HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-03-2002 Regular Meeting
THE AUGUSTA COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
COMMISSION CHAMBERS
OCTOBER 3, 2002
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:08 p.m.,
Thursday, October 3, 3002, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
Present: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Colclough,
Shepard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond
County Commission.
Also present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena
Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by the Rev. Johnny Hatney.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Please be seated. Madame Clerk, let’s do the
Employee of the Month.
RECOGNITION
Augusta-Richmond County Employee of the Month Award
Ms. Mary Black
Augusta-Richmond County License & Inspections Department
The Clerk: We will now acknowledge the Employee of the Month.
Would Ms. Mary Black of the License & Inspections Department, along
with Mr. Rob Sherman, who is Department Director, please join the Mayor
at the podium? Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, the Employee of
the Month selection committee has selected Ms. Mary Black with the
Business License & Inspection as Augusta’s Employee of the Month. Ms.
Black has worked for the City of Augusta for over 19 years. Ms. Black is
employed as a Senior Permit Clerk. She was nominated by Ms. Mary Fox,
who gave the following reasons for her nomination. Mary is a team player.
Punctual, customer oriented, assertive, cooperative, communicative, and an
asset to Augusta Richmond County. The committee felt that based on Ms.
Fox’s recommendation and Ms. Black’s attributes she should be awarded
1
Employee of the Month. Ms. Fox further states that I think Mary is a good
choice for Employee of the Month because of the excellent customer service
she has known to give to our customers. She has come through many times
she has been called upon to perform a task that was not necessarily in her job
description. She has also been known to give that extra time to help a
customer with a problem that he or she is having or may be having. There
have been a few occasions when a customer has actually taken the time to
ask to see me in order to give a compliment for good customer service.
Usually when a manager is called, it is because the customer has a problem
or a complaint that the clerk could not solve. It sure is a pleasure to be
called to hear a compliment for having such a great employee, not only in
Mary but others within my division. Congratulations, Ms. Black, on your
accomplishment.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, I would like to next take up item number
43. We have some people who are here for this item. To me, this could be
one of the most important issues that we’re going to take up here as a body
today, and that’s the recommendation to join the Unified Development
Authority of Richmond County.
43. Consider recommending from the Development Authority and
Richmond County regarding Augusta’s membership in the CSRA
Unified Development Authority. (No recommendation from Finance
Committee September 23, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: I think we all know what the background is. We’ve had
it discussed and sent over to the Development Authority, and it’s been sent
back to us with a recommendation. I would ask that you consider joining
this Unified Development Authority without any conditions. I’ve asked one
of our industrial leaders in this community to come and make a few
comments to us. Larry Reinhardt, who is the manager of Procter & Gamble,
is here. Larry, if you would come up to one of the podiums. We’ve been
working over the last couple of weeks with Procter & Gamble. There was
indeed a real fear that we were going to lose your plant, that your jobs were
going to go somewhere else. And as we met with the analysts from Procter
& Gamble, as we looked at what kind of tax advantages were available, what
kind of incentives were available to keep this plant here, and one of the most
important things on the table was the job credit that this plant will get now as
2
a Tier II county, $2,500 per new job that’s created, but they get $3,000, a
$500 increase per new job created with the Unified Development Authority,
and indeed Procter & Gamble now is talking about bringing 75 new
positions, and when you take 75 times $500, that’s a substantial saving and a
pretty good incentive. Larry, if you would, I’d like for you to talk a little bit
about what this could mean to you and your company if we move forward
with this today.
Mr. Reinhardt: Okay. Be glad to do that. First of all, we’ve very
proud at Procter & Gamble that we have a lot more years in Augusta. We
like Augusta and Augusta seems to like us pretty well, and that works out
great. I’ll speak in general about industry in the community and what
sourcing studies -- and that’s what we’ve been going through for the past
year at Procter & Gamble, looking at how many laundry detergent plants we
needed. And there are a lot of things that drive those decisions.
Manufacturing expense, distribution expense, all those kinds of things. We
happen to have a plant that is almost a sister plant, identical plant to us, in
Alexandria, Louisiana. And we share all of the things that make our plant
great with them. We’re not in direct competition with them. And so it really
boils down to execution and a few other things that can cause one plant to
have better costs than another. Things like utility rates in an area or
advantages or disadvantages of rail shipping costs or tax situations in the
town and things like that. And so the things that were talked here before this
sourcing study, you know, turned out to be important to us. As we looked
forward, one of the opportunities we have as a plant is to possibly gain
production from that facility in Alexandria. And to the degree that we take
on that production, they will be based on cost. And so every penny counts.
I mean we measure our costs to the penny per case, and I know exactly what
it is each month, and every penny that we can save helps this plant be more
competitive versus another one, in terms of that final outcome. So anything
like this works to the advantage of not only Procter & Gamble, but probably
a lot of other industries or plants that are under the same situation, because
sourcing studies come and go all the time.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Larry. Thank you for coming today. I think
Mr. Dye is here from the Development Authority. Jerry, did you want to be
heard? Jerry, did you want to be heard on this today?
Mr. Dye: Yes, sir.
3
Mr. Mayor: Please go ahead.
Mr. Dye: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission.
Mr. Mayor: If you could speak into the microphone.
Mr. Dye: I’m here on behalf of the Development Authority of
Richmond County to kind of give you some background on the resolution
that was passed by the Authority recommending membership in the CSRA
Unified Development Authority.
Mr. Cheek: I’d like to make a motion that we adopt this presentment
with those amendments mentioned by the Development Authority
representative today and we move forward with becoming a partner in the
Joint Development Authority utilizing the talents and skills of our local
Development Authority. For background information, the Authority has
considered this proposal over the years and on at least three separate
occasions during the past ten years it has rejected the idea of joining the
Unified Development Authority for very good reasons, most of which y’all
have already -- some of you have already heard. I won’t take too long to
reiterate those. It is not that the Development Authority of Richmond
County has anything against the CSRA Unified Development Authority,
because those people do a fine job in the area in which they operate. The
simple problem has been that over the years, Richmond County’s Authority
has never needed the services of that Authority and according to them, they
have never needed the services of our Authority. What I think is important
for the Commission to consider is that if y’all pass a resolution today
agreeing to appoint membership to the CSRA Unified Development
Authority, which is not County-controlled, you will be appointing two
members to a board of 22 existing members composed of various
surrounding Georgia counties. The benefit, according to them, to be gained
from that, is that we will pick up an additional $500 per job for tax credit
that can be offered to industrial developers coming into Richmond County.
That is a carrot that is being dangled out to entice counties to become part of
the Unified Authority. The first question that the Development Authority of
Richmond County asked was what do you want in exchange for the carrot?
Of course, the answer was nothing. I mean it doesn’t cost you anything to
join it, it seemed simple enough. We did a survey of the industries that had
come into Richmond County and found that a majority of the industries
locating, the job tax credit simply didn’t make that much difference to them,
4
because there is in that same Bill that authorizes the job tax credit an
investment tax credit that ranges between three and eight percent of the total
investment. And that is applied against the capital improvements that are
put into the county. We found that most of the industries were using the
capital improvement tax credit as opposed to job tax credits. And when we
considered that against having another and a competing development
authority operating in the same county, created under the same statute and
having absolutely the same powers, with the county only appointing
members to a 22-member board, whereas the local authority is composed of
nine members, some very fine citizens with excellent business experience,
we thought this thing out very carefully and on three cases rejected it. The
last time -- and it seems like every time we have a change in industrial
[inaudible] in the industrial development community, this thing comes up
again. So the resolution that you have before you today I think is -- might be
entitled let’s get rid of the blooming thing once and for all and lay it to rest.
I don’t know of a better word to call it. But it has a condition to it, and a
very important condition, that we are asking you to attach on to any
resolution that you may pass agreeing to join this organization, and that is
that if they do any industrial development in Richmond County or in any
other county that is a member county, that they will first use the facilities
and the financing vehicle of the Development Authority that’s already
established in that particular county, whether it be Richmond, Columbia,
Wilkes, Washington, all of the present members. We thought that it was a
compromise. We thought that that was something that the Unified Authority
might do on its own because they had told a number of us, and I know you
all, they had no interest in doing industrial development in Richmond
County without a specific request, but yet they had the power to do that. So
we are simply saying in this condition let’s put that exception in writing,
let’s put what you have said and promised in writing, get the other counties
to agree to it, because we couldn’t see how any county would object to using
their own Development Authority for the purpose of conducting industrial
development within that particular county. Now if we become a member
and y’all adopt this resolution, we have now got two full-fledged
development authorities operating in Richmond County, both competing for
the same industrial tax dollars that you all would appropriate. And you are
going to have to make a decision which you are going to appropriate, one to
the other. You’ve been told by the Unified Authority that they don’t have
any such plans. They have publicized such a plan. They have presently a
program to develop an industrial park outside of Richmond County that’s
going to cost in excess of $3 million, and they are going to come back and
5
ask you for 25% of that money. They’ve already been to our board and
asked us for approval of such a move. Of course, we turned that down
because what that does is that strains Richmond County’s resources to the
point where we have qualified labor moving outside of the county. It
doesn’t put a thing on Richmond County’s tax digest to do that. And it just
simply does not make business sense to do that. I would ask that you put
some confidence in your local Development Authority’s decisions. For your
information, the Richmond County Development Authority come this
December will have been in business for 30 years, and it has some fine
people serve both as chairman and members of that authority since that time.
For your further information, since the time that authority was created, we
have financed in excess of $750 million and will soon reach the $1 billion
issue of money that was financed, went into local development. And that’s
not small change. Since the Authority was created, we have never come to
the County Commission and said appropriate one dime for our operation to
pay salaries of employees, secretarial, what have you. Now y’all have very
generously [inaudible] other promotional activities that probably encouraged
industrial development, but for operational expense we have always
maintained that not at the expense of the taxpayer, and the to date we have
accumulated some $2 million that we invoke to that right now. If we have a
competitor to come in, then -- that we don’t need anyway -- we are going to
see those dollars diluted and it’s going to be a quagmire of which
development authority do you want to you. You want to use the Unified or
you want to come to Richmond County’s Authority? And we need to sort
that out. Richmond County needs its own industrial development, and that’s
a big difference between talking about regional development and regional
promotion. That’s something we need to make a distinction between. We
also need to make a distinction as to how that is going to be financed. But
there is a big difference between development and regional promotion, and
we have learned, trying to work through this regional situation for about the
last ten years, that it absolutely does not work unless you put one man,
assigned to each county, working exclusively for that county. A man can’t
serve but one master. Now you can promote a region through
advertisements with a lot of dollars and cents and say we’ve got a wonderful
store in the CSRA. And we have a wonderful store in the CSRA, but when
it comes buying time, we want you to come to our store and our market and
buy here first. Not that we don’t like our neighbors getting equal treatment,
because when they profit, we profit, too. But there are other considerations.
We’ve got unemployment in this county that we need to address. We’ve got
a tax base that we need to increase. And we need to add industrial revenues
6
to that tax base. And we don’t need that going outside the county. And that
little $500 additional of job tax credit is not a drop in the bucket when you
figure that we already have by statute an additional $1,000 tax credit that
comes to us through certain assigned census tract areas that are already
existing in the counties. Most census tract areas composed most of
Richmond County and include practically all of the industry, at least the
major industry that is already here, and needs to address those particular
areas in the census tract where the highest rates of unemployment occur.
That’s what needs to be addressed. Now that census tract area takes in the
whole of the old city of Augusta. It runs from the Gordon Highway all the
way to Norfolk Southern Railroad, south to Spirit Creek, to the river, and
takes in all of the industrial complex along the river. Now if we put
industries in that area, if we hire out of that census tract area, we are going to
get a $1,000 job tax credit instead of the $500 that they are talking about
right here. Most of y’all have heard my speech before. I’m going to leave it
with you, Mr. Mayor. The resolution is there. We would hope that you
would accept the conditions, and that is require the Unified Development
Council to amend its bylaws, and then once it amends its bylaws to say that
all industrial development in any particular county will come through the
Development Authority of that particular county, then I think that solves the
problem and we could go in under those conditions. Every existing member
of that Unified Council, to my knowledge, has an existing Development
Authority with the exception of one, and I think that may be Taliaferro
County. We made a provision that if no member county has an existing
development authority, then you are free to use all of the statutory powers
that the same statute that Richmond County Authority is created under, we’ll
give to you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Dye. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. One thing I’ve heard equal to or
above the water issues that we dealt with in the past is job creation in this
city. The fact that our children can’t find decent jobs here and are moving
[inaudible] job educated or well educated or moving to other cities. I think
all of us need to get the message and development authorities, joint
development authorities, Chamber of Commerce, Commission, all of us
need to get the message that we need to pull together. It is not an us against
them situation. We are dead last as far as the data that I’ve seen in creation
in this city as compared to our sister cities in this state, and that is a sorry
state of affairs and nothing to be proud of in this Commissioner’s opinion.
7
Mr. Mayor, the amendments mentioned by the spokesperson for the
Development Authority seem completely reasonable. I would like to make a
motion that we adopt this presentment with those amendments mentioned by
the Development Authority representative today and we move forward with
becoming a partner in the Joint Development Authority utilizing the talents
and skills of our local Development Authority. And further I’d like to say
that with the Office of Economic Development that our Administrator has
been working to achieve, I think we have a real opportunity to close deals
that we have been unable to close in the past and perhaps bring some of
these jobs that get to our door but never quite come in. So I’d make that in
the form of a motion.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Beard: I’ll second that and I want to make sure that resolution is
included in there which Mr. Dye indicated.
Mr. Mayor: I’d like to ask, if I could, Andy Crosson to come to the
podium. Andy, it’s my understanding that to put a condition in a resolution
saying that Richmond County would join only if the Unified Development
Authority changed its bylaws, so to speak, that that’s unacceptable to the
Unified Development Authority. Would you tell me what the Unified
Development Authority -- the message that they’ve sent back to us?
Mr. Crosson: The Unified Development Authority has indicated to
me, and I know as Executive of the RDC -- the RDC is a staffing arm of the
Unified Development Authority -- and I’ve talked with the members of the
Authority. Basically I heard the Richmond County Authority tell you we’re
trying to entice you to join. But joining is completely up to the county.
Whether you join or not, the Unified Development Authority is open to
either of those options, so we’re not really out there trying to push you to
join the Authority. The Authority thinks that if you join, you should join the
same way the rest of the counties joined. Then once you have membership
on the Authority, bring up any kind of changes to their bylaws. I do not
anticipate that they would change the bylaws strictly for Richmond County
to allow you in. I do think that the Authority, if Richmond County joined, I
do think that the Unified Development Authority would give serious
consideration to and, I believe, pass an amendment to their bylaws to say
that they would offer the local Development Authority the first shot at any
projects that they bring into the county. So you locally would have that
8
choice. And then if you chose not to go forward with it, they would reserve
the right to do the project themselves. So that’s the message.
Mr. Mayor: So the condition in the resolution that’s before this body
then would be a poison pill, would kill it [inaudible].
Mr. Crosson: I believe that the Unified Development Authority
would not approve membership.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a substitute
motion that we approve the resolution to join the Economic
Development Authority.
Mr. Mayor: Without conditions?
Mr. Kuhlke: Without conditions.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Bridges: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Mays: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m a little bit confused in what I
heard. I heard about the nine members that we have already and only having
two members if we join. I agree with what Commissioner Cheek said. We
need to understand it’s not us against them type situation. But we’re the
largest city outside of Atlanta now, since we consolidated. We consolidated
our city and our county together. And being the second largest city,
Augusta, I think we bring a little bit more, if nothing but land-wise, we bring
a little bit more to the table than the other smaller counties. But from what
I’m hearing, if we join under Commissioner Kuhlke’s motion with no
amendments at all, that’s somehow it seems a little bit unfair to me. I don’t
know a lot about it. That’s why I been listening very carefully, but we got a
nine member board now that we have an Authority and we going to join a
Authority who is going to give us something to join and that’s not
necessarily, and I think you mentioned that it’s not really necessary whether
we join or not. But I’m a little reluctant for not hearing that you’re at least
9
willing to at least sit down and talk about it. I mean to say that you won’t do
that saying to me that well, you got your mind made up and regardless of
whether we the second largest city or whether we bring anything to the table
or not. Augusta is the next growing place in my mind, meaning that Atlanta
has grown so much that any more growth going to hurt it. Whether we in
this room be here to see it or not, eventually Augusta going to have to grow.
Whether we fight each other or accept it or not, we’re the second largest city
in the state of Georgia. To do anything else in Atlanta, and I’ve met with the
some of the Commissioner [inaudible] and we’ve been there with the group
of Commissioners and the Mayor, and there are some things we need to do, I
think, to get some industries here. But the traffic situation in Atlanta, people
are trying to get away from Atlanta. The only time I like to go to Atlanta is
to go there to visit and I like to do that after eight or nine o’clock in the
morning to make sure the rush hour is over. I’m just saying that we ought to
have something, out to be able to level something being the second largest
city. There ought to be something else rather than just joining that
Authority. And I don’t know lots. I’m not opposed to it. But I just want
some clarification. I was understanding, Mr. Mayor, or Mr. Mayor Pro Tem,
that we was going to hear in committee meeting some pros and cons before
we brought it to the floor to discuss it. I was told that we would bring, I
guess these two gentlemen in or anybody else who had any information, so
we can sit and talk and try to find out something. Once we make that move,
once we make that vote, once we make that decision, then it’s took late to
say well, you know, I can’t go back now. I think it’s a very serious step and
we ought to be careful before we just jump out there and do that. I don’t
want to lose anything, but I sure don’t want to give away the store. That’s
all I would like to comment, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Steve?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Quick question. The
text of the resolutions, either of them in our backup? The one right behind
the caption is the one you want us to adopt? And the one that Mr. Kuhlke
wants is where?
The Clerk: [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: It’s not in the backup? Okay. Well, then, let me ask.
Okay. Thank you, Madame Clerk. My question then would be if we join
the UDA under Mr. Kuhlke’s motion, then Mr. Crosson would it be
10
appropriate to seek an amending of UDA bylaws as a member of the UDA,
to accommodate what Mr. Dye is suggesting? Then if they didn’t pass it, we
could, I suppose, rescind our membership, could we not?
Mr. Crosson: That’s correct. The County Commission actually joins
the Unified Development Authority. When you join, you’d appoint two
members to that Authority. At that time, it would be appropriate to seek any
kind of amendments that the county would like for its delegates to the
Authority to ask for. And the county at any point in time can back out of the
Authority. By vote of this Commission you would be out of the Authority
immediately.
Mr. Shepard: It’s a membership at will, in other words, is it not?
Mr. Crosson: That’s correct.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Just to back up with what
Steve is saying, I think we’ve got a good Development Authority, but I do
see the positives that would come out of us being involved with our
neighboring counties. And actually I would recommend that we approach
the other 22 members and see if we could not get this provision in the
resolution by Mr. Dye changed in their bylaws. But whether we like it or
not, we live in a region. Anything that happens outside of Richmond County
actually helps Richmond County. We need to be involved in those
communities. We need to get ourselves in a position where we market this
whole region. So what I wanted to do is to go ahead and get something
done. We’ve got several options. We can ask for an amendment once we
become a member. If we are dissatisfied with the response we got, just as
Andy has said, we can withdraw from the association.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I just completed a
course in industrial and economic development at the Association of County
Commissioners and GMA joint convention that was just held in Atlanta, the
fall conference, and this subject came up. And I think the Georgia
11
Municipal Association, the University of Georgia, and the Georgia
Department of Community Affairs spoke very highly of this process. And
I’m just wondering, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’d kind of like to hear from our
local chamber of commerce, Mr. Presnell. I see him back there. I’d like to,
before I vote, I’d just like to see where our local folks may be standing.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles, let’s just get the Commissioners
and then I’ll get Mr. Presnell and Mr. Dye to respond; okay?
Mr. Boyles: That’s fine. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I think we are all under the same
umbrella here in saying that we are going to get involved in this. I don’t
think it’s a matter of not willing to get involved. But I think it’s how you are
getting involved, and I’m kind of surprised to hear before we get involved
we are told that we can’t do this, and I’m surprised at Andy maybe saying
that at this point. But maybe he met with some of the other members of
[inaudible] or somebody else and they’ve already told him this, so we know
[inaudible] that this isn’t going to happen. I keep hearing saying that we get
into it and then we try to change it after we get into it. Here you have the
director of [inaudible] telling you that once you get into it, they are not going
to change, they are not going to change at all. So he’s told you that up front.
But I think the point would be that if, you know, I know they’re not looking
for us, but we are looking for advantages along that line, in economic
development, but I think we should go on with the resolution because that is
what our people here locally have asked us to do. And I think we ought to
abide by what they are doing. Now if we can’t get in that way, then I think
then we have to resort to some other method. But I can’t see going into
something and then saying we are going to pull out when your director just
stood at the podium and told you that this wasn’t going to happen. So if we
can’t get that resolution through, I cannot support just joining, because I
know that’s a failure from the get-go.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I did not hear Andy
say that this resolution was not going to fly whether we’re members or not.
What I heard him say is if we’re on the outside looking in, that that would
12
not be receptive. Now once you’re a member of an organization, then you
can make changes to the bylaws. But I can certainly understand why no one
would want to make a change to somebody that’s not a member of any
organization, UDA or anything. All I heard Andy say was that as long as
we’re on the outside, that that request probably would not be honored. And
I can certainly understand that. I mean that’s true for any association.
We’re -- Richmond County is on a, from my understanding from some of
the committee meetings, we’re only one of two counties of what, 159 in
Georgia, that are not members of some of UDA, and my thinking is if there
was a true danger to this or as long as it’s existed, if something had
happened in the past, then we would see a flight from the UDA from these
other counties. We haven’t seen that. What we’ve seen is that 157 out of
159 counties are members of some kind of development authority. Andy, I
do have a question about the $500. Mr. Dye mentioned that there is already
$1,000 for low, areas with high unemployment, that they’ve already got
$1,000 advantage. Does that nullify the $500 or is the $500 added to the
$1,000 to make $1,500?
Mr. Crosson: It’s my understanding that in the less-developed census
tracts, that $500 would be added to any incentives you can already give. It’s
also my understanding that the investment tax credit that Mr. Dye talked to
you about is a three-year tax credit for expanding or existing industry, that
the job tax credit is a $500 per employee job tax credit that lasts for ten
years. An investment tax credit lasts for three years. And to clarify, I do not
see the Unified Development Authority changing its bylaws immediately
before you agree to join to let you in. I think the consensus I’ve had through
talking with members of the Authority is that they believe if any county
wants to make changes to the bylaws, they should be an active participant on
the board of directors of the Authority and then to bring that forward.
Mr. Bridges: Tell me this, too. Has -- in your experience with the
UDC, at any time has the UDC’s Development Authority taken precedent
over any county’s local Development Authority?
Mr. Crosson: No. The Attorney also mentioned the Unified
Development Authority has come and asked for 25% for a project, which I
assume is the [inaudible] industrial site project. That group that probably
approached the local Authority was not the Unified Development Authority.
It was made up of members of the Authority, a support county group that’s
trying to develop that site. But the Unified Development Authority itself has
13
not requested from this county or from any of the other counties any funds
specifically for the [inaudible] industrial site. We have received a grant in
the amount of $250,000 from one Georgia Authority to help with some
feasibility assessments of the site, but we’ve not actually asked any of the
members for any support in it. Any local government that wishes to
participate in that project was totally voluntary. There will be some kind of
revenue sharing agreement that would exist with those counties that become
a member. But that was not the Unified Development Authority.
Mr. Bridges: Okay. And I’m familiar with that [inaudible] site and
that’s, like you say, I thought it was about six or seven counties pooling the
resources together to develop a site. They are actually participating in some
form of regionalism, which I commend them for. But that’s not something
that we’re involved in or that we’re placing any funds in. But I think our
competition is not Columbia County, Burke County, McDuffie Count. I
think our competition in Richmond County as far as economic development
is Greenville, Macon, Charlotte and cities our size that compete with us for
drawing industry into the area. And based on what I’m hearing, and I know
Jerry has concerns and he’s certainly a legal authority, and maybe we need
to hear from our Attorney in that regard as well, but what I’m hearing is the
UDC has never at any time usurped the authority of the local Development
Authority, that has not been the practice. It’s certainly been a satisfying
organization to 157 out of 159 counties in the state of Georgia and this gives
us an additional $500 tax credit for a ten year period for payroll tax
purposes, and that’s $500 in addition to the $1,000 that Mr. Dye mentioned
in the areas with the highest unemployment. So you know, I see nothing
here that would limit or would be a detriment to us in joining this
organization. I see it only as a positive move in regards to economic
development, and I think we should pass the substitute motion. I also think,
and maybe we can attach that to the motion, if the maker would agree, but as
soon as we join, then ask those members that we place on that board to place
this resolution, asked that it be placed in the bylaws. And then we will have
authority and a leg to stand on and a reason to be requesting that. But I can
certainly understand why no organization would want somebody on the
outside telling them that they need to change the bylaws before I join your
group, type thing, I think that has to be done from the membership, and I
think we need to be a member of it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. Mr. Mays?
14
Mr. Mays: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’m glad both organizations
are getting a chance to express this. I hate to put it in this matter. But I as
one Commissioner am willing to compromise in a couple of amendments, to
-- I just, for lack of a better term, to dry up a peeing contest, because I see us
into that, that type of situation. This reminds me more, even though it’s
different entities but it kind of gets those of us who remember back in the
Titlelist situation of where people are watching this from other industry or
looking it at with us under a microscope in this whole region. If I’m John
Doe, investor, and I’m looking at the two entities, one regional and one
local, and to a point where they have no compromising ability going in, then
I’m not necessarily interested in coming to either one. The region or the
largest city one. Let me break and ask a question for just a moment. In the
united development authority as it stands right now, what is your total
population that’s in that, if that question has not already been on the floor,
and pardon me for coming in on the middle of it.
Mr. Crosson: The region itself is roughly 450,000 people. Of that,
about 200,000 are in Richmond County, so I would say 250,000 would be
the population of the authority area.
Mr. Mays: And the authority area then, you’re including us in that
number?
Mr. Crosson: No. That would take you out of that.
Mr. Mays: Okay. But I’m saying is your existing membership
authority population that you represent without us is what?
Mr. Crosson: Approximately 250,000.
Mr. Mays: Okay. So we bring you, I guess, and without calculator,
and using a little bit James Brown Boulevard math, we bring you about
another 44% to the table of what you would have roughly of doing this. I
think it’s to our benefit to ultimately be in, but I have a problem, and with
the motions that are out there from the standpoint that on the one hand I
think you make a good point for the unified authority that not being a
member, of dictating what you do, but then I also have a problem with
maybe the unreceptiveness of adding another 42% to almost double what
you’re got in a regional situation of if there’s a made-up mind situation
going in, then I’d like to honestly hear that, if that is. Because you
15
mentioned it’s been thrown around. What has happened with 157 other
counties. What has happened, gentlemen, with 157 other counties is the fact
that they have mutual type of agreements that go in to those basic areas
when they are drawn up, and the larger populated cities or counties in there,
there is a concerted effort to balance off the development which comes in.
Some things may be better suited for rural. Some may need a boosting of a
plant for a county that has totally gone dry. Some may come in better in a
urban area that has low unemployment, as does -- I mean high
unemployment, as does Richmond. And I think they have worked those
things out. Where I think there is somewhat of a reluctance in this, and we
might as well be honest and say it, is the fact that we want to make sure that
if we come in, to boost this up and darn near double the total and make it a
true regional concept, then we aren’t just in it for out numbers to be used.
Let me make that clear, too. We had the past history of when folk locate,
even of working for this city, that when they come in, they are shown
another county or even another state to go to, to say live here, buy your
home here, but work down there, they can pay you. We’ve had the school
system under attack to say move somewhere else because you don’t want
your children in that particular system. Now this has been done by in-house
folk that have represented the promoting of this region, not necessarily out
of the Unified Development Authority, but it’s been done out of business
leadership in this community. Now that’s what’s got us in this [inaudible],
and nobody wants to get to the real crux of the matter on why there is a
resistance to talk about it, or to do with it. That is the issue that’s there. So I
don’t mind even voting for Bill’s motion to get that in terms of a
membership, but I think it ought to be -- if it’s a pre-made-up mind, and we
can’t change the mind, what’s been put out there unless we are a member,
then I say join, make the presentation. If we are bringing the biggest stick to
the table, we’re not going to fight what’s being done in Taliaferro or
McDuffie, but to a point that if our own local has a bonded situation that’s
on the table, and looking down at the future of what could happen, if it gets
to be competitive, then I certainly think that which represents almost half
should not be in a tail wagging the dog situation. Now some may not like
that characteristic of it, but to a point if we are going to be there for your
regional organization to attract, simply because you’ve now doubled, then I
think it’s a reasonable question for the local Development Authority and the
Chamber to ask the questions what happens to Augusta Richmond County?
Those tax credits are very good, and I don’t want to leave any money on the
table. But if it’s going to be pushed by an organization where we’re in, then
if it’s going to be pushed to the point of away from your urban center, where
16
your largest unemployment exists, then we have no need to really be in the
course of that argument. So I can support an amended version that if our
membership goes in, that if we are going to ask from the very get-go, that
once we are a member, that we put it on table. Then if you reject it and we
are a member and we represent nearly 50%, then we come out. And I think
that can be a part of an amended version to do it. It gives us membership
and then we find out then what your true identity, what your true issues are.
If you want to turn around then and everything is going to be promoted out
of then the other 13 areas or 12 areas, whatever the make-up is, then we
know then where the rubber meets the road, whether or not you’re concerned
about this urban center, or whether you’re concerned about the numbers and
the population we bring to the table, but then not really doing the true
campaigning to get some of those things into this region in Augusta
Richmond County.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke:
Mr. Mayor, I think what Mr. Mays has said is what I
would like to see happen. I hate to get us involved in an organization and
But
immediately have the impression that we’re trying to bully everything.
I have no problem in amending my substitute motion that whoever the
representatives of Richmond County, that they pursue the idea of
asking for an amendment to the bylaws in concert with what Mr. Dye
has presented, if the seconder will agree.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to amending the motion? None is
heard, so the motion will be amended. Mr. Presnell, did you want to speak
on behalf of the Chamber?
Mr. Presnell: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission.
I’m Ed Presnell and I’m President of the Chamber, as you well know. We
want you to know that the Chamber supports the participation of Augusta
Richmond County in the United Development Authority. Furthermore, we
support the participation as recommended by the Development Authority.
It’s been said already that the additional financial incentives that come with
UDA will help us to be more competitive in our business and industry
recruitment. By the same token, though, if the Commission chooses to join
without restriction, or with modification, the Chamber will work with the
County, the Development Authority, the UDA to assure that the best
interests of all the citizens are protected. So in either event, we are
17
encouraging you to join the Unified Development Authority one way or
another.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I’m kind of concerned about the amendment that Mr.
Kuhlke, Commissioner Kuhlke agreed to. I’d just like to see a little
tightness that if they cannot, and maybe a time line should be put on this,
and I know that’s pushing [inaudible] a little bit, but I think this need to
come back before this body if they cannot work out this type resolution,
which he has suggested that we use. That it come back to this body and we
have the opportunity to debate it again and pull out of it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, that was where -- and I didn’t interrupt
because you were recognizing Mr. Presnell. But I guess I’m an old stickler,
Steve and I both are for verbatim minutes. And I think what you vote on and
what’s in there, even if you’re cussing in there, it’s still in there. It kind of
left without a definitive what-have-you, because I think it’s defined on the
other side of the organization going in that they will not change anything
until we become a member. That I can respect. I have no problem with that.
That’s like voting for somebody in another state before you register to vote
and you go there. But then once you do move, then you want to make sure
that you’ve got a maximum effect as a citizen within an organization, that it
does not undercut what you are doing. And I think that maybe we need to
have it more defined that if our folk that we send are going to go there with
the presentation in mind of the resolution, which the Development Authority
has put in, then if that -- and I agree, they doesn’t necessarily have to go in
there the first meeting and say that’s what you do. But it doesn’t need to be
there so long that it’s forgotten that we made the decision and nobody knows
anything about it. I think it ought to be brought up, I think it ought to be
conditional, and I think that if it’s said no, we will not accept, then it needs
to be also in the motion than that at that point we are in the membership and
then we come back and then we recruit people like Mr. Presnell and others
to help modify this situation. Because this is a wound that needs to heal, and
I’m glad to see Ed over there. Ed and I have been friends a long time. I
think he can bring great things to the Chamber. And I think the Chamber
has come a long way. But the Chamber at one time, to a point in its regional
effort, was part of that group individually, and I’m just going to call it like it
18
is, that helped to promote some things that quite frankly bad mouthed this
county. Not as a Chamber, not as a Chamber, but in terms of individual
membership. I see a Board of Education trustee sitting there. He knows
exactly what I’m talking about in terms of downgrading that school system.
I see real estate people that are here, to a point we can show any kind of
house that you can show anywhere else in this whole area -- old, refurbished,
antebellum, anything else, but people have been encouraged, hey, come in,
take the job, we’ll get you placed, but then go somewhere else, let us who
you what exists in another area. That is wrong. It’s always been wrong.
And I’m glad to see the leadership on Broad Street to a point that we are
recognizing that. And while we are going in, in Unified, and we’re beating
each up about it, you know, nobody’s addressing the question that right next
door to us we got folk that are debating the question whether they want to
even be in a Metro Chamber with us. So I mean you know, let’s not put all
the blame on Richmond County. We can do enough casting blame on
ourselves and create enough damage. But I think in that amendment it needs
to be spelled out whether or not we are going to ask those folk not only to do
it, but then if they get in there and they are turned down, if they are two
members and representing nearly 50% and they cannot get any layer of
protection that if it gets to a shoot-out between their Development Authority
on a particular project of landing something here and something landing on
the borderline of two other counties, and I think that’s very realistic,
gentlemen, that it can happen, then we ought to have that layer of protection
of at least having a choice to say that, and I think that’s what I’m asking for
and I think Mr. Beard, what you were looking for, was that type of language
in that amendment.
Mr. Mayor: Well, let me make a suggestion, if I may, because this is
not the last opportunity we are going to have to look at this. If we approve
the resolution today, we still have to appoint two people to this Authority,
and at that time, you can pass a subsequent resolution that they carry with
them, with their instructions, exactly what you expect of them as members,
what their duties would be as far as our representation, what motions they
would make, what time line they would follow, what report they get back to
us. That might be one way to deal with it. In my opinion, you get a little too
front loaded on the resolution today and you may set some deadlines and
what not that may not be reasonable.
Mr. Dye: Mr. Mayor, may I make one point of rebuttal?]
19
Mr. Mayor: Yes, would you come up to the microphone, please, Mr.
Dye, so we can get you on the record?
Mr. Dye: In rebuttal, I’d like to say to you that the amendment to the
resolution you have before you is done for the benefit of Richmond County.
That is done for the benefit of any member that’s already there participating
and our Board will reconsider, except we can’t see why in the world a
member county already there would not want that. One further point. The
first one of these Unified Development Authorities that was created was
Fulton County. I have a copy of the resolution here. Fulton County wrote it
in to the Unified Development Authority between Douglas and Fulton and
Fayette County, I believe it was. Some two years later, DeKalb County --
they wrote it into the resolution that that Unified Authority would have no
bond issuing capacity, that it was strictly a promotional type organization,
and when it was done solely to get the job tax credits, and when the job tax
credits expired, that Unified Development Authority disbanded. That’s
written into the resolution. Addressing Mr. Boyles’ question, he went to the
convention and he heard the State people touting that. Yes, it was the State
people that created this organization and created these job tax credits simply
as a means of getting the larger counties to financially support the rural,
undeveloped counties by incorporating them in, and Mr. Mays just put his
finger on it. You are bringing 44% in there. You can get some activity.
Now if this Unified Authority was a promotional Authority that would go
out and advertise an area, we’d just on it like we couldn’t get there fast
enough. But insofar as me telling you that they are going to ask you for 25%
of that $3 million -- it wasn’t Mr. Crosson that did it. He was correct in that.
It was his predecessor in office and my chairman will verify that, because I
overheard the conversation. I was also asked it about, also. That did happen
and that will continue to happen. One final word: don’t plant a cancer and
try to cure it later on.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Crosson, you wanted to address the Commission?
And then Mr. Shepard and then --
Mr. Crosson: First I want to promise you I won’t come asking for
25% of that project.
Mr. Kuhlke: Put that in the minutes?
20
Mr. Crosson: You may put that in the minutes. The second thing I
want to clarify and make sure, that nobody takes away with a
misunderstanding, that the Unified Development Authority is solely there to
bring development into the rural areas of the region. We work from a
ground-up approach. Any of the projects that we actually work on are
brought to us by the local Development Authority typically. We don’t get a
prospect and then tell them, well, you know, Jefferson County brought you
but you might be happier in Burke County so we want you to move. That’s
not just the way we operate. I don’t think that’s a good place at all for us to
be. There is one other point.
Mr. Dye: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Just a minute. The questions are directed at the Chair,
Mr. Dye.
Mr. Crosson: And I will say, the first thing I heard the attorney say
was that we would offer first an opportunity for the local Authority to
participate in a project or take the bond issue or do the project. I think that’s
reasonable. I think that the membership would pass that in a second. I also
hear him I think later saying -- I have not seen the resolution, but I think I
hear him say that the condition might be that we get approval from the local
Authority before we do any of the work. I don’t perceive that being a
change that the local Authority will make. That would be like asking each
of you to go back and get approval from each of your constituents before
you vote yes or no to any issue. I just don’t see that as being something that
the Unified Development Authority itself is going to sit down and say yeah,
we should go back and get approval locally. As I mentioned, most of the
projects we work on, in fact all of the projects we have worked on, were
brought to us from the local community so they already have that local
support built into them. And then as I also mentioned, at any time the
County Commission decides this is not working, they can get out. If you put
a timeline on your membership, I’d say join the Authority and give yourself
a year to think about what your benefits are, and then at the end of that year
come back and see what your pros and your cons of membership were.
Then we can make a good decision about whether you ought to remain in it
or not.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Shepard?
21
Mr. Shepard: I was trying to determine a timeline in some degree of
concrete terms. And will your Board meet again, Andy, within the next
quarter? This is the first week of the last quarter of the year. Will you meet
again?
Mr. Crosson: I think they meet again in November.
Mr. Shepard: November? I was thinking that if the maker of the
substitute motion and the seconder agree to bring this back in the first
meeting in January of 2003, that would give us a quarter to look at it --
they will be meeting our next month -- we could charge our
representatives to go with our preferences and see what happens.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to that? None heard. Madame
Clerk, if you would put on the agenda for the next meeting to make those
two appointments, so we get those done in time.
Mr. Dye: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: You have to come to the microphone and speak, Mr.
Dye, so we’ll be sure to hear you. It gets you on the record.
Mr. Dye: [inaudible] reason I ask [inaudible] Mr. Crosson and his
staff [inaudible] support the amendment proposed by the Development
Authority. The reason I asked that is because the existing membership is so
dependent on Mr. Crosson and his staff [inaudible] water, sewer, all kinds
[inaudible] if [inaudible]. I know because [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Dye, you’ve already made your point. Mr.
Crosson has already answered your question. Mr. Wall, you hand something
to say?
Mr. Wall: Well, just a point that you might want to consider in setting
the timeline. The next meeting after the first, according to the bylaws that
are here, after the first Friday in November is the first Friday in January, and
the Commission is going to meet before the Unified Development Authority
meets. So I would suggest --
Mr. Shepard:February. First meeting in February. That will
give us 120 days. That’s four months.
.
22
Mr. Mayor: All right, first meeting in February. Does anybody object
to that amendment? Okay. We have a substitute motion on the floor from
Mr. Kuhlke that’s been amended. Done need the motion restated?
Mr. Mays: Question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Mays: On the [inaudible] substitute [inaudible]?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, it’s all in the substitute. The substitute is the one
that’s been amended.
Mr. Mays: And that’s for joining with the conditions Steve laid out.
Mr. Mayor: The instructions for your representatives to follow and to
report back to us first meeting in February.
Mr. Mays: Okay, now that gets me back to my question. I guess I do
have an unreadiness. They report back to us. It seems as though we’re still
not make a decision. We’re making a decision to not make a decision. I
mean we’re moving forward to say put names on an agenda to do this the
next weeks, but what message are we still sending? If they go there, they
present it and it’s not done? Now this mule has been drug around for the last
three months now, to a point we either know whether we want to go with the
conditions or we don’t, and I think to a point of sending them there, if we
going to be bold enough to say we’re going to join, we’re going to present it,
then in coming back -- I have no problem with the four month time limit, but
then what are we going to do? Let’s go there. If our amendments are turned
down, and they are still turned down by the time they get back here, by
st
February 1, or whatever the date is, then what’s the position of this
Commission?
Mr. Mayor: You’ll have to make a decision to either stay in or get
out.
Mr. Mays: So the amendments, quite frankly then, really don’t mean
doodly-squat. Because what you’re doing, is you’re putting them in. If
you’re not reinforcing them, if you’re putting a timeline but you’re not
23
saying what the condition is going to be, then you still coming back to say
well, we going to decide something. You know, we know whether we want
do this or not, and we know whether we want to increase the size of it to a
true region, giving 42% to 44%, and if we are rejected going in, if our
membership can’t sell the idea, then we going to come back and we are
going to just meet again to make another decision.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mays, I think what we have here is something that
since we’ve stated that, you know, we weren’t to stay out and ask them to
change it, we’re going to go in with our two representatives, with the
resolution, and if they refuse it then I think it’s my interpretation here is that
in February, then we’ll vote to get out of it. Because we have given them
the opportunity, we present our thing. And I can understand what you’re
coming from because you are saying, the Director here is saying they
probably won’t do it. But I think we owe our County the opportunity to get
in there and see if they will do it. And if they don’t do it, then we need to in
February, six votes and we’re out.
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. The Chair has ruled there
has been adequate debate on it.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Procedural question, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, I need some clarification. My hand was up
before the question was called, too, but I need some clarification, because
like Mr. Mays has just stated, with the amendment being there, and if they
not going to be met, then in my mind we’re not in. How we going to come
back? There is no sense in putting those amendments on there. We need to
put down there just what we like to have. If you won’t do it, fine, we ain’t
going stay in there. If you put those amendments saying that we going to go
in because of the amendments, and if you accept those, we’re in, but if
they’re not accepted, then we out. It shouldn’t take six more votes to say we
out. I mean that’s common sense.
24
Mr. Mayor: Well, you may change your mind and want to stay in
anyway.
Mr. Williams: Well, if we change our mind, we got to come back and
do something else. But with the amendment, Mr. Mayor, and I’m going by
clarification cause that’s all I need, you said with those amendments. If we
go in with those and they accept it, we ought to be in. If those amendments
are not accepted, then we out. It may be our loss, but we out. And that’s
why the amendments are put there in the first place I thought.
Mr. Mayor: That’s why Mr. Shepard put a timeline on it. It’s got a
drop dead date.
Mr. Williams: I understand about that, but nobody clarified that yet.
Do the amendments mean that we go in and stay in or the amendments there
saying that if they’re not accept then we out?
Mr. Mayor: What’s the interpretation? Parliamentarian?
Mr. Wall: Well, my understanding of the amendments was that you
went in, if the conditions were not accepted, then you were out.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Jim.
Mr. Wall: It would not come back for another vote. And I think you
all need to be sure you understand what you’re voting on. But that was my
understanding of amendment that Mr. Mays made to the substitute motion
that was accepted. And so the report back is just that we’re out of it.
Mr. Williams: Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Wall.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. All in favor of the
substitute motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, a point of personal privilege, I’d like to
recognize --
25
The Clerk: Rev. Hatney.
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney. We have a presentation up here for you
before you leave.
Mr. Hatney: You all took so long, I got lunch.
(Laughter)
The Clerk: We’d like to thank you for coming in and [inaudible].
Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hatney, you’re invited to stay. That was just the
first item. Madame Clerk on a point of personal privilege, I’d like to
recognize our Recreation Director, Tom Beck. We have someone we’d like
to recognize in the Chambers.
PRESENTATION:
Proclamation presented to Mr. Greg Utley
Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, one of the most
rewarding things we do is to recognize our volunteers, and no one is more
deserving than Greg Utley. Greg has coached with us for the last nine years,
down at the May Park Center. Bo Harrison is here with him. And his wife,
Ms. Utley. And Greg was just named one of the three most caring coaches
in America by USA Today magazine.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Beck: Greg, we’re very proud of you. We’re proud of what you
do for our city, and with that I think the Clerk has a proclamation to read.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. In recognition of Mr. Greg Utley, whereas, Greg
Utley has served as a volunteer coach for Augusta Recreation and Parks
Department for the past nine years at the May Park Community Center; and
Whereas, Mr. Utley coaches three teams in basketball in the 6-to-12
year old girls age groups, playing in separate age groups; and
26
Whereas, Mr. Utley is a product of the Josey High School; and
Whereas, Coach Utley stresses academic attendance and character
equally with athletic achievement; and
Whereas, Mr. Utley was recently named by USA Weekend Magazine
as one of the three most caring coaches in America;
Now, therefore, I, Bob Young, Mayor of the City of Augusta, do
hereby proclaim October 3 to be Greg Utley Day and ask all citizens to
recognize this day.
In witness hereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
rd
Augusta, Georgia to be affixed this 3 day of October, 2002.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we have a number of people here for
item 41 so we’d like to go ahead and move on to that one next.
The Clerk:
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
41. Appeals hearing for James Hoar d/b/a Augusta Underground
located at 840 Broad Street regarding the denial of his request for an
alcohol license by the Commission in its regular meeting held
September 3, 2002.
Mr. Mayor: Is the appellant here, Mr. Hoar here? You’re
representing Mr. Hoar?
Ms. Colohan: Yes, I am.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. If you could pull the mike down and speak into
the mike there, that would be great. Thank you. And this is your appeal so I
will recognize you for the purpose of your presentation. And you have the
opportunity, if you’d like to, to call witnesses for questioning.
27
Ms. Colohan: Thank you. First I’d just like to start briefly reminding
everybody that when we were here last time, what the ordinance that we’re
looking at is there is a two-pronged test. And the first prong of that test is, is
the location in question a church? And the second prong of that test is
would granting a liquor license be a furtherance of a compelling
governmental interest? And last time we just skipped right over the first
one. At this time, I have what I have numbered 1 through 7 that I would like
to submit as evidence. And I would like the opportunity to use that evidence
to cross examine Rabbi Fischer, if I could.
Mr. Mayor: Rabbi Fischer, could you come forward? Mr. Wall, do
we need to swear witnesses here?
Mr. Wall: No.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Come forward, please, and be responsive to her
questions. Thank you.
Ms. Colohan: Good afternoon, Mr. Fischer.
Mr. Fischer: Rabbi.
Ms. Colohan: Rabbi Fischer. Good afternoon, Rabbi. Do you have a
lease for 850 Broad Street?
Mr. Fischer: [inaudible]
Ms. Colohan: Is the answer yes or no? Do you have a lease to 850
Broad Street?
Mr. Fischer: The answer is [inaudible].
Ms. Colohan: So for the purpose of this hearing, can we assume that
the answer is no?
Mr. