested that we
add this item to our list of priorities for the Legislative Delegation, and it was a
consensus of this group that it’s a matter that we deal with internally, and I indicated
at that time I’d bring back at this meeting a proposal to create a Charter Commission
to review the five year operation of our consolidated government and to help draft a
true Charter to clearly define the functions and the structure of our unified
government, so I put that on the table today and ask for your consideration. Mr.
Wall?
Mr. Wall: Mr. Mayor, let me suggest that you call it Charter Committee so
that it does not get confused with a Charter Commission as provided under the
Constitution, which is the prerogative of the Legislative Delegation.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we will change that to Charter Committee, then. Mr.
Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, as I understand, this Committee is to bring back a
recommendation as to whether to have a Charter or not. Is that the purpose that we’re
looking at here?
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] the Charter.
Mr. Mayor: The purpose of this Committee is to bring us, in my view, a
Charter to consider and Mr. Wall’s legal view would be to rewrite the Charter for us
to consider changes to the Charter.
Mr. Bridges: And it doesn’t necessarily mean that we have to accept some
Charter form if they bring this back? In other words, we could remain as we are
under the Bill, is that correct?
Mr. Mayor: Absolutely. We don’t have to do a thing.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion?
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the
motion -- yes, Mr. Shepard?
39
Mr. Shepard: Here again, the reference is to the Committee. The recently
proposed Charter is the consolidate Bill, LC 98-406, is that the present --
Mr. Mayor: That’s the present Bill.
Mr. Shepard: Present Act? I think it became an Act when they passed it.
Mr. Wall: It did.
Mr. Shepard: So here again, they could have those as reference points?
Mr. Mayor: Right.
Mr. Shepard: They would not be bound by it?
Mr. Mayor: No, sir. This just gives them some direction.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] is the Act.
Mr. Shepard: What is consolidation Bill LC 98-406?
Mr. Wall: That’s a misnomer. I don’t know where you’re looking. LC 98-
406 is the Legislative Council’s identification number who drafted the bill. 1995
Georgia Laws, page 3648 is the consolidation.
Mr. Mayor: What was the page number?
Mr. Shepard: 3648.
Mr. Mayor: 3648, okay.
Mr. Shepard: 95 Georgia Laws, page 3648. So that would be the correct
[inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: And may look at anything else they’d like to look at. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I’m going to vote for the motion, but I wanted to ask for just a
point of clarification. I notice the two references, they give us, I think, [inaudible]
some good information to back to in terms of what was proposed under the other
charter provisions on the consolidation referendum that was held. But does this
preclude them of doing any reference to the city Charter that was given us?
Mr. Mayor: No, sir.
40
Mr. Mays: In the old city?
Mr. Mayor: No, sir.
Mr. Mays: And my reason for mentioning this is I realize that those two
groups worked on putting together two consolidated referendums, but in establishing
a consolidated government and going to a municipal form, I think that they would
also be wise at reference material, we had one that worked. It worked pretty doggone
well, I think, for 200 and something years, that we gave it up to a point of putting
together a new government, and I don’t think -- I think if they going to refer to the
other two, I think until some folk decide to start this deficit spending on their own, it
calls pretty much what you could do in government and what you couldn’t do, so I
think that to include that one in there, or at least not preclude it from being in there,
would give them an additional reference point if they go back.
Mr. Mayor: You’re absolutely right, Commissioner Mays, and also I would
add to that the Charter for Athens-Clarke County and Columbus-Muscogee. I think
there are a number of examples of documents that have already been drawn up that
this group could look at and glean some lessons from and move forward from there.
Mr. Mays: I guess I’m just a little prejudiced. We’re older than both of them
and that worked real well and I don’t think it did any harm till folks start messing
with it. I think it’s a thick enough book they can go back and they can learn a little
something from it.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Any further discussion?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridges: The cost of this, I see down here where they can employ
administrative or legal counsel. What kind of money?
Mr. Mayor: Subject to our approval and I would expect it might be nominal,
maybe $5,000-10,000 at the absolute most. They need a lawyer to look over their
work and we can get Mr. Wall to do that. He’s competent counsel. They may want
to have somebody do some research for them. But those expenditures would have to
come back here and be approved by this body. Further discussion? All in favor of
the motion, please vote aye. And I would ask each one of you please to let me have
your appointment for this board certainly by the end of this month so we can have an
organizational meeting the first part of January and move forward with this. Thank
you.
Motion carries 8-0.
41
Clerk:
25. Consider adoption of new city flag design with green banner, overlaid
with the city’s official service mark. (Requested by Mayor Young)
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, this is coming before you because the current supply
that we have of city flags is nearly exhausted, and over the last couple of years, at
least a couple of you have asked me to see what we could do to have a flag that
reflected the identity of this new consolidated government. And I floated this concept
around for probably about a year-and-a-half now and we’ve come to the point where
we’ve got to order some flags, and we either need to come up with a new design and
move forward, or if you like the one we’ve got, we’ll order some more of the ones
we’ve got. I just wanted to put it on the floor for discussion today. The Chair has no
recommendation and quite frankly feels no passion for any version of the city flags.
Mr. J. Brigham: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: I second the motion.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Motion and second to approve the one in the book. Mr.
Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I do like the new version, but I was going to ask the
question what is the age of the current City of Augusta flag? When was it first
adopted?
Mr. Mayor: I can’t answer that specifically. Maybe somebody in here could,
but I think I read some reference to it somewhere it was back in the 1930’s, I think it
was --
Clerk: [inaudible] early 90’s.
Mr. Mays: No. No.
Mr. Shepard: I think it was late 80’s.
Mr. Mayor: That particular one, but there was a version of it that -- this is an
updated version of an older flag that I think goes back to the 20’s or 30’s. This
particular one is about 20 years old, if it’s that old.
Mr. Mays: Lena and Steve should know.
42
Mr. Shepard: That was only because you took a hiatus during your terms, Mr.
Mays, and therefore we may have acted while you were absent, but that wouldn’t
necessarily mean you didn’t predate that action.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion on the flag? All in favor of the motion,
please vote aye.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next is corrected Item 26 from the addendum agenda.
Clerk:
26. Consider the appointment of Mr. Jack Widener to Richmond County
Industrial Development Authority to serve the unexpired term of Mr. Monte
Osteen.
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any other nominations? All in favor of Mr. Widener’s
appointment, vote aye.
Motion carries 8-0.
Clerk:
27. Consider the following appointments to Downtown Development Authority:
Ms. Annette Bush – Seat (1)
??
Mr. Charlie Freeman, Jr. – Seat (3)
??
