HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-04-2001 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
October 4, 2001
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 4:05 p.m., Thursday,
October 4, 2001, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
Present: Hons. Colclough, J. Brigham, Mays, Kuhlke, H. Brigham, Shepard,
Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County
Commission.
Also present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; and Lena Bonner,
Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was present by Fr. Hart.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, do we have any additions or deletions to the agenda
today?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. We have a request for four addendum items.
1. Consider a request for a letter of support for the 330E grant application for
the Center for Community Health.
2. Consider a request for an appointment by the Commission of a member to
the initial Board of Directors for the Richmond County Medical Society.
3. Resolution of Appreciation for Jim Higdon.
4. Approve Vision Tech System in the amount of $86,429.00 for purchase of
security for the courtrooms.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding any of these items? None is heard,
so the Chair will order these four items added to the agenda. Madame Clerk, let’s move
ahead with our delegations and then we’ll take up the consent agenda.
DELEGATION:
Ms. Betty Palmer, Owner and Operator
th
Vasha’s House of Foods, 1731 12 Street
RE: Economic Loan application with HND
Mr. Mayor: Is Ms. Palmer here? Ms. Palmer, if you would come up to the
podium, please. Pull the mike down and speak into it. For the record, give us your name
and address.
1
th
Ms. Palmer: My name is Betty Palmer. 1731 12 Street. That’s where my
business is located at, but I’m at 1142 Camille Street. Been there 40 years. I’m right in
the community. I can run right through the pass to my restaurant.
Mr. Mayor: What can we do for you today?
Ms. Palmer: What I’m down here for today, just everybody here today, I been
there with Mr. Mack’s office trying to get some money to expand my business. I been in
business for about two years. Right now, it just was a little house. It was a crack house.
We turned it into a restaurant. And it’s serving the community. The old and the young.
And I know my food is good. You will have to come by and try it. And most of the
fellows here, I see several of them that been there several times. And what I’m looking
for is, I appealed to Mr. Mack and what he was going to give me wouldn’t do anything.
It was like $9,000. I need heating and air conditioning unit and several other things. The
roof needs doing. It just was a little shotgun house, and my husband picked up different
things from the flea market, and I did, and we got some nice equipment in the kitchen. I
need a door that I can see on the outside, and I’m serving the community. This is
something I like doing. But I just don’t have the money to expand my business. Last
week, I had some ladies to stand on the outside because they didn’t have the room to get
in. That’s how good my business has become in the two years. So what I’m doing, I
need additional money to get those things done. And the first paper that I put in at Mr.
Mack’s office, it was lost, it was misplaced, and it took them about three weeks to get my
other paperwork done. And this is what I came up with, was the $9,000. And I need
more money. And what he was saying, when he sent his secretary out, that I could tie up
more property. But I know all of you, y’all don’t want to put all your eggs in one basket,
so I just want to tie up that particular property to do what I need done. And I need
bathroom for the ladies, bathroom for the men. Right now I got one little bathroom, and
they are using the same bathroom. Most of the time they don’t use the bathroom. Like I
said, my food is good and they’re going to come anyway. So what I’m looking for is the
money to expand my business. And I’m doing this from my heart. I know how to run
the business. I been in the food service 28 years. I worked out at Fort Gordon for 28
years, but I never had the [inaudible] of running my own business. And I like what I’m
doing. And I want to stay there.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Palmer, I appreciate you coming before the Commission and
bringing this to our attention today. We certainly want to encourage people like yourself,
entrepreneurs, to get into business and create job opportunities here in the city, and we
certainly encourage you in that regard. I asked Mr. Mack’s office this morning about the
status of your application. They told me that they met with you back in August --
Ms. Palmer: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: And had asked for some specific information, such as your tax
returns and your business plans and some records like that of your business, and you had
2
not yet furnished that to our office so they could evaluation your loan application.
Ms. Palmer: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The reason I didn’t do that -- I have it here.
The reason I didn’t do that is because they was set at one particular price and I want to go
above it.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I think there was an issue, and I’m not going to try to speak for
them or speak for you, but I think there was an issue of the collateral for the loan.
Ms. Palmer: Yes, that’s what I was saying.
Mr. Mayor: And that your assets did not provide enough collateral for the amount
of loan that you needed, and they offered you the opportunity to put your house up as
collateral, and you said you didn’t want to do that.
Ms. Palmer: I don’t want to do that.
Mr. Mayor: Well.
Ms. Palmer: But it’s enough money out there that I think I should be able to get
something for my community, too.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I understand that, Ms. Palmer, and we’ve just gone through an
experience with a gentleman who ran a pizza restaurant, if y’all remember that, and we’re
on the hook for over $100,000 on that because of some collateral and some other issues
with that. But the point is, Ms. Palmer, we want to help you and we want to do as much
as we can for you. And I would encourage our staff to make a renewed effort to meet
with you as soon as possible and let’s provide them with all the paperwork they need to
evaluate it, and then at such point as the application is complete, if you’re still not
satisfied I would like to see you bring it before the appropriate committee. Because
there’s not anything I would think we could do here today as Commissioners, not having
the complete information available to us to make a decision with respect to your mother.
Commissioner Williams?
Ms. Palmer: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. I had to bring Commissioner Williams into
it, too.
Mr. Mayor: Well, let’s hear from him.
Ms. Palmer: So he knows something about that, too.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, thank you for allowing Ms. Palmer to come, and Mr.
Mack has been trying to work with her. I think what her problem is, what she’s saying is
that she’s in a area that’s been forgotten about. This is a block away from the historic
area that we talked about was so important to Augusta and how we want to preserve it.
3
Ms. Palmer has been in business for some year-and-a-half, maybe two years. And Mr.
Mack got with her, and I think he told her the loan could possibly be $8,000 or $9,000.
With trying to expand a business, or trying to do some improvements, $9,000 wouldn’t
even put an air conditioning system in the home. I understand we’ve been bit before by
one other minority business person. You spoke about the young man at Buck’s Pizza, I
think, and some other business he had. But we can’t judge everybody by the same stick
now. I mean whatever happened to -- I can’t even think of his name. And that situation
is one thing. Ms. Palmer asked me about it, and I told her all she can do is come and
explain herself to the Commission, let them know that she’s willing, she’s able, she’s
capable, and she needed more money. Mr. Mack said that if the Commission allowed
more, and I don’t blame her for not putting everything she got into that one business. I
mean I’ve got a few business interests myself and I don’t have everything tied up in one.
But I think just to hear her case, just to let you know that she’s very well capable and
she’s interested in doing something, we need to work with that part of the community
that’s so viable to this history of Augusta, and to let her know that we going to do all we
can to support her and get Mr. Mack’s office to do all they can to help. Last word, Mr.
Mayor, and that we find ways not to do things in certain cases, rather than to try to find a
way to work with businesses, especially someone who is capable of doing the business,
we’d rather say we can’t do it. And all she asking for is a little more effort in Housing
and Neighborhood Development to try and help her and not take everything she’s got and
lock it in. And I don’t blame her. At my age, I’m not going to tie it up, and I know she
don’t want to do that. That’s all I’m going to say, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you, Mr. Williams. I think the issue here is it’s a
matter of the rules that have been set by this Commission to govern these types of loans.
And Mr. Mack’s office is required by this Commission to follow the rules, and only
authorize those loans that fit the mold that we have set. Now if we need to make
exceptions to that, then it needs to come before the appropriate committee and we’ll
evaluate that on a case-by-case basis. But until such time as the committee makes a
decision to waive or change the rules, Mr. Mack’s office has to follow the rules. We
expect him to do that.
Ms. Palmer: But Mr. Mayor ---
Mr. Mayor: That’s why I’ve asked you, Ms. Palmer, if you would to get with Mr.
Mack, provide them all the information they need to evaluate your loan, and then let’s
bring it before the committee and let the appropriate committee take a look at it, if we
need to change the rules or make an exception in your case.
Ms. Palmer: That’s what I’m saying, Mr. Mayor, cause rules are made, and rules
are made to be broken, too. And like I said --
Mr. Mayor: Well, let’s not say be broken. Let’s say be changed. Okay?
Ms. Palmer: Changed.
4
Mr. Mayor: We don’t want to break the rules.
Ms. Palmer: Thank you for saying that. Changed. I’m sorry. Changed. Like I
said, I’m out there, I’m feeding a lot of elder people out there. There’s a lady across the
street, she gets across the street and walks my fence till she gets in to get her a hot meal.
Like I say, I like what I’m doing. I like what I’m doing. I appreciate it, and I will
provide the other information. But when they say $9,000 I stopped it right there. I don’t
want to tie up just $9,000 cause $9,000 not going to help me.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I move we refer this to the Administrative Services
Committee, not the meeting of next week, but the meeting after that, and let the
information be furnished by that time and brought back to that Committee.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? No discussion. All in favor, please vote
aye. And what we’re doing, Ms. Palmer, is referring this issue to the Administrative
Services Committee, which will meet, Ms. Bonner, what? Two weeks from this coming
Monday?
The Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Is that correct?
The Clerk: Yes. [inaudible]
th
Mr. Mayor: The 29 of October is when we’ll take it up. So between now and
then you need to get with Mr. Mack and his office, give them all the information they
need --
Ms. Palmer: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Mayor: -- so they can complete your application and then we’ll consider it
then.
Ms. Palmer: Okay. Mr. Mack eats at my place, too, and his staff eats there, too.
Mr. Mack: The food is good. The food is good.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I tell you what, we might just have you cater that
5
Administrative Services Committee. Thank you very much.
Ms. Palmer: Thank you so much.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, for the record, Commissioner Mays called to say that he
was tied up at the groundbreaking ceremony for the [inaudible], the groundbreaking, and
he wanted to note that was the reason for being late.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1 through 47. That’s items
1 through 47.
For the benefit of any objectors regarding our alcohol petitions, if there
are any objectors, would you please signify your objection by raising your hand?
2. Motion to approve a request by Thomas D. Thompson for an on premise
consumption Wine License to be used in connection with Smoak’s Bakery &
Catering located at 2058 Walton Way. District 3. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee September 24, 2001)
3. Motion to approve a request by James Carmichael for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine License to be used in connection with
American Café #8818 located at 2080 Augusta Mall. There will be Sunday
sales. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
September 24, 2001)
4. Motion to approve a request by Donna Thompson for a retail package Wine
License to be used in connection with Ninth Street Wine Market located at
#12 Ninth St. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee September 24, 2001)
5. Motion to approve a request by Cindi L. Mitchell for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine License to be used in connection with
Lucky Lady Bar & Grill located at 2706 Gordon Hwy. There will be a Dance
Hall. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
September 24, 2001)
The Clerk: Are there any objections to those alcohol petitions? There are no
objections, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: None noted. Let’s also, Madame Clerk, if we could, from the
addendum agenda add items number 1 and 3 to the consent agenda. Would y’all like to
have some discussion on item 4?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to know a little bit more about item 1.
Mr. Mayor: You would? Okay. Let’s just hold that, then. Let’s add item 3.
6
Mr. Colclough: Let it be known that I vote No on Sunday sales on item 3.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. The Chair will entertain a motion to approve the consent
agenda, with the addition of item 3 from the addendum agenda.
Mr. Wall: Mr. Mayor, if we could, on item number 35, could I request a change
since the tax bills have not gone out, so that it would be a motion to approve a credit of
$24,853.12? $24,853.12.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to amending the motion to include that? None
heard, so the motion will include that. Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure with respect to
the consent agenda? Do you want to pull any items?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Bridges: Could we pull item 43, please?
Mr. Mayor: Number 43. Okay.
Mr. Williams: 35, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry, Mr. Williams, what?
Mr. Williams: 35.
Mr. Mayor: 35? Okay.
Mr. Williams: And I’d like to get some clarification on item number 10 as well.
Mr. Mayor: Number 10. All right. Anyone else?
Mr. Kuhlke: Number 11.
