HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-05-2002 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
February 5, 2002
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:03 p.m., Tuesday,
February 5, 2002, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
Present: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Colclough, Shepard, Beard,
Cheek, Williams and Bridges, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also present: Jim Wall, Attorney; Walter Hornsby, Assistant Administrator; and
Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by the Reverend Rogers.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, let’s go ahead with our recognitions first and then
we’ll take up the additions to the agenda.
RECOGNITIONS:
Presentation - December’s Employee of Month
Mr. Curtis R. Etterlee, Public Works Department
The Clerk: We ask that Mr. Curtis Etterlee from the Public Works Department
please come forward. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, the Employee of the
Month Selection Committee has selected Mr. Curtis R. Etterlee with the Public Works
Department as December Employee of the Month. Mr. Etterlee has worked for the City
of Augusta for over 20 years. He is employed as a working foreman. He was nominated
by his fellow employee, Jimmy Lester, Jr., who gave the following reasons for his
nomination: Mr. Etterlee has worked for the county for 20 years. He always has a
positive attitude. His work is always excellent, and he follows directions to the letter.
The Committee felt that based on Mr. Lester’s recommendation and Mr. Etterlee’s
attributes, he should be awarded Employee of the Month. His supervisor, Linda
Crawford, also states that he is very dependable, always here, on time or early, and
seldom out. He is always willing to assist, even for things that are not in his normal day-
to-day work, and he always has a good attitude when doing so. He always comes in neat
and clean, even though he will be working outside cutting grass, etc., during the day.
Congratulations, Mr. Etterlee as December Employee of the Month.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk: Now, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, yes, sir, we would ask
Mr. Moses Mc Cauley if he will please come forward to continue the presentation.
Presentation of the Employee of the Year Award
1
Mr. McCauley: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the Augusta Richmond
County Commission, the Employee of the Month program started during the summer of
2000. This program has and will continue to raise the level of employee involvement in
their job and serve to increase moral throughout the government. Employee recognition
is a very important aspect of any organization. Therefore, as an organization, we must
continue to recognize and let our employees know that they and the work they do is
appreciated. At this time, I would like to introduce the members of the Employee of the
Month review committee. This committee is composed of employees, Augusta
Richmond County employees, who review the applicants based on nominations. The
committee members are -- and I’d ask them to stand as I call their names -- Mr. Travis
Doss from the Board of Elections, Ms. Joyce Watts from RCCI, who couldn’t be with us
today, Mr. Jim Williamson from Public Works, Ms. Linda R. Hand, Recreation & Parks,
and my name is Moses McCauley from Human Resources. At this time, Mr. Doss and
Mr. Jim Williamson will present the past Employee of the Month winners, and following
them will be Ms. Linda R. Hand, who will present the 2001 Augusta Richmond County
Employee of the Year.
Mr. Doss: As I call your name, if you’ll come forward and line up here, please.
Ms. Julia Lee from the Riverwalk division of Trees & Landscape Department. She was
the recipient in August of 2000. Mr. William Steptoe. Deputy Steptoe from the Sheriff’s
Department, for September 2000. Elvie Nicholson from the Probate Court office,
October of 2000. Mr. Tom Moraetes with the Recreation & Parks Department,
November 2000. Mr. Edward Gilliland with Public Works, facilities maintenance for
December 2000. Mr. Thelodis T. Jones and Brian S. Shepherd were co-recipients with
the Richmond County Fire Department in January of 2001.
Mr. Williamson: We have Margaret Pittman with the Tax Assessor’s office for
March of 2001. Brian Richards with the Utilities Department, April 2001. Gloria L.
Ricks with the Human Relations Commission, July of 2001. Robert Guy with the
Recreation & Parks Department, August 2001. Blaise Dresser with the Richmond
County Sheriff’s Department, September 2001. Elizabeth Kinsey with the Clerk of
Superior Court’s office, October 2001. And Dell Waters with the Public Works
Department, November 2001.
Ms. Hand: I am proud to announce the winner for 2001. City of Augusta
Employee of the Year is the founder, the director and the head coach of the Augusta
Boxing Club, and he belongs to Recreation & Parks: Mr. Tom Moraetes.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Doss: Congratulations to everyone. If you would please meet us on the sixth
floor, we’d like to do a group picture of everyone for the previous winners, and
supervisors and nominees, people who nominated as well. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
2
Presentation of Certificate of Service Awards to Character First Trainers
The Clerk: Our next group of presentations are to those employees who assisted
with the Character First training that was held throughout the year. The following
persons, would you please come forward: Ms. Matilda Bennett from the Recreation
Department. The plaque reads: for your moral excellence as demonstrated in your life as
you consistently do what is right to make a difference in the lives of others. Ms. Joyce
Downs, Recreation Department. Mr. Tom Evans, Augusta Utilities Department. Mr.
Robbie Thomas, Augusta Utilities Department. Mr. Chester Willis, with Risk
Management Department. On behalf of the Mayor and members of the Commission,
we’d like to congratulate you and thank you all for all your hard work. Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Madame Clerk. Do we have any additions or deletions
to the agenda?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, we do. You have your addendum agenda before you. There
was a technical malfunction on my machine, and that’s what I’m going to claim
happened.
(Laughter)
The Clerk: If I [inaudible], we’ll just go with that.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
The Clerk:
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
1. Item 33A. Motion to approve an Ordinance amending Augusta Richmond
County Code Section 2-4-20 to extend the boundaries of the Laney Walker
Enterprise Zone. (Backup information is already included in the agenda
book.)
2. Appointment of an Augusta Commissioner to serve on the Board of Directors
of the CSRA Regional Development Center.
3. Approve Change Order Number Two in the amount of $19,972.44 to be
funded from project contingencies on the Augusta Common Phase 1A
Project.
4. Motion to approve Ordinance amending and restating the City Council of
Augusta 1949 Retirement System.
5. Motion to approve Ordinance amending and restating the 1977 Retirement
Plan for employees of Richmond County.
3
6. Motion to approve Ordinance amending and restating the 1945 Richmond
County Employees’ Pension Fund Act.
7. Approve Change Order Number 3 in the amount of $15,208.75 to Advanced
Outdoor Services and Supplemental Agreement Number 3 to Cranston,
Robertson & Whitehurst in the amount of $3,885.00 on the Augusta
Common, Phase 1A Project (CPB #327-04-296812009) for a total of
$19,093.75 to be funded from project contingency.
8. Agenda Item 4. Motion to approve a request by Lewis Blanchard for an on
premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection
with National Hills Bar & Grill located at 2763 Washington Road. There
will be a dance hall. District 7. Super District 10. (Backup information is
already included in the agenda book.)
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we’d like to float [Item 2] to the next Commission
meeting.
The Clerk: Item 2?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding these items to the agenda today? Mr.
Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, you don’t have unanimous consent for items 3 through
7.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Shepard, let me say something, if I may. With respect
to items 3 and 7, if these two items are not approved today, then the Augusta Common
will not be completed in time for the Arts Festival in September. These items have been
brought to us in essence in an emergency basis so we can meet the timetable, and as the
result of unanticipated activities during construction, one building that was demolished,
we found was built uphill and a new base needs to be put in for that, and we also found
during demolition that as we continued to take down one wall we were in danger of
perhaps damaging a building that we don’t own next to it. So what we’re trying to do is
expedite the Common and keep it on schedule, and that’s why we brought today and I
would urge the Commissioner to reconsider adding items 3 and 7 today.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, why couldn’t these be added to our agenda next week
when we consider the budget? I mean I’ve got a stack half-an-inch thick that we haven’t
seen. I mean, I hear we don’t have backup. I mean it’s here, but why couldn’t we meet
the deadline within the next week if we add those two items to the agenda next week
when we consider the budget?
Mr. Mayor: If that’s the will, the desire of the Commissioner then we’ll do that.
4
Mr. Shepard: Could we not do that? I mean I particularly want a little more time
to look at this matter. And I just don’t see how I can absorb it. Mr. Mayor, I’m fast, but
I’m not that fast.
Mr. Mayor: Well, if you’re not ready to take it up today, then we have no choice
but to delay it.
Mr. Shepard: And I’ve been seeing the ads run about the pension, and I’ve had a
lot of calls about that and I’m somewhat uncomfortable about rushing to judgment on the
pension. People are saying what are we doing with the pensions, and my answer has
been this Commissioner doesn’t know. So Jim, I’d like you to --
Mr. Wall: And you’re correct. The ads have been running, and unfortunately
these were being drafted by tax counsel, and the whole purpose of these amendments are
to bring our plans up-to-date with current tax laws. Originally the date was December
31. You will recall that y’all passed, took action last November or early December, I
think it was actually in December, insofar as the 1987 [inaudible] Plan authorizing the
state to amend that plan. These plans are, in order to maintain the tax qualification status,
the IRS extended the deadline to February 28. This is the first reading of both ordinances
so that there is time to review these and be glad to respond to any questions prior to the
next meeting. Two of them, ‘45 and ‘49, are under the Home Rule Act which requires
that they be advertised, and that advertisement was run. Have to be read and adopted in
two consecutive regular meetings. I apologize for the fact that these were not prepared
earlier. It’s been worked on for some period of time. It is to maintain their status as tax
qualified plans, which means that the contributions that the government has made to these
plans through the years is not taxable income to the employees. And the restating of the
plans is to put them in a format, because these have to be submitted to the IRS for
approval. And I have discussed this with some members of the ’49 Plan and some
members of the ’45 Plan, with counsel for the ’45 Plan, and have explained to them the
reason, one, that copies were not already available as I had expected them to be and
hoped they would and should have been, and have also gone over the changes. And so
that’s the reason that they are being requested to being acted upon today.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor? Jim, couldn’t these also be added to next Monday’s
meeting?
Mr. Wall: No, sir, because they have to be read at two regular meetings and have
to be adopted during the month of February, and so they needed to be acted upon today,
as well on February 20. The Home Rule provisions speak in terms of regular meeting,
not called meetings. At one point I thought that possibly I would re-advertise since I did
not have them in hand, and have a special called -- request a special called meeting, but
you know, it has major impact from a tax standpoint if these are not approved and
adopted in order that we can submit them to the IRS.
5
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, if I could suggest this. Jim, I think there is some, not
necessarily suspicion, but some interest in this, pensioners, and they feel like this is not
being done with at least the knowledge -- you may have consulted with some of them, but
certainly the ones that have called me have not been consulted, so my suggestion is if it
has to be done at regular meetings and not called meetings, that I withdraw my objection
to 4, 5 and 6 on the condition that this be fully explained at the Finance Committee
meeting and that it be at our second meeting on Tuesday. I mean this is not final action
because I’m not going to go along with waiving the second reading here. I mean I think -
-
Mr. Wall: I’m not asking you to. I don’t think you can. Two regular meetings.
Mr. Shepard: That’s the only way I see out of this box today, because if we have
to do something within February, we’re not doing it finally today, but I think they want
their questions answered. They’ve come up to me today, they’ve called me on the phone,
and I want to -- there may be no problem with it whatsoever, but I think we want to
know. So on the condition that these three be placed on the Finance Committee for full
discussion on Monday, I’ll withdraw my objection.
Mr. Wall: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: And so we have unanimous consent for items 1, 4, 5 and 6; is that
correct? Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I’m also like Mr. Shepard. I got a few calls
myself and I just want to ask Jim. We talk about the ball being dropped or just hadn’t
been done. But anything that is this important, Jim, what happened? Can you share with
me why it wasn’t done? I mean it look like we get to the point where we want to rush on
stuff that’s so important. I mean you just said that this is something we needed to do in
February. But if it was as important as it sounds, look like somebody would have stayed
on it. And this year, we talk about accountability, and we need to start right here, right
now, and hold them folks to the line. Now whoever dropped this ball need to go back
and pick it up and start over again because this ain’t the first time. Can you, is there
anything different? Can you share with us? Cause I got some of those calls.
Mr. Wall: I mean I’m not particularly one to point fingers. It was called to my
attention last November that, you know, that these tax amendments needed to be adopted
before December 31. I immediately went to work to try to get tax counsel to do that.
Around the first of December, I was notified that IRS had extended the deadline until
February 28. I sent copies of the Home Rule requirements to the counsel, the tax counsel
that was preparing the amendments, pointed out that it had to be advertised, etc. Spoke
with them in early January, told them the deadline I had in order to run the advertisement.
Have been in constant, relatively constant communication about the fact that questions
were being asked locally, etc. I mean it’s a situation where the plans have not been
updated in a number of years and there was just a lot of work to be done. And so it took
that long.
6
Mr. Williams: I understand, Jim, and the word’s been out there, the
Commissioners need to be held accountable and we need to start at the top. I mean the
little man going to take [inaudible] but we got too many things at the top and I hear you
saying you don’t want to call no names and you’re not, you know, but we need to start
holding people that getting paid to do a job to do that job. And all the negative things we
hear, we don’t hear about those other things that’s not getting done, and we need to look
at that. And that’s all, Mr. Mayor. I got no problem. I agree with Mr. Shepard. I did get
some of those calls and I was concerned about it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Let’s move along now to --
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Is there a hand up? I’m sorry. Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Wall, I just need to, because of the State Ethics Law, I need to
know what my involvement or how I would vote.
Mr. Mayor: Why don’t we hold that until we get to the item? All we’re doing
now is adding to the agenda.
Mr. Boyles: Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s take that up then. Let’s move along with the consent agenda, if
we may, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. That consists of items 1 through 27. 1 through 27. And
again, items regarding the National Hills Bar, it’s on my website agenda as item 4.
National Hills Bar & Grill, and it was approved by the committee. It’s in your
book. Item 4. But it’s not on the printed agenda in your book.
Mr. Williams: Ms. Bonner, clarification, please ma’am.
The Clerk: Yes, sir?
Mr. Williams: Is 10 and 12 the same?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: So we need to [inaudible] one of those; right?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. And for the purpose of any objectors to the alcohol petitions
-- are you ready for me to do that?
Mr. Mayor: Go right ahead.
7
The Clerk:
3. Motion to approve a request by Chong N. Goodman for an on premise
consumption Beer License to be used in connection with Olympic Pool
located at 2763 Tobacco Rd. District 4. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee January 24, 2002)
4. Motion to approve a request by Lewis Blanchard for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with
National Hills Bar & Grill located at 2763 Washington Rd. There will be a
Dance Hall. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee January 24, 2002)
5. Motion to approve a request by J. Patrick Olberding for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with BD’s
Stir Fry Grill located at 277 Robert C. Daniel Parkway. There will be
Sunday Sales. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee January 24, 2002)
6. Motion to approve a request by C. H. McTeer for an extension of time to
purchase the Alcohol License to be used in connection with McTeer BP
located at 4150 Windsor Spring Rd. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved
by Public Services Committee January 24, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors to any of those license applications? None
are noted. Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure with respect to the consent agenda?
Mr. Shepard: I’d move approval of the consent agenda with the inclusion of
web site agenda item 4 and items 1 and 8 on the addendum agenda.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, a point of information. Do we need to pull the items we
want to pull before the vote?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, we will before the vote. Do we have a second to the motion to
approve the consent agenda?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We do. Gentlemen, do you have any items you wanted to pull? Mr.
Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Pull number 14.
Mr. Colclough: Number 10, Mr. Mayor.
The Clerk: Which one?
Mr. Colclough: Number 10.
8
Mr. Mayor: 10?
The Clerk: 10 and 12 are the same.
Mr. Mayor: Any others? Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Since we’re doing the additions from the addendum side, 33A. That’s
where number 1 is going [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any other items?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, need to pull 10 and 12, please.
Mr. Mayor: Right. We have those pulled. Mr. Colclough requested that. Any
others?
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Motion to approve the denial of the Business Tax Certificate for Travel
Lodge Hotel located at 1365 Gordon Highway for the following violation:
failure to pay excise taxes. (District 1; Super District 9) (Approved by Public
Services Committee January 24, 2002)
2. Motion to enter into real restate sales contract with Industrial Development
Associates to acquire 7.07 acres for $190,000.00. (Approved by Public
Services Committee January 24, 2002)
3. Motion to approve a request by Chong N. Goodman for an on premise
consumption Beer License to be used in connection with Olympic Pool
located at 2763 Tobacco Rd. District 4. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee January 24, 2002)
4. Motion to approve a request by Lewis Blanchard for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & wine license to be used in connection with
National Hills Bar & Grill located at 2763 Washington Rd. There will be a
Dance Hall. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee January 24, 2002)
5. Motion to approve a request by J. Patrick Olberding for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with BD’s
Stir Fry Grill located at 277 Robert C. Daniel Parkway. There will be
Sunday Sales. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee January 24, 2002)
6. Motion to approve a request by C. H. McTeer for an extension of time to
purchase the Alcohol License to be used in connection with McTeer BP
located at 4150 Windsor Spring Rd. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved
by Public Services Committee January 24, 2002)
7. Motion to approve a request by Sharyn Pulley for a Massage Therapist
license to be used in connection with Sharyn Pulley Massage located at 3455
9
Wrightsboro Rd. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee January 24, 2002)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
8. Motion to approve the adoption of the Resolution to increase Enhanced 911
charges from the current $1.00 per month to $1.50 per month. (Approved by
Public Safety Committee January 24, 2002)
FINANCE COMMITTEE:
9. Motion to approve Lease Agreement for calendar year 2002 for the Tag
Office of the Tax Commissioner at the Farmer’s Market. (Approved by
Finance Committee January 24, 2002)
10. Deleted from consent agenda.
11. Motion to approve award of a contract to Frazier Associates, in the amount
of $17,228.00, for development of the Downtown Design Guidelines Manual.
(Approved by Finance Committee January 24, 2002)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
12. Deleted from consent agenda.
13. Motion to approve the City’s match of the Augusta State University’s
Transportation Enhancement Activity (TEA) Project. (Deferred from
January 7 Engineering Services) (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee January 24, 2002)
14. Deleted from consent agenda.
15. Motion to approve a request from Mr. Patrick J. McCraith to operate Roll’n
Franks vending cart in the downtown area. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee January 24, 2002)
16. Motion to approve execution of Georgia Power Company’s Governmental
Easement Agreement No. 30616 (Augusta Newsprint 230KV Transmission
Line Right-of-Way). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January
24, 2002)
17. Motion to approve a proposal in the amount of $349,300.00 to Stevenson &
Palmer Engineers, Inc. for providing engineering services for the Phase I
replacement of the Main Interceptor Project. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee January 24, 2002)
18. Motion to approve Easement agreement with Georgia Power for property
located on Essie McIntyre Blvd. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee January 24, 2002)
19. Motion to approve License Agreement with St. Paul’s Church for area noted
as "Special Use Area West" to be used for a playground designed for use by
disabled children. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January
24, 2002)
20. Motion to approve a proposal from ZEL Engineers, Inc. in the amount of
$59,828 to provide professional services on the Auxiliary Pump Station
Improvement Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
January 24, 2002)
10
21. Motion to approve Change Order #4 to Blair Construction, Inc. for
additional work performed to accomplish satisfactory leakage testing and to
make final quantity adjustments (deductions and overruns) in accordance
with the terms of the unit price contract. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee January 24, 2002)
22. Motion to approve a proposal from Qore Property Sciences in the amount of
$52,000 to provide geotechnical services on the Raw Water Pump Station
Upgrade Capabilities. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
January 24, 2002)
23. Motion to approve Request for Proposals for providing "Find and Fix"
Sanitary Sewer System Rehabilitation and Project Management. (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee January 24, 2002)
24. Motion to authorize Public Works & Engineering Department to prepare
and submit a section 319(h) FY 02 Nonpoint Source Implementation Grant
Application for the Augusta Area. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee January 24, 2002)
25. Motion to authorize the Augusta Utilities Department to notify participating
firms of the selection results and proceed with negotiations to contract for
services on the Automated Meter Reading Systems Project. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee January 24, 2002)
ATTORNEY:
26. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend County Code Section 2-2-
32(e)(iii) so as to provide for use of the Hotel and Motel Tax; To provide an
effective date: To repeal conflicting Ordinances and for other purposes.
(Approved by Commission January 15, 2002 – second reading)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
27. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held January 15, 2002.
Mr. Mayor: I lost count here, Madame Clerk. If you could help me, which ones
did we pull? Would you take us through that?
The Clerk: Items 10 and 12 and 14.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Okay, we have a motion to approve all these remaining
items. All in favor then please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough: Ms. Bonner, let it be known that I vote no on Sunday sales.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridges: Ms. Bonner, let the record show the same for me, too, please.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
11
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: On item 33A, on [inaudible] but because of those new boundaries
being changed, they encompass where I am, I need to abstain on that one because it does
qualify for certain benefits in there. I’ll abstain on 33A.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridges: That item is not on consent, is it, Mr. Mayor?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, it was.
Mr. Bridges: It is? Okay. All right.
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Colclough vote No on Sunday sales portion.
Motion carries 10-0. [Item 5]
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 9-1. [Item 33A]
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-4, 6-9, 11, 13, 15-27]
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go ahead and take up items 10 and 12, which are the same item.
Madame Clerk, if you’ll read the caption.
The Clerk:
10. Motion to approve authorization to solicit an Investment Manager for the
anticipated 2002 Water and Sewer Revenue Bond issue through Requests for
Proposals from qualified municipal bond underwriters to serve as Sole or
Senior Manager for the proposed Water & Sewer Revenue Bonds.
(Approved by Finance Committee January 24, 2002)
12. Motion to approve authorization to solicit an Investment Manager for the
anticipated 2002 Water and Sewer Revenue Bond issue through Requests for
Proposals from qualified municipal bond underwriters to serve as Sole or
Senior Manager for the proposed Water & Sewer Revenue Bonds.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 24, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough, you asked this be pulled.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I have looked over the backup information in the
book, and I guess -- I don’t know if I missed the meeting, but is there a reason why we
12
need to go ahead and pass this today or can we postpone this until we can get some more
information about it, until I can get some more information?
Mr. Wall: This is Max’s agenda item, but I’ve had the discussions with him. I
don’t know that it’s imperative that it be acted upon today. We’re trying to -- they’re
hoping to move forward with the next bond issue sometime in the June/July time frame.
Maybe as early as June. And they just wanted to get all the pieces in place in order to
move forward at that time. And this is obviously one important player in the process, and
allow us to go out for RFQ’s to bring someone in.
Mr. Colclough: Well, if it’s not that important that we do it today, Mr.
Mayor, I’d like to make a motion that we postpone this until our next meeting so we
can send it back to Committee and I can get some information on it.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We gave a motion to postpone this to our next meeting and refer it
back to committee. It’s been seconded. Is there discussion? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This item, Mr. Mayor, is asking for an RFP
for an investment manager for the next two years of water bonding, and I don’t have a
problem with that. I think it’s something we do need to move on and I think we are being
conscientious in moving on it this early. The question I wanted to throw out to the other
Commissioners is rather than doing RFP, would it be -- could we rather do a professional
service type contract in which we take the existing investment manager of the bond, the
present bonds we have, negotiate a price with him, and move forward through this
process? That’s something consistent with what we do with other professional contracts
in Utilities and Public Works. It also allows -- if we go through the RFP process, we’re
talking about two months. Right now, the interest rates are about as low as they’re going
to get, depending on which investment advisor you want to talk to. In two months, they
may be back up at a higher level and it may actually cost us money to go to the RFP and
take the additional time, if you consider the interest rate change, should there be a
change. So my concern is maybe at this point what we need to do is rather than doing
RPF, negotiate with the existing investment manager for a price. I’m pouring that out
right now. I’m not making a motion at this point. I can live with moving forward at this
point if the Commission wants to, and I can live with discussing it some more at the next
meeting. But that’s another option I’m just throwing out there on the floor.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will recognize the Finance chairman, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don’t think we should depart from the
principle that we conduct a competition for this important position. The investment
manager for the 2002 bond, I think, was selected as a result of a competition. I think
competition is good. Max’s backup indicates that a competition may produce a cost
savings as a result of that competition. I don’t think we can afford not to engage in a
competition. We’ve been criticized by the Grand Jury for not reviewing our investment
13
manager, our financial consultant in X number of years, which is exceeding 10. I can’t
remember how many exactly. But I think we’ve committed to competition there for the
investment, for the investment counselor. We should have a competition here. So I don’t
really have a problem with postponing it for two weeks, but I do have a problem not in
conducting a competition, and so when this does come before you, gentlemen, I’m going
to be in favor of having a competition. I think there are several investment firms that are
interested in doing business with us. I don’t think we can arbitrarily select one over the
other, and I just hope that when the vote does come that we do eventually approve this,
Mr. Colclough. I have no problem with you getting any additional information, cause I
don’t think it’s terribly critical today, but I think we need to do it in the next meeting
cycle, and we need to do it by competition.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? We have a motion to postpone. All in favor of
that motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 14.
The Clerk:
14. Motion to approve the refund of $202.50 to Ms. Florine Y. Taylor pertaining
to charges assessed for streetlights along Deans Bridge Road. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee January 24, 2002)
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: I had this item pulled. I’ve talked to this lady a couple of times and
she does have a legitimate complaint there, and this Commission has recognized the
problem that we have with residential property paying for the street lights along, in this
case Highway 1, but also Highway 1, Highway 25, Gordon Highway, any other highway.
Presently we charge the property owners so much per foot for those street lights. We’ve
recognized that is not the best way to do it, is probably not the honest way to do it, since
we all use those lights as we travel the streets. And last year, Jim was given the
instructions to draft an ordinance to correct that such that that’s placed on the millage
rate. And I understand he doesn’t have that ordinance complete. He’s very near
completing that and bringing it to us. My concern with taking this one case out of the
many, many cases we have that are just like that in which residential property is paying
for a street light that they might not necessarily be using for themselves is the can of
worms we could be opening up with what we’ve got to go back to do to be fair and
honest and impartial with all the other citizens and taxpayers in this county. I don’t think
we need to pass this motion, although I think, like I say, we’re not -- the present
ordinance is not fair to residential property owners. We all use the lights. We’re making
steps to correct that. But I’ve had several other people that are in the same boat call me.
14
I’ve told them the same thing. We’re drafting an ordinance to correct it, but yes, right
now, under the present ordinance you will have to pay. And should this pass, I’m going
to have to go back and call these people and say hey, you know, we’ve made an
exception for one person, we’ve got to make it for all, bring your petition down. And you
all have had some of these calls, too. It’s just the concept that we’re not treating
everybody equally and right and fairly, and I think we’re addressing that through the
ordinance that we’ll have coming forth to us hopefully next month some time. Jim, I
guess you can speak to that. But I think that’s the proper way to address this, and I don’t
think we need to pass this motion today.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, we’ve gone through this quite -- we’ve gone through
this quite a few times with this street lighting stuff. Ms. Taylor lives out there in a
commercial area where she does not benefit from this light at all. You have a Wal-Mart
there, you have a nursing home, and two filling stations on that block. And I think it’s
very unfair for this lady to have to pay $270 or $202.50 for some street lighting to benefit
those conglomerates. And I would make a substitute motion that we go ahead and pass
this item and reimburse Ms. Taylor her $202.50 back.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve. Is there a second?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Mays.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Jim, will the proposed ordinance address a
situation like this, for giving a refund? I’m concerned we are going to have a myriad of
refund cases coming before us, and I’m sympathetic with the lady, but I want to try to act
in terms of equal protection and due process, so what do you advise?
Mr. Wall: Well, you are going to have some more. There’s one out on
Washington Road that has been complaining, and frankly, her street light taxes are more
than ad valorem taxes on her property.
Mr. Shepard: Is that because of the exemption she enjoys?
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] I wish I could say this was an easy project to do, but every
time you come up with some solution, you run into another problem. And so we go
round and round and round in trying to come up with something that we think is fair and
15
equitable and will work. The proposal that Mr. Huffstetler had prior to his leaving was to
have 70 cents for commercial properties, 32 cents for residential properties within
segments. And within segments mean that you would take identifiable locations and
from one street to the next street, a block, that would be a segment. If 80% of the
properties within that block, based on the front footage, were commercial, then you
would charge at 70 cents a foot, reduce it from the $1.35 that it is currently down to 70
cents. Mr. Gifford has pointed out that you can’t -- and it was also my understanding that
you could justify that cost differential based upon less candle power in the residential
areas. Mr. Gifford says that the state would not permit that and most of these are state
routes that you’re dealing with. So now we’re -- I mean the proposal was then to charge
less for the residential properties, even though it may be in a commercial area, such that
this person would pay 32 cents per linear foot, or front foot, and the commercial
businesses on either side are 70 cents. I have some concerns about whether or not that
passes equal protection. In addition, you are going to create a suburban street lighting
district so that this individual living in the county would have two line items on the tax
bill, one being an additional millage for the street light and the second one being a per
linear foot assessment. And I think that causes concern. And in talking with the Tax
Commissioner’s office, they feel like it will cause concern. And so -- I mean all I know
to do is put it back before you, tell you the pros and cons of the various systems. I think
that ultimately it may come down to finding a unit price that you can charge both
commercial and residential, and then absorb the rest of it in the millage rate on the
suburban area. But again, you are going to have to recognize that you may have some
people that will be -- and added into the general millage so that it doesn’t come out on the
tax bill it looks like they’re being billed twice for street lights.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Can I have one follow-up question, Mr. Mays? I know I jumped in
there ahead of you.
Mr. Mays: Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Wall, do we a system before us today or we just have a request
for refund? Is this system coming?
Mr. Wall: A system for retroactive adjustments is not part of what I’m proposing,
no. If that’s what you’re questioning.
Mr. Shepard: Well, that’s what I was, but are we going to have any guidance in
that in the future where we might adjudicate -- well, not adjudicate, but how we might
deal with this one and the others? I mean if we’re going to deal with Ms. Taylor’s today,
then we’re going to have another one on Washington Road, I can think of maybe one in
my district that’s going to come up; we’re just going to have to do that on a case-by-case
basis?
16
Mr. Wall: Well, I think you are, and I don’t think that under any situation are you
refunding the entire amount that has been paid. It would be refunding a reduced amount.
But it would not be refunding the total amount of the charges. Cause they -- I mean
either plan that has been thrown out has some linear footage charge to residents on these
arterial corridors.
Mr. Shepard: And how would Ms. Taylor come out in one of those situations?
Mr. Wall: She would pay 32 cents a front foot if you used that approach. If you
average out the 70 cents and the 32 cents, then it probably, since it’s more heavily
commercial, it probably would be closer to the 70 cents a foot. I don’t know what her
frontage is.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, just looking at it, just personally speaking, I see one
motion that gets to be punitive and another one that gets you into a situation of possible
litigation, definitely into a lot of complaints. I mean it’s a lot of hypotheticals that can
surround that. I mean just recently reading on one article, and some of you have gotten
emails in reference to it. You can jump from one form of service to another form of
service that you’re taxed with, not just with lighting. You can get you somebody that
maybe has a very limited amount of garbage that’s got that dealing with on their tax
books and would make the same complaint that you’ve got in this one to a point that
that’s punitive and that they ought to have the right to back out of it and deal with
something privately. I think if you are going to get tested on something, then you are
going to get tested once you make a move and you start dealing with the money. So if
you are going to get tested on something, my personal suggestion would be that I don’t
think either motion works. I think the Attorney either needs to go along with some
provision that Mr. Huffstetler has suggested initially, maybe even with a further reduced
amount on residential. Let it be a test case with it, and if you going to -- no offense, Jim,
but we going to pay you, we might as well pay you to deal with getting something that
finalizes the situation, rather than creates problems. Because once you do it, you get
these situations that are going to pop up all over town. We got to realize when we
consolidated, we got people that live along state highways, that live along six lane roads.
And you are going to get them into a situation where they become penalized in there just
as being next to is, as Commissioner Colclough has said. Honestly speaking in reference
to a large commercial area. But by the same token, then what do you do in terms of you
can’t go out necessarily and say well, I’m going to cut that one light off, let the rest of
them burn. You got to have some method of dealing with it. And I think that the best
method is going to be for you to either come back with an ordinance, good, bad or
indifferent, put it out there, let it be struck down and tested, but then you have an answer
to tell people that we’ve tried it. We’ve tired to do something at this point, this is what
was put forth, it was deemed unconstitutional, and then we move with it. But I think
getting into the business of refunding on every individual case puts you then into a box of
17
where not only is it within one line of service, it skips over hypothetically to another line
of service where a person wants a choice. And I fully sympathize with the person in
there, but I think if we going get sued, if we going pay you, obviously it’s going to lead to
something. Because when they start hop-scotching across the county, and somebody else
wants them and you get on the agenda with 10 or 12, 15, 20 refunds, then you go to do
something at that point. So you might as well test the law on something that you write
and that you put together, I would think, that the Commission could reach some
consensus on, that gives a commercial rate, gives a residential rate, and then let it be
tested by law. You may get one suit, you may get one that’s collected. In a class action
suit. But then at least you know what you’re getting. You’ve got it done, you don’t even
have to appeal it, you get it up or down on the first round of it, and then you’re through
with it. That’s just my opinion, Mr. Mayor, but I couldn’t vote for either one of the
motions.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Beard.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Something I think I mentioned a year ago
when we first started kicking this ball around, was the fact that these lights are safety
enhancements that the entire population of Augusta enjoys. I don’t see us figuring in fees
and rates for stop signs and red lights in this city. So why penalize the people that live on
the roadway when the rest of us drive down that road and enjoy the illumination that
helps us see both pedestrians and oncoming vehicles and so forth? Why can’t we charge
this the same way we do, put the lights in, turn them on, and charge it the same we do red
lights? You know, instead of figuring out a dozen formulas and constitutional test cases,
why not come up with something simply like we talked about a year ago instead of trying
all of these other things? I don’t want to be dealing with this two years from now, and
the tract record on it is we’re no further along than we were this time last year. The lights
have been turned off on Peach Orchard Road in my district for some reason. We don’t
know who authorized that. I guess it’s the same person that bought the security
equipment downstairs. But can’t we do that? Can’t we charge these lights just like
safety enhancements like we do red lights and stop signs and other things?
Mr. Wall: You can create a suburban service district and lump it all.
Mr. Cheek: We don’t have a service district for the red lights that are there now,
do we?
Mr. Wall: Well, the reason that you want to isolate the suburbs is because the
urban services district already pays as a part of the general millage within the urban
service district for the lights downtown.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you.
Mr. Wall: And so you need to create a suburban services district so that -- and
these lights are all outside of the old -- would be in the suburban area.
18
Mr. Cheek: And that would be in the rest of the old county basically, except
Hephzibah and Blythe?
Mr. Wall: Well, it would be Hephzibah and Blythe, too. They should pay as
well.
Mr. Cheek: Okay. That seems simple to me. I’d rather do something like that
than generate some type of constitutional test case and still not have an ordinance this
time next year. You have any idea of when you plan on having something back to us?
Mr. Wall: Well, I plan on having it on Engineering Services on Monday, and that
is one of the proposals versus the 32 and 70 cents per linear foot, plus the suburban
service district.
Mr. Cheek: Simple is better.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I had two -- well, I had a question of Jim, but he just
answered it. I wanted to know when you were going to bring it back. And secondly, I
think I said as this came up some time ago and it came up last year that we were going to
run into this problem. But I’m happy to know that he has an ordinance that is ready to go
and we can take action on. I think that’s the best way and I think it makes sense. Why
should we get into almost litigating each case every week down here, because once
people hear about this, it’s going to continue to be a downpour and an outpour down here
for this, and I can understanding their reasoning for asking us. So I think the best thing to
do would be just wait on this one until he gets the ordinance and we then we do all of
them and then we wouldn’t have the case out there that we’ve done something on. I think
this lady would be amenable to waiting a few more weeks until she can get some type of
relief on this, so I think the better thing we do would be to let this go at this time and wait
until an ordinance is brought back and then we can do it across the board on this.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Well, you know, we approved this in Engineering Services at our
last committee meeting. And I think we had some discussion on it at that time. And we
voted to get it out of committee, the vote was unanimous, and now we come to
Commission meeting and we find all kind of holes and all kind of loopholes in giving this
lady back her $200, and we sit up here and we spend actually -- before the day is out,
we’re going to spend over a million dollars in change orders and etc. And [inaudible]
talking about $202.50. This is incredible.
Mr. Beard: I beg to differ with my Commissioner there. We may be talking
about $200 now, but in the future we may be talking about a lot more than that when you
get into any type litigation, and just because it was done in committee meeting, it doesn’t
mean that it’s going to pass out here. I wasn’t in your committee meeting.
19
Mr. Colclough: I understand that.
Mr. Beard: So we have to take the whole thing into consideration.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, real quickly, and Mr. Wall touched on the part that
I’m glad he did, and this is why I’m saying I think we’ve got to have some ordinance that
deals with this. I know we may not like to test certain things, but as a representative who
deals with a mixed at-large district, in terms of half of it being suburban, the other part of
it being urban, I think you’ve got to get to an ordinance which equalizes the formulas in
which you deal with, because not only do you open the can, and I think this is why
you’ve got to almost at least let the ordinance get into shape, read it and see where it’s
going, because the people that I didn’t bring into that formula are the ones that may
reside on the urban side who do pay in that part, and that’s the part that Mr. Wall brought
out. Because then they become a part of that equation of saying then how then do you
deal with that side of it? So you’ve got to have some ordinance that does deal and
address with this issue. And whether we like the ordinance or not, it’s got to be one in
which you are dealing with a taxing formula that’s across the board that deals with being
fair. Unless you’re going to have certain operatives as they did within the old city and
then until the urban tax district, where you may have a formula that qualifies for certain
sources of funding that will act in lieu of taxes. That’s the only way you can deal with
that otherwise.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I think there is just one motion on the floor.
Mr. Mayor: There is.
Mr. Shepard: I’ll make a substitute motion to postpone this to the next
meeting when the Attorney brings forward the Ordinance after it goes through
Engineering Services Committee. I understand it’s near ready; is that correct, Jim?
Mr. Wall: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, by virtue of being on the Engineering Services
Committee, I went out to look at the situation. I understand that Ms. Taylor had brought
this before the Commission last year or previously to that. I don’t know about all the
20
ordinances and the discussion that we’ve been having, but this lady is concerned that
she’s paying for a service that, quite frankly, she doesn’t benefit from. Her house -- and
it’s not in my Commission district so I can say this -- her house is about 250 feet off the
main road. There are two service stations, a new Krystal, and whatever else that are
providing lights along Deans Bridge Road. The other side of the street is the Wal-Mart,
the Goody’s, the Pizza Hut, and the nursing home, and all the new development that’s
gone on the top of the hill there on Deans Bridge Road. It just seems to me that all she’s
doing is asking for a refund of services that we’ve charged her for that she has not really
received. I have no problem at all with this Commission adopting an ordinance to do this
or an ordinance to do that, but my concern is just for a service that this lady apparently
has not received by virtue of where she lives.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, is there any further discussion? We have a substitute motion.
Mr. Cheek: Just one thing.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just for the record, this is one Commissioner who is not
going to be very pleased Monday if we come back with the same stuff we’ve done
before. It didn’t get us anywhere now and unless we come up with some solutions, we’re
just spinning our wheels.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, could I have the substitute motion read, please?
The Clerk: The substitute motion is to postpone.
Mr. Shepard: To the next meeting.
Mr. Mayor: To the next meeting. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Boyles, Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Colclough vote No.
Motion carries 7-3.
Mr. Mayor: We have of our pensioners here, so why don’t we move to our
addendum agenda and take up those pension items on there and that discussion, in case
pensioners have other business to conduct this afternoon.
Mr. Shepard: I’ll let them go for the first reading on the condition that they would
go on the Finance Committee for full explanation.
Mr. Mayor: Right. That’s items 4, 5 and 6.
The Clerk:
21
Addendum Item 4. Motion to approve Ordinance amending and restating the City
Council of Augusta 1949 Retirement System.
Addendum Item 5. Motion to approve Ordinance amending and restating the 1977
Retirement Plan for employees of Richmond County.
Addendum Item 6. Motion to approve Ordinance amending and restating the 1945
Richmond County Employees’ Pension Fund Act.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure? Do we have a motion to approve
these items?
Mr. Shepard: I’d make the motion to approve on the condition that the
second reading not be waived.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? Mr. Boyles, you had a question of
the Attorney?
Mr. Boyles: I have a question of the Attorney. Mr. Wall, under the Ethics Act,
do I --
Mr. Wall: Even though you’re not benefiting financially from this, you are a
participant in the --
Mr. Boyles: ’45, 1945.
Mr. Wall: You should abstain on that one.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Jim, can you -- having not read the backup in any detail, can you
tell me what in the world we’re voting on here?
(Laughter)
Mr. Bridges: I see the IRS down here, and that bothers me anytime I see those
three letters of the English alphabet.
Mr. Wall: I was sitting here wondering what I’m going to say on Monday. Let
me do the best I can. The IRS has changed some of the regulations in order for it to be a
tax-qualified plan. And by being a tax-qualified plan, what I mean is this: the portion
22
that the employer has paid over the years has not been included in taxable income of the
employee. In other words, people who have been employed throughout the term of these
plans, the county has matched that contribution or the city has matched that contribution
to some level. In the years in which it did not match the contribution, there was earnings
on the corpus of the trust, and that was used to match the contribution that was made by
the employees. The changes that have been made and primarily made beginning in 1997,
under this Act that’s referred to, and you’ll see the list of the various tax acts that have
been made, and those have mandated certain provisions be included in the plan insofar as
service, time and service being counted, if it’s an interruption in employment, dealing
with other issues that had to be included in the plan in order for it to be a tax-qualified
plan. And I don’t know when notice first came out about these changes. Obviously it
didn’t get to many of the city or county attorneys. [inaudible] just started implementing
their changes in November and December, and when I got word of the fact that we
needed to make changes, I got tax counsel to start making the changes. Now we could
have done it simply as an amendment so that there would be one provision. However,
some of the provisions should have been adopted earlier. And there is concern that --
what we want to do is put these in a form that the IRS is accustomed to looking at. We
don’t want them skipping around in the document and having to find the provisions that
satisfy the [inaudible] Act and the provision that applies to this act, and there is a certain
format that I’m told that they’re accustomed to looking for, and they’ve got a check list,
and they go down the check list and they check them off, one by one. It’s got this
provision, it’s tax qualified. It’s got this provision, it’s tax qualified. And that’s the
reason that it is restated in that format. And so there is a check list here that goes for a
page-and-a-half.
Mr. Bridges: Is that in the backup?
Mr. Wall: No. It is not.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Wall: The provisions that these various tax acts mandate being in there.
Now because of concerns that were raised by some of the pensioners, didn’t understand,
you know, why we were making these changes, etc., we put savings language included in
the very introduction of why we’re doing this. And if I could just read a portion of it: it
is the county’s intention to fully honor all benefits and rights that plan participants have
accrued under the plan prior to this restatement. The plan shall be administered and
construed accordingly and the plan’s administrator shall construe and interpret every
provision of the plan’s restatement as effective January 1, 1997 in a manner that preserve
each plan’s participant’s rights and benefits that accrued prior to the adoption of this.
And so that’s the reason for the restatement. It really was not practical to highlight the
changes in the ’45 and the ’49 because those were the oldest plans. The ’77 plan was
pretty much in the format that the IRS is currently looking, and you know, I do have what
I call a red-lined version or a highlighted version that shows the provisions that were
added to that. They’re doing the same thing insofar as the [inaudible] plan. And so that’s
the reason for it. Ironically, I don’t understand this either, but, you know, according to
23
tax counsel, there is not really a statute of limitations. If we fail to adopt these and the
IRS came in, then we would have to go back and basically restate every employee’s
compensation from the time that it ceased to be a tax-qualified plan, which means that
there would be additional earnings to the employee and that would be in years not only
when the government made contributions but also there is an imputed contributed to the
plan by virtue of the earnings on the assets in the corpus. And so each employee would
have additional income, which means they would have to file an amended tax return, we
would have to file amended W-2’s on everyone, and it would be an administrative
nightmare.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you. That’s more than I wanted to know really. I’m ready to
vote, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any other further questions?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I would hope that the lawyer could make the material that were put
up here available to the pensioners in the coming years so that if they wanted to look at it,
had any questions for the Finance Committee, we would be ready to respond at that time.
I certainly didn’t know it was coming before us today. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Jim, I wanted to know, was there any
discussion with the pension plan board or that Commissioner that on that plan, has all of
this been discussed with them? I mean, like, I mean you just gave us a rundown as to
what you propose there and what you got and what the IRS is doing, but when you
talking about approving an ordinance and amending, then we sit here and vote on that,
don’t know what that entails with the pensioners and where that going leave them, it may
not, from what you described, that doesn’t do anything to them. But to sit here and vote -
- and I got some calls because they was worried about what was this. And like Mr.
Shepherd, I had to go back like simple Steve and say I don’t know cause I really didn’t.
So is there a board, is that a Commissioner, is there a group to hear all this?
Mr. Wall: I mean the only board would be you yourselves.
Mr. Williams: Other than the Commission, I’m saying. Is there a pension group?
Mr. Wall: No, if I understand your question, no. I mean y’all are trustees of the
pension plan, but there is a pension committee made up of some of you.
Mr. Williams: Okay, committee then. I mean pension committee.
24
Mr. Wall: No, because frankly, until I got the first draft of ’77 on January 18, that
is the first time I knew what the tax people were referring to when they talk about the
GUST Amendments. G-U-S-T. I mean the [inaudible] plan, when we got that notice
back in -- it was adopted the first meeting in December, to amend the ’87 [inaudible]
plan, and the state was -- I say the state, it was going to be done on a statewide basis, not
the state of Georgia that was doing it, but it was going to be done on statewide basis
through counsel. You know, again, it just talked about the GUST Amendments. I am not
a tax lawyer. And so you know, all I was told was that it had to be done originally by
December 31. I made copies of all the plans, all the amendments, all the changes, got it
in the hands, then it was postponed, the deadline from December 31 to February 28. The
first plan I got was the ’77 one. And you know, then I saw the changes then, and then the
conversation turned to the ’45 and the ’49 and the fact that those needed to be restated
and put in a format that was more akin to what was in the ’77 plan. And so there has
been a lot of conversations and a lot of questions asked along those lines. Again, I’ve
talked to some of the ’49 pensioners explaining the reason behind that. I’ve talked with
tax counsel. Steve -- Mr. Shepard mention the word suspicion, and I would characterize
it as that, that there was some suspicion that perhaps we were doing something to affect
their rights, and I emphasized to tax counsel that we needed to do everything we could to
reassure them, and that’s the reason that the introduction was written at the outset of these
plans, to give that assurance that we’re not changing your benefits. We’re just doing this
to make sure it remains a tax-qualified plan so that it doesn’t create the myriad of
problems we’d encounter. And I’ve offered to get conference call with tax counsel cause
I can’t answer specifically why a particular provision is in there. I mean I couldn’t tell
you if it was under [inaudible] Act or some other act. Cause I’m not familiar with that
frankly. That’s the reason we’ve got tax counsel to do it. So I hope that answers your
questions.
Mr. Williams: Yeah, and you can understand when people, when the pensioners
hear about something like this they naturally get worried is something going to affect
their pension, and you don’t blame them. I mean I would -- hopefully I will live to get to
a pension somewhere.