Mr. Wayne Frazier
??
Mr. Mayor: As a point of clarification, how many appointments?
Clerk: Two.
Mr. Mayor: So we need to appoint somebody to a designated seat? To Seat 1 and
Seat 3. All right. The floor will be open now for nominations for Seat 1, and Annette
Bush has already been nominated. Are there any other nominations for Seat 1? Mr.
Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I nominate Mr. Wayne Frazier, please.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. For Seat 1. [inaudible] on Seat 1 first. Any other
nominations for Seat 1? Okay, we’ll vote --
43
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Yes, she’s already nominated. All right, we will vote on the
nominations for Seat 1 in the order of the nominations. The first name is Annette Bush.
All in favor --
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, may I ask a question? Jim, the Downtown
Development Authority, is that the one where you have to own property downtown to
serve on that?
Mr. Wall: I don’t know if you have to own property down there. You’re
supposed to have an interest in downtown. I don’t know that there’s a requirement that --
I don’t think there’s a requirement that you own property downtown. I’d have to pull the
resolution that established it.
Mr. Bridges: Well, maybe I was [inaudible] before then, I don’t know. My
understanding that it was own property downtown.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of Annette Bush for Seat 1, please vote aye.
(Vote for Annette Bush for Seat 1)
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, now the nominations are open for Seat 3. Mr. Charlie
Freeman, Jr., is already nominated. Are there any other nominations for Seat 3? Mr.
Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I am going to go ahead and nominate Mr. Wayne Frazier for that. In
that, I believe that even those of us who live in the southern part of the county have an
extreme interest in the health and well-being of downtown Augusta and I believe Mr.
Frazier’s experience would help downtown Augusta prosper.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Are there any other nominations? Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: I’m going to nominate Julian Roberts [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Julian Roberts. Okay. Are there any other nominations for Seat
3.
Mr. Bridges: Who was the nomination, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Julian Roberts. You should have a talent bank form that was left
at your place for him.
44
Mr. Bridges: I think I’ve got it here. Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Julian Roberts, III. All right, we’ll go ahead and vote in the order of
the nominations. The first nominee is Mr. Charlie Freeman, Jr. All in favor of Mr.
Freeman, please vote aye.
(Vote on Charlie Freeman, Jr. for Seat 3)
Mr. Bridges, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Colclough vote No.
Mr. H. Brigham and Mr. Mays abstain.
Motion fails 2-4-2.
Mr. Mayor: All right, that brings us to the nomination of Mr. Wayne Frazier. As
soon as the Clerk clears the board, we’ll vote for Mr. Frazier. Please vote in the
affirmative if you want Mr. Frazier.
(Vote on Wayne Frazier for Seat 3)
Mr. Bridges, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Motion fails 4-4.
Mr. Mayor: That brings us to nomination of Mr. Julian Roberts, III. As soon as
the board is cleared, we’ll vote on that. Please cast your vote now for Mr. Julian Roberts,
III.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I don’t believe that thing was completely cleared when we started
voting.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s clear the board and those of you who have voted, just re-vote.
You’re voting for Julian Roberts, III.
(Vote on Julian Roberts for Seat 3)
Mr. Cheek, Mr. H. Brigham and Mr. Colclough vote No.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion fails 4-3-1.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Are there any other nominations for Seat 3? None heard.
Let’s move on the next item, then, and we’ll revisit that another day.
28. Motion to approve Ordinance increasing franchise fees for cable companies
nd
and to waive the requirement of having a copy of such Ordinance until 2
st
Reading (1 Reading).
45
29. Motion to approve Ordinance increasing business tax license fees and to
nd
waive the requirement of having a copy of such Ordinance until 2 Reading
st
(1 Reading).
30. Motion to approve Ordinance increasing regulatory fees for certain
businesses and to waive the requirement of having a copy of such Ordinance
ndst
until 2 Reading (1 Reading).
31. Motion to approve Ordinance increasing alcohol license fees and to
nd
waive the requirement of having a copy of such Ordinance until 2 Reading
st
(1 Reading).
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, you have brought before us a series of ordinances here
with respect to increasing franchise fees and license fees and regulatory fees. Do we
have any -- gentlemen, do we have any discussion? Do you want to take any action on
these today? Mr. Wall, you want to explain maybe why you put them on here?
Mr. Wall: Well, these are simply an effort to get the first reading of these
ordinances behind us and waive the requirement that an actual copy of the ordinance be
included in the agenda book. Obviously there is discussion as far as what the final form
of the ordinance will be in hopes that following the next budget workshop or the next
series of budget workshops we’ll be in a position to finalize the form of the ordinances
and bring them forward as to which, if any, of these fees y’all wish to increase.
Mr. Mayor: So a vote today would not be a commitment to increase any fee at
all. This is just a dummy bill to get a first reading out of the way --
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: -- should the Commission later decide to increase fees.
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: And if there were no second reading, then the ordinance would just
die?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. J. Brigham: Are we going to take 28, 29, 30 and 31 together?
Mr. Mayor: We can take them as a consent agenda if that’s the will of the
Commission.
Mr. Shepard: What do you mean by consent agenda?
46
Mr. Mayor: Well, just vote on them ---
Mr. Shepard: Vote on them all together and not take -- go back to the William C.
Calhoun School of Motion Making?
Mr. Mayor: We’ll vote --
Mr. Shepard: Show we vote on all of them separately but we actually vote on
them in the aggregate?
Mr. Mayor: Right. Mr. Cheek, did you want to say something?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. While we call these increases in franchise fees,
let us not kid the public in that they are in fact tax increases. We have raised taxes on our
public and our businesses several times over the past few years in the forms of these fee
increases. While I agree that we ought to keep some increase of some form open in the
future, I’m very concerned that when we open this door it may become too easy for us to
go ahead and make up our difference by hitting people that work so hard for the
additional monies to pay their bills and so forth, as it has been in the past practice of this
government to raise taxes in this manner. I’m concerned that by passing this today, that
we may in fact open the door to make it easy on ourselves to pass it again in the future.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion that Items 28, 29, 30 and 31
be deferred.
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second that.
Mr. Bridges: Be what? I can’t hear you down here, Bill.
Mr. Kuhlke: Be deferred.
Mr. Mayor: Deferred.
Mr. Kuhlke: Deferred.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Wall, if we defer these motions can we not implement these
licenses as necessary [inaudible]?
47
Mr. Wall: You still could. You’ve got a choice. You could either hope that you
will get unanimous consent to waive the first reading and vote on them at one time or
you’ll have to consider having a called meeting for the purpose of having the second
reading.
Mr. J. Brigham: So we could not do it at the next meeting without having a called
meeting for that specific purpose?
Mr. Wall: Or having unanimous consent.
Mr. J. Brigham: Or having unanimous consent. Also, Mr. Mayor, are we talking
about raising fees, which none of us like to do. I’d much rather see us raise license fees
than raise property taxes. And if we don’t, unless we look at finding alternatives where
we reduce expenditures of this budget, we’ll have to increase the revenues. I have said
this constantly and I do not under any circumstances at this present time plan to vote an
increase in property taxes. If I’m going to increase something, I want to increase a
business entity which has an opportunity to pass that long to their customers. I know it’s
a tax increase. I am not in favor of tax increases, but I am also required by law to have a
balanced budget in front of this community.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just quickly, Mr. Mayor. The last time I looked, although we don’t
call it a property tax, unless you live in a tent you pay the rates on the electric franchise
fees, the telephone franchise fees, the cable franchise fees, and everything else. And so
again, unless you live in a tent you’re paying a property tax increase based on these fees
and the fact that you need these services to live. And these people, we’ve made them our
tax collectors by doing this.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. Any further discussion? We have a motion
on the floor to defer these four items.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I’d just go ahead and make the motion that these four
items be approved as written.
Mr. Mayor: All right. The substitute motion to approve these items. Is there a
second to the substitute motion?
Mr. J. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second to the substitute motion. Any discussion on the
substitute motion to approve Items 28, 29, 30 and 31?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
48
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: It can go to discussion under either one of them. I think with the eight
of us here today, neither one of them are probably really going anywhere without the
other one, to a point of deferment. I think you’re going to end up with some special
called meeting, if nothing but to deal with one or two items before this year is over with.
Period. And I just as soon see us work the numbers out where we are and we go through
with what it is permanently so that folk, if there is going to be an increase, they will know
what that is. I think the only thing it’s really doing is to a point of turning folks’ stomach
at this stage of the game because you’re going -- we just kind of vacillate back and forth.
I think we still have the opportunity to do that. I was concerned the other night to a point
of where we could deal with this without dealing with the second reading. But if we deal
with it, with the first reading, you can -- and correct me if I’m wrong -- you can under 24
hours notice have a meeting to deal with nothing but approving your budget and what
items are due two days later. 25 hours later. So I mean we still have that option to still
do that. And I think it gives it a little bit more clarity and sensibility that we’re given the
chance then to fight, argue and fuss over whether or not we’re going to, quite frankly,
deal with service [inaudible], whether you’re going to deal with -- [inaudible] some
departments [inaudible] in the budget, whether or not you’re going to deal with increases
in fees or whether you’re going to deal with some areas that we haven’t talked about yet.
And I think all that is still out there on the table.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: I feel compelled to remind you at every opportunity, and I think
everyone is aware of this, but the alcohol licenses will expire on December 31 and legally
they cannot open on January 2 or January 1, those that have Sunday licenses, unless you
allow sufficient time for License & Inspection and It and whoever else is involved in it to
mail out these licenses and give them some reasonable period of time to bring the checks
in. But at some point, I mean I hope the merchants out there are aware of the fact that
they’re going to have a short time period, but as you delay this -- and I understand it. I
understand the rationale behind it, but at some point we got to get the bills out so they can
have a license.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? We have a substitute motion on the floor to
approve these items. 28, 29, 30 and 31. No further discussion indicated so we’ll call the
question on the substitute motion. All in favor, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Mr. Mays not voting.
Motion fails 4-3.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the --
49
Mr. Mays: I can vote either way if anybody wanted, but it’s still going to end up
4-4, 5-3. So.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion. The original motion is to
defer these four items. Madame Clerk, if you’ll clear the board. All in favor of deferring
these items, vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Bridges and Mr. Colclough vote No.
Motion fails 5-3.
Mr. Mayor: So in essence they are deferred. Let’s go on to Item 32. Mr. Wall,
these are your bonds.
32. Motion to approve Resolution approving sale of Special Facility Airport
Revenue Bonds (Garrett Aviation Services Project) Series 2000 and
authorize Mayor and Clerk to execute documents in connection with
same.
Mr. Wall: These are the Garrett bonds and they were priced yesterday and we
have a resolution and we had a blank resolution, but I passed it out and they sold at an
interest rate of 4.9% and this is to authorize the execution of the documents that are in
connection with that. [inaudible] the resolution as well as the purchase agreement.
Recommend approval.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor of the airport bonds, please vote
aye.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s take up our addendum agenda before we move into our
legal session.
Clerk: We have a [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry. I skipped over that. I didn’t mean to do that.
33Approve payment of 2001 US Conference of Mayors annual dues in the
.
amount of $7,107 from publication account 101016140.
Mr. Mayor: In an effort to try to get something done and cut the Mayor’s budget
for next year by the 3% mandated for all departments, we found we have some excess
50
money in the publication account, and I got a pre-bill from the Conference of Mayors.
We can go ahead and pay the dues for that organization out of this year’s revenues and
get an 8% cut out of the Mayor’s budget for next year, so I brought it before you today to
ask you to go ahead and approve that.
Mr. Cheek: I so move.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion?
Mr. Mays: The only thing I’d say, Mr. Mayor, and that’s a good move. If we’ve
got any others out there related to travel or dues [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: I think the balance in this account is about $35,000 so we might be
able to pay GMA and ACCG and some others, too. All in favor of the motion, please
vote aye.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Now let’s go to the addendum agenda.
Clerk:
Addendum Item 1: Discuss Christmas bonuses for employees. (Requested by the
Mayor)
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, I would have brought this to you earlier except that it
had not even crossed my mind until a city employee ran into me in the hallway last
Thursday and asked are we going to get any bonuses this year, and then Friday I made a
phone call to Human Resources and Payroll to find out how many employees would be
covered, what the cost would be, and to Mr. Morrey, who identified potential sources for
the revenue, to give out full-time employees and those part-timers working a minimum of
30 hours per pay period a $50 bonus for this holiday season. We have to act on this by
December 8 in order to get it on the December 15 payroll. I would ask your favorable
consideration of this. We have the money to do it. I think it’s the least we can do for our
employees who have put in a good year for us, and who are subject to some discussions
of cuts or retrenchment in their pay raises for next year, and we can do this. It’s fiscally
prudent and I would ask you to approve this today. It’s exactly what we did last year.