Mr. Mayor: Number 11, Mr. Kuhlke. Any others?
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Motion to approve a request by Divina P. Scott for a Massage Therapist
License to be used in connection with Georgia Chiropractic and Wellness
Center located at 3029 Deans Bridge Road. District 2. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee September 24, 2001)
2. Motion to approve a request by Thomas D. Thompson for an on premise
consumption Wine License to be used in connection with Smoak’s Bakery &
Catering located at 2058 Walton Way. District 3. Super District 10.
7
(Approved by Public Services Committee September 24, 2001)
3. Motion to approve a request by James Carmichael for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine License to be used in connection with
American Café #8818 located at 2080 Augusta Mall. There will be Sunday
sales. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
September 24, 2001)
4. Motion to approve a request by Donna Thompson for a retail package Wine
License to be used in connection with Ninth Street Wine Market located at
#12 Ninth St. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee September 24, 2001)
5. Motion to approve a request by Cindi L. Mitchell for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine License to be used in connection with
Lucky Lady Bar & Grill located at 2706 Gordon Hwy. There will be a Dance
Hall. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
September 24, 2001)
6. Motion to approve and award Bid Item # 01-129, new roofing system for
Warren Road Community Center, to Modern Roofing for $21,212.00.
(Approved by Public Services Committee September 24, 2001)
7. Motion to approve the purchase and installation of multi-unit play system for
the Department of Recreation and Parks as follows: (Approved by Public
Services Committee September 24, 2001)
??
Dominica Recreation Products, Inc. $40,000
??
Hasley Recreation & Design $50,000
8. Motion to approve recommendation from the Augusta Aviation Commission
regarding the implementation of a Reduction In Force (RIF) Plan for
Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field in accordance with ARC personnel
policies. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 24, 2001)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
9. Motion to approve the upgrade of current Airport Aircraft Rescue Fire-
Fighters at Augusta Regional Airport pay grades and job descriptions in
accordance with standardize salaries with the Augusta Richmond County
Fire Department and in cooperation with ARC Human Resources
Department (Approved by Administrative Services Committee September
24, 2001)
10. Deleted from consent agenda.
11. Deleted from consent agenda.
12. Motion to approve the recommendation from the Augusta Aviation
Commission regarding the implementation of a Reduction In Force (RIF)
Plan for Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field in accordance with ARC
personnel policies. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
September 24, 2001)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
13. Motion to approve entering into a contract with the firm of Virgo Gambill,
8
Architects, to perform the civil and landscape and architectural design of six
fire stations to be constructed and all services associated with the complete
construction administration of these six fire stations. (Approved by Public
Safety Committee September 24, 2001)
14. Motion to approve application for Grant to continue funding of Mobile Data
Terminals in the Sheriff’s Office. (Approved by Public Safety Committee
September 24, 2001)
15. Motion to approve the purchase of three workstations and a new printer for
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) staff using approved SPLOST funds.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee September 24, 2001)
16. Motion to approve a request from the Solicitor General requesting $10,000
seed money to begin a Batters Intervention Program through Safe Homes
funded from the 5% Victim/Witness monies. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee September 24, 2001)
17. Motion to approve funds to hire Domestic Violence Prosecution Attorney
effective November 1, 2001 funded from 5% Victim/Witness monies.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee September 24, 2001)
FINANCE:
18. Motion to approve abatement of 1999 tax balance for 1057 Katherine Street
(Approved by Finance Committee September 24, 2001)
19. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) 15 Foot Batwing Mower for
Public Works – Maintenance Division from Burke Truck and Tractor
Company of Waynesboro, Georgia for $10,229.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 01-
120). (Approved by Finance Committee September 24, 2001)
20. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Agricultural Tractor with
Telescopic Boom Mower for Public Works – Maintenance Division from
Jenkins Tractor Company of Augusta, Georgia for $49,792.00 (lowest bid
offer on Bid 01-121) (Approved by Finance Committee September 24, 2001).
21. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Agricultural Tractor for Public
Works – Maintenance Division from Interstate Equipment Company of
Thomson, Georgia for $22,638.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 01-122). (Approved
by Finance Committee September 24, 2001)
22. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Skid Steer Loader for Public
Works – Maintenance Division from Augusta Turf and Tractor of Augusta,
Georgia for $20,199.63 (lowest bid offer on Bid 01-123). (Approved by
Finance Committee September 24, 2001)
23. Motion to approve the acquisition of Two (2) Material Spreaders for Public
Works – Maintenance Division from Epoke Industries of Ontario, Canada
for $11,912.00 each (lowest bid offer on Bid 01-124). (Approved by Finance
Committee September 24, 2001)
24. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Single Broom Sweeper for
Public Works – Maintenance Division from Stith Equipment Company of
Augusta, Georgia for $28,010.00. (lowest bid offer on Bid 01-131). (Approved
by Finance Committee September 24, 2001)
9
25. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Rubber Tire Compactor for
Public Works – Maintenance Division from Burch Lowe Equipment
Company of Augusta, Georgia for $45,164.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 01-
133). (Approved by Finance Committee September 24, 2001)
26. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Compact Pickup Truck for the
Augusta Public Works Department – Maintenance Division from Bobby
Jones Ford of Augusta, Georgia for $17,263.82 (lowest bid offer on Bid 01-
136). (Approved by Finance Committee September 24, 2001)
27. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Sewer Vacuum Truck for the
Augusta Utilities Department – Construction Division (Bid 00-112).
(Approved by Finance Committee September 24, 2001)
28. Motion to approve the acquisition of Three (3) 15,000 GVW Crewcab Utility
Body Trucks for the Utilities Department – Construction Division from
Willoughby Ford of Thomson, Georgia for $40,290.05 each (lowest bid offer
on Bid 01-118). (Approved by Finance Committee September 24, 2001)
29. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) 15,000 GVW Fire Rescue Truck
for the Augusta Regional Airport from Willoughby Ford of Thomson,
Georgia for $41,676.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 01-119). (Approved by
Finance Committee September 24, 2001)
30. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Law Enforcement Motorcycle
for the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office from Augusta Harley Davidson for
$17,874.91 (lowest bid offer on Bid 01-141). (Approved by Finance
Committee September 24, 2001)
31. Motion to approve request from the CSRA Regional Development Center
th
regarding sponsorship/purchase of tickets for their 40 Annual Meeting on
October 10, 2001. Funded from Commission Other Account. (Approved by
Finance Committee September 24, 2001)
32. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Steel Wheel Roller for Public
Works – Operations – Maintenance Division from Burch Lowe Equipment
Company of Augusta, Georgia for $80,054.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 01-
132). (Approved by Finance Committee September 24, 2001)
33. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Small Sweeper for Public
Works – Maintenance Division from Tennent Sweeper Company of
Minneapolis, Minnesota for $28,978.56 (lowest bid offer on Bid 01-134).
(Approved by Finance Committee September 24, 2001)
34. Motion to approve contract between Augusta Mini Theatre, Inc. and the
2KM Architects for the Augusta Mini Theatre to be funded with SPLOST IV
funding. (Approved by Finance Committee September 24, 2001)
35. Deleted from consent agenda.
36. Motion to approve the recommendation of the Finance Department
regarding budgetary adjustment from Personal Service for the State Court
Solicitor’s Office. (Approved by Finance Committee September 24, 2001)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
37. Motion to approve a proposal in the amount of $34,173.00 for W. R. Toole
10
Engineers, Inc. to provide professional services regarding the location of
manholes along the Spirit Creek Sanitary Sewer Trunk Line. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee September 24, 2001)
38. Motion to approve Change Order #2 in the amount of $14,305.80 to South
Atlantic Construction for additional work to be completed at the Little Spirit
Creek Groundwater Treatment Plant No. 3 Facility (Project W-3B.1).
(Funded Acct. # 508043410/5425110) (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee September 24, 2001)
39.
Motion to approve a request from the National Society Daughters of the
th
American Colonists regarding the placement of a marker near the 8 Street
entrance of the Augusta Riverwalk. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee September 24, 2001)
40.
Motion to approve bid for sampling and metering equipment from Kazmier
and Associates in the amount of $163,935.00. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee September 24, 2001)
41.
Motion to approve Easement Agreement from Georgia Power Company for
pedestrian and bicycle trail being constructed by the Augusta Canal
Authority. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 24,
2001)
42.
Motion to declare property located at 2340 Windsor Spring Road as surplus
property and placed with the Land Bank Authority to negotiate the sale to
yield the most profitability for the city. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee September 24, 2001)
43. Deleted from consent agenda.
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
44. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held September 18, 2001.
APPOINTMENTS:
45. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Mitchel D. Courson to replace
Mr. Dick Gayle representing District 10 on the Animal Control Board.
46. Motion to accept the resignation of Mr. Ed Griffin to the Historic
Preservation Commission and appoint Mr. John Manuel representing
District 6.
PLANNING:
47. ZA-R-145 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond
County Planning Commission to approve an amendment to the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County to
change Section 25-A PDR (Planned Development Riverfront) Zone to
eliminate contradictory language regarding the review process.
(Approved by the Commission in meeting September 18, 2001 – second
reading)
11
Addendum Item 3. Resolution of appreciation for Jim Higdon.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve the consent agenda, and adding to that
item 3 from the addendum agenda, and pulling items 10, 11, 35 and 43.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I don’t want to pull item 8, but I would like to hear
from the Airport Director while he’s here concerning that, if he’s got anything he wants
to put forward.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll take a moment then to take a comment from the Airport
Commission on item 8. Ken, this is the reduction in force. Did you have a specific
question, Jerry?
Mr. J. Brigham: No. I saw him here and I thought maybe he had something he
wanted to say about it.
Mr. Kraemer: I was just here to answer any questions, in case you had any
questions. I think we’ve made our case to the two subcommittees last week, but we’ve
seen our airline partners across the industry cutting back their flight operations and their
work forces, that’s resulted in a decrease in revenue to the airport. So being partners in
the aviation industry, we see the need to also reduce the forces at Augusta Bush Field.
And so we’re looking at a reduction in force at the airport and we’re looking for your
concurrence with that. And in the next few weeks, the airport staff will be meeting with
me to come up with a recommendation of the exact numbers and where in specific
divisions of the airport those cuts will come, and we’ll be taking that recommendation to
the Aviation Commission at the end of this month for their approval as well.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I just have one question, Mr. Mayor. Is there going to be a concerted
effort to place these people who are being reduced with some other agency within the
government? I mean is there going to be an effort to do that, and I stress effort, because
we have many, as I see on Tuesdays and Thursdays, we have many applications down
there for regular governmental employment, and a lot of times I understand we say this
but we don’t actually really make a concerted effort to do that. So I’m wondering if you
and the Commission out there are going to make that effort.
Mr. Kraemer: Yes, Commissioner Beard. In fact, that effort has already begun.
We’ve been working very aggressively with the Human Resources Department and their
Director, Brenda Byrd-Pelaez, on the number of employees that will be transferred out of
12
the airport. We’re looking for other positions within Augusta Richmond County
government for those, the majority of those employees. For any other employees, if the
number of reduced employees exceed the number of job openings within Augusta
Richmond County, we’re also already working with the Georgia Department of Labor for
outplacement services for those other employees.
Mr. Beard: Well -- I better not ask that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just a quick comment. In the coming weeks, we’re going
to be developing a city-wide security plan, and I hope that you will commit a resource or
person or yourself to attend the regular meetings we have to detail security in light of the
condition of war that exists between our country and terrorism.
Mr. Kraemer: I’ll be happy to participate.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, we’ll call the question on the consent agenda. All in
favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Bridges vote No on Sunday sales portion.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 9-0. [Item 3]
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 9-0. [Items 1-9, 12-34, 36-42, 44-47, Addendum Item 3]
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Bridges: Let the record show I vote No on Sunday sales.
Mr. Mayor: All right. And I think Mr. Colclough had already expressed those
sentiments.
Mr. Colclough: Already said it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Next item will be item number 10, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
10. Motion to approve authorizing the Director of Recreation and Parks, with
13
the approval of Human Resources Director and Administrator, to offer up to
mid-point of the salary range for the position of Athletic Supervisor to a
qualified candidate. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
September 24, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I just had one question. In the back-up
material it says salary plus ten percent. And I wanted to know was that -- is that right,
Mr. Howard? Is that the way it’s going to read, the way it’s going to raise the mid-point
plus ten percent?
Mr. Howard: Just mid-point, sir.
Mr. Williams: Okay. In the back-up material it’s worded differently, and that’s
my question, Mr. Mayor. So we’re not including ten percent; is that right?
Mr. Mayor: That might be in the back-up, Commissioner Williams, but it’s not in
the motion as stated on the agenda.
Mr. Howard: Mr. Williams, we wanted the Commission to offer at mid-point,
and at that time if we could not receive a candidate at mid-point, we wanted permission
to have the ten percent out there just in case we needed that.
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: Commissioner Williams, the area that you’re reading that
refers to the ten percent, the previous candidates that were chosen for that position, when
they were offered ten percent over the minimum of that salary range, they did not accept
the position. Their salaries already exceeded that amount. That is why the department
was coming forward to ask for the authority to approve them in at mid-point.
Mr. Williams: That’s all.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I move to approve.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Further discussion? All in favor, please vote
aye.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next item is item number 11.
11. Motion to approve amending Proposed 2002 Action Plan by decreasing
14
CDBG Housing Rehabilitation program by $260,000, deleting Augusta Mini
Theatre ($64,000) and direct $200,000 to Meadowbrook and McDuffie Woods Park
projects and $124,000 to the Economic Development Revolving Loan Program.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee September 24, 2001)
(Mr. Mays enters the meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners, in committee I voted against
this, and the reason I did is that every time we start shifting money out of Housing &
Neighborhood Development it looks like we get ourselves in trouble. And I have a real
problem about shifting money out of the HOME program that would have a tendency to
increase our digest over a period of time and putting it into a park project, which is going
to be a costly thing for us from now on. So I just wanted to make that point. I am going
to continue to vote against this particular move.
Mr. Mayor: Any other discussion? Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard:
Mr. Mayor, where I agree with Mr. Kuhlke on part of that because
we do, but I also would like to say that you know if we would spend this money and
utilize it and have some vision, we wouldn’t have to be doing this, switching the money,
and we shouldn’t be switching monies like this. But since we are doing it, we have to do
I’m going to move for approval on item 11.
it, so
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Let me just thank Mr. Kolb and the staff for
including the Economic Development component to this. I think it’s needed, as we saw
from our first delegation who was here today, to replenish that Economic Development
Revolving Loan Fund. Mr. Bridges and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. To the Administrator or to the Attorney,
are there any legal questions here in transferring this money around that could come back
and bite us in the future? You can start out with a yes or a no and then explain.
Mr. Kolb: Maybe. It depends. For example, Meadowbrook, as I understand it,
has not qualified as a low-income area, low-to-moderate income area, so those funds
would be budgeted conditional on meeting the appropriate criteria to be designated a
target area. The Augusta Mini Theatre may be a slight risk but what we’re banking on is
that they have not broken ground and put all their financing together, so we’ll be able to
get through the next cycle before this money is needed again. The $200,000 that are
coming out of the Rehab program I don’t see a risk there other than running out of
money. And appropriating to the Economic Development program, Revolving Loan
Program, I don’t see any risks there either, since their money is there.
15
Mr. Bridges: Okay. Is the Attorney in agreement with that assessment?
Mr. Wall: Well, the Attorney doesn’t have all the information that the
Administrator obviously had, and so I really have not reviewed the various programs. So
I have no opinion at this point.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mack, do you comments on transferring the monies around?
Mr. Mack: No, sir. I think Mr. Kolb is on target regarding Meadowbrook, and I
understand that [inaudible] at the Augusta Richmond County Planning Commission is
performing the research to determine whether this is an eligible area. I do, however, want
you all to be reminded that the number of houses that we are rehabilitating are going to
be significantly impacted by this movement. That’s the only thing I want you all to be
aware of.
Mr. Bridges: Does the motion include, as far as the Meadowbrook area, does the
motion include that that is subject to determining whether this is low and moderate
income or not? Is that part of the motion?
Mr. Kolb: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges, that is not part of the motion as stated here in the
agenda item.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to touch on the fact that Housing &
Neighborhood Development is designed to go out and not only build new homes and
renovated them, but increase the quality of life within neighborhoods. In the past,
neighborhoods in this city have been thrown together, the land cleared barren of trees,
and houses thrown up with no green space, no recreational facilities. Those recreational
facilities we’ve been able to afford over the years have not had sufficient funding to
improve those facilities, to make them usable by the citizens that live in those areas. This
is an opportunity for us to invest in older, established neighborhoods to provide play
areas and recreational facilities that do not exist and will not exist in any other way. It is
completely appropriate for Housing & Neighborhood Development to contribute those
funds to the project, and I would like to see us do more of this, to where we enhance the
quality of life within our existing neighborhoods, to make them places people want to
buy homes, not rent homes. This is the trend, and as you see rental properties increase
within communities, typically so does crime, which is an additional cost factor on our
general budget, and so this, to me, is a way to defer costs over the long run, and is
probably a bargain considering that.
16
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I’d ask the maker of the motion to include the
Administrator’s interpretation that the appropriation for Meadowbrook Park be
conditional on it meeting the criteria of the program.
I don’t see how we can spend
money if it doesn’t meet the criteria. That’s your point, isn’t it, George?
Mr. Beard: Well, the point is if it’s not, then you can’t -- I think the regulation
calls that you can’t spend it anyway. I mean if it doesn’t meet the criteria. I think those
are HUD’s regulations that you can’t spend it anyway, so I don’t see why we would have
to deal with that in the motion.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I think people sitting here worrying about whether a
neighborhood a qualifies or not, I think folks should go out and see the neighborhood,
rather than sit her and project whether it qualifies or not. I think you need to go out there
and take a look and then you wouldn’t have to procrastinate or think the neighborhoods
don’t qualify. I think Andy is correct. I think when you build neighborhoods, you build
recreational areas. I think this is the time to put them in where we don’t have them.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor to approve item number 11. Any
further discussion? Yes, sir, Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mack, how many houses are we going to not remodel if we
take $200,000 or $260,000?
Mr. Mack: We have it about $25,000 a house so we’re talking about maybe 11.
Mr. J. Brigham: 11? Is that appropriate.
Mr. Mack: 11. That’s a good estimate.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mack, do we have unspent Rehab money from previous years?
Just yes or no.
Mr. Mack: We’re moving it.
Mr. Mayor: Do you have unspent Rehab money from previous years? Just yes or
no.
Mr. Beard: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
17
Mr. Colclough: We have every organization in town building homes. How many
homes can you build for some many folks? You know, you’re talking about building
homes and not recreational areas. That’s absurd. Every organization in this town is
building a house.
Mr. Mayor: Jerry?
Mr. J. Brigham: Do we have applicants for these 11 homes? Are we out of
applicants?
Mr. Mack: We have approximately 200 on the waiting list. The people that we
are -- the [inaudible], the [inaudible] that we’re contracting with, most of them are
constructing new homes.
Mr. J. Brigham: This is remodeling?
Mr. Mack: Well, not remodeling. Rehabilitating. Rehabilitating. There’s a
difference between rehab and remodeling.
Mr. J. Brigham: And this is rehabilitation?
Mr. Mack: Yes, sir.
Mr. J. Brigham: And this will handle approximately 11 houses?
Mr. Mack: Yes, sir.
Mr. J. Brigham: And we have more than enough applicants?
Mr. Mack: We have approximately 200 applicants on the list.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams and then Mr. Beard.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Jerry Brigham just got some
clarification for me, and he said remodel, and there’s a difference, Mr. Mack said from
rehabilitate. There’s a difference between remodel. But I’d like to ask Mr. Mack since
this area that we’re talking about, he’s department head, he’s been out there,
Commissioner Colclough said if we go out there and look -- I want to ask his opinion of
the area, of the property, whether or not it meets, ought to be funded by this money.
Mr. Mack: I agree with Mr. Colclough about the appearance of the neighborhood.
By rule, we cannot go by appearance. We have to do, conduct a study to determine the
income levels of the residents in that community.
18
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard:
Mr. Mayor, if this is going to help get these funds appropriated to
the right place, I don’t mind that language going in there. I think it’s redundant because
what the rule states. You can’t do it unless they meet the regulations anyway. But now
to get up here and talk about it’s going to have an effect on what they’re doing over there,
that’s just bull, because it’s not. If it did, we wouldn’t have all this money backing up
But I’m going to go on and do that. Whatever language the Administrator
here.
want in there for this, we’ll put it in there
. If it is going to make the Commissioners
happy. And I know Mr. Colclough, maybe don’t want this, but it will not have an effect
on there anyway, because if it doesn’t meet the criteria we can’t transfer the money
anyway. Isn’t that right, Mr. Mack; if that area does not quality, they can’t spend the
money anyway?
Mr. Mack: Yes, sir.
Mr. Beard: And we think that this area will qualify because of the shift in the
population, and as soon as you do that it will ready. But if Commissioner Colclough,
you’re objecting --
Mr. Colclough: Let’s specify what the language is. Let’s don’t leave it open. I
want it specified in the language so it will be in the minutes.
Mr. Beard: Okay.
Mr. Colclough: I don’t want to leave it open.
Mr. Beard: And we will specify it’s contingent upon --
Mr. Colclough: Qualifications.
Mr. Beard: -- the qualification of the area. Criteria.
Mr. Colclough: Right.
Mr. Beard: Yeah. Cause it would have to meet that anyway.
Mr. Colclough: I agree with you. That’s correct.
Mr. Beard: If that’s satisfied so we can --
Mr. Colclough: That’s fine.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to the amendment? None heard. So the
motion will be amended then. All in favor of the motion on item 11, the motion as
19
amended, please vote aye.
Mr. Kuhlke votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: I might add we’ve had a good discussion about Community
Development Block Grant funds, and you gentlemen will have an opportunity to discuss
this further with the Deputy Secretary of HUD when we have lunch with him next
Wednesday. So get your questions ready. He’s the expert on all this. Okay, item 35 is
next.
35. Motion to approve the waiver of penalty associated with failure to file timely
freeport exemption for Carole Fabrics. (Approved by Finance Committee
September 24, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: How are we going to word that, Mr. Wall?
The Clerk: This will be for a credit of $24,853.12.
Mr. Shepard: I move approval.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Mr. Williams, you asked that this item be
pulled.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I have no problem and I understand what
was brought to committee about Carole Fabrics and filed on the wrong date or a different
date. But if Jane Doe had of came in and filed theirs on the same time, would we do the
same thing? We had a big problem with this city where the water bills was blown way
out of proportion with businesses who have run and not paid and where the private
citizen had been denied or cut off. I can support probably a reduction in this, but I can’t
support in good faith sitting here and not have them to comply with the law. And I
understand that it was an error. I understand that business is very important to us here
and we need their business. I think we need to run business like business, and that’s not
only from that aspect but from this government aspect as well. So I’m going to make a
motion, a substitute motion, if the motion been made, that we work with them on a
percentage basis of some kind, but not --
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, to make the motion you’re going to have to make a
specific motion.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I make a motion we split the $24,000. I think Mr. Wall
said that [inaudible]. I make a motion we split the $24,000 with them and let them pay
the $12,000 and, you know, delete the other half.
20
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the substitute motion? Motion dies for lack of a
second. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, the reason that the committee forwarded this with
approval is because this situation deals with the freeport exemption, and we didn’t have a
precedent for this to carry forward, to fall back on. We do with interest and penalties, but
we didn’t with this one. So we did it in favor of the taxpayer, and I think that was
appropriate.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I think the rationale of the Finance Committee’s action
can be spelled out very succinctly. J-O-B-S. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Any further discussion? Motion on the floor to approve
the motion as read and amended by the Attorney. All in favor of that motion, please vote
aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: Next is item number 43.
43. Motion to approve Proposed 2002 LARP Program List. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee September 24, 2001)
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I asked this to be pulled because the LARP list there
has been, I guess, improved since the committee meeting, so it’s been changed, and we
probably need to approve the -- I assume that’s what George is passing out, the updated
list?
Mr. Kolb: Yes.
Mr. Bridges: I make a motion that we approve
And it’s been shortened and
the updated LARP list.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to approve any updated LARP list?
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: I have one question with respect to the list, and that’s the Lock &
Dam Road. Does that in any way impact what we may do out here in connection with the
airport improvements?
21
Mr. Bridges: I’ll have to defer that to Ms. Smith, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: I know their master plan calls for some relocation of facilities out
there, and I would hate to see us do the same road twice.
Ms. Smith: Teresa Smith, Director of Public Works. Actually, in conversations
with Ms. Wilhelmi, they are going to be doing some major improvements out to the Lock
& Dam Road. There are some areas where the road will remain in its current location.
The final engineering nor time frame for the new roadway activities has not yet been
determined, and in order for us to keep that road from deteriorating, it is necessary for us
to go ahead and do the resurfacing. At this point, though, we don’t know whether the
Georgia Department of Transportation is going to approve this as being one of the roads
that they would support, so we thought is was important for us to submit it for their
consideration.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you very much, Ms. Smith. Anyone have any other
questions? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us up to item 48.
APPOINTMENTS:
48. Consider the following for reappointment or appointment to three (3)
seats on the Sheriff’s Merit System Review Board:
MEMBERS:
???
Carmie Byrant – current term expired
???
Thomas Perry – current term expired
?
Vacancy – due to the resignation of Richard Muns
C.
NOMINATIONS
?
David Barbee, Jr.
D.
Mr. Mayor: We have three appointments; is that correct?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. We have -- Mr. Carmie Bryant is now serving in an expired
term. Mr. Thomas Perry is now on the board. We have a vacancy due to the resignation
of Richard Muns. And we have a nomination of Mr. Dave Barbee, Jr.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have nominations from the floor? I think Mr. Brigham, you
had Mr. Barbee, Jr.; is that correct? We carried that over.
22
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Bridges actually put him on there, but I’ll --
Mr. Mayor: That was carried over from the last meeting; okay. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard:
Mr. Mayor, I’m not sure. I know about two of these, A and B, and
I’m going to ask that we maybe
I’m not sure they really want to continue on that.
postpone this until the next meeting so that we can really look into this and see
maybe that there are other appointments that some of us have not had an
opportunity to really look at this.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Beard: That’s a motion.
Mr. Mayor: We’d already opened the floor for nominations.
Mr. Beard: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Is that a motion and second?
Mr. Mayor: I’d ask the Parliamentarian if the motion is in order once we’ve
opened nominations, start the process.
Mr. Wall: Motion to postpone is in order.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I’d make a substitute motion that we appoint Mr.
Barbee to the vacancy that’s being placed and that be the only position we appoint today.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion that would limit one seat to the one
candidate and it’s been seconded. Any discussion on the substitute motion? All in favor
of the substitute motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard and Mr. H. Brigham vote No.
Mr. Mays, Mr. Colclough and Mr. Williams abstain.
Motion fails 5-2-3.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion. Any discussion on the
original motion to postpone? All in favor of the original motion, please vote aye.
23
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Bridges and Mr. J. Brigham vote No.
Motion carries 7-3.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item 49.
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
49. Discuss Georgia Open Records Laws (Requested by Commissioner
Williams).
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I had some problems earlier
and have not resolved those problems as yet. I talked with the Administrator and I
wanted to get some clarification from the Attorney about our Open Records Act. I have
requested some information that I have not -- well, I’ve gotten some of it but I have not
gotten all of it as of yet. And I need to know, need to get some clarification from our
Attorney about our Open Records Act.
Mr. Mayor: What’s your specific question?
Mr. Williams: Well, my specific question is, Mr. Mayor, as an elected official
when I request open records or when I request some documents from this government,
am I allowed to receive those, I guess is to put it blunt. I have not been able to get some
open records. I guess to put the whole can of worms out there, I requested some
information from some Department Heads, and not wanting to put them in any position,
but if the Administrator has advised them not to issue that, those records, and if I as
elected official can’t get them, what would Jane Doe or John Doe do if he wanted to
receive those things? I just need some ruling.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, could you explain to the Commissioner what the legal
requirement is for these Department Heads to furnish information to the Commissioner or
anyone else who asks for it?
Mr. Wall: First of all, there is no distinction between you as a Commissioner and
any other individual insofar as Open Records Act is concerned. And once a request is
made, Augusta has three business days in which to respond if they object to producing
any portion of the information that has been requested. However, we are not required,
the government is not required to assemble information or to generate reports, and I don’t
know specifically the information that you’re referring to. But the only thing they’re
required to do in response to an open request, Open Records request from anybody, is to
make the records available for inspection and copy them. And that can be, depending
upon the volume, saying, you know, here are the records, go through them, let us know
24
what copies you want, we’ll make copies for you. Too, many times as a convenience, we
have made the copies and charge the individual and our policy is $.25 a copy under the
Open Records Act. I hope I’m answering your question. I’m sort of answering it without
knowing specifically what --
Mr. Williams: I appreciate it, Mr. Wall. On Wednesday, the Mayor and I was in
a class at ACCG, and we had this discussion as well about the Open Records Act. And
the Administrator, he might want to help us out here, and jump in. But what I was told
from the Administrator was it was too much work, it would take too long, and I think it
came out, Mr. Mayor, that it was an unusual request, it was a lot of information. I mean I
can understand that. But when I request information and then in three days’ time I get a
statement saying that’s too much information for the staff to do -- I was even suggested to
go downstairs and someone and those records -- and would even show me how to run a
computer to get those records. And I really wasn’t [inaudible] with that. My thing is if
I’m an elected official or John Doe and you walk in off the street and require those
records, I think the law says three days, those records should have been --
Mr. Wall: No, sir, I disagree with that. There are some who say that the records
have to be produced within three days, but that’s not what the law says.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Wall: The law says that you’ve got to respond within three days.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Wall: And then lay out a schedule or provide a time when those records will
be produced. Now in most instances we do try to produce the document if it’s a law
volume within the three days. But we’re not required to produce the documents within
the three days.
Mr. Williams: I did receive a letter within three days. I did do that. And the
letter wanted to know specifically as to what I was asking for. And I made it as plain as I
know how to, used some of that “simple Steve” stuff on it, but evidently it didn’t work.
But I wanted to get some clarification as to when you do require and not get department
heads in the middle of anything because I feel like if you went to a department head or
the Administrator and you needed information, and being under that Open Records Act
we should be able to receive that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, could you assist the Commissioner in obtaining the
information he needs from the appropriate departments?
Mr. Kolb: We have -- Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we have done
that, and if the Commission so directs will spend the time to do it. The reason for the
concern that we have is that one department that has two people in it is going to have to
25
take one employee and spend eight hours to compile the information that is a record that
does not exist at this time. It’s something that we’ve got to put together.
Mr. Mayor: The law allows you to charge the requestor for the search time,
doesn’t it?
Mr. Kolb: Well --
Mr. Wall: Under the Open Records Act, we’re not required to compile
information. And so what Mr. Kolb is referring to about compiling information, we’re
not required to do that under Open Records and typically we refuse to do that.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Wall, and I agree with that 100%. If I was asking
for something to be compiled, it would be different. I do have that much sense. But
we’ve got a document that governs our contracts that said there would be records,
monthly records, and I asked for those monthly records. Now as far as the Administrator
or any department head putting the records together for me, no, sir. I never asked that.
These are contracts that we’re talking about, specifying in the contract when the bid dates
should be and those type things, and those are the type things I asked for. I didn’t ask for
anything to be put together.
Mr. Kolb: If I -- unless we misread or misunderstood the letter, what you asked
for was three months’ of work of a specific department’s fleet maintenance records. We
keep fleet maintenance records, but they’re compiled for all of the departments. We
don’t need to segregate them out by departments. You asked us to segregate it out by a
specific department. We do not keep that record. Now, we have -- I was in the same
Open Records meeting that you were at in Atlanta, and what they said is that you invite
the person down to review the records. That offer has been made to you. And you did
not want to do that. I’m not sure what else to do, because it’s interfering with that
department’s operation. It’s a two-person shop
Mr. Williams: Well, I think we’re hiring people every day, Mr. Kolb, maybe we
need to hire somebody else and put them in that department. But when those records are
asked from anybody in the general public or anybody on this Commission board, I think
those records should be provided. I do not want you to put any records together or make
anything up for me. I did not request that. Maybe we misunderstand, but I came by your
office and talked with you and told you exactly what I was looking for. And not only
that, I mentioned about the department head. I asked the department head for some
records and I shared with you what I was going to do, and you instructed the department
head not to give me that information. That’s part of the Open Records Act there.
Mr. Kolb: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s see if we can move this issue forward a little bit. Mr. Williams,
if you would get with the Administrator and restate your request, and then Mr. Kolb, if
26
you would have the appropriate department head open up those records and then Mr.
Williams could look at the records and make copies of what he wants to out of the
records, just as we would do for any citizen, I think that would be an appropriate way to
handle this.
Mr. Kolb: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Next item, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
50. OTHER BUSINESS:
I. Discuss rescinding the actions of the Augusta Commission taken in the
August 21 meeting regarding the conversion of $500,000 in Year 2001 CDBG
Funds to HOME funds to assist the City in meeting its current HOME match
requirements and CDBG spend down ratio relative to the East Augusta
Community Development Corporation to support development activities
associated with the Lincoln Square Multi-Family Rehab Project.
Developments. (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Mays)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, thank you for representing us at that dedication this
afternoon. Appreciate that. I’ll turn the floor over to you on this item.
th
Mr. Mays:
I figure since it’s my 50 year being a Lamar baby, I celebrate my
[inaudible] by going there for that, too. Thank you so much for the special letter and
proclamation that you sent. They were very pleased with that. I asked that this be placed
on. Any Commissioners can ask questions if they wish, but the main thing we were
trying to do in Lincoln Square, where we’re trying to cultivate a $4.2 million project
that’s going in to that area. All things are ready and on go. It’s a complete turn-around
from negative to positive in that area. And it’s the second large project that they’ve had,
now going before us, that the City has had some participation in, the first being the
Seniors HOME Project, and now this one. And I think this is a matter of being able to
make it move more smoothly with the funds going there with CDBG, I think, Mr. Mack,
the other entities, the City in terms of the bid process, all those things on board. But this
And I’d make a motion that we
needed to be moved into that category to get it done.
do so.
Mr. Beard: I second that.
Mr. Mays: We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Shepard?
27
Mr. Shepard: The redirection -- is this redirection of this money or -- I was
looking hastily through the back-up. You want us to rescind our action that we just took
on August 21, but I’m a little unclear, and as Mr. Williams frequently says, seek
clarification. What are you asking us to do with the $500,000?
Mr. Mays: This is back where it originally was, Mr. Shepard. In the CDBG
package. We have half a million dollars in the $4.2 million. There is a $3.7 million
difference, but in order for them not to disturb where the tax credits are and the equity
section of that, the lenders prefer that it be out of that funded source. There’s no problem
with HND moving back to that source of money, so it’s simply back where it was before
it was switched, where they can move forward. But Mr. Wall was in on that proceeding.
The Deputy Administrator -- the Administrator came in on the second day, and the two
Commissioners from District 1 were there as well, as well as the staff people in terms of
moving this along.
Mr. Shepard: Did I -- if I can ask you one other question. Did I hear you say this
is “lender driven” -- the lenders want this for the whole project?
Mr. Mays: Well, part of it. Part of it is that, but in terms of the non-profit, in
terms of they were ready to move and everybody at the time was just trying to get money
and moving forward so that the whole operation can move smoothly. There was a
situation that I don’t think that our department was totally aware of, and we probably
could have still made it work with this one. But they were not going to be as friendly
moving it with that source of money. This one gets it off of square one and gets it to
moving so they don’t have a hitch in it. And right now we were sitting there with
buildings that needed to be painted, you were disturbing a construction contract, those
things were going into a negative mold if we do not get it into that mold and rolling. So
it simply places back into the pocket that it was originally in.
Mr. Shepard: Well, my lawyer is saying that it’s lender driven; is that right?
Mr. Wall: In part. I mean the project was premised upon the fact that CDBG
funds were going to be utilized. And we’ve changed, attempted to change the deal mid-
stream. And so it affected the lender as well as the non-profit organizations.
Mr. Shepard: Okay. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion?
Mr. Mays: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have any further discussion?
Mr. Bridges: Is the motion to rescind?
28
Mr. Mays: Yes.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: Putting back the way it was.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
II.
Submit to the Justice Dept. for approval the redistricting plan for Richmond
County. ( Requested by Commission Kuhlke)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Recognize Mr. Kuhlke for this item. Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, if you will indulge for just a little bit longer than I
normally talk, I want to commend to you and my fellow Commissioners the redistricting
plan that was furnished to everyone last Friday. This plan was developed without politics
in mind, but rather with community in mind, using the 2000 census data. The shift in
population from 1990 to 2000 dictated where some of the lines fell. And I want to go
through the criteria that we used in developing this map, and also some of the benefits
that we see in the map that we have. First, to the extent practical, the deviation for the
idea of district size must be kept to a minimum 3%, 3-½%. Neighborhoods and
communities of interest must be recognized and kept intact when feasible. Where
possible, municipal boundaries should be observed and not divided between districts.
Voters should be allowed to maintain continuity representation on the Commission if
they so desire. No returning incumbent were paired in the same district. The plan must
comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Supreme Court decision of Shaw v.
Reno. District lines should follow recognizable geographic boundaries, major roads,
railroads, streams and other landmarks. The land should maximize representation of the
river and canal in order to build interest for two of the community’s most important
resources. The districts should be reasonable compact. And that’s the criteria that we
went by. But some of the benefits are the districts have approximate population, and the
deviation is +3-½%, well within Constitutional acceptance and standards. Commission
districts are drawn around geographic boundaries. Neighborhoods are not unnecessarily
divided. The districts recognize land use principles. For example, District 1 has a
downtown core. District 2 has a downtown residential component and a substantial
industrial component. And so on. Five Commission districts would border the Savannah
River, one of our most important assets and resources. Three Commission districts
29
current border the river. Three Commission districts would border the canal, another one
of our important assets. Two Commission districts currently border the canal. Six
Commission districts would border or encompass downtown Augusta, the heart of our
city. This corresponds closely to the economic sector identified by Greater Augusta
Progress. Rational district boundaries. Commissioners would be more aligned with
constituents’ base, more compact districts with no fingers reaching out. Compliance with
the Voting Right Act and does not engage in the unconstitutional gerry-mandering,
respecting traditional redistricting criteria. And with that, Mr. Mayor, and fellow
Commissioners, we have the unique opportunity to exercise the right of home rule, to
determine our own destiny, and I move that we accept this plan and submit to the United
States Justice Department for approval.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I want to make a substitute motion, since this was
compiled in secret, that we accept this as information along with the information from
our Executive Director of the Board of Elections that was submitted to us just now.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to receive this as information. And let’s see, our
Elections Director is here. Ms. Bailey, I want to thank you very much for compiling this
information. She and I spoke last week, and I just want to draw your attention to the
paragraph that talks about important dates. Because we are upon against the gun if we
want to do something with the Board of Education, as we’ve discussed earlier. When
you look at qualifying the last week of June and then backing up 30 days for voter
notification and then backing up 60 days for Justice Department review and another 60
days for a potential extension of that time, things have got to start moving quickly fairly
soon.
Ms. Bailey: I would agree with that. And just as a point of clarification, there
was some legislation pending in the special session regarding the primary date for 2002.
The legislation read that in years following redistricting the primary date would be
moved up. Jim Wall has informed me that that bill has been signed by the Governor at
this point. And so what that means is -- your number five under important dates, it gives
you the date of the July primary, that’s actually changed to the third Tuesday in August,
and the qualifying, which is just for next year only, and then it reverts back to the July
date. And the qualifying period for partisan offices next year will move from April,
when it’s usually done, to the third Wednesday in June. And that was done by the
General Assembly to give local governments more time to implement the state plans,
allowing for court challenges and such as that. But even with that additional time, there
is still a lot of work to be done.
30
Mr. Mayor: But that does not impact the qualifying for the Board of Education
seats?
Ms. Bailey: It does not at all. That’s non-partisan qualifying.
Mr. Mayor: If we want to do something to shadow the Board of Education, then
we have to be sensitive to those Board of Education deadlines; right?
Ms. Bailey: That is correct. One big point is when we redistrict and re-distribute
the voters around Richmond County, every voter in Richmond County will be sent a first
class notice notifying them of those changes. And when you’re talking about 120,000
voters, I figured it to be about $41,000 it would cost us to do that county-wide mailing,
and we certainly want to be in a position of having our local lines done at that point so
that we can take advantage of that mailing and don’t have to do another mailing to our
voters when the local lines go into effect. So I think that instead of setting our target
dates around the local qualifying periods that we should definitely look at what the state
requirements are going to be and try to stick to those as closely as we can.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Further discussion? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, thank you. I just wanted to know who drew
the lines? I mean I got the package and I looked it over, but it didn’t say who did the
drawing.
Mr. Kuhlke: May I answer that?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Williams, the Committee for Progress, a group that you should
be familiar with -- the worked very hard on the last three sales tax issues for Richmond
County -- because we as Commissioners could not get involved in it. This is a group of
citizens -- I’m a member of that Committee -- who have a real strong interest in this
community and in this government. And that group, realizing and looking at what was
going on in Atlanta and knowing that we had not made a move ourselves in doing
something on redistricting, invested the money to buy the software, to hire an attorney
who is an expert on redistricting to sort of shepherd us as we went through, we developed
this. When we first developed this plan, when the plan really came together -- at that
point we didn’t even know where every Commissioner lived. It just so happened that
when we started placing where the Commissioners lived, that all fat fell in the district.
Because of the shift in population from downtown to south Augusta, what ended up
happening, if you were going to try to keep the deviation correct, as far as voting age
population, and then trying to keep the districts pretty close together from the standpoint
of population, then in the south Augusta area what happened is Andy and Ulmer’s
districts flip-flopped. So we went through this process, we certainly want to be of
assistance to this government, we want to be of assistance to Ms. Bailey, but we think
31
we’ve got a good plan. I think as you look at that plan, certainly it’s not racially
motivated. Every Commissioner is protected. And we still maintain five minority
districts.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. With all due respect to the Committee for putting it
together, and I probably know some of the people who put it together, and with all due
good intentions intended, I think something that when it comes to the delicacy and to the
sensitive nature of redistricting of anything that deals with the voting rights act, I think
that when you start to do this, it’s not a question so much about numbers as it is to a point
that when you -- and I appreciate what the group has done in working with this county
over the years in sales tax, but I think we ought not confuse apples and oranges here
today. We’re talking about the right to vote. We’re talking about avoiding confusion.
We’re talking about a lot of things that are unanswered in terms of what the map may not
say. I don’t know what attorney was working with it. That’s not really important. What
I think is important, though, is two words that were left out. One is that when you talk
about a community that’s as diverse as ours, that if you are going to seek input, you’re
going to work -- you know, whether it be business or grass roots people -- that you seek
these people out when you are dealing with the delicacy of saving districts, because it
causes you, gentlemen, to avoid a lot of confusion on the tail end. I can guarantee you
that if you were to take a map that has not had the input across this community and one
that’s as diverse as ours, and the respect level I think which I don’t think was
intentionally not shown, but I think to a point that where you ask people to -- you put
something in a box that’s as delicate as voting rights and I’ve around this game for a long
time. The elections that I’ve run have been test cases that we’ve used, you know, against
the old city of Augusta that dismantled at-large voting, that actually set the stage for
people even in south Augusta to have representation, which went beyond the drawing of
racial lines. I think when you don’t seek out to involve others in that process, I think then
you ask for trouble. You send this bill up here today in terms of what’s going out of here,
and the reason why I think it’s a good substitute motion for information is that it
definitely would reach enough fire regardless of who is the attorney, Jim, to get
[inaudible], and you’re talking about a series of delays, that’s what you’re going to be
asking for. The second thing, Mr. Mayor, is that on two different occasions this
Commission, when efforts have been made to hurry up this process, this Commission by
majority vote has rejected that. The members who voted in the affirmative never said we
wanted to skirt around redistricting. What was said in essence was that we would wait
until the air cleared with the Legislative Delegation, to get rid of their own business, to
get rid of the Congressional lines, then to be able to work with us. Now Mr. Wall and I
were in that same meeting, both with Secretary Cox, along with Commissioner
Colclough, and along with Ms. [inaudible] on yesterday morning, there in Atlanta, at
ACCG policy side. We do have some pushing dates, but we still do have some time. I
want to remind you, too, if the Attorney would remind you, that as we seek to move these
lines, that you have a state line which does deal with the formation of how the Board of
Education lines are drawn and who will deal with those lines. I think it’s important to do
32
more than just send folk in two governments a packet, say here it is, read through it, and
because the numbers balance and because the racial make-up doesn’t change, that you go
ahead and you submit this to the Department of Justice. Confusion element number one,
if the board allows the delegation to draw its lines, what we could possibly do by drawing
ours, which we do have the right under home rule to do, is that we possibly could flip
flop in terms of where you think, as I’ve said it before, you think Florida was a mass of
confusion last year, look at Augusta Richmond County and what it could be in terms of
people being in one Board of Education district and in another Commission district. That
has the grand opportunity of happening unless those three entities meet. The only thing
we’ve said in rejecting the time date that’s been put forward on two different occasions,
is that we wait until the dust clear. It just cleared, genetlemen. We also now have the
opportunity of the three governmental bodies doing what you said to do. But I think to
move forward on a plan to a point of where you ask all of us, not just the Commission
here today, but asking the Board of Education to do something, and then not knowing
still what the Legislative Delegation is going to do in reference to the Board of
Education. I think we are asking for a bit of unnecessary trouble. I think that this map
that’s been drawn can be used as one to be presented. I think it can make a good talking
piece. It can make a good starting piece. I’m not looking for a war or a fight today. But
I think, Mr. Mayor, that this is something that really the delicacy of this whole subject in
terms of when I ask constituents, and I think I can be very fair with this, I don’t have an
opponent in this year’s election, and I’m not bragging but I’ve won eight of them, so I
think I can speak a little bit on this subject, to a point of -- and I’ve been in every branch
of government, and that’s a record that won’t be broken unless y’all deconsolidate. But if
we are going to look at this fairly, then if that’s the intention then you involve folk in that
process of what you and I, Mr. Mayor, call that old Carrie Mays formula, that you work
with folk, you don’t necessarily just work for them. You know, you involve people in the
process of what you’re doing. And to come with this, you know, in a mailbox type
atmosphere in something that’s a delicate and sensitive as this issue, I think that you have
actually not only done a disrespectful, maybe indirectly, not intentional, but I think that
it’s been insensitive in the way that it’s been handled. I think we have the time to still do
it, and I’m for even looking at this map and of making some adjustments with it. But I
can’t answer four districts that I represent that have given me the opportunity twice now
unopposed and with 60% of the vote in a five-way race to come here, consolidate it, that I
don’t even know the legal folk that drew it up, I don’t know the make-up of the folk that
doing it, and to just say that they’re non-political. There is nothing about redistricting on
any level, gentlemen, that is non-political. Every bit of redistricting in any form, state,
local, from the outhouse to the White House, is political.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, let’s let some of these other Commissioners speak.
Mr. Mays: I am, Mr. Mayor, but I think the motion ought to be carried, the
substitute one, and this bill out to be today as dead as all four of my grandparents, the two
in Lincoln County and the two that’s down in Cedar Grove.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
33
Mr. Mays: It ought to be killed and shelved until we got time to talk about it.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Beard.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Mays in his oratory covered a
lot of the issues that I was going to discuss. The fact to blatantly state that this is non-
political when politicians and former politicians sit on that committee is ridiculous. I
looked at the map and I have to applaud the Committee. We had not moved as quickly as
we should. This motion, pass or fail, should be followed. Certainly if it passes with
maybe a motion to select a committee from the Commission, and encourage the school
board to do the same and work with our Executive Director of our Board of Elections as a
team to come up with something that fits the community, that is inclusive of all members
of both the Board of Education and the Commission in order to take it to Atlanta as a
package. Being put together, not rammed down somebody’s throat, but being put
together as a team. Team Augusta. We’ve been working on that for years. We’ve
talked about this year total quality. The old way is to go out into some back room and do
something with your buddies and bring it up here and throw it on the table and say here,
take it. The correct way to do is to be inclusive to begin with, have these discussions and
debates, work out the problems before it gets to the floor, and then it will go through and
pass and then go to Atlanta, showing us unified, and hopefully get our delegation unified
behind the effort, and get it passed, without a lot of political polarization. Talking about
the communities and neighborhoods, I’ve looked at the map and it has some very good
points. But also there’s some positions within the community where neighborhoods are
split that exist now. This does not resolve that. Especially in south Augusta. I resent the
fact that people would draw up a map looking at south Augusta who have I trouble
getting across the Gordon Highway to come and see south Augusta. The idea of
including the borders of the river, the districts in the river and the canal is excellent, but
then again are we all so petty that we don’t recognize whether we have a touching point
on the river or the canal, that that is an important asset and probably one of our greatest
assets in this community? I support us working together. I will serve or I will cheer on
the sidelines. But this needs to be inclusive, not exclusive, as it has been. It needs to be
received as information. And then used in conjunction with our Executive Director of
our Board of Election and a school board committee to come up with a consolidated plan.
We can put a deadline date on when we need it done and schedule an aggressive number
of meetings to accomplish this goal, perhaps even use some of the same software that the
Committee has purchased. But that’s the way it needs to be done, not out, down the road,
in secret, and then brought and thrown on the table. That is the wrong way, and as long
as I sit here, that kind of thing will not pass on my watch.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think the truth of the matter is we’ve
been sitting on the issue reapportionment, we’ve been sitting on our collective hands, and
we’ve not shown as a body leadership, and I want to commend Super District
34
Commissioner Kuhlke for showing that kind of leadership, for taking the bull by the
horns and attempting not just to criticize and say what’s wrong or whatever, but to come
out with a pro-active solution where we can start the process of redistricting. In short,
gentlemen, it’s going to be like a budget. We’re going to have to do it. It comes every
st
December 31. We’ve got to have a budget. Every ten years you’ve got to reapportion
this Commission, and I think we’re going -- the issue is are we going to show the
leadership, do this locally or not, or are we going to stand up and handle this business or
are we going to do it by default and let either the Legislature do it in Atlanta or let the
Courts do it? I vote for doing it locally, and I commend Commissioner Kuhlke for
starting this discussion, for being pro-active, and for being a leader in this regard.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I don’t want to be redundant on a lot of this, cause a lot
has been said. And one thing about it, when Commissioner Cheek and Commissioner
Mays finished, they said about everything that needs to be said, and I do agree with most
of what they said. I have heard a lot in the interim conversations and I would also like to
applaud Commissioner Kuhlke for getting involved in this, but I think its timing is real
bad. I also think the process that he used was kind of bad, also. And I do think we ought
to show leadership. But if we recall that we were all waiting -- and we’re all aware we’re
going to have to do something and I don’t think we’re just sitting on our hands. I think
we were waiting until the dust cleared in Atlanta. I think all of us here would like to see
the school board and the Commissioners shadow each other on this lines. And I think
that’s going to happen. And I think that the way it should have been done as expressed
by two of our Commissioners already is that we should sit down as a team and look this
over, and this is the time to do it. And I think that -- this is why I said that the timing is
bad. To do it prior to this and to do it the way that it’s been done. But I do think that
Commissioner Kuhlke had good intentions in doing this and working with this, but we
have three bodies we have to consider here. This body, the school board, and the
Legislative Delegation. And I think the thing that should have been talked about today
instead of accepting what has been done, is forming a committee that we could
immediately get together and start working on a process that we know must come to pass,
and I think everything has been said otherwise than that, and I hope that we can start that
process, because I don’t see this passing.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I want to comment Mr.
Kuhlke and the Committee of Progress for taking the initiative and showing the
leadership to begin this process and draw these maps up. I think what they’ve done, just
from looking at what we’ve got now with all the fingers in it and what they’ve come up
with, I’m firmly convinced can survive any legal or judicial test. And they should be
commended for that. I think the criticism of being done in secret -- there’s too many
people for it, that criticism. Many times it’s just because we weren’t involved in the
process. Even though I wasn’t one of them involved in it either, I think they have shown
35
the initiative and leadership. I think this is a good design they’ve come up with. I do
have a couple of comments on the proposed map, Bill. One is, and I think Jerry and
Andy and I talked about this as well, District 6 and 8. I’m now 6 and Andy is 8, and I
think the numbers themselves should follow the sitting Commissioenrs to avoid
constituent confusion. I think that’s a change that could be made in this map. I think also
in what you’ve proposed as District 6, which would be my district. Of course, I’ve got
Fort Gordon, but I’ve also got a large portion of west Augusta in there. And
geographically, it’s much more difficult for me to serve that district, to travel, in regards
to travel or geographical distance between points. It’s much more difficult for me to do it
as it for somebody say in District 3 or District 5. And I’m wondering if those are things
we couldn’t jockey at and look at in regards to drawing these lines up. But you know,
overall, if I thought this was going to pass today, I would vote for it. I mean I can serve
anybody anywhere. I don’t have a problem with that. What I’m hearing, I’m not hearing
that the votes are there. But I don’t think this should be taken as anything sinister or any
unfavorable condemnation should be made of the people that proposed this. I think they
had the best interests of the community at heart. I am glad to see somebody started this
process and drew something up. We didn’t do anything. And it’s a new one on me that
we were waiting for the Legislature to get their lines drawn because our lines don’t have
anything to do with theirs. We draw our own up. I do think the school board should be
involved in this and rather having school board and Commission seat lines.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham, and then again Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, first off I want to commend Mr. Kuhlke and the
Committee of Progress to start with. I think this is a situation that we have tried a couple
of times to get brought forward for discussion. At least we’re getting some discussion
and we’re doing better. And maybe it is the fact that the Legislature is out of session.
But I would renew my call for a meeting of this Commission, the Delegation and the
Board of Education to sit down and talk about this. We had that opportunity to do before
they went to Atlanta, but we chose to sit on our blessed assurance and do nothing. Now
we don’t need to sit any longer and do nothing. We need to go forward. We need to get
a plan that this community, this entire community, can come to terms with where we’re
going to get for the next ten years. And I don’t think we need to wait on the delegation. I
think we got the authority, and I think this is part of consolidation, a big part of it. We
have home rule. We need to exercise the leadership. The leadership sits at this table.
We are it. We were elected to be it. And by damn, we need to start acting like it. We
can do this. We can bring the School Board in. We can shout at each other. We can get
cooperation out of the Delegation. But we need to act. And I think we got a good plan. I
can support this plan. I probably can support several plans. I haven’t seen any other plan
other than this. The people that are talking about this has been in done secrecy has not
been willing to put forward a plan. I think that point --
Mr. Cheek: That’s baloney.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham has the floor. Go ahead, Mr. Brigham.
36
Mr. J. Brigham: I don’t know that it’s baloney at all. By damn, we done turned
down two motions to do something about consolidation, and that is a fact. That ain’t
baloney. And the majority of the people that sit at this table were the ones that did it.
And I wasn’t in that crowd. I think we need to get available and get constituents in it and
I think we need to get representatives.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, you got to understand one thing. The Committee for
Progress has no power to make this happen. This is submitted to you just as information,
to try to be of assistance to you. I don’t have a problem with what Mr. Cheek is saying,
but I think just to defer this at this point and take it as information is not really moving in
the right direction. I’ve heard this let’s form a committee, let the Mayor form a
committee to work with the Board of Education, and I think if you do that then you get
the process moving. And I think Andy, if you would have an interest in adding that or
amending your motion to allow the Mayor to go ahead and appoint a committee to go to
work, and I can commit to this Commission that the Committee for Progress will add any
assistance that they can to Ms. Bailey, to the committee that’s formed, to the Baord of
Education, to the Delegation, and I can assure you that this was not done in two or three
days. This process that was presented to you last Friday has been a process that’s been
going on for six months. So it is a long process to get it done.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. One other question I had, and I forgot to
ask earlier. Jim, can this plan be presented as one plan and then we could come in later
and present another plan to the Legislature? What kind of guidelines -- if we approve the
original motion, is this the only plan we can present, or can we come back at a later date,
necessarily before it’s approve by the Legislature and Justice Department and say hey,
we’re in agreement, we want to make some changes in some boundaries here?
Mr. Wall: Let me try to answer the question this way. As a municipality, you
have the right to submit your own plan. So you could go and submit your own plan to the
Justice Department. Now the Board of Education has got to be redistricted, plan
submitted by the General Assembly. And the General Assembly could trump, so to
speak, any plan that was submitted by you as the Commission. So whatever is done, if
you’re going to have the same lines, you’re going to have to have the blessing of the
Legislative Delegation, cause they’re the ones that are going to have to bless the lines, so
to speak as far as the Board of Education is concerned. I hope I’ve answered your
question. Yes, you can go ahead and submit this. The Justice Department will not give
you a preview ruling. They either going to approve it or not approve it.
Mr. Bridges: So this would be submitted as our plan if we did it?
37
Mr. Wall: That is correct.
Mr. Bridges: Following up on that, the -- I think Bill just pointed this out. But
the motion to receive it as information, the failing I see in that motion is that it doesn’t
establish any kind of deadline for action, and I think Bill is right, Mr. Cheek, if that -- if
some of that language was included in your motion, I think it would receive more
favorable appeal to some of the rest of us.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I was going to echo those sentiments. I would hope that the maker
of the motion, the substitute motion, would entertain an amendment to that motion that
would --
Mr. Mayor: Would you state your amendment?
Mr. Shepard: I would ask that the substitute motion be amended so that a
committee be appointed by you, Mr. Mayor, to develop a set of public hearing times
and dates like the SPLOST process and this become the Citizens Committee for
Reapportionment and that that Committee develop an interface with the Board of
Education and utilize the resources of the Board of Elections.
Mr. Mayor: Your amendment would create a Citizens Committee, not a --
Mr. Shepard: No. No, I would ask you to appoint members of this
Commission.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: This is about the business of reorganizing this Commission,
Mr. Mayor, and I would ask that you appoint a sub-committee of Commissioners,
that it be fair and representative, and that they work toward establishing a process
like the SPLOST process where we have hearings, if we’re going to bring
stakeholders as a buzz word, and constituents, and citizens from all walks of this
community to the table, let’s develop a process like we developed for the SPLOST.
It seemed to be successful. That’s a successful model. Why reinvent the wheel? If it
worked for how we are going to spend $150 million, it seems like it would work for how
we reapportion this Commission.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to amending the substitute motion as outlined
by Commissioner Shepard?
Mr. Beard: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Then we’ll have to -- we don’t have unanimous consent to
38
do that, so we need to vote on the amendment.
Mr. Beard: If we can just ask -- I think it just needs a little clarifying what he has
said.
Mr. Mayor: Did you want to ask him a question about what he said?
Mr. Beard: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: I think there is a possibility -- what I see is that the Legislative group
would draw the lines for the Board of Education, and I think over the last years we have
had the same boundaries. So I can’t see two bodies getting together and making this
when the Legislative Delegation would have to play a part in that. To me, what you need
is a committee from those three groups to interact and come up with some type of
consensus as to what this is going to be. Because I think as I understood your motion,
Mr. Shepard, it’s just the two bodies you were talking about. Now if you are talking
about the third body interacting with this, I can see that.
Mr. Shepard: I can live with that, Mr. Beard. They’ve got to be players at
the table as well. I think we can only appoint our members to the committee and we
would invite the Baord to appoint a similar committee and invite the Legislative
Delegation to either appoint themselves to the committee as a whole or them also
apoint a committee, but I have no problem with all three entities that need to work
together, working together. That’s the sense of my motion.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion from Commissioner Shepard to amend the
substitute motion, so we need to vote on that because there was objection to it.
Mr. Wall: You don’t have a second to Steve’s motion.
Mr. Mayor: I thought we had a second.
Mr. J. Brigham: I can second that.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a second. So this would be a vote on Mr.
Shepard’s amendment to the substitute motion. Is there discussion on that?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just a quick --
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Cheek: Could Mr. Shepard include that we would seek to achieve a
racial balance on that to where we could forgo any suspicions that these committee
39
be made up as balanced as possible to represent the true face of Augusta?
Mr. Shepard: I make that expressly in there.
I said, Andy, that it should be
fair and balanced and representative.
Mr. Cheek: Well.
Mr. Shepard: This Board is in that present balance, the Board of Education. I
mean that was part of it, I said let’s have all the stakeholders, citizens and interest groups
at the table. Certainly we’re not going to exclude anybody.
Mr. Cheek: I just don’t want to take anything for granted.
Mr. Mayor: And then, too, if you have a committee of this group, you won’t have
any women on it. So there are other ways to look at it, too. Mr. Shepard has made a
motion to amend the substitute motion. We’re going to vote on the amendment. Mr.
Mays, did you want to comment on the amendment?
Mr. Mays: Yes. Mr. Mayor. Well, yeah, on the amendment.
Mr. Mayor: That’s what we’re voting on.
Mr. Mays: It’s a point of order. I wanted to ask of the Attorney.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Mays: The Attorney was explaining about the process in there. What I
wanted to know was did the Board have any options around what is state law regarding
them? In terms of how they are aligned. The Board of Education. Because the
Commission lines that we set under consolidation were drawn to mirror the Board of
Education’s lines. Their lines were in place and when we consolidated, we in turn placed
these lines that we operate under to mirror their lines that were in place. That is why we
didn’t have to redraw any. So what I’m asking is does the Board have an option, and I’m
asking this for public record since we’ve been sitting on our hands and not doing
anything, I have a purpose for asking. Does the Board of Education have any option of
getting around what is the law, since they do not have home rule?
Mr. Wall: No. Their line -- the Board of Education submits lines to the
Legislative Delegation, but the General Assembly is the one who has to redistrict, redraw
the lines for the Board of Education.
Mr. Mays: Okay, Mr. Mayor, the Attorney has answered my question. I merely
was looking for a vindication of sitting on my hands since I figured that the Board -- that
the Legislative Delegation would not be ready to draw anybody else’s boundaries until
they got through with theirs and the ones they were called into special session about, that
40
was what we were waiting for, the lines to get clear, and so I don’t know what about no
some folk didn’t understand. It’s not a matter of doing nothing. And I say, too, this can
be a talking piece. I have no problem with that. But I think to say that we have not acted,
there was a reason for us not moving forward until you had the parties available to move
forward with. The Board of Education does not have a clear path and some people want
to ignore that and play by this game that we’ve not done it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, I would suggest the record is clear on what action was
taken and what action was not taken.
Mr. Mays: I just want it as a part of the record, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s move ahead. We’ll vote on Mr. Shepard’s amendment to the
substitute motion. All in favor of that amendment, please vote aye.
(Vote on inclusion of amendment in substitute motion)
Mr. Mays and Mr. Colclough abstain.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Mayor: So the substitute motion is now amended to reflect Mr. Shepard’s
comments. Now Mr. Cheek, one more time.
Mr. CheekI’d
: Just to amend my portion of the amended motion amendment,
like to put a closure date on this of December 1 to have meetings and go on and close
this out.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding a December 1 closure date to this?
None heard.
Mr. Cheek: And Mr. Mayor, just a quick comment. Most of us here don’t wait
until election year to get things done.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll call the question on the substitute motion, as amended. All in
favor, please vote aye.
(Vote on amended substitute motion)
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s do the addendum agenda items and then the legal items.
Addendum Item 1. Consider a request for a letter of support for the 330E grant
application for the Center for Community Health.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I move for approval on Item 1.
41
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Mr. Colclough, you had a question about this?
Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I just clarified it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We’re ready to vote to approve. All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Addendum Item 2. Consider a request for an appointment by the Commission of a
member to the initial Board of Directors for the Richmond County Medical Society.
Mr. Mayor: This is for Project Access that we’ve been talking about. Mr.
Shepard?
Mr. Shepard:
Mr. Mayor, it is about Project Access and the Commissioner
that’s been most involved in Project Access is our Chairman of the Indigent Care Study
I’d nominate Commissioner Jerry Brigham.
Committee, so
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Jerry Brigham has been nominated. Are there any other
nominations?
Mr. Colclough: Question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Colclough: Explain what this committee is.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Colclough, if you recall last year, there was a contingent of us,
and I think Mr. Brigham and I were the two that went to Asheville to study the Asheville
Model for delivering indigent care. That’s known as the Project Access Asheville. The
key to that project was that basically you organize the physicians who were willing to
participate in such a project in a systematic panel of donating care. You would have
specialty physicians throughout medicine pledge a certain number of slots in their
practice to indigent care service, and then you have an organization such as Project
Access who registers these individuals through the Board of Health there in Asheville,
and basically you use a matching system that was developed by Project Access in
Asheville to match indigent care patients to primary care physicians and to specialty care
42
physicians. So the object is to deliver these eligible patients care at no cost to the
patients. It is also a method for organizing a pharmacy so that folks can have no only a
primary or specialty care visit, but they can have the necessary medication prescribed for
them, and the whole point of the Project Access is to keep these individuals out of the
local primary care hospital. And that’s where, as you know, in your profession, that’s
where the most expensive care is delivered. So the way Asheville got itself organized
was they formed a corporation and they applied for a -- and I can’t remember the name of
the grant, I think it was --
Mr. J. Brigham: Robert Woods Foundation grant.
Mr. Shepard: -- Robert Woods Foundation grant -- thank you, Mr. Jerry Brigham
-- and they organized Project Access Asheville. We took the chairman, I mean the
President of the Richmond County Medical Society to Asheville. He is Terrence Cook
and he was quite impressed. And what we asked the assistance of the Asheville group
was what they call duplicate or replicate the Asheville Model here. And correct me if
I’m wrong, Mr. Jerry Brigham, but Dr. Cook, in his leadership of the medical society, is
at the point of seeking a corporate entity and funding to replicate the Project Access
model here and they wanted a County Commissioner to serve on the Board of Directors
for the corporation that would be the Augusta Richmond County Project Access
[inaudible].
Mr. Colclough: So it wouldn’t cost Augusta Richmond County anything?
Mr. Shepard: It wouldn’t. And the point is it would save us money because the
people will be getting the care, the doctors will be donating it as a public service, and we
will be reducing our subsidy to the present provider of indigent care, which is University
Hospital.
Mr. Mayor: Any further questions or comments?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: First, let me say this. I’m going to vote for my colleague. He’s done
a good job on that committee and has been real interested in it. That’s not my question. I
think it’s good we’re moving in that direction, but what I want to make sure of is that we
do that, but this does not preclude us, and I think this is a good thing in terms of being
able to deal with it on the preventive side and being able to cut those costs. But this does
not put us in the position of those needs where you have citizens that would still need to
deal with that hospital care, that we would not walk away from that commitment, and am
I hearing that in this plan to do that? I’m going to support him and I’m going to support
that plan as it moves, but I want to make sure that in the process of us doing it, some folk
are still going to have those needs of that provider, whoever it may be, whether it’s
43
University as is the case right now, or someone later on. I want to make sure we still
have that option as we move along.
Mr. Shepard: If I can respond to Mayor Pro Tem Mays?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mays, our whole access idea is to increase the access to care
and reduce the budgetary pressure. I don’t think we’ll eliminate that item from funding,
but it sure will make those dollars go a whole lot further.
Mr. Mays: And I agree with that. But sometimes we have a tendency that when
we can move something into one area, if it means that we unload the burden somewhere
else, and many times many in the community have found themselves in this predicament
of where they’re caught on one hand of what saves money, but what does not fully
service the access to total health care, and I want to make sure that on the -- I guess you’ll
call it the safety net formula, Steve, that we are in that, and we’re reducing the overall
cost. But still we’ve got that safety net there to deal with those that will not fall under
primary care of this access. That’s all I still want to have the option to be able to do.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I think you will, Mr. Mays. And I think if you’re taking the
Doubting Thomas approach, and I don’t blame you, but I think if you go to Asheville and
see what they’re really doing for those people, you meet with the people from Project
Access and you see what the model is, that you’ll become a supporter and you’ll
understand what a benefit this is for folks who need care. If we follow the Project
Asheville Model, I will personally be very excited that we have gotten a real method of
delivering care to people that, quite frankly, can’t afford and are probably doing without
unless they go to the emergency room, and these people need primary care visits, they
need specialty care visits, and they need certain medications and it will make a great
difference in the public health of this community.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? If I might respond for Thomas for just a moment, since I
guess it’s the day for sarcasm, I was not doing that in terms of forming that attitude,
Steve. My concern is that I think I can probably talk about health care as much as
anybody up here. Asheville is not the only model. I’ve talked on the floor of the
National League of Cities in reference to this same situation. I applaud what’s been done
in terms of Asheville. There are other cities that I also talked about. This one has gone
out. I have no problem with it. I am supporting that. That’s not where I’m coming from
so don’t get into this attitude thing. I had both of my parents to deal with the issue of
catastrophic illness prior to being 50 years old, and there are some things, that even in
some plans that they don’t blanketly cover anything and everything. My main reason for
bringing this and asking the question was so that in those safety net cases that we still
would afford that opportunity to do that. I think the Asheville plan can be a good plan.
44
But you know I’m sitting here, Mr. Mayor, I’ve been accused of sitting on my hands and
a Doubting Thomas and a lot of other things, but I’m simply asking the question because
I do represent folk that [inaudible] a large population, Mr. Mayor, as do you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mays: In terms of --
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, I can appreciate that, but the motion on the floor is the
appointment of Mr. Brigham to a Board, and we should be discussing the motion that’s
on the floor.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, you do not rule the person out of order when they referred
to me as such. I merely responded. If you’re going to play that, Bob, then do it both
ways. Stop the discussion in the part of where it is. Don’t let it exist and get on the floor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, you’ve made your point and I think you very much for
that. Is there any further discussion on the appointment of Mr. Brigham? Yes, Mr.
Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I just need some clarification. Do the Access people have
numbers of the people they’re going to cover?
Mr. Mayor: I can’t hear you.
Mr. Colclough: Do the Access people or Dr. Cook or whomever is going to head
this thing up have the numbers of our indigent folks here in Augusta to make sure we
have blanket coverage?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham or Mr. Shepard, can you answer that?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I think what is taking place, from the way I read the
letter, the Medical Society is trying to organize a 501C3 to administrate its Project
Access. I don’t think they have any answers right now. I think that will come. I don’t --
I think they’ve got an idea and they’ve got a way of formulating how they are going to
match up physicians and indigent care people. Other than that, I’m not sure they’ve got
anything else.
Mr. Colclough: The reason for my question was I’ve dealt with the indigent care
here in Augusta as President of [inaudible], and so if you don’t have the numbers I don’t
think we can be able to cover them, give them the care.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll call the question on the motion to appoint Mr. Jerry Brigham
to a seat on this board. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
45
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is the addition to the addendum agenda for the bids for
the security equipment for the courtrooms.
Addendum Item 4. Motion to approve award to Vision Tech System in the amount
of $86,429.00 for purchase of security equipment.
Mr. Shepard: I move approval, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve and a second. Is there any discussion? Mr.
Williams and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Wall gave us this earlier when we came to the
Commission, it was added on. And I’m not too clear of what we’re doing and I don’t
remember this coming through committee. I need somebody to kind of enlighten me on
some of this, if you would, Mr. Wall.
Mr. Wall: All right. In December of 2000, the motion was made to approve
allowing the Security Committee to obtain competitive bids for the acquisition of security
equipment and to roll over funding, 2000 funding in the amount of $122,685. That
funding was rolled over to the 2001 budget. And also, the Security Committee went out
for bids. They obtained bids. And that’s in the back-up information. As you will see,
two of the companies did not bid on certain items. And so you only had Vision Tech
System that was the bidder on all of the items. And so the recommendation is to approve
the acquisition of the security equipment that was submitted as the low bidder.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I agree that we definitely need to go ahead and get the
equipment, get the plan in place. But one, I have never seen a security plan for this
building. Where are these machines going to go? Two, this whole facility needs a
security plan which would include limited access to the entrance way doors, which has
several issues to be addressed with, and if we don’t, terrorism or attacks on any floor
above or below the courtrooms, if we just limit it to the courtrooms, could impact the
courtrooms. We’re considering or are concerted about access to just the courtrooms
perhaps. I don’t know. I haven’t seen a security plan. I question whether this actually
went through the proper purchasing channels. It didn’t come through committee, which
is against protocol. Who authorized the purchase, to go ahead and purchase this? It
seems to me you need a security plan before you did purchase of equipment. We don’t
have any people trained. We don’t have -- there’s just so many holes in this thing. To
buy something and stick it up there without the proper kind of planning and preparation
46
and assessment of this facility is ludicrous, to be honest with you. We have got to do a
complete Municipal Building security analysis. We are in a condition of a state of war
right now. Plus, the domestic problems we may incur in our courtrooms. We’re putting
the cart way before the horse on this. We shouldn’t have waited this long. Lord knows, I
don’t want to sit on my hands any more, but the fact is there are certain protocols, and
you assume that staff will go through those things, but here again I’ve learned not to
assume anything. We should have a security plan first. It should come through
committees, be reviewed by the legal and security experts in this area, and then it needs
to be implemented with the proper equipment for it, with training, and staffing. We are
implementing something we don’t even know how we’re going to staff it. I would think
we would limit access to the Municipal Building rather than just the courtrooms, to
secure the entire building while we’re doing it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Cheek, I think your comments are mostly well taken, and in
anticipation of that I have placed on the Public Safety Committee agenda for Monday an
action item, agenda item which I think is pro-active and necessary after the events of
September 11, and I think the caption of that -- correct me if I’m wrong, Ms. Bonner -- is
to consider implementation of a staffing of the security equipment, and that discussion, I
think, will well entail a discussion of how this building is going to be secured, and I think
we are going to have to bring the players to the table who are important stakeholders in
the security of this building, which would include the judiciary. And also I think we need
to consider the other public bodies that are held here. The Planning Commission as well
as our own meetings. And I think we are all in a hurry-up, catch-up atmosphere due to
the events of September 11. I know that when we talked about securing the reservoir
against terrorists, I found those comments far-fetched. I no longer find those comments
far-fetched. I think we need to vote this equipment in and I think we need to immediately
get to work on a plan to utilize this in an efficient manner and to secure this building. I
don’t want the blood of anybody on my hands, if I had the ability to foresee it and protect
this building. And also we’re going to have to deal with protecting the Law Enforcement
Center, because there are many people coming in to very active State Court and Juvenile
Court over there. There’s a great deal of human activity over there, but we’ve got to
move forward and this has assumed a new impetus. I think it’s as plain as the nose on
your face. We’ve got to do something and I hope that you’ll remember what you said
today on Monday and join in the discussion and make sure that we have all the people
and the players at the table to move forward on Monday. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, if I could ask you a question. You talked about
securing the building. This item is limited strictly to courtrooms, which make up two
floors of the building. If we’re going to discuss the staffing Monday at the committee,
then why not take this item to the committee and do it all together at one time, rather than
do the equipment today and then try to figure out how we’re going to come up with
people to operate the equipment on Monday?
47
Mr. Shepard: Well, I think the question is where are you going to put this
equipment? Are you going to put it on the courtroom floors or are you going to put it at
central choke point on this building? You are going to have the equipment no matter
what, so I think we can vote the equipment through today and then bring the appropriate
professionals to the table, and we’ve got a Court Administrator that I’m sure can make
the judicial viewpoint known to us. We’ve got Rick Acree, our Facilities person, who
could talk to us about what we need there. The Administrator certainly is going to have
some general comments about the building in terms of an administrative facility. The
time is to act, and on this equipment let’s not diddle. Let’s go ahead and do it today.
Mr. Mayor: Let me ask one question of our Finance Department. There is no
account number on here. Is there indeed $122,685 in a security account from which this
will be paid?
Ms. Speaker: Yes, sir. [inaudible] last year [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: So that money is still in the account? I’ve heard some discussion last
week that that money had been diverted to something else.
Ms. Speaker: [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Let me echo something that Commissioner Shepard said insofar as the
need to move forward with the equipment. My understanding is that since the attack on
th
the 11, as you might imagine, the demand for security equipment has just gone through
the roof. We are in line to get this equipment. There is now a back order on equipment.
We have the opportunity to get this equipment through the existing bid process, and
rather than put ourselves at the back of the line and then have to wait on the equipment, I
urge the Commission to go ahead and approve it and let’s get it and then position it either
at the courtroom or through a choke point at the entrance to the courthouse.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I agree with what my colleague,
Commissioner Shepard, have said. I don’t see the necessity to rush between now and
Monday when we do committee. I know it’s very, very important. I mean this whole
country is in uproar since what happened in New York. But I can’t see the point of
rushing into this. This is a government facility, a government unit that we are purchasing
and using taxpayer money on. There is a process that we need to go by. We go by this to
do everything we do. Not just some things. If it going to be two months down the road
or even 30 days down the road. But we talking about less then five days from now to
meet. I’m going to make a substitute motion that we just take this as information until we
can forward this on to committee so we can discuss this and the staffing of it and where
we’re going to put it at the same time.
48
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion on the floor to send this on to
committee. Mr. Bridges and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think the Attorney made a very good
point on this, and that is that security equipment is getting harder and harder to find, and I
think while we’re able to move on this and have a supply for it, I think we should move
on it. I think Mr. Shepard has made a good point, as well, in that we’ll have the
equipment regardless of whether we’ll use it for the courtrooms or for the building itself.
But particularly the point Mr. Wall made of the availability of equipment. It’s available
now and we have the opportunity to move on it. I think we should be pro-active and do
that. I think we saw on September 11 that several federal committees were moving rather
slow on wanting to put off various actions that resulted in a tragic. Maybe we could have
stopped some of those hijackers if some of the recommendations of various study
committees that had been put forth had been followed up and moved along. But I think
while we have the opportunity to get this equipment, we need to go ahead and do it and
put it in as soon as possible.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, if there’s been no real basis for the purchase of this
equipment other than sticking it in the courtrooms or just generally putting it somewhere,
we could be buying less than, more than, or the wrong equipment to be going in place.
Again, you know, some of us knew before September 11 about security and the needs to
secure this facility. Also, this is typical of Augusta that we wait until an emergency
occurs and then we knee-jerk and act really sometimes without really solving the problem
long term. And I am aware of the need for security. We can acquire, if we don’t already
have a set of metal detecting wands, and put personnel at the entrance ways, have exit
only at the ends of the building and entrance only at the fronts of the building. We can
implement security today with existing personnel and just basically make it an access
point. It’s not a choke point. It’s an access point. Ladies and gentlemen, people, to have
security you’ve got to go through one point where you have your equipment or have your
equipment at every point. And one is cost prohibitive. We need to look at this from a
position of a plan, not haphazard as we often do, and go back and have to buy equipment
later on. Perhaps we need to get this equipment now, but that’s something that certainly
four, five days I don’t think is going to make a big difference. We need to wait and let
the committee go over this, see if there is any kind of plans or any kind of logic behind it,
where are we going to put these things, and not half-secure the building, but secure the
whole facility while we’re doing it. And Mr. Mayor, I just urge the Commission not to
allow a knee-jerk to occur because we weren’t foresighted enough to go ahead and
facilitate this plan in the interim between two years ago and now, and then buy the
equipment.
49
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Wall and then Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Wall: Well, let me point something out. The bid opening was on August 9.
A month prior to this incident. So this was a system that was sought out and planned in
advance of the events of September 11. You’ve got the walk-through metal detector. All
of us know that’s going to be needed. You’ve got the x-ray inspection system. All of us
know that that’s going to be needed. You’ve got portable x-ray inspection equipment.
That obviously is going to be needed. So this is -- we got in ahead of the demand. We
need to seize our position ahead of the demand, get this equipment. It is obviously
equipment that is going to be needed as a part of an overall security plan. I agree with
you, Commissioner Cheek, that there needs to be an overall security plan for not only this
building but all the buildings. Lots of facilities. But this is a step in the right direction.
If we miss the opportunity to purchase this, I’m afraid that we’ll be in a waiting line
somewhere.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I think we can sum it up pretty
simply, gentlemen. A vote for the original motion is a vote for home defense. If we’re
serious about being in a war and terrorism, let’s vote for the original motion and let’s not
diddle around on this. And I’m going to ask for a roll call vote on both motions.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. J. Brigham:
(Roll call vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard: Out
Mr. Bridges: No
Mr. H. Brigham: No
Mr. J. Brigham: No
Mr. Cheek: No
Mr. Colclough: No
Mr. Kuhlke: No
Mr. Mays: Present
Mr. Shepard: No
Mr. Williams: Present
Mr. Beard out.
Motion fails 0-7-2.
Mr. Shepard: In addition to purchasing this equipment, I will amend the
motion that we develop a county security plan that would focus first on the
Municipal Building since we’re going to purchase the equipment but we do that and
do it consistent with appropriate agencies that we need to work with, elected and
non-elected. I’m thinking that certainly players at the table should be Emergency
50
Management, the Sheriff, the Marshal, and Fire to begin with, and that’s not an
exhaustive list, it’s a beginning.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mays: Can it be in there someplace a review about what’s been put in place
about our drinking water?
Mr. Kolb: I would prefer to talk to Commissioner who are interested in that.
(Roll call vote on original motion)
Mr. Beard: Out
Mr. Bridges: Yes
Mr. H. Brigham: Yes
Mr. J. Brigham: Yes
Mr. Cheek: Yes
Mr. Colclough: Yes
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes
Mr. Mays: Yes
Mr. Shepard: Yes
Mr. Williams: Present
Mr. Beard out.
Motion carries 8-1.
51. LEGAL MEETING:
??
Discuss real estate matters.
??
Discuss potential and pending litigation.
Mr. Wall: I would also like to add personnel to that.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Motion carries 10-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
52. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
51
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Wall: I’d ask that you add to the agenda a motion to approve execution
of an agreement for the exchange of real property between Augusta, Georgia and
RBW Logistics Corporation. I ask that it be added and approved.
Mr. Shepard: I so move to add and approve.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. H. Brigham and Mr. Beard out.
Motion carries 8-0.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, 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 October 4,
2001.
___________________
Clerk of Commission
52