Mr. Wall: And that’s the reason the introduction is written in there.
Mr. Williams: That’s all I have, Jim.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, you’re saying this will in no way the harm the benefits that
the pensioners are currently vested in in these plans?
Mr. Wall: That is absolutely correct.
Mr. Mayor: And this will go to Finance and then we’ll have a second reading
before the Commission. Is there any further discussion on the motion to approve? All in
favor then please vote aye.
25
The Clerk: Mr. Boyles, are you going to abstain on all or just the ’45 act? Is he
going to abstain?
Mr. Wall: ’45 only.
Mr. Mayor: You can vote on the ’49 and the ’77. We’re voting on all three of
them.
The Clerk: I’ll record your vote as --
Mr. Boyles: [inaudible] on the ’45.
The Clerk: -- affirmative on the others and ’45 abstaining, okay?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Motion carries 10-0. [Addendum Items 4 and 5]
Mr. Boyles abstains.
Motion carries 9-1. [Addendum Item 6]
Mr. Baker: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Baker? Would you come up to the microphone, please?
Mr. Baker: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Identify yourself and give us your address, please.
Mr. Baker: I’m Oscar Baker, one of the participants in the 1949 pension plan, and
I would like to ask this Commission that at least once a year that every pensioner shall
get a report on the ’49 pension act. If y’all could just include it in one of our envelopes
that we get, the status of our pension fund and everything about it.
Mr. Mayor: All right, thank you, Mr. Baker.
Mr. Baker: I’d appreciate it if you’d do that.
Mr. Mayor: The Pension Committee has scheduled a meeting for February 21 at
4 p.m. and certainly I’ll ask the Clerk if she would to add that item to the agenda for that
Pension Committee meeting. We’ll be glad to discuss that. Thank you. All right, we’ll
move ahead with our regular agenda item number 28.
The Clerk:
26
PUBLIC SERVICES
:
28. Motion to approve reprogramming of SPLOST Phase IV funds from
McDuffie Woods, Year 2001 and 2002, a balance forward of $81,250.00 to
Meadowbrook Park and to reprogram the $100,000 CDBG allocation
approved for year 2002 for Meadowbrook Park to McDuffie Woods Park.
(No recommendation from Public Services Committee January 24, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure?
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve. Is there a second?
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Discussion? Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to vote against this, and the reason for it is the
utilization of block grant money for this project. I think we’ve done this in the past and
then we’ve had some [inaudible] come back to us complaining because they didn’t have
money available, and I voted in the consent agenda for Mr. Williams’ park because HUD
had approved that. In this particular case -- of course they’re moving money around now
so that it will qualify with HUD’s specifications, but I just think we’re making a mistake
dipping into that pot.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Anything further? Okay, we have a motion to approve.
All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Kuhlke votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
The Clerk:
29. Motion to approve a contract for professional services with Cranston,
Robertson & Whitehurst, P.C. for $419,560 related to the construction of the
new Diamond Lakes Community Center/Library. (No recommendation from
Public Services Committee January 24, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: What’s your pleasure, gentlemen?
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve. Is there a second?
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
27
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, this -- I’m speaking to both 29 and 30. I’m opposed to
the library itself being -- and I made these comments in previous meetings. I don’t have
any problem with the library/community center being on the main drag, which is Windsor
Spring Road, which will be four-laned in about four years. I don’t have any problem
with the library being on that so it could be easily accessible to people that might not
necessarily be going into the park for recreational purposes, but strictly for purposes of
research or to use the computer, that type of thing. I think it makes it more convenient
for them and I think it actually attracts people to use the library for those purposes, to go
the distance, to go to Diamond Lakes and use it. So I don’t have any problem if it’s
placed on the main drag, and I made those points in previous meetings. However, this
concept places the library/community center down in the park itself, and as a second, I’m
opposed to it for that reason, and there’s a second reason, and I made these points as well
in the past, is to place a library near a recreational facility, I don’t believe is the best
concept. I know we’ve had people that traveled great distances to view something
similar to this. They say that it works, but I have trouble conceptualizing how you are
going to have a library next to a basketball gymnasium. Now I don’t have any problem
with a library being connected to a community center in regard to receptions, public
meetings, that type of thing, which is my concept of a community building, not
necessarily a recreational facility. But this is located directly next to a recreational
facility, divided by maybe a hallway. I think that bodes ill for potential traffic problems
between the two, so I’m going to oppose this concept.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, thank you. This is for 29 and 30. The process for
selecting this concept was not an easy one. It was not one taken lightly. We have done
everything that the citizens of this city asked us to do. We have, in site selection
combining these facilities, developed a partnership between the library and the
Recreation Department, which is essentially representing the city. Working together,
using county-owned land, we saved in the site selection cost, which is significant dollars.
Working together on this project, we also saved money in the construction. The annual
operating cost will be reduced because it’s a shared facility. Access to this facility is
guaranteed in that there are more than a thousand children and adults per night during
baseball season in this facility. As we traveled to Aurora, Illinois, the joint use of the
facility by parents and children who may be in one activity or another while the other was
in the library was seen as a big plus. It’s user friendly in that there’s always somebody
around this facility. It won’t be a library stuck out by itself. There will always be
someone there. This will reduce the amount of potential crime that could occur in the
area. It’s a workable plan. All over this city, you have schools that have libraries inside
of them and thousands of children in those schools. Those libraries do not suffer as a
result of being in the school. In fact, quite the contrary, they’re in the school and the
children enjoy them and the activities and the class changes and everything else. That’s
not a problem. This is truly an opportunity to do more with less, which is I think our
28
charge as being good stewards of the taxpayers, not do -- and if we turn this down, it will
be a return to the do less with more money. And I hope that my colleagues on the board
will join me in supporting this, and it will be something in the future that we can look at
as a landmark for Augusta, a success in partnership, which is certainly the direction we
ought to take.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. One other point I wanted to make.
Supposedly according to the numbers that were run, the community building/library
concept would save about $50,000, $58,000 -- I don’t remember the exact numbers -- a
year in doing it this way. And I don’t dispute that. That’s fine. My concern was that at
the same time we’re talking about putting the library out at Diamond Lakes because it is
such a distance out there, but discussion also came up to run a bus line out to it so people
that use the bus line can use the library. The numbers I saw on that were $90,000 extra a
year to run and maintain that line. So if we do that, we’ve not only voided any savings
by this concept; we’ve actually increased the cost in doing that concept. So I think if
we’re going to argue that we’ve got a savings here, we need to be very careful that in the
future that we don’t do something that will just completely wipe that out and add
additional costs to the tax base.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I completely concur with Commissioner
Bridges in that to do that right now would not be economically feasible. What we did do
is include the Transit Department in all other municipal entities in the initial discussion
on this project, to get an understanding of what their needs for the future would be in
order to incorporate that in the master plan. That is what we did. I don’t think there is
any plans afoot right now to extend a bus line, but when the population and the needs
dictate, those thoughts would have already been in place, and we will be able to do it
pretty painless at that point, which is really the way you should plan things. Right now,
though, we are not looking at a lot of other major expenses, although we did plan for
potential inclusion of a bus line at some point, and with all of that property out there I
think that would be a beautiful place to turn around if you had to turn around and go back
into the city from there. But again, I just encourage the Commission to support this. This
is a marvelous plan. We’re doing more with less, we’re meeting the community’s needs,
and we’re developing a partnership. It’s all win, win, win.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, did you want to be recognized?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I did. I don’t know whether I need to. I’m
in support, but like Commissioner Bridges has said earlier, I, too, have problems with
visioning in my mind how the library would fit down into the center. And I do, and I’m
going to support it and I’m going to vote for the motion, but I do think myself that had it
been up on the road where it would be more feasible to get to would have been, you
know, something better. I think Commissioner Cheek and the Recreation Department
29
have looked at this very closely and I feel sure that they think that this is the best location
for it. Sometimes change is better. The things you can’t see maybe you know have to
come through Commission so you can really touch them and know that they’re actually
going to happen. But I felt the same way in the beginning and I still feel that way as far
as being on the main road, but I think after we get this facility built, I think it is going to
be something we all going to be proud of and something we all going to take a part in and
use very often.
Mr. Mayor: Any further -- Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Am I right in assuming that last year a
master plan for this park was adopted, with the design being incorporated the way it is
and we’re simply asking today approval to go ahead with the funding source so we do the
design work and the design phase?
Mr. Mayor: That’s correct.
Mr. Boyles: So this has already been determined previously about where the
library would be?
Mr. Mayor: That’s correct.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? All in favor of the motion please vote aye.
Mr. Bridges votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
The Clerk:
30. Motion to approve an agreement between Augusta Recreation and Parks and
the East Central Georgia Regional Library for design, construction and
operation of the proposed joint facility at Diamond Lakes Regional Park. (No
recommendation from Public Services Committee January 24, 2002)
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion please vote aye.
Mr. Bridges votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Lord.
30
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, I think we have someone here to speak to item 31.
Perhaps -- why don’t we take that one separately and then we can take the other two
together?
The Clerk:
ATTORNEY
:
32. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to
support legislation to seek funding for State Supplements of Appraisal Staff
Salaries.
33. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation support
legislation to change the deadline for filing property returns from April l to
February 1.
Mr. Mayor: What’s your pleasure with these, gentlemen?
Mr. Shepard: I move approval.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Bridges: Could I have some information on 32?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: This came as a request from Mr. Reece at the meeting we had with the
Legislative Delegation. It was included in those items and these three particular
resolutions that are on here are once that were not developed in the last Commission
meeting when you met.
Mr. Bridges: And as I understand from looking in the backup, am I right in this
will not be an additional expense to Augusta; we’re requesting state funding?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
31
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to ask Commissioner Shepard. 31, that’s the
one cent tax on hotels?
Mr. Shepard: Yes.
Mr. Kuhlke: Additional one cent. And my only comment --
Mr. Mayor: We’re going to take that one up later. We’re going to take care of 32
and 33 now because we’ve got some people to speak on that one.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay.
Mr. Reece: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Reece: Mr. Mayor and Commission, if you would, please, I’d like to go on
record that the board of assessors has adopted these two items also in their minutes, and
they respectfully request that y’all uphold that.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Further discussion? All in favor of the motion to
approve items 32 and 33, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Now we’ll take up item 31.
The Clerk:
31. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to
support legislation to amend O.C.G.A.§ 48-13-51 so as to authorize an
additional one percent tax on public accommodations for the purpose of
promotion of tourism, conventions and trade shows.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. White, did you want to be heard on this, or are you just hear to
monitor the conversation?
Mr. White: I came mainly to monitor the conversation but I do have information
[inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Why don’t we go ahead and hear from you first? Come up to the
podium and identify yourself for the record and then we’ll move forward.
Mr. White: I’m Barry White, executive director of the Augusta Metropolitan
Convention & Visitors Bureau. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for allowing me the time, and
members of the Commission. First of all, the CVB is in a difficult position when it
32
comes to this issue. We are partners with you. We are partners with the city of Augusta
to promote this city as a visitor destination, and at the same time we want our attractions
to be successful. Without them, we are not a successful destination. So it’s difficult for
us, it’s a difficult issue. But I do want to provide some information for you that our board
of directors has passed, and that’s a position statement on this hotel tax, and that is
opposing an increase, or not supporting an increase in the hotel tax in Augusta. First of
all, the original intent of the hotel tax was for tourism promotion and marketing, and the
board feels that it should remain so. At a time when travel and tourism is at an all-time
low, and increase in the lodging tax would be an added burden on visitors at a time when
incentives are and should be given. There has been no plan submitted or criteria
established as far as how the funds from the tax would be spent. Only four years ago we
went through an increase. The CVB worked closely with the Commission and
established criteria for the distribution of those funds. We have more than 25
organizations and attractions applying annually for those funds through the tourism grant.
And if this money was raised, I would probably guess that at least those 25 organizations
would be back knocking on your door wanted a piece of that pie, which would probably
only generate about $20,000 apiece, and I don’t think that’s significant enough to make
much difference. There is also House study tourism committee in the Georgia House
which has been studying the state Code for two years and is probably going to make
some recommendations on changes, and any action that may be taken today may become
obsolete in the very near future. Adding one more percentage point will place Augusta at
a disadvantage with competing cities. Our total tax at checkout right now from a hotel
would be the same as Atlanta if it’s increased, to 14%. The national average for similar-
sized markets as Augusta is 11%. We would be higher than Charleston, we would be
higher than Las Vegas, higher than Orlando, higher than Columbia County, and higher
than North Augusta. A majority of the current funds now in Augusta are spent on
operations and maintenance of facilities. An inadequate of disproportionate amount is
spent on tourism promotion. Only 33% of the funds right now are spent on tourism
promotion in Augusta, while the national average is 62% of the lodging tax spent on
promotion. So again, it’s a bit of a difficult situation for us, but we contract with you to
be the professionals in the tourism industry and provide some information to you as you
make the decision on increasing the lodging tax.
Mr. Mayor: All right. I think some of the Commissioners wanted to be heard on
this. Mr. Kuhlke, you stated a moment ago. I’ll let you finish and then we’ll move to the
others.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, my comment is that I’ve gotten a number of calls, a
number of letter, I am sure we all have, from people involved in the lodging business. I
know we need money. I know we’ve got some ideas for utilizing this money as far as the
museums and some other things, and we don’t have any other way to go. But I think that
I’m going to vote against this particular measure and maybe give us a little time to see if
we can’t come up with some alternatives rather than imposing another tax on the hotel
industry.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Beard.
33
Mr. Shepard: I think Mr. Beard had his hand up first.
Mr. Mayor: He did? I’m sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: Maybe a couple of things here that I would like to just ask, and I
guess this goes to Walter or our Finance Committee. Isn’t this inclusive the budget?
Mr. Hornsby: This is.
Mr. Beard: These funds?
Mr. Hornsby: Yes, it is.
Mr. Beard: That we’re talking about now?
Mr. Hornsby: Yes, it is. And what it is, it’s an effort to try to provide funding for
museums, the Augusta and the Lucy Laney museums. It’s a method of trying to balance
the budget, and this was a part and parcel of how we were to get there.
Mr. Beard: I guess the other question would go back to Barry. Barry, I kind of
heard you -- I kind of determined from your conversation that maybe if you had had
information or if you knew how the funds were going to be distributed, that y’all might
would be in support of this. Did I glean this from you conversation over there?
Mr. White: Well, in the past and four years ago, I can refer back to that, and the
resolution that’s stated says for the promotion of tourism, conventions and trade shows,
which is very different from operations and maintenance of facilities. So our real stance
is that it needs to go into tourism promotion to attract more people to town, because
we’re afraid we may have the facilities here, we may be able to keep their doors open, but
without the money to promote we won’t have the people to fill the attractions.
Mr. Beard: And that means if you knew where it was, you might be able to
support it?
Mr. White: It’s possible, yes.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Mayor, this is sort of an outgrowth of the budget exercise
we went through in December, and I think I initially broached this idea as part of the
budget, that our general fund has incredible pressure on it, as we all know. It’s the
general law enforcement fund primarily, and that’s its purpose. I’m searching, and I hope
this Commission is searching, for a way of funding our attractions. We don’t have a
stabilized source of funding for these attractions, and I want to just speak, and I know that
the hoteliers have written me and they have opposed it, they see it as the cost of doing
34
business increasing, and I appreciate that, but I think the situation we find ourselves in
now, and correct me if I’m wrong, Jim, is that we can’t as a body raise this tax. We have
to have state Legislative, local population act or state Legislative action; is that correct?
Mr. Wall: State Legislative action.
Mr. Shepard: State Legislative action. Absent that, we can’t pass an ordinance to
raise this tax. We’d have to have an enabling statute, then we’d come back and have an
ordinance to implement it. But before we can have a state statute, the policy of our
Legislative Delegation is to have some expression from this Commission as to whether
we’re interested in this or not. And so I guess if we don’t have this statement of initial
interest to go forward to the Legislature where the actual statutory work can be done and
enacted, then we get nowhere. But it’s really a three step process. We have to start the
process. The state Legislature, local delegation has to pas it. Then it comes back to us
for an ordinance consideration. Now I just don’t know -- I mean I’m open to suggestion
about funding these attractions, and this is one that I think is the only one on the table
right now. [inaudible] others to come up and we need to have some other way, well, I
challenge you to find that other way, but right now I think this is the only game in town.
And let me take off my hat as a Commissioner and say that I think it was two years ago,
2000, Barry, you know, I was chairman of the Augusta Convention when the state Lions
Club came here. It was a job that I took before I ran for office and probably wouldn’t do
the same again in the same time period. But I think we were cited as having one of the
top, one of the largest conventions that came to Augusta that year. We were -- my co-
chairman and I, David Crews, were cited in a good way, Barry, not cited like you do in
Court, but for being a tourism hero and bringing this convention. And certainly we had
adequate facilities. We met at the Radisson before it was enlarged. We met at the
Ramada. Had nothing but compliments from the local properties. But we had not been
to Augusta in seven or eight years as Georgia Lions, and I’m concerned that we will not
come back again. Not only do we have the good facilities, but do we have the
attractions? The year that they went following Augusta, they went to the beach at -- not
St. Simons, but Jekyll. And I think we’ve got to do something to boost our attraction
funding, and I would commend this to you as the only idea out there right now that boosts
attraction funding. We can’t have attraction funding out of the general fund. We’ve got
to address some of the entities such as the CVB, such as the Sports Council, these groups
need to promote this area. They fill the room nights and I think basically, Barry, if I’m
not terribly mistaken, because of my experience in the Lions convention, a room in
Atlanta is a whole lot more expensive than a room in Augusta, so when you’re looking at
a total budget for your convention, you can buy more for your buck in Augusta than you
can in Atlanta, and I think the proof of that is that the Lions don’t meet in Atlanta
anymore because the national conventions have priced them out of the market. I just
think it’s a targeted attack that’s going to return actually dollars to the hoteliers who are
imposing the tax, because people are going to come stay in the hotels and go to the
attractions, and we’re going to have more groups, more money available for the
promotion of this area, which includes the Sports Council and the CVB. So as a result, I
didn’t put this on the agenda, but I do support it and I hope my colleagues will, too.
35
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Adding another penny to this, and I have to
agree with Commissioner Shepard, I’d sure like to find some funding sources to fund
some of these activities and events. But adding an additional penny to this puts us in
some pretty prestigious company that I don’t know our market can basically support. We
draw a lot of people from the surrounding 90 mile area to come spend the weekend in
Augusta. We start raising the additional cost on those things, hotel/motel rooms and so
forth, those are going to start pricing people out of the market, make people think twice
about maybe instead of turning left and coming to Augusta, turning right and going to
Savannah or Charleston and so forth. I don’t see an easy way out of this, but I do know
that when we impact a market that is, I don’t want to call our market weak but it’s not as
strong as it could be, the tourism portion of our economic triad is not nearly as strong as
it needs to be. And at a time when other cities are cutting rates and creating incentives to
bring people to their cities, we’re sending the message that we are going to tax you more
when you come, which is completely inconsistent with a lot of the other arguments we’ve
heard about property tax and a lot of other things. We do have some ways to increase
funding in our alcohol tax. We’ve talked about extending hours, which is of no impact.
In fact, it creates or grows the market share that our businesses would have in this area. It
takes that market share away from other areas and keeps it committed to the Augusta
area. Those are things that we can do to grow the market share which will increase
business and hopefully increase revenue. This is something that while we may gain an
extra cent for those that doc come, it has a significant possibility of driving business
away, and empty rooms pay no taxes. So I stand in opposition to this. I’d like to find
some funding sources. I wish that we were below the level that we’re at now and could
increase it somewhat. But putting us up equal with Atlanta and above Las Vegas and
Orlando and places where they have DisneyWorld and casinos and mountains and
beaches put us in an uncompetitive position, and I hope that we’ll vote against this today.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My thoughts on this, first of all, we need
the money, like Bill said earlier we did to try to get some additional funds into the city to
do some things with. We talked about the museum, both of those, we trying to support
and trying to help with. When I heard Barry said about Las Vegas and Atlanta and our
hotel taxes that would be more than theirs, I find something is wrong with that picture
because even though the taxes would be more, but when you look at Atlanta or Las
Vegas or even Savannah and the things that the city is doing to bring people in, you can
get more people in with the same rates that we’re paying, the same tax that we’re paying,
but we’re not doing anything different than what we doing for the last 20 or 30 years. I
understand that that group is working hard to try to promote and do some things, but even
Valdosta, Georgia. Valdosta, Georgia has got a wildlife adventure park. And their traffic
is almost double as to doing something. We’re the second-largest city. People say well,
we got a zoo in Atlanta, we got a zoo in Columbia. Well, if we go to Atlanta to visit that
zoo or Columbia, they’ll come to Augusta. We’ve got to start doing some things
different in Augusta to get people here. And I think raising the taxes may hurt us. We
36
need the money but it may hurt us in the same respect that Barry told us. But I think we
need to start to look at what we’re doing and what we’re not doing. Mr. Mayor, you
brought the mayor from Charlotte, North Carolina, to Augusta and I really enjoyed his
trip here. He told us that we should look around us and not just the city next door but all
across these United States and find situations that’s working in other cities and apply
them to Augusta. We have not done that at all. And if we look around and see other
things that is working somewhere else, they’ll work in Augusta. But we’ve got to sell
ourselves. We got to promote ourselves, not just leave it to a group to do that. And I
think we need to, you know, hold off on this maybe today and try to look around and see
what other sources we can do and how can we get creative? How can we get out of the
box? Commissioner Cheek met with the Downtown Development Corporation, I think it
was, and a couple of other entities about a water taxi. That’s something the city ought to
be doing. That’s something small, but that’s something the city ought to be doing. South
Carolina is fixing to start shortly building on their riverfront. And after they build, then
we come up with a water taxi, they going to already have one. We need to start doing
some things now. We need to quit procrastinating, always look around for somebody
else to do it, when we need to do it. And I’m talking about the Commissioners, I’m
talking about at the top level. We need to be responsible. We need to get open minded.
And we need to do some things different. And we going to raise some monies for this
city. Now I keep saying it over and over, nobody want to raise taxes, but if we not going
to raise taxes then we have got to get creative. We’ve got to do something that gets some
monies in, and there are some simple things that we can do as a city that -- First Friday,
for example. I don’t know how many of you been downtown for First Friday. I mean it’s
really, I mean it’s grown so much that you wouldn’t recognize it just on First Friday. But
every Friday ought to be like First Friday in Augusta. But people want to stay in that
same old box they been staying in for 200 years, stick their heads out to see how the
weather is, then go back inside. And we can’t live, we can’t prosper, we can’t grow as a
city doing them same old things. We got to start doing something better.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This was originally proposed because we,
as Mr. Shepard mentioned, we were looking for a method of funding cultural events,
museums, that type of thing, without impacting the property tax. And I guess at the time
it was proposed I thought it was a good idea. I think it may still be a good idea. I was a
little bit surprised at the hotel and tourist community being opposed to it, because they
seemed so agreeable with the last time we taxed them. But I guess I can appreciate their
distrust this time around, too, because the last time we told them what we were going to
use the money for, and 80% of that money has not been used for the original purpose that
it was intended. It’s been used to fund the museum. And I regret that. I think that’s
regrettable. We thought that was the only avenue we had and so we did that. In regards
to this motion, though, my understanding, Jim, is that this is to give permission from the
Legislature should we want to establish in an ordinance to do this, to do so. It doesn’t
necessarily mean that’s what we’re going to do. And I see you nodding your head. So
I’m going to support the motion today to do this, but I have a lot of calls, letters, you
know, Bill, like you have, and I respect the CVB and their position and their viewpoint.
37
It means a lot to me. So in that regard, I am going to support the motion to take this to
the Legislative Delegation, but I reserve the right to fish-tail when the actual vote comes
down in the Commission.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Let me just point out that there is no motion
on the floor at this time. We’re just having discussion. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I guess a lot of this gets back to -- and I ask Barry to stay
for just a moment cause I got a question for him. Kind of like which came first, the
chicken or the egg? Now we’re talking about promotions, we’re talking about those of us
who had the opportunity to serve, particularly closer with CVB, and what we look at in
terms of destination points and who qualifies from what end. And all these other things.
But are there any stats, Barry, whether they are locally or regionally, and I’m not picking
now, I’m kind of searching for a little information cause there is no motion on the floor
and I’ve got an idea that we’re going to end up back with a workshop, particularly to
maybe suggest something else. We’re going to Atlanta this week in terms of lobbying.
Everybody from Augusta in terms of different categories, you all will be there, the
Chamber will there, different folks lobbying for this and that. It may be an excellent
opportunity that over the course of the next week to ten days that we seriously talk about
what we want to see here. Now I’ve heard loud and clear from the hotel industry, a lot of
them that have written person letters, some that I’ve gone out to dinner or to lunch and
I’ve been just going to restaurants lately cause I hadn’t wanted to hear a campaign about
the taxes. But are there any stats which show -- we’ve heard a lot about the tax and
where we ran, but in terms of so-called small to medium and upscale hotels, where their
actual rates are and what they charge? And my reason for asking that, and I’m not saying
that the tax won’t have some effects in there, but if you’re paying a certain tax of a larger
place, and the rate for that particular room is $185 - 212, and you’re paying $89 or $76
for a rate in another market, for the same type of hotel, may even be the same chain, and
you check out, in packaging a convention, planning for one, or even the average traveler,
I’m wondering if you all have done any stats as to whether or not the taxes made a
significant impact in the thought process or whether they would come back or wouldn’t
come back, or when they rang up, I’m old fashioned, when they rang up the cash
registered, what the total cost is of that person checking out? Because if the tax is the
same and you check out and your bill is $205.54 in one place, and your tax is the same in
another city and you’re checking out at $133.00, and you’ve saved maybe at the same
chain $65 to $70, there ought to be some truth in the practice of what you’re promoting,
other than just saying well, we’re opposed to the tax. I think there ought to be some
discussion about that. Maybe today is not the day and I’m piggybacking on what Marion
was saying. Maybe today is not the day to finally settle this. Maybe we need to have a
little input from you all as to whether or not there are some stats that deal with that.
Second thing is I heard this a lot in CVB in terms of what qualified as an overnight
destination, what qualified for hotel stays. Various types of groups come, civic and
professional groups, some come and bring large family reunions. It would help us, rather
than just being opposed to the tax, if both CVB and the hotel people can give some input
in terms of where their customers want to go, when they are coming for particularly a
two-to-three-day event. Where is there that I can take my family to? What type of place
38
am I looking for? If I’m bringing you 150 or I’m bringing you 1500 people, in terms of
if there is nowhere to go and there is nowhere open, I’m a little confused on what you’re
going to promote. Now we can give you all the promotional money in the world. But if
the destination point is to a riverfront to see water, if it’s to some places that are not open,
if I can take my kids to -- say if I’m a family person and we’re on a family outing and the
closest thing for me might be to entertain the kids would be simply just get on the
interstate and get off and go to Funsville. In another county. Now I think you all ought
to be -- and I say you all, it ought to be all of us. We ought to be creative enough to sit
down and talk about the real issue in this, other than just tax. Because I think if we want
to look at it from that standpoint, then you could automatically say well, let’s don’t have
museums, let’s don’t have this place to go to, let’s just promote the [inaudible] and say
we’re the second biggest or second oldest, and when you get here we may have some
second for you to see. So I mean, you know, at some point I think there needs to be some
realistic discussion about what do you really want other than just where the opposition is.
Some stats to say is my group more pleased with where the tax is the driving force to
make me come to a city, or the overall rate to come? If I can come $30 cheaper to
Augusta to the same chain place, am I going to argue with you about the penny in terms
of what I’m paying? I’d like to see that from an industry standpoint and CVB’s
standpoint, to bring that to the table and we talk about that. Because this is to a point that
this could flip-flop back and forth, with a chicken and egg attitude, and either you are
going to promote folk and you get them here, and then where are you going to take them?
Everything is closed, nowhere to go, nothing to do. We have a proposal recently from
some owners in reference to extended hours. You are going to make it convention and
travel place, then, you know are you going to have convention and travel hours or the
types of entertainment businesses to be open, where club owners and other people can
make money. Not to where you’ve got some Gestapo standing there with a watch and
deciding whether or not it’s a cup on the bar at two minutes before it gets ready to close.
Those are the type of things that I think you need to have in a discussion rather than just
saying your tax is going to be equal to some other cities, and maybe this may not be, Mr.
Mayor, the right thing to do. Maybe everybody needs to take their lobbying efforts, hear
some feedback from the Delegation, and since we’ve got a regular meeting of this
Commission to deal with, we got another workshop to deal with, maybe that would be the
time to finalize it and will give the Chamber, CVB, members of the Commission that are
on CVB, as well as entertainment owners, restaurant owners and other people who are in
this mix to say what’s going to happen when you bring other folks here, where are they
going and what’s going to deal with the business? Rather than just saying we need the
money, and on the other side then saying this is going to impact us and we’re afraid about
the cost of doing business, there has got to be something else in between that we can talk
about, and that’s just where I am.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Let’s hear from Rev. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: I’d just like to also bring to our attention when we’re considering
the tax increase, some of us don’t want to increase taxes, nobody wants increased taxes.
But when we go to other cities that we are going to compare this with other cities,
yesterday I paid -- well, my motel rate was paid, but when I got ready to leave I had to
39
pay an additional $20 for parking. And that’s something that we can also, when we
comparing other cities or tourists coming into the city, you don’t have to pay $40 and $50
a week to park in Augusta. You can park in Augusta free about 99-1/2%, everywhere
you go you can park free. When I go to Atlanta, I’m parking. I’m paying for parking. I
got to carry an extra budget. Also another thing is when I get ready to eat, I go to Atlanta
and go to Sylvia’s for some soul food. I pay $20. I can go to Madison, the House of
Prayer, and pay $5.95. I think those are comparison how we can really save money when
we come into a city, pay motel, what we ought to pay for parking, what we’re paying for
eating. Augusta is cheap.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Let me ask a couple of questions, if I may, Barry. If the
tax were increased a penny here, would it not be equal to the taxes charged in Athens and
Columbus, the other two consolidated governments?
Mr. White: Yes, it would be 14%, which would be the same as metro Atlanta,
Athens and Columbus. If I could also note on that, Georgia is the highest in the southeast
with those tax rates.
Mr. Mayor: When the Commission last addressed this issue was about four years
ago, I think?
Mr. White: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Similar arguments were made about the tax being regressive and
driving tourism away and whatnot. But has there been a decline in overnight stays in
Augusta in the last four years and have we not opened a new convention hotel and
expanded the convention center in the last four years?
Mr. White: Right. Right. Two points to answer that question with: the first is
the American Hotel and Lodging Association did a study which showed that for every
percentage point increase in the lodging tax, there will be a decline in hotel occupancy by
4.4%. So that study was done by the American Hotel and Lodging Association. In
Augusta, it’s difficult for us to judge because in the past four years, at the same time
we’ve seen an increase in our hotel room inventory. We’ve added another thousand
rooms to metro Augusta hotel inventory. So with that, we’ve seen additional business.
Some of it washes from among existing hotels, but there’s also new business that comes
in, especially with expansions like you see over at the Radisson.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, in view of the comments of the Commissioners, I
would make the motion that we not take action on this item today and that we
instead postpone it and send it to the Finance Committee -- I know next Monday is
going to be rather jammed with the budget and also with committees, and I’m
thinking probably not this next Finance Committee but the following Finance
Committee.
We’re running close the end of the Legislature but this would be a local bill.
40
I think we probably could accommodate it a little better if we noticed it that way and that
way would have the stakeholders, so to speak, that you identified, Mr. Mays, the
Chamber of Commerce, the hotels, the people that are interested in CVB, perhaps come
to that as a forum, or we could -- I’m open to having another forum opened in the
Finance Committee. But since it is revenue type budgetary issue, I mean that’s what we
are supposed to take on, and that’s our charge, so I make that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Williams: I second that.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion on the motion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, a substitute motion to deny this increase.
Mr. Mayor: All right, well, we don’t have a proposed increase before us. We
have a request for legislation before us. How would you want to word this?
Mr. Cheek: Deny this to support any legislation that would include an increase in
the rate hotel/motel stays.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that? It does for lack of a second. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I had something prior to Mr. Shepard’s motion. I don’t particularly
care about his delay, but I do think that I don’t see how we are going to act on a
resolution for the Legislative Delegation if you delay this, and I think to me we were kind
of losing sight on what this was all about and it was a resolution to them in support of
that. It appears to me -- and the reason I’m saying this is it appears to me the whole crux
of this matter is where the funding going. I gleaned this from the beginning that it wasn’t
a point that a lot of people were in denial of the tax being increased, it was a point of a lot
of people are talking about this because they don’t know where the tax is going. I think
even if you had sent the request, the resolution to go forward to the Delegation, you still
would have had time to do the dialog that so many of you have talked about, but you
know, there’s a motion on the floor and there’s no longer a need for me to prolong this
and we’ll just vote on the motion.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Beard. All in favor of the motion then from Mr.
Shepard please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough: To delay this thing?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, send it to Finance.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Boyles?
41
Mr. Boyles: Just as a comment. Whatever we do with this, the time line in the
rdrd
General Assembly is the 33 day, so whatever we do has to be there before their 33 day
or they can’t act on it; am I correct?
Mr. Mayor: I believe that’s correct.
Mr. White: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: That’s correct. Next item, Ms. Bonner.
The Clerk:
APPOINTMENT
:
34. Consider the recommendations from Region 12 MHMRSA Board regarding
the reappointment of Ms. Judy C. Heath, and Dr. Andree J. Lloyd to a new
three (3) year term.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, your pleasure?
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and it’s been seconded. Discussion? All in favor then please
vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS:
35. Discuss "Letter of Request" to the Commissioner Jim Wetherington,
Georgia Department of Corrections regarding the use of State Inmate Labor
Crews to assist with various Augusta-Richmond County construction
projects. (Requested by Commissioner Williams)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, this is your item.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I met with Dr. Bragdon out to the animal
shelter, and we needed a letter from the Commission or from you requesting the service
of the inmates to come to Augusta to help us in some construction work. And this trip
into Atlanta this week, hopefully we can get a chance to go by and visit with him to ask
him about getting some assistance from the state inmates to maybe do some construction
work at the animal shelter out there.
42
Mr. Mayor: You want to make a motion?
Mr. Williams: I so move that the Commissioners allow the Mayor to send a
letter to him for that, requesting that.
And that’s one of the first requirements that we
needed to do, is to get a letter to him from this city requesting that, so that’s why that is
placed on here.
Mr. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Second on that. Discussion? All in favor of the motion please vote
aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next item?
The Clerk:
36. Discuss status of the Finance Director. (Requested by Commissioner
Williams)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb is not here, Mr. Williams. Perhaps one of the other
administrators can respond.
Mr. Williams: Yes, Mr. Mayor, hopefully someone from Human Resource or the
other administrator could at least enlighten us as to where we are now with a finance
director. We have been out searching for a while and I’d like to get some update on
where we are.
Mr. Hornsby: I have not personally been involved in the process of selection of a
finance director. Exactly where we are with respect to that angle, I’m not sure. I know
the process was done. Whether the person has accepted -- I think they’ve gotten to that
stage of it -- whether the person has accepted or not I am not positive.
Mr. Williams: What process you talking about, Mr. Hornsby? You say you in a
process.
Mr. Hornsby: The interviews, I think the process of trying to establish, you know,
parameters of who we’ve got coming in.
Mr. Williams: So are you saying that there is somebody that is being interviewed
now? I mean I’m trying to find out where we are with that in light of the problem we’ve
been having, not just with the money that was found in this year’s budget, but I think a
year ago we had some $3.5 or $3.4 million in LINK deposit program we didn’t know
anything about. And it’s just too much money not being watched, I guess is a good word,
Mr. Hornsby, so I just want some update on where we are.
43
Mr. Hornsby: As best I can say, as I said earlier, I have not been involved in that
process of selection at this point. I know we went out, we attempted to get a person, we
were unable to do it, we were unsuccessful in trying to bring somebody on board at that
time. After that, I think we went out and re-advertised again, and we’ve used Bennett &
Associates in order to do the scouting for us and try to bring us someone. Now after that
particular point, I cannot speak further.
Mr. Mayor: Let me interrupt, if I may. Brenda is here. Brenda, can you shed any
light on this?
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: Unfortunately, Mr. Mayor and Commission, I have had no
participation in the entire selection process with Bennett & Associates so I cannot tell you
where we are with the status of the Finance Director.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, I have some information on this that Mr. Kolb shared
with me about a week ago, but I don’t know whether he’s ready to share it publicly. So
I’ll be glad to share it with you privately. Now I don’t know if it’s going to answer your
question, but it’s a little bit more information than Mr. Hornsby had.
Mr. Williams: Okay, Mr. Mayor, I think we are paying the Associate Bennett, is
that right, Mr. Hornsby? I think we are paying them some what, $25,000, to find us -- is
that the --
Mr. Hornsby: [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: Is that how much we’re paying?
Mr. Mayor: I don’t recall the figure.
Mr. Williams: Percentage of salary for that person? Is that how we -- Bennett &
Associates?
Mr. Hornsby: We are paying for the services that he performs. I’m not positive
what the amount is and I’m not positive but what the amount is based upon, the salary of
the individual who is coming forth.
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: Their fee is contingent upon the starting salary of the individual
that we bring in. So really it is dependent on -- I want to say it’s like 20% of whatever
their minimum entry level salary would be.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if it’s possible, I’d like to have that Associate come in
and speak with us, even if we have to do it in legal or on this floor, it doesn’t matter. But
I think we have procrastinated long enough with a number of things. This is something
that is truly important. We ought to have at least some kind of report from them to say
where they are, what they’re looking at, who they’ve got, if they’ve got anybody, and if
44
at all possible, have them come in, please, Mr. Mayor, to at least address this
Commissioner to let us know where we are and how far are we. I mean if we keep
procrastinating, keep waiting, I mean we could wait another year. And this is a very,
very important position that somebody should be in --- that company to let us know
where we are. So is that possible, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: That’s possible for me to pass that request along to Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I can say this, and I’ll tell Mr. Williams. I have been
involved in the process as Finance chairman. I’m a little reluctant to say much more than
that due to the Open Records laws, which I just failed to ask Jim about, and if we could
add that to Legal I could share perhaps what I know [inaudible], if we add it to Legal we
can do that today.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes? Go ahead, Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: As co-chair of the Finance Committee, I don’t know anything
about it either. I haven’t heard anything. I was elected in November, officially January,
but I heard the argument about a Finance Director, Fire Chief, the hiring of these vacant
positions back in November. There was a strong argument then insisting that we go
ahead with the process and fill these positions, and it seemed though to date and also last
week I think I spoke to Mr. Kolb about this, we still at ground zero as far as hiring or
bringing anybody forward. I think that we need to go ahead and get somebody in these
positions or change the process. If the headhunter is not finding us the proper people or
whatever the problem is, we need to resolve it. I’m meeting people on the street every
day, laughing about how you misplace -- well, they say how you lose a million dollars. I
know that truth wasn’t that, but that’s what it is in the public. The media always
complaining about hiring a Fire Chief. We need a Finance Director. Nobody says
anything about that. And I think that we need to set priorities, and the people that we
have in positions to find the employees -- if it’s a problem with the Finance, then it need
to come back to us that we adjust whatever or make that adjustments for the salaries or
whatever, but right now we don’t know anything. The only thing we know that are -- the
last time I met with the, talked with the Administrator, he said that we missed one. I
asked the question what do you mean, don’t tell me about the fish that you didn’t catch.
What about the second person? What about the third person? I think it need to be a
process. If we interview the first person and that one fails, they we ought to have plan
two and three, and not wait another six months. That was November I heard the
discussion. It’s February, day after my birthday. And still, we still don’t know anything.
So I agree with Commissioner Williams, I agree with him 100% that we need to hold
45
people responsible for going ahead and doing what they supposed to do. We need to fill
these positions of Finance Director and Fire Chief and then do this budget and move on.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I don’t know who to blame
and who to lay this on. Our Administrator is at the helm of this government and
supposed to be doing some things as Administrator. We heard often in the news, and last
week I think George Eskola did another story on the Fire Chief, and we hear this all the
time, we would have had a Fire Chief had the process been carried out the way it was
designed to be carried out, we didn’t do that. We have not had an Attorney. We’ve been
at the scope of looking for an Attorney for a year-and-a-half, I guess by now. Finance
Director has been a year to year-and-a-half. I’m very dissatisfied with the present
Administrator as in his capabilities of doing his job. I think he said something like he had
lost confidence in one of our employees. And myself, I done lost confidence in his
ability to be able to do some things. We have not come to any agreement to do those
things in the key positions to keep this government running. And we sit here like nothing
has happened. We act like everything is fine. I mean we don’t even have the heads of
the department that’s necessary to keep this department afloat. Had not been for the
small people, the little people, to keep this government running, this government run like
a loose train. There’s nobody at the helm. And I want to put that on the record. I’m not
ashamed to say that. I just think the articles in the paper I think last week about giving
him the authority to hire and fire, I mean he had the authority to find us a Fire Chief, and
Attorney, and a Finance person. We have not either one of those. So I guess my point is
I’m very, very much disappointment in what we’ve gotten so far, and that’s nothing.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything further on this item? It doesn’t require any action.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] and I heard it mentioned earlier that we probably were
going to discuss part of this about the Finance Director during Legal. Is that going to be -
- I mean I know that has to be put in the form of a motion when that’s done, but my
understanding, is that something we’re going do or attempt to be done [inaudible] some
point?
Mr. Williams: I would like to hear, Mr. Mayor, if I can, to have some discussion
on the Finance Director if there is some information. I don’t have any.
Mr. Mays: And my reason for bringing that, Mr. Mayor, you know, I’m letting
these other fellows vent their situations about Finance. I been on record about Finance
not four months ago, I’ve been on record about Finance about eight months ago. And
that was one position that I felt, and I’ve expressed this in this chamber, the records will
show it, even when the criticism came up about why we did not select the chief when that
was done, and my whole thing was that the priorities of this Commission needed to be set
around what we were going to deal with in Finance, whether we stuck -- I asked the
question of the Administrator prior to he budget hearing, I asked the question, if we’re
not going to deal with it in that format, are we then going to then change the format? Or
46
are we going to maybe strengthen the department where we have, beef up the people that
are there, give them the things that they need. I even asked about the job description in
reference to the way that it was written and what was detailed. And I’m not going to sit
here and allow us to deal with procedural things, to go into Legal and talk about when
they’re not things that have to go into Legal to be talked about. They can be talked about
right out here, because we came out, I allowed the last procedure to go on out of
gentlemanly consent, I did not fight ya’ll with that to change the format where you could
go out and hire. Now if we going to talk about this in public, we ought to talk about the
real truth in public.
Mr. Williams: All right.
Mr. Mays: The reason why that was not brought on, and we all know it, was that
the procedures that we asked for in the job description that was written in HR was not
adhered to in terms of the advertisement. I asked publicly were we going to change that
or were we going to deal with that. I was told we might. We might was not a good
enough answer, as far as this Commissioner is concerned. We then, on the advice of
legal counsel, yes we did come out here and take action to change that so that we could
get it done. Some of us made our own investigation to the head hunting company. Now
the head hunting company is not necessarily responsible for what has or has not taken
place, because the head hunting company did not have a copy of the job description that
was passed and was left in H.R. And the reason why H.R. has not been involved in it is
because H.R.’s Directors were not put in it from the very beginning. They were totally
left out of that process. It’s been handled by the person at the top or mishandled by the
person at the top. And we had to go in -- at least y’all did cause I didn’t vote for it when
it got back out here. I just let you put it on by unanimous consent where you could get it
right. But y’all know what the deal is on it. We had to re-advertise in order to come back
out here and hopefully get one started. So we started the process over. So there is no
need of us bringing Bennett and them in here to deal with that. Bennett ain’t in it. The
person that we pay [inaudible] and the rest of this Commission, we’re in it in terms of
getting somebody on board to do it. And [inaudible] driving forces, while we had to go
in and change it, because we were going to be placed in the position which that could be
discussed in Legal and I don’t say that, I’ll respect the Attorney dealing with that and he
followed us into a good direction in terms of why we changed it. But there’s no need of
us playing this little pussycat role and hiding about what you going to take into meeting.
About discussing something about what went wrong when the key issue for this whole
government, particularly after you dismissed a comptroller prior to last year’s budget,
went into this one and which you’re still dealing with, and if you wasn’t in moratorium
th
status, you would have dealt with the one you dealt with on the 27. We are still having
budget hearings. I came here 22 years ago in this same chamber. Whatever editorials
and cartoons are written, I mean I’d like to feel it, but I’m a pretty big boy, I can take it.
But I refuse to sit when this is the first occasion I’ve worked with in three different
governments, under more mayors than anybody ever lived in this whole city, to work
under them, Mr. Mayor, to get in here and different administrations and we’re still
ironing out something that we ought to be through with. I still feel at that time had the
first priority been Finance, had we conducted that properly, had we followed the proper
47
procedures and done that, some of that would have been underway and that would not be
an arguing point at this time. So it’s no need to bring the head hunting company. We
need to bring the hunters, you know. We’re the hunter. And to a point that if you hire
somebody to do it, and I think that we are talking about all this power to be given up, we
need to first deal with the evaluation of personnel that we have, and I think Rev.
Hankerson is going to deal with that in his proposal in terms of what comes next, and I
plan to support him with that recommendation. We need to find a way to get this budget
moving and all these other different procedures and about handing out other power and
extension of it puts folk on a [inaudible] what they’ve got and make that work right
[inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, a point of clarification, please, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, had this been a lower level employee that’s been as
negligent as we’ve got here now, they would have been fired; is that right?
Mr. Mayor: I couldn’t --
Mr. Williams: Yes or no?
Mr. Mayor: I couldn’t say.
Mr. Williams: All right.
Mr. Mayor: But I will say this. Since we’re going back in time, I would remind
you that a year ago when this vacancy was first created prior to Mr. Kolb ever coming to
work here, that I recommended to the Commission at that time, since I considered this the
second most important position, in this government, at that time we hire a head hunter to
get our Finance Director. And the Commission opted instead to do an in-house search,
and then Mr. Kolb came on board and that search was deemed to be inadequate. And
then we went through the motions of hiring a head hunter. And so we did lose some time
there. So I think we’ve all been involved at one point or another in an effort to get a
Finance Director hired for this government, and certainly it’s been a priority for the
Mayor since day one. If you want to, we can defer this to the legal agenda so Mr.
Shepard can discuss that, but we will take that up when we get the legal agenda portion of
the meeting. Let’s move on now to item 37. Mr. Kuhlke has a report from the Judicial
Oversight Subcommittee.
JUDICIAL CENTER’S OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE:
37. Report from the Judicial Oversight Subcommittee. (Requested by
Commissioner Kuhlke)
48
Mr. Kuhlke:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Commissioners, the Oversight Committee
met last Wednesday, and took a look at what we felt like was most appropriate site based
on information given to us by Mr. Acree for the Judicial Center. And basically what the
Oversight Committee is doing is recommending to you that the, that this particular
facility be turned into the Judicial Center. In doing so, it would require some additions to
this building to accommodate the space that the Judicial needs. We do this for a couple
thth
of reasons. Number one is that we got the appraisals on the property between 6 and 7
Streets, and those appraisals came up to about $3 million. We had to deal with historical
buildings over there. We had prior met with the Coliseum Authority in trying to work
out something to do some swapping with First Presbyterian and some of the parking lot at
the Coliseum Authority and the reception with the Coliseum wasn’t actually very good.
And I think they had some valid reasons. We also were attempting to look at a trucking
company that would supplement the property that would be taken from the Coliseum
Authority, and there was some environmental problems on that property. And then we
looked at the economics of going and start from scratch and building a new Judicial
Center. When all was said and done, we were looking at a budget of about $43 million to
do that. So Mr. Acree was asked to take a look at this facility to see if in fact we could
add to this and accommodate the needs of the Judicial. He came back to us last week and
indicated that we could accommodate the Judicial in this building, with an addition, and
that we could go a long ways with the $20 million to $25 million that we have available
to do that. So it was unanimous vote that we bring this recommendation back to the
Commission for their approval and also to approve that we allow the facilities manager,
Mr. Acree, to advertise for RFQ’s for architectural and engineering firms to begin the
work that we need to do to see how it’s going to work totally. It was also the
recommendation of the committee that if we move forward with this that our committee
and maybe headed by me, would work along with Commissioner Williams in the utilities
and also maybe the administrative part of it, because it needs to be coordinated as we
’d like to make a motion that we accept
move forward. So with that said, Mr. Mayor, I
the recommendation of the Judicial Oversight Committee, including authorizing the
Facilities Manager to go and advertise for RFQ’s for architectural firms.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Second to the motion. Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, I have a couple of questions. It sounds like an excellent
plan and I’m glad to see that we are getting somewhere with this, especially cost-
effectively as possible. A couple of questions I have to ask about it. Where have you
considered the parking to be and when you talk about the other departments, where
would they be located and what are we going to do about those people?
Mr. Kuhlke: It’s a good question. One is that if this becomes a Judicial Center,
than all of the administrative and other departments that are within this facility will have
to be moved to another location. Mr. Acree feels like that we would have adequate
parking for the Judicial Center. There will be times when we don’t have enough parking.
And you know, we have a parking lot at the Coliseum, Mr. Hankerson, that’s not used
49
very much during the day, except on special occasions. It’s one block away from this
building and we felt like that space could be used for parking. My comments that I made
when I was talking is that Mr. Williams is working on utilities and public works. I think
we need to incorporate what we are going to do with the administrative part of the
government. And it all needs to be tied in together so that we should be in coordination
between the Oversight Committee and his committee so that we can work out how we are
going to accommodate this from a logistics standpoint.
Mr. Hankerson: I see that parking could create a problem, but I’m not going to
object to that. I was thinking, and relocating I would hope it would be considered if we
have to move the administrative offices out of this building, and I’m conducted a study
now on rental and lease property that we’re leasing buildings and so forth. We’re paying
for leases that again, maybe this would be a good time for us to consider moving,
consider Regency Mall and moving some of these offices at Regency Mall since we’re
going to have to make that move, cause I’m quite sure we are going to have to pay a lot
of money somewhere to buy other buildings and all of that, so in this process I hope that
we will include considering Regency Mall to put in a lot of the government buildings and
maybe some of these administrative buildings and so forth. And that would help the cost
and I think it would be a lot of savings according to the list I have now on the leases that
we have, it would be a lot of savings to the city of Augusta.
Mr. Mayor: Anyone else? Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I would hate to think that we’ve already determined where we are
going. I think we are going to have to put a lot of study in this and I know how people
feel about -- a number of Commissioners feel about Regency Mall, so I think we should
look at -- I think we’re going in the right direction when the committee decided to
combine forces with having our chairmen, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Williams, getting
together. But I think we should do -- we shouldn’t go in this with pre-thoughts of where
we are going. I think we should go where the best area of this county, and if that happens
to be Regency Mall, so be it. But I just don’t want to the Commissioners to get the idea
that -- and I know we all apt to promote what we want, but we shouldn’t go in with
preconceived ideas. Let’s look for the best area to move the administrative part for the
government that we have in this city, regardless of where it be. And I think we should
look very hard at where we’re going and the economical impact that it would have before
we jump to conclusions as to where we’re going.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Rev. Hankerson brought out some very good
points, a little sooner than probably we were looking at, but truly I’ve got at home no less
than four inches of studies we’ve done on space and everything else. Lord, I’ve seen
excuses against Regency Mall, the same ones we used downtown to put something down
here. In fact, it’s been very contradictory, the whole process. Rocky Creek is now going
to replace Regency Mall, it certainly ought to be looked at. Lord, we have studied it for
hundreds of thousands of dollars. It’s time to move forward and Commissioner Kuhlke I
50
hope we can put the Judicial Center improvements on a time line and clock it and get it in
and done and I hope that we’ll be able to approve the best site the city, which is the center
of the population center and the county, which is Rocky Creek, for the additional
administrative buildings and all. You can’t get any better per square foot price anywhere,
and I’ll be happy to share both the studies and the contradictions that exist therein for and
against, but again, it’s the most value per square foot and certainly I hope we’ll look at
that and make that arrangement because there is many, many things happening in that
area, and as we’ve contributed money to Broad Street for the last hundred years, as we’ve
given money to Laney Walker since I’ve been a child, south Augusta needs a little
economic boost, too, and I can’t think of a better way to boost it than invest in the Rocky
Creek Enterprise Zone.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was going to ask Mr. Kuhlke, I thought I
understood in the meeting the other day that we would go maybe out towards the Telfair
Street and build another building and that would allow us to move the necessary
departments and functions of this building as we sit in, and then we would renovate this
building for the Judicial [inaudible] as we needed, one floor, one floor at the time, or did I
misunderstand that?
Mr. Kuhlke: Actually what I think the point was made is that by adding on to this
building, the two main courtrooms are in this building. We’re going to have additional
courtrooms. That what you would do is as the Judicial moved into this building, you
could move certain departments in the new facility, move some out of here, come in and
do renovations in this building, and do it that way. But this facility, as well as the
addition, would be totally Judicial.
Mr. Boyles: Okay. But this would give us a place to go while this is being done?
Mr. Kuhlke: Well, it would give the Judicial a place to go. The coordination,
that’s the reason for getting together with the other committee, it’s going to take longer to
do the courthouse than it is for us to take care of the administrative part of it. And so the
coordination between the Judicial area and the administrative area is going to have to be
worked on pretty closely to make it work.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me first thank the chair of the Oversight Committee. I
think we’ve been blessed by his guidance and personal expertise in this and it’s made him
a little bit older, cause the project has got a lot older and it’s taken its toll there. He’s still
hanging in there, but I voted for this the other day and I expressed some not necessarily
reservations to this site, but some things that I think that particularly since we’ve run into
them already, that we cannot ignore the fact that they exist. And I just believe in having,
particularly with something with this long a delay and with a tight budget restraint,
51
having more than one direction to go because when you get to it, you get to the end of the
road where this one went and you’re started over again and deal with something else, you
know, it costs. The only problem I have -- I agree with everything of going on, and
maybe even the site selection, but when we start dealing with the architect part of it, and
that’s good, but I think the real crux of the matter is we going to have build something
new in this town, regardless of what goes in it. That’s not an argument from any of us, I
don’t think. The point is, we going to have to make a decision in terms of the scope, and
this gets out of this committee, but I’m just a little perplexed in terms of when we make
the decision to abandon this, the scope of the next building could go to you-name-it and I
think that gets us back into several categories. What goes in it, who goes in it, how big,
the calling in of the leases that Commissioner Hankerson is talking about, other
properties that may be outstanding, then are you getting into another complex that quite
frankly outweighs and outdoes the cost of what you’re dealing with here? I think that,
and I’m going to lose this argument, I already lost that a long time ago, and you and
Richard know particularly what I’m talking about. We are satisfying one situation and
one element and we’ve still got to put together pieces of a puzzle of a lot more. Are there
numbered differences at this point, and I’m posing, Mr. Mayor, to ask the question. Rick,
in reference to -- and I know you get put on the spot a lot with this whole deal. We’re
back to square one where we are. But in the percentages that we talked about some time
th
ago, in reference to the adjacent to 4 Street location, just for the sake of money and for
the sake of argument, what are the numbers there, or what are the differences? Not the
specific number in there but just are they --
th
Mr. Acree: I didn’t bring the numbers you’re speaking of, for the 4 Street site.
Mr. Mays: I apologize. That puts you on the spot with it.
Mr. Acree: If I recall -- I don’t recall the precise numbers on that one.
Mr. Mays: I won’t hold you to it.
Mr. Acree: I do know that that site was less than what we were proposing to do
with the adjacent site here. I think it fell somewhere in between the option that Mr.
thth
Kuhlke is mentioning now and building a new facility between 6 and 7. But I don’t
have those numbers with me right now.
Mr. Mays: And my reason for asking this, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, is I’m
prepared to go on temporarily where we are, but I don’t think with as much confusion as
has taken place and as much delay is that we ought to throw that one away totally for this
reason. More costs go into this situation than just building a building. And it’s a lot
easier to build ball fields and the possibility of dealing with one gymnasium, than it is in
terms of building a massive building. All the property, and I’ve looked at this back again
th
and I had second and third thoughts about it. I went and I looked, you know, we own 4
Street, we own May Park, we are fixing to abandon the Fire Department, we got a whole
th
square that’s down there right next to the jail. We got all of 4 Street. And what I’m
looking at, too, in the long run, is that do we save anything to a point of still having three
52
buildings that we are moving prisoners, that we are doing transport, you know I’m just
th
wondering if some of this cost, if not the abandonment of 4 Street, dealing with an
adjacent building down there, and rather than us moving, maybe look at building a
different May Park up on the Exchange Club site. You only looking at one different
building. The rest of the things there are ball fields. And I just didn’t want to throw that
idea away totally to a point that I know that that meets with a lot of political road blocks,
it’s a lot of folk that don’t necessarily want to hear that. But if these numbers start
stacking up with what we may throw in about administrative buildings and different
departments and the arguments about where it may go, this may end up being the easiest
issue to settle. Because in the long run, you going to pay. And I don’t think anybody has
equated all the transport costs and movement that’s going to constantly still take place,
th
that are still going to have come out of 4 Street, that’s still going to have to come out of
Phinizy Road. And if you are right there where you can tunnel these folk, you can move
them next door, you on property that you already own, you already own the street, and as
far as I know, the cheapest property is still where the Exchange Club is, and it also gives
south Augusta a boost because if you can move the Exchange Club and put it totally
different somewhere out adjacent to 520 or the south corridor, you’ve got a different
place in terms of putting the fairgrounds. So I’m just throwing that out for the point of
the record. I don’t mind moving, but the sake of just agreement, not to be totally
[inaudible] and disagreeable, but I just think that you need to still consider the possibility
that it’s going to be a whole lot easier putting up football and softball fields and building
basketball courts without an argument than we are getting into the roughness in terms of
where the next building is going to be going, and who is going in it, how many square
feet it’s going to take, and to a point that you could still build the judiciary a state-of-the-
art building, it will be brand new, it’s on property you ain’t got to buy, cause you own the
park, you own the Fire Department, and you own the street. You can mash it down in
two days’ time and have clearance out there to do whatever you need to do, and I believe
we own property across the street from it as well that we can deal with additional
parking. So I just want that on for the record and I can see us moving on, but I just say to
a point that when we hire an architect to do something and we don’t know what the other
part of that puzzle is, to me it’s still a little bit premature, and I just don’t want us to just
th
throw 4 Street totally off the radar screen when it’s still the cheapest piece of property
and it’s still an area where we own most of what’s involved and it still causes us to have
to buy less. Utilities are there and that’s just where I am on it, and I just, Mr. Mayor,
wanted that as part of the record.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I hear Mr. Mays. I’ve heard him before on that, and certainly that’s
something that, maybe something you could drop back on. But the truth of the matter is,
we have a 120,000 square feet right here that we can utilize. It’s got the two main
courthouses that we don’t have build new courthouses, like we have here. And so from
that standpoint, when we start looking at what we’re talking about in courthouse space at
$145 a square foot to build, it makes sense for us to go ahead and move forward in this
location for the judicial part of it. We know we’ve got to do something for utilities,
public works, and we’re going to have to do something from an administrative
53
standpoint. And I think we need to work on those things. Along with going ahead on the
judicial. But let me caution you, if you approve this and not give us the authorization to
go ahead and get the qualifications for an architect, we haven’t done anything. Because
to really take a look at what we’ve got to do here, what the possibilities are here, and I
think at the same time you bring somebody in, you’ve got to start the work on the public
works, utilities and administrative. It almost needs to coincide. But frankly, to go ahead
and approve the location without being able to bring a professional in to see what we’ve
got to do and what we are going to have to work with, we haven’t done anything.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Well, I was of course a part of that committee and I think that I
want to stress to the members of the Commission that one of the important aspects of the
Judicial Center location was coordination with the committee that is planning utilities and
public works. Mr. Beard, I think, asked the question, said where would this come
together? I said they would come together at the Commission, so I think, I strongly
encourage the two chairmen of those two facilities committees, Mr. Williams who is out
and Mr. Kuhlke, that we have some dialog so we proceed forward in an orderly fashion
and that we go ahead now in light of the fact that we have problems with the site on the
west of this building, that we go ahead and designate this building as a Judicial Center
site and we go ahead and have some cost estimates about what it would take to adapt this
building with a new wing on the back. I think what Rick told us the last time was that
you would conceive of building first, but before you build first, you would plan first.
And I think it’s a whole lot easier to change plans than it is to change foundations in the
th
ground. I think we’ve been reminded of that lesson down on 4 Street many times, and I
credit Mr. Mays for that, because we certainly don’t want to start something with a
foundation and then abandon it like we did on the high rise jail and then move to Phinizy
Road. So we don’t want to make that mistake, but I think the time is now to act on the
Judicial Center recommendation and I hope that you’ll support the motion that Mr.
Kuhlke made.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor that’s been adequately debated. All in
favor of that motion accepting a report from the Judicial Oversight Subcommittee, please
vote aye.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’m assuming that includes giving us --
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, as you stated it.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Cheek?
54
Mr. Cheek: I would ask the Commission to keep in mind a date of May, June --
let’s pick a date as a target for us to have our work done on this and have the project
ready to go.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Item number 38.
The Clerk:
38. Motion to approve the rescheduling of the regular Commission’s February
19 meeting to February 20, 2002.
Mr. Cheek: so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection?
Mr. Boyles: May I ask, is that going to be at 2 o’clock or 3 o’clock?
The Clerk: At 3 o’clock.
Mr. Boyles: 3?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection? None heard.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The vote is unanimous. What we need to do is deal with that one
budget item, so at this time I’m going to declare a recess in our regular Commission
meeting and call to order our special meeting, which was called today for the purpose of
taking up the moratorium on the budget.
[RECESS OF REGULAR MEETING]
[CALL TO ORDER OF SPECIAL MEETING]
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, if you would read that agenda item.
The Clerk:
1. To consider an extension of the moratorium of implementing service
reductions adopted in the 2002 budget.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure?
55
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, does that continue the moratorium until the special
meeting next ---
Mr. Mayor: It continues it until whatever such time as you would, you could say
up to 30 days or up to two weeks or whatever you wanted to put on the extension.
Certainly put a deadline.
Mr. Shepard: I thought we left the work session, and maybe it was getting late
and I didn’t understand it, but I thought we were going to have a special meeting next
Monday to put this budget issue, moratorium, everything to rest, and we were going to do
it on the committee day. I mean that was the purpose, that was the consensus of this
body, I thought when we left the work session.
Mr. Mayor: Well, if you want to word the motion to extend it to February 11,
then we can do that.
Mr. Shepard: And there has been no thought as to what time that would be? I’d
make it in the form of a motion that we extend the moratorium and convene the special
th
meeting of the Commission at high noon on the 11.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to say this. I’m going to make a substitute
motion for that.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Hankerson: I don’t know about the rest of my colleagues, but I’m
getting tired of coming back, expecting to do one thing, and being bombarded with a
lot of other things that have been included in on the agenda for us to take care of. I
think the budget is our number one priority. It should be. Completing this budget.
It should have already been completed. So I’d like to make a substitute motion that
th
when we come back on the 11 that we would complete the budget without
including organizational structures or administrative power to hire and fire, that
budget completion should be our number one priority, and that we should take up
the organizational structures and deal with a request that the Administrator made
about power to hire and fire, that we would do that in several workshops, in a
workshop one and then a workshop two so that we can plan for the rest of the year.
56
Mr. Williams: Second that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let me ask for clarification. Does your motion
include convening the Commission at noon on Monday for that purpose? You need
to set a date and time to meet, just as Mr. Shepard did.
Mr. Hankerson: Right.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right. Any discussion? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I would ask -- I think we need to have a date
certain and I have no problem with the motion which confines the work to the
budget. However, I think on the addendum agenda today, Mr. Hankerson, there
were two change orders about the Augusta Common project that had some time
sensitivity to it, and I think that I would ask you to consider putting those two
change orders on the Augusta Common on there as well,
because they were thrown on
us today, we needed time to look at it. I think there was some talk that if we didn’t act
quickly, there would be a delay in the completion of the Common which would affect
some of the festivals that are scheduled there, so I’d ask that those items be included in
the special called -- there were item -- correct me, Madame Clerk, item 3 and 7 on the
addendum agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to that? None heard. So we’ll add that to the
called as outlined in Mr. Hankerson’s motion. Any further discussion?
Mr. Shepard: One other thing, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: It occurred to me that we’ve had a lot of concern about our fund
balance and our declining fund balance. There have been those of us who have talked
about the sale of surplus properties as a means of getting this city somewhat out of its
revenue crisis. I don’t think that’s a long term fix. But I would hope that we would task
you, Mr. Mayor, since that has been an interest of you, and we can delegate things to you,
to come in with a list of those surplus properties and that they be liquidated and that the
proceeds be put not in the general fund but they put in the fund balance, because this
would be the only practical way I know to restore fund balance, is we take some of these
properties that we can liquidate at one time and put them into the fund balance. So as a
long term goal, I think we should think about doing that.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. Anything further? Yes, Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, in that motion, we will deal with the salaries?
Mr. Mayor: Salaries are part of the budget.
57
Mr. Hankerson: Right. That’s what I thought was understood.
Mr. Mayor: It’s part of the budget.
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, I think the question was, yes.
Mr. Cheek: Never assume.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? All right, we have that substitute motion on the
floor. All in favor of the substitute motion then please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a motion we adjourn our special meeting?
Mr. Shepard: So moved.
Mr. Mayor: Second?
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard? All right, we will adjourn our special
meeting.
Motion carries 10-0.
[SPECIAL MEETING ADJOURNED]
Mr. Mayor: At this time, we will reconvene our regular meeting for the purpose
of our legal session.
[REGULAR MEETING RECONVENED]
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, you had some items?
39. LEGAL MEETING:
??
Discuss pending and potential litigation.
Mr. Mayor: I’d like to add one real estate matter to the legal agenda
.
Mr. Bridges: I’d like to make a comment on real estate as well in the legal
meeting.
Mr. Wall: My request was to discuss pending and potential litigation. There
has been some discussion about personnel. I’d request that as well as real estate.
58
Mr. Shepard: I so move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Item 41, are you going to take that in legal or you going to do that in
open meeting?
Mr. Wall: And for the purpose of giving legal advice to the extent that I --
possible termination of the contract.
Mr. Mayor: We had a motion.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: There’s a second to go into legal. All in favor then please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
[LEGAL MEETING 4:45 - 7:47 P.M.]
Mr. Mayor: Is there a motion to authorize the Mayor to sign the affidavit?
40. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Bridges: I so move.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: We have one item to add, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: I’d ask that you add to the agenda to approve expenditure of up
to $120,000 for necessary modifications in moving the District Attorney’s Office.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion to add and approve that item?
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor then please vote aye.
59
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Item number 41.
The Clerk:
41. Consider termination of contract with CSRA Waste.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’d move that we instruct the Attorney to terminate the
contract with CSRA Waste.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, please --
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: I’d make a substitute motion that the Attorney, along with the
Administrator, and if there are concerned Commissioners, to deal with further talks with
the bonding company to work on a contingency plan that will show us how the citizens of
this city are going to be further served with pickup without interruption, that I understand
what the Attorney has said in reference to his first call to the bonding company, but I
want to make sure that we’ve got some plan in place because other than just going forth
tonight with none in sight, none having been talked about, I would like to see us do that
and bring that back to us at the next meeting.
Mr. Cheek: Second that and I’ll volunteer to serve on that committee.
Mr. Williams: I would, too, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Discussion? All in favor of the substitute motion, please
vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Colclough out.
Mr. Bridges, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Shepard vote No.
The Mayor votes No.
Motion ties 5-5.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any further business?
The Clerk: The original motion.
60
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion. All in favor --
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Mays: I’d like to have about a minute into original motion that’s on the floor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: I would like to say for the record, for this Commission, and both
publicly that I, along with any other Commissioners, I hope so, do not, will not or would
not condone the theft of any items from this government, whether that be classified in any
way to be criminal or civil. I believe that probably in terms of at least this point in time,
that civil action does need to be taken, and I have expressed that, will not elaborate on it,
but have expressed that to the Attorney and have done so in legal session. I think that we
do have to make some moves. But I also think while we balance in terms of what’s
determined as character, that we also need to develop a contingency plan that does make
sense for this city. I think the Attorney has had talks with the bonding company. I do not
accept the notion or the fact that because the bonding company has talked with someone,
somewhere, that we in terms move in terms of knowing how this will be solved. We
have had enough controversy with getting this program off the ground, getting it started,
while we speak. And I say this on behalf of Commissioner Colclough, our Mayor Pro
Tem. He did not walk away from this meeting. He is there in a sanitation meeting at
Gracewood Community Center right now, as we tried to expand this. While I think we
must never condone theft in any way, we must also move prudently, we must move with
common sense, and I think if there’s been a civil breach we need to exercise every means
of collecting that, whether we deal with it through the bonding company or through our
own court system of doing it. But I think we need to have a sensible plan in place,
particularly with what our citizens have gone through in getting this program established,
and with those in terms who have invested lifelong that are innocent victims in doing
business with the contractor that is so named. But I repeat, I don’t think any of us want
to condone anything of any criminal nature of civil violation which cheats and defrauds
this government out of anything. That is not the only issue that is there. One in terms of
protecting the people of this city and how they get served and how a sensible plan, one
that is put in place, one that is thought out, and I think just to accept, while I trust what
the Attorney has said, he is my friend of long years that we have the right to disagree in
the democratic process, but I think there needs to be further discussion from this
government with the bonding company and to express some needs further of what we
want to see done, regardless of what may be on the letter of the law regarding bonds. I
think some further understanding needs to be extended so that they can move to a
reasonable and sensible contingency plan for the benefit of the people of this community
who have to be served and their garbage has to be picked up without interruption.
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hankerson and then Mr. Williams?
61
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I am just very concerned about this, too. I
want to go on record that I do not condone wrongdoing. But my first interest is in the
citizens of Augusta Richmond County and terminating a contract, if that happens, I’m
very concerned about whether service will be continued. Right now, we don’t know.
Here again, that’s why I say we need to sit down, have workshops, put things in place,
hold people responsible. We should have had a contingency plan already in place. I’ve
been asking questions three weeks and nobody knew anything, and here we are today
asking us to terminate a contract with no plan, nowhere to go, and I think that we need to
really focus on making people responsible from this day on and not just bring things and
issues on us the last minute. I do not condone wrongdoing, but I’m concerned that
service will continue at Augusta Richmond County.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I echo those same words that
Commissioner Hankerson just said, but Mr. Mays had always said there are no secrets in
the courthouse and I’m going to deviate a little bit from that, Mr. Mays, because you say
there is no plan, no contingency plan in place. There may be no plan that we know about,
but until a man or a person that is proven guilty, then I’m going to assume they’re
innocent. I disagree with even the fact of trying to vote to terminate a contract until that
exactly happened, I heard what the Attorney said about the bonding service, and that’s
why I wanted the name of the company. We been told a lot of things in legal and I’m
going to leave those things there but I just disagree totally with how this process is being
brought forth to us. It’s obvious that there is some plan, somewhere, and I’m waiting for
it to unfold, and when it does I want to be there because I do have some comments. But
I’m not condoning anyone. If you’re wrong, you’re wrong, and it’s as simple as that.
But when I read and when I look at all of the things that supposed to been stacked --
stacked meaning put together as of now compared to all the other stuff that we’re doing, I
feel like we really stepping over our boundaries at this point. That’s all I wanted to say,
Mr. Mayor, but I did want that to go on the record.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Bridges and then Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I feel like we do have everything we need
to terminate a contract based on breach of contract, and as far as a contingency plan,
that’s why we require bonding companies for circumstances that we’re in. And that’s
why we’ve utilized bonding companies in the past and will utilize a bonding company in
this instance. And the bonding company is not new to this business. I mean they’re old
hats at it, I guess, so to speak. They know what they’re going to do in the situation.
They’re aware of what’s going on in Augusta and it’s nothing new to us except for maybe
the two new Commissioners. The rest of us knew that we were going to come to this
point at some point, if the evidence showed that. And we’re here today. So I think it’s
too late to be talking about the government itself having a contingency plan. The
bonding company is the contingency plan. And thankfully for the next few months there
will be a bonding company that we can rely on. So I think that the time to do this is to do
62
it now, I think we have the evidence, I think we have the circumstances that we need, and
I think it’s our responsibility to follow through today.
Mr. Mayor: Andy?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to assure my constituents who
are on the trash service that we will work for as seamless and as painless a transition as
possible through all of this. This Commissioner will be working to make sure that no
matter what happens to our haulers that the trash is collected and the streets are clean and
that their needs and interests are listened to and met and that culture changes within this
government are something I will address later on. But contingency plans have many
definitions and what I find is that the city’s plan, the city’s definition of contingency plan
is not consistent with that of the rest of the world, but we’ll address that another day.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Fellow Commissioners, I think that first of
all I agree with Commissioner Bridges, the contingency plan is the performance bond
primarily, but I have confidence that the Administrator and the two Deputies who have
sat through our meetings today are aware of our concerns and they will certainly make
that known to the Public Works director. If we can get ready for a snowstorm with a
day’s notice, I think we can handle this through Public Works, and that’s what we have
the professional on staff for, and we can rise to the challenge. But I think we cannot
ignore the breaches that have occurred. The Attorney has brought us what he feels is a
compelling case. I think we cannot fail to act and should terminate this contract.
Mr. Mayor: I don’t think that there’s any doubt with a preponderance of the
evidence that the contract has been breached, and certainly I would say here today in this
chamber that this Commission has shown much more regard for the customers and for the
subcontractors than the ownership of CSRA Waste. It’s just intolerable the way this
thing has been handled by the owner of that company. And we are going to see that the
trash is picked up, that this contract is declared breached today, and if the Mayor has to
call in the National Guard or get inmates from the prison or whatever it takes, we’re
going to get the trash picked up. We’re not going to allow it to accumulate on the streets
of this city. We’ve come too far with the solid wastes program, we’re in the process of
expanding it, and we want a program that the public can have confidence in and one that
will be an asset to this community and not a liability. Anybody else care to speak? We’ll
move ahead with the vote. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I just want to say that I’ve talked to and continue over the
last two days since I’ve seen this on the agenda to a lot of my -- the people in my district,
and I think that our foremost and possible biggest concern is the continuation of the
service that they received. I think over 98% of our people, especially in the district that I
represent, they feel like they were getting good service, and we know that they will
continue to get that service. I think the only thing that we were asking earlier, in voting
that we continue to aspect that we were going in for the next couple of weeks, until some
63
situation was defined, some plan put into action. And this is the first thing I spoke about
in the Legal, is what plans do we have at this particular time to continue the service that
the people are getting now? And we know that if we break this contract at this time, we
will have a chaotic condition even beginning tomorrow morning. So I think that was
what we were all concerned about, is the service that we’re going to receive. We
understand the evidence, we understand the things that have been taken, and we
understand what has been done, and nobody is really trying to uphold that, but we want to
see that our customers are served and I think the only way we can do that is to get a plan
in action and move forward, and I’m just sorry that this was brought forth today in such a
manner that we needed to wait a couple more weeks to do this.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: You know this kind of reminds me of something I was told once by a
team of lawyers that a federal judge would not consider a certain item, wouldn’t discuss
is, and that it was no need to bring it up. And we were caught in a very serious
predicament because we would not know what we were going to do with government.
And it goes back to that old adage that you don’t know what happens until you ask. Now
I’m very confident in the answer that Mr. Wall has given us. I think he’s told us the
absolute truth in terms of what the letter of the law -- and what lawyers many times say to
each other about how they will work with things. But I for one would feel a lot more
comfortable, and I’ve expressed this in Legal and I have no reason not to say this to the
public or to the press, that if we’ve not exhausted the means, be it through the Mayor,
Administrator, or members of this Commission who are concerned about the element of
people who have invested their life blood in this community, that are innocent victims of
it, that we went into the private business of getting into the sanitation business, of
removing their routes, of not knowing where they would be. Now common sense tells us
yes, the bonding company probably would select these persons and be able to move on
smoothly. But if we’ve not had any conversation with it, and if we are accepting the
status quo, no offense Jim, of where you all talk in the legal mumbo jumbo to each other -
- I heard that, too, when we dealt with the jail. And we went before a federal judge that
gave us the right to reprogram, to set a plan, gave us a time of conditions to come back,
and we reduced a 40-some-million dollar colossal white elephant into being able to plan,
get it done, and get it done under budget and get it done under time. The point was we
sat down together with Georgia Legal Services, we sat down together with the federal
judge, we developed a plan on how we would do it. We did not accept the fact of what
had been said couldn’t be done. At this point, we’ve not exhausted those means, we’ve
only accepted what has been said. And I think that we also, while wanting to do what is
legal and doing what meets the caliber of justice, we also need to do what’s right. We got
to protect citizens and we are going out on a plan that we don’t know where it leads, and
it’s not going to take us forever to at least say and ask the question what would you do
hypothetically? And I’ve told you just as I said back in that same back room, they can
64
tell you one of three things. We will talk with you; we won’t talk with you; we’ll work
with you on a plan. Or they may just tell you to go to hell. But at least you’ve exhausted
the means of trying to work for a plan. And I think that needs to be done. That has not
been done. And we don’t have any idea of where we are going. Once we do that, we say
that’s the bonding company’s business. The bonding company did not put us in this
particular business. This is not like a building. This is not like a rec center that you get
somebody else to step in and build. This is one that you’ve gone through chaos to get it
started and finally getting to a point of where it’s working reasonably. You have a
promotional campaign that’s out there right now where you are soliciting RFP’s and to
deal with that credibility of this whole program, and you’ve got Commissioners that are
out there -- I’m supposed to be out there right now with Richard -- over in my district, but
I’m here dealing with something of which I know not where it’s going at all. And I just
wanted to say, Mr. Mayor. I’m not mad with anybody about it. But I just think we need
to have a better sense of direction in terms of where the bonding company is going to
take us, and I don’t think that means has been exhausted yet.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Call the question on the motion to terminate the
contract. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Colclough out.
Mr. Beard and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Mr. Mays not voting.
Motion fails 5-2-1.
Mr. Mayor: Any further business to be brought before the Commission?
Mr. Shepard: Move we adjourn.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to adjourn. We’re adjourned without objection. Thank you.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on February 5, 2002.
Clerk of Commission
65