Mr. Mays: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? None heard. All in favor --
51
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, let me ask this question because I think you’re the one
who indicated it would have no impact on us next year, next year’s budget.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kuhlke: But it appears to me -- and I hate to even talk up here, I feel like
Scrooge, but it appears to me that it will have some effect on us next year as far as our
carryover, and Mr. Shepard, I’d like for you to speak to that if you would.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Kuhlke, if you’re Scrooge, maybe I’m the Grinch. But my
problem with this, Mr. Mayor, in looking at it is that it negatively affects our fund
balance by $150,000. Am I not correct, Walter? And I think your comment this morning
in the paper, Mr. Mayor, was on the mark. You said if we’ve had a good financial year.
We haven’t closed the financial year. We’ve exhorted all our departments to take 3% out
of the budgets and I have a little unreadiness with this at this time. It’s not going to all
our employees. I’ve been called by people today who are the State supplemental
employees, and let me tell you, they’re upset because they’re not being included in this.
And what the financial impact is doing on that, I don’t know. But Mr. Kuhlke, I share the
unreadiness, so like I say, if you’re Scrooge, I’m the Grinch. If you’re the Grinch, I’m
Scrooge. Vice versa. Because I am concerned about its impact on our fund balance
carryover. We’re trying to cut. We’ve cut $122,000 from the prison contract today.
Those are the kind of cuts we’re going to have to make. We’re going to have to make
painful cuts. And if we’re serious about these cuts, I think we are just going to have to
follow through and be consistent about cuts and raises.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. I appreciate your comment, Mr. Shepard. This plan is the
same as it was for the employees in 1999 and the same exclusions were approved by this
Commission at that time and that’s why those employees were not included in the list for
this year.
Mr. Shepard: I understand. Mr. Mayor, my problem is we don’t have the grant
monies to fund a lot of the expenses next year that we had this year. We’re on a
declining grant balance and that relates strictly to the deputies. We’ve got increased
costs. We just were notified we have increased costs of $700,000 in the prison contract,
cut back to $627,000 today. The other adjustments. You know, it’s a matter of timing
but I’m uncomfortable with it. There are 12 days of Christmas. If our financial position
is improved and we make the painful cut, then I could see restoring this. But right now, I
think we need to keep every option on the table and not dig ourselves into a worse budget
hole than we’re in now. I’ve got to point that out. It’s not a popular message to carry,
but I think it’s one that has to be said on this floor today.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. Mr. Colclough?
52
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I think we’ve sat through this. I’ve sat up here for a
couple of years and we have sat in these rooms and approved million dollar change
orders and we’ve spent a whole lot of money. By giving $50 to the people who work for
this government at Christmastime, I don’t think it will break this government, and I think
our employees deserve it and I am one that will vote for it, that we can find money from
somewhere else, I can vote for that. I think the employees of this government deserve a
$50 bonus for Christmas rather than a turkey.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I think that this is a good time. I was hoping
that my Chairman would kind of find a way in his heart to support the employees.
Certainly I think that we ought to give it to them. I’ve been here for seven years and each
year that we’ve had a change to give something, a bonus to them, I have supported it.
And this year will be no different. And I certainly hope that -- if we don’t have a motion,
I made a motion to that effect.
Mr. Speaker: We have a motion.
Mr. H. Brigham: All right, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Walter, where is this coming from? Is this from Contingency?
Mr. Hornsby: This is [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bridges, you should have a copy of an e-mail that was
sent to me by Mr. Morrey this afternoon, which identifies the funds the money comes
from and how much from each fund.
Mr. Hornsby: [inaudible] combination of those things make up [inaudible].
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I’ve supported this in the past and we’ve had good
economic conditions in the past. My concern is the budget that we’re coming up with.
This will decrease the amount that we’ll have in the fund balance to go forward to next
year. I have no trouble giving bonuses to employees in periods of I guess financial
prosperity. I’m a little bit concerned about our budget next year, what it’s going to do and
what it’s going to take to balance it. I’m even more concerned about the 2002 budget and
we’ll address that in the future. But in good conscience and in matters of fiscal
responsibility I can’t see, I can’t see supporting this this year. All of my Christmases
aren’t as good as some of my better ones and this is one of the cases. I’m not going to be
able to support this matter.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Mr. Mays?
53
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I heard the two names of Scrooge and Grinch mentioned
and there’s a little difference between the two of them. If you haven’t had a chance to
see the Grinch movie, I think you find out that the Grinch found a way to go and actually
intercept presents that were already in place, took them back, and it’s a good movie. But
you know there were those of us that also saw not only this year’s budget coming but we
saw next year’s budget coming, too. And I’ll save my argument for the day that we make
the final argument about the budget and where we take money from. But I’ll tell you this
as a preview to the movie. I’m going to be very remindful and I’m going to put my very
ultra-conservative hat on now, I’m going to be mindful to those of us who were so very
liberal when we walked away from seven figures of money that I predicted we’d come
back to on this very day, when we could have invested it, when we would have had it,
and when we knew the grant money was going to go by the wayside. But we found a
way to deal with that then. So that’s not the fight for today. But stay tuned, I’ll bring it
back to you and I’m going to bring it down to you just as easy as you gave it away, I’m
going to bring it back to you and tell you where you got it from, how you could have had
it, and even if you had taken 50% of it, invested part of it, you wouldn’t be dealing with
what you’re looking at right now. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Any further discussion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I have just often throughout this first year of my tenure,
I’ve heard the terms employee morale and how certain things are good for it or bad for it.
In a case like this, we’re probably talking 35 bucks after taxes. If we tried to invest in a
program to promote employee morale to offset the removal of the bonus, we’re going to
invest a whole lot more money. I think you’ll probably see a noticeable productivity
decrease from people when their government doesn’t care about them. I have to concur
with Commissioner Colclough. I’ve seen hundreds of thousands of dollars forgiven in
loans on this floor myself over the last few years, and the time when we can show
appreciation to those who get out in the ditches and the cold nights, repair the water pipes
and keep this city running, I think this is a small, small investment in showing them that
we care about them and give them an extra present here at Christmastime.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We’ve got a motion on the floor to approve the Christmas
bonus for the employees. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Bridges, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Motion fails 4-4.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, that takes us to the adoption of the profile and Challenge
Statement from Bennett Associates.
Addendum Item 2: Motion to approve adoption of the “Profile and Challenge
Statement” from Bennett Associates regarding the Administrator Search.
(Requested by the Mayor)
54
Mr. Mayor: While we search for our Administrator. Again, this is something that
came in to me late Friday from Dick Bennett. Mr. Bennett informs me that the ad is
running this week for an Administrator and he’ll have the names for us at the end of
January. It’s important that the Commission approve this statement of Profile and
Challenge. This is the basis of the search for the Administrator -- did you get a copy of
it? This is the basis for selling Augusta-Richmond County and the job we have ahead of
us. This statement was put together by Mr. Bennett from the interviews with
approximately 50 people when they came to Augusta. They talked to the
Commissioners, the Department Heads, employees and citizens-at large. So if you have
any input and suggested changes on it, we can go through that today.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to move that we approve it subject to the
Administrator and Attorney looking through it.
Mr. Wall: Well, there are some editorial changes that I think need to be made in
that without changing the spirit of it. Some inaccuracies in it.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor of the motion, then, please vote aye.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, if you and Mr. Hornsby can get me that tomorrow at the
latest, it would be great. Mr. Bennett needs it right away. I can send you an electronic
copy. Okay.
Clerk:
Addendum Item 3: Motion to approve the formation of a Citizens Budget Review
Committee for the year 2002 who will also look for additional sources of revenue
with each Commissioner and the Mayor to appoint a representative to serve on this
Committee. (Approved by Finance Committee November 27, 2000)
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion on this item? All in favor, please
vote aye.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Did somebody say something?
55
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I’m going to vote for your motion, but is there any -- I know we’ve
reinvented the wheel a lot of times when we put committees together, know what they’re
going to do, where their limitation of powers are, what will be their aspects, whether in
terms of whether it’s suggestive, whether it’s ceremonial, whether it’s in terms of subject
review or where they’re going with it, when you saw budget oversight committee, you’re
doing [inaudible] privately and I know we appoint the folk. Is there any depth of where
this is taking us or what direction need to be given in this?
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will defer to the Finance Chairman.
Mr. Shepard: Let me say, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, that the seed of this idea really
came from I think Mr. Jerry Brigham and Mr. Bridges, who thought we should take an
active look at where we’re going in the charging of various taxes, license fees, other
types of charges and expenditures. The Mayor has from time to time suggested to me
that we have citizens review our financial process and this was something that we thought
was a good idea in the Finance Committee. I think it was approved by the Finance
Committee and this was what was intended for the consent agenda, Ms. Bonner?
Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: So that’s some of the thinking on it. I mean we could tailor it to
have it back within a certain time. I think certainly we ought to have the report back
before we begin the budget process. We are concentrating in the Finance Committee on
more oversight of the Finance Department. This has been something that’s been
recommended by various committees. In the committee, you may not have been
privileged to know it but we passed a schedule for next year where each Commissioner
will be responsible for providing reports to the full Finance Committee, which will go
out, reach out to include the Tax Assessor, the Tax Commissioner, the various
Department Heads. We put Commissioner Williams into looking into our vehicle
policies, for example. Then we’re going to have -- as Commissioners we’re going to
have a budgetary review at least three times during the year, which we have all set up for
the second Finance Committee meeting in the month and there are various months
designated. I’ll be happy to get you a schedule of that because I don’t quite frankly
remember everything that’s on there, but this idea -- and I’ll defer to the former Finance
Chairman, Mr. Bridges, was an idea that we look at our fees, have they been adjusted in
certain respects, have our expenses been in line, do they need adjustment either upward
or downward? There’s been some suggestions we need additional personnel in certain
places. We’ve heard some Commissioners say we’ve got people working for this
government that don’t do nothing, and I don’t know whether that’s true or not but it was
just a starter process, Mr. Mays, that would go toward involving more citizens and give
us a little benefit of a citizens review committee. I kind of conceived it as a committee
56
not unlike the SPLOST Committee, which worked last year, I thought with very excellent
results. The SPLOST Committee came up with a formulation which really we followed
pretty closely and I’m not saying we are bound to ratify this, but it’s just a way of looking
at what we’re doing from a citizen’s perspective, from a taxpayer’s standpoint, and from
the service standpoint. That’s the idea.
Mr. Mays: My question was not argumentative. It was strictly informative and I
was in the Finance Committee meeting when it was passed and I didn’t say anything
about it then because it was in Committee forum and I thought it was in the best interest
where you all were trying to head with it. It’s sometimes when these committees go out
to a point where it’s public information to a point and the question asked them what are
they going to do, and I think that’s a good follow up to it. I also think you made a good
move in terms of Chairman, in terms of that information in terms of where we’re going
with your committee members that were there. And I don’t have a problem with that.
But it’s just a point where you get into that fine line and we’re in this one now to where
we get in this argumentative gray area of where it crosses over in terms of setting policy
and micromanaging and you know I just want it clear that when we start extending
committees and I think that’s good to a point of where we involve people and I think I’ve
always said our people are our most important resource. That’s where our talent lies. But
you know if we’re going to do that and we’re going to be subject to that review then, I
don’t think we ought to get into the whining mode that when Commissioners ask question
as to whether we are on a Committee or not, and we question the operations of what is
going on in this City, that to a point that that’s also a part of review. It’s also a part of our
job, because when they train jumps track, it’s not anybody that we appointed, it’s not
anybody that we hired. It’s us who have to face that music and we have to deal with it
and that’s the only observance I’ve got with it and I’m going to vote for it.
Mr. Mayor: Jerry Brigham.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, since I’m part of the credit for this, my vision for
this was I know we need another efficiency study. I felt like the citizens of this county
can do as good a job on the efficiencies of this government as anybody can, and I felt like
this was our opportunity to involve the citizens to look at the efficiencies of this
government and see how we can do things either better or different.
Mr. Mays: Certainly a lot cheaper, too.
Mr. J. Brigham: Certainly a lot cheaper. And we all know [inaudible].
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Ms. Bonner, if I’m not mistaken, when we made this motion, it was
to have a completed report or recommendation, and this is a recommendation body
concerning the finance and the budget. That was to be in June, is that not correct?
57
Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I want -- Jerry, I hope what happened to you the last time
we agreed on something doesn’t happen again. But I have to wholeheartedly agree with
Commissioner Brigham that we have resources within this community. We’ve
reorganized our Utilities Department. We’re working on reorganizing our Finance
Department in a manner that far exceeds that recommendation by the so-called efficiency
study, which I think should found in the bathroom, but we have the talent here, and it’s
time that we put Augusta’s talent and brainpower to work on Augusta’s problems, and
this is a very excellent way to do it and I applaud the effort.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Further discussion on that? Did we get a motion? Madame
Clerk, do we have a motion?
Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have motion and a second. All in favor of the motion
then, please vote aye.
Motion carries 8-0.
Clerk:
Addendum Item 4: Discussion of Greenspace Plan.
Mr. Mayor: This is something Mr. Patty sent over to us this morning and it
involves a significant amount of money and a deadline. So we wanted to get Mr. Patty
on the floor today.
Mr. Patty: I’ve gotten some feedback from the Community Greenspace Program
that we sent to the Georgia DNR to review a couple of weeks ago, and most of the
comments that they made [inaudible]. But one of them did. If you look at the first page
of the three pages I handed you, it pretty clearly says that these conservation easements
that we were prepared to put on, we said that we would in the future put on city-owned
properties, certain city-owned properties, that there could be an [inaudible] in those
agreements that would allow us to substitute other properties of equal or greater
greenspace value in the future. That would be needed. In spite of the fact that these rules
appear to say that you can do that, the State has never [inaudible] conservation easement
over any of these city-owned properties it’s got to be permanent [inaudible], and I think
Mr. Kuhlke asked the question [inaudible] are we tying our hands on some of these
58
properties, especially some of these riverfront properties, and my response was no. Now
what I’m telling you is we don’t have that out so we’ve got to modify that program to
provide [inaudible] piece of property subject to an easement like that. The way my
attorney explained it to me was it was [inaudible] once you enter this type easement
agreement, nobody owns [inaudible] from that point on so there’s no way to get it back
and reconstruct it. [inaudible] parties [inaudible] you don’t own it. These would be
perpetual easements. I think obviously there is some danger in this. There are certain
things that we were required to address, and one of them was which properties the city
now owns we would put easements on. There is no [inaudible] to put easements over any
of these properties. The only requirement is that we have a goal of preserving this, 20%
of the county’s land area which is 3,269 acres, and what we said we were going to do is
Spirit Creek [inaudible] is [inaudible] existing greenspace subject to the [inaudible]. We
would provide easements over city-owned land, 2,291 acres, and the State Wildlife
Management Area 1,540 acres, [inaudible] sometime in the future between now and
forever we were going to preserve another [inaudible] acres. We could probably get the
money, we could probably revise the program and say we’re going to put these
conservation easements over very little of the city-owned property and [inaudible] still
get the money. I think that’s the thing to do under the circumstances. [inaudible]
wastewater plant, beyond what’s already reserved for that, and I think this is [inaudible]
riverfront property [inaudible]. Flood plane conditions, very little property upriver from
th
15 Street [inaudible]. [inaudible] accessibility problems and flood plane problems, very
little [inaudible] developed [inaudible]. So I wanted to get some discussion and direction
on that.
Mr. Mayor: What, if anything, George, do we need to do today so that we don’t
jeopardize the State funding?
Mr. Patty: Well, I’ve got to get something back to them pretty quick. I was
hoping you could discuss this today. I think you need to give me some flexibility to look
at some of these properties and give them a minimal list of properties that we would
agree to put these easements over them.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: George, is this program potentially too costly to even be involved
in?
Mr. Patty: Well, that’s a strong possibility. Now the way the guidelines are
written right now, it’s an evolution, and it’s an evolving program. Right now [inaudible],
the only thing they can do frankly is they’re going to fund it this first year. And they
monitor our progress next year and the year after that, and we’re not doing what we said
we were going to do, then they can cut off future funds. They can’t ask for the money
back. They can’t make us do that. But in order to do what we said we got to do,
somebody has got to provide it. You’ve got to be out there pursuing these conservation
easements over private land, securing those easements, somebody has got to at some
point provide stewardship over the property we’ve got easements over. Some of it’s got
59
to be maintain. I don’t see -- you know, it is serious maintenance on the property like
[inaudible], you know, natural [inaudible]. You get into some expenses. I hope I didn’t
downplay [inaudible] understand that this [inaudible]. There is no matching requirement.
Now, there may be in the future. But there will be some expenses on down the road.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: George, what kind of expenses are you talking about down the
road?
Mr. Patty: Well, they’re going to send $600,000 in January and February and
what we said is we’re going to be out there pursuing conservation easements [inaudible]
Butler Creek. Somebody is going to have to be doing that, and if you’re going to spend
$600,000 in two years which is what is required, you’re going to have to retain some real
estate services, some services of somebody other than me to be out there [inaudible]
talking to these real estate people. And putting together in the form that you can execute
them.
Mr. Colclough: We don’t have anybody on staff that would be able to do that?
Mr. Patty: Not in my [inaudible]. I mean we’re [inaudible]. $600,000. We’re
talking about $1500 an acre [inaudible]. I can see a full time staff position. [inaudible]
Mr. Speaker: Why can’t you use [inaudible]?
Mr. Patty: You can retain some realtor on a [inaudible] basis or a fee basis.
Mr. Colclough: We can pay for that out of the funds?
Mr. Patty: No. No. The only thing you can pay for is buying land.
Mr. Kuhlke: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: The seller pays the real estate commission, not the buyer.
Mr. Patty: I don’t think he pays the real estate [inaudible]. Can’t pay for the
survey. Certain things you can, certain things you can’t. It’s pretty well limited to the
buying or sale of land. One option there is is that [inaudible] Eastern Natural Sciences
Academy, which has been operating for some time, has two swamps. One is the Phinizy
Swamp Nature Center which operates a real estate trust [inaudible] which essentially is
set up although they’re not operating too extensively, to do exactly what we would need
to be doing. One thing we I think we ought to pursue is work through them in partnership
with them. Maybe even [inaudible]. I don’t have a clue how that would be, but that’s an
option. There’s going to be some expense here.
Mr. Colclough: Can we pursue a partnership with the Science [inaudible]?
60
th
Mr. Patty: They’ve got a meeting on the 12 that I’m going to attend. Try to
brief them on where we are so they can [inaudible].
Mr. Colclough: Where is that meeting going to be held?
Mr. Patty: It’s going to be over here at the offices [inaudible]. What I need from
you today is some direction or some -- to allow me to use some discretion to decide
which of these properties we can or can’t -- [inaudible] amend this in the program,
[inaudible] got to do this before the year is over, to say that we will pursue these
conservation easements, and I would recommend [inaudible] and say that we’ll do this.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: George, you’re asking us to give you direction and I’m trying to
figure out what direction to give you. But you’re asking us to eliminate, the “out” that
we could substitute properties, I mean that is not going to cost us any money today, is
that what you’re asking us to do? In our program to say that once we seek a conservation
easement it is a permanent easement in perpetuity? Is that what you’re trying to ask us to
do?
Mr. Patty: They’re saying we’ve got to eliminate the out. We have said, you’ve
got a list here of properties that we said in this program that [inaudible] two pages of
them, these are properties that we said we’re going to pursue these conservation
easements over with the knowledge of the time that we could put an out over here. For
instance, we put this --
Mr. Shepard: But the out is going to disqualify us, is that not what [inaudible]?
Mr. Patty: The out is going to disqualify. Right. You cannot do an out.
Mr. Shepard: Could we not take the out out and then not identify any properties
at this time? Could we --
Mr. Patty: I think they would [inaudible] got to put easements over existing
properties. That’s not a requirement. I think [inaudible]. The State guidelines prefer you
to do that. They might be a little concerned if we [inaudible] protect some of these
properties.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I think we do a lot of things well, I think we do some not
so well, and I think at times we get pushed to the limit with some things. I think George
in his area has done a Herculean job in trying to put this together thus far and where we
got with it. But I think in fairness, not only we’ve known each other longer than any two
here. Sometimes I know that he gets to looking for a little help and I see the head drop a
61
little bit to a point of where I think with the new regulations, new laws that are out there,
it’s not a situation where we can kind of leave a lot to chance to a point here. I think if
the funding sources are greater, we’ve got folks that quite frankly that if you want
something to a point sometimes you can do it yourself and some areas we’ve figured out
in government we’ve had to partner and some we’ve had to pay for outside of
government. I remember we did, Richard, the presentation early on, months and months
ago when we talked about where we leave this thing and how it would go. I think we
need to -- it sounds like one of them Clint Eastwood things. You know, we got to know,
George, when we’ve pushed you to your limitation over in that department, and then
where the department needs some help in there at this point. I think we need to be
flexible enough to do that because I think we are getting towards some drop dead dates,
and what I don’t like to get into with State and Federal agencies is where we ask on one
hand for help and want to participate, and then maybe we aren’t ready or we can’t do
certain things, and then we maybe look for a way that we don’t have to participate, but
then the next time when it’s not so cumbersome, we want to participate. And you’re not
looked upon favorably when you walk away from some things that other governments
may share, to a point that if you take the easy out and say okay, this is one that’s
cumbersome, we’re not going to deal with it, but them we [inaudible] of money
somewhere else and [inaudible] go after it. So I think, Mr. Mayor, over the course of the
next few days, I don’t know if we can give him the direction he needs up here today, but I
think internally we need to think seriously whether or not he’s going to need something
in addition to what he’s got and whether it’s in a co-op Bill is talking about using locally
with real estate folk or whether this is something to a point that’s [inaudible] and upon us
where other governments have had to -- particularly large size areas like us, that we may
need the outside professional help in order to do it well. Because if what we’re going to
get in return by complying, and if we can spend the money and if it’s going to be offset
by something that’s a lot more, then I think you’ve got money well spent. But I think we
better make a decision quick before we get on the outside of the whole program and
looking in and then we don’t have any choice.
Mr. Mayor: George, maybe I’m missing the point of this. I thought the objection
was with the qualification that we put in here that at some point we might replace some
greenspace. But the State rule that you’re got highlighted on the first page is consistent
with the language in our proposal. So I don’t see where --
Mr. Patty: They’re saying you can’t do it. Don’t ask me why. I listened to a
lengthy description of why --
Mr. Mayor: So they’re saying their State rule is not a State rule?
Mr. Patty: They’re saying that it doesn’t apply to properties cities already own
but it would apply to cities buying future [inaudible] if you can understand that.
[inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Cause it doesn’t look like it’s written that way.
62
Mr. Patty: No. It appears to say you can do what we [inaudible]. I would
encourage you to move forward with this application. I think the discussion I’ve had,
you know, we’re going to get the money. And let’s knock out any of these properties we
think [inaudible] development potential or anything like that and send up a list.
Mr. Wall: Let me go back to Mr. Shepard’s suggestion. Perpetuity is longer than
any of us can even think about.
Mr. Mayor: It’s longer than your two-year transition.
Mr. Wall: Absolutely. And to suggest that we can figure out down the road what
we may need some of these properties for, I think that’s an impossible task. And I don’t
recommend you put a perpetual easement on anything without some kind of an out. And
so if they want to hold this to new properties that we acquire, I don’t think you want to
put a perpetual easement on anything that we currently own without a whole lot of
thought. That’s a dangerous step to take.
Mr. Patty: Let me mention this to you. This community program is [inaudible]
what we’re going to do in the next year. You know, if we pursue this during the next
year and we [inaudible] potential need in the future, they’re going to be satisfied. I don’t
think we have to do all these next year. We come back two years from now and we say
okay, we said we were going to do this and this and this property, but we found that there
are problems that we can’t do this and revise this, I don’t think we would have any
problem. I think if we say that we’re not going to put easements over any of these
properties, I think there is a chance that they are [inaudible]. I don’t know but I think it’s
a risk.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I think there is a way that we can sit down and look at a lot of the
properties in this county that we can put into this program. I don’t think that by saying
that there’s property that we can’t acquire, I mean, my friend here sitting on my right
[inaudible], some of these counties already got the funding for the greenspace project,
and I think if we don’t really want this thing, we just need to throw it away, but I think
rather than to sit here and worry about something that we can’t do anything about or
worry about we don’t want to take the opportunity, there’s a whole lot of land around
here, you put in this greenspace project, without worrying about it. I think we need to
look at it, I think when you look at the properties that [inaudible] and come up with some
properties that -- you know, look at what [inaudible], hopefully look at what we want to
do down the line. I don’t think we need to sit here today and if he needs flexibility, we
need to go ahead and give it to him so we can get this thing on the road and not just throw
in the [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
63
Mr. J. Brigham: George, this may be too simple a question. Can we tell them
that the money that we get from them that we use to buy property with, we’re going to
[inaudible] and [inaudible] put it on any others?
Mr. Patty: We can -- that’s -- there’s a chance, there’s a chance [inaudible]. One
of the things in your guidelines, that they ask you to do is name properties [inaudible]. It
doesn’t say that you have to, it’s not a requirement and it probably would be [inaudible].
But there’s a chance that they wouldn’t.
Mr. J. Brigham: I have a real hard problem with saying we’re [inaudible]. If we
own property in the floodway, I’d have a pretty easy problem with that. But after you get
out of the floodway, it gets harder cause as we all know, we don’t know [inaudible]
technology and planning is going to change in the next eons of time.
Mr. Patty: Let me suggest something in the interest of time, then. If we’ve got to
send them something by December 15 that’s going to get to the January meeting, if it
doesn’t then it will go them in March. I [inaudible] kill one deal, if that’s an [inaudible]
problem other than that. But let’s send it to them and just say we’re not going to put
[inaudible] on city properties [inaudible]. As we buy the properties, as we get easements
over other properties [inaudible], but existing city properties, you know, the retention
ponds and the riverfront property and the constructed wetlands and various properties,
let’s just --
Mr. Mayor: George, as I understand it, we have a certain amount of money
allocated for Augusta-Richmond County. It’s not a question of getting it approved in
January or not getting it approved and losing the money. The money will still be there in
you go back there in March.
Mr. Patty: Okay, there’s -- yeah, there’s a drop dead date after which they
allocate that money to the other [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: When is the drop dead date?
Mr. Patty: [inaudible] I mean until 2002.
Mr. Mayor: So it won’t hurt us to go on to March. If we re-write it as you
suggest, send it up for January and they say no, then we can come back in March with a
revised version and we still have our money?
Mr. Patty: That’s correct. I think we could do that. I think they would let us re-
do it, reconsider, send it back in March if they say in January.
Mr. Colclough: Why can’t we use our creek basins? Why can’t we use Phinizy
Swamp?
64
Mr. Patty: I’m talking about properties that the city already owns. City-owned
properties like existing retention ponds.
Mr. Colclough: What are we going to do with retention ponds, retention water?
Mr. Patty: We can put these conservation [inaudible], get credit for this 33,000
acres. You’re talking about [inaudible] part of 33,000 acres if you put easements over
everything the city owns.
Mr. Colclough: I’m not saying the riverfront property, I’m not saying property
like that. I’m talking about retention pond or creek basins or Rocky Creek or Butler
Creek or Spirit Creek, all these other creek basins that we’re not going -- what are we
going to put on these basins?
Mr. Patty: We’ll be pursuing easements over those properties [inaudible] privately
owned. The basins, property the city currently owns is what’s in discussion now.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke, do you have a solution here?
Mr. Kuhlke: I was just wondering. You’ve got a schedule of properties on these
sheets. Why couldn’t you just basically, initially anyway, improve the constructing
wetlands? We know it would probably be okay to do and that’s [inaudible] and just leave
it like that? I mean is there [inaudible] about that?
Mr. Patty: No. 1100 acres [inaudible].
Mr. Kuhlke: Why not just include that? Because if nothing else, you’re going to
[inaudible]?
Mr. Wall: [inaudible].
Mr. Patty: There’s some land [inaudible] airport [inaudible] 30 years.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible].
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] 25 year old [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: One at a time, please. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Cheek hasn’t spoken to this issue. I’ll yield to him and then I’ll
follow.
Mr. Mayor: I didn’t see his hand up. I’m sorry, Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. George, is the 33,000 acres the 20 percent
that we have to work towards?
65
Mr. Patty: Yes.
Mr. Cheek: And the program is designed and states that you will work towards
the 20% compliance over some period of time, and is it my understanding we could
eliminate some of these properties with the promise that we are going to work towards
our 20% compliance and not give them a time frame of when it will be accomplished?
Mr. Patty: The requirement is that you have [inaudible] 20% [inaudible]. That’s
the only [inaudible] requirement.
Mr. Cheek: So we could kick these properties out that we have concerns about
and give them a list of the ones we don’t have concerns about and move on, right?
Mr. Patty: I think based on the discussion I’ve heard I think that’s the appropriate
thing. Kick them all out, send it up there with none of them. If they say no at the January
meeting, if the Greenspace Commission says no at the January meeting, I think they will
give us another shot at it and we can submit it again for their March meeting with subject
properties and we’d have a chance at that point to protect [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: So George, let’s reverse roles. If you had a motion that you could
make up on this body today to get done what you want done, what would that motion be?
Mr. Patty: I think I would, as the guy standing in front of this microphone,
would send this thing back up there with none of the City properties identified for
placement of these permanent easements.
Mr. Shepard: I incorporate that motion by reference, gentlemen. I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke, did you want to say something?
Mr. Kuhlke: I would like -- I think Jerry was referring to -- is it Macon, Jerry?
Mr. Patty: [inaudible].
Mr. Kuhlke: I think it might be helpful to us, Mr. Mayor, if maybe you could get
some information from them on what kind of properties they submitted and maybe just
get an idea.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? There’s a motion on the floor.
66
Mr. Mays: I agree with that, but it’s one thing you also ought to give him a little
leverage to do. Getting what they submitted is one thing and again I think we taxed him
in his office [inaudible] in all fairness [inaudible] idea to be doing it. But I think also in
finding out what was submitted, that we need to think about in his contacting those cities
whether or not and what type of resources that they used to put the plan together.
Because I mean did they use local, deal with a real estate [inaudible], did they do it with
staff, or just like everybody popped up out of the woodwork with different governments.
We saw it in jail building, Bill, we found [inaudible] one jail, found out how much to lay
a brick apiece. Water, you find them where they come up out of the woodwork and they
do this. Now you’re dealing with greenspace, but I think somewhere in that process
getting what they put together is good, but I think you also need to maybe bring us back
something in terms of what help was used in some of those programs that have been
approved and who they used, George, to a point that before this thing gets totally gone,
that if we’re going to have to spend some money to get more money, then we need to use
successful group that did it. That’s all I’m saying. [inaudible] put it together and what’s
on the list doesn’t mean a hill of beans if it’s not put together in a form whereby you’re
going to be able to successfully get the money. And I just don’t want George to have to
be under the gun, to have to come back to us if something is shot down on a technicality
and then we’re [inaudible] as to whether we ought to opt out or send him out to do
something else [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. I appreciate that. I’m wondering if there
would be, rather than Mr. Patty keep coming back to the full Commission each time we
have something on this, is there one committee of the Commission that we could refer
Mr. Patty to on a regular basis to go through some of these preliminary discussions and
refine this. What do you think, Mr. Hornsby or Mr. Mayor Pro Tem would be an
appropriate committee?
Mr. Mays: Any one that me and Bill ain’t on.
Mr. Mayor: Maybe Administrative Services? Why don’t we do that. We’ll go
ahead and approve the motion today but I think if this thing does get kicked back, that
would be a good committee to work through and try to bring us some specific things to
work on. All in favor of the motion to do what Mr. Patty has recommended through
Commissioner Shepard, please vote aye.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, you have a couple of items I think you need to take up
with us?
34. Legal Meeting.
Discuss real estate
??
Discuss litigation matters.
??
67
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir, I want to give you an update on a couple of litigation matters
and discuss a real estate matter with you.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to do so in executive session?
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Any objection?
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: We will move into executive session without objection.
[LEGAL MEETING]
Mr. Mayor: We come back to order. The Chair will entertain a motion.
35. Motion to approve authorization for Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection?
Mr. H. Brigham out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to adjourn? None heard. We are adjourned.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on December 5, 2000.
Clerk of Commission
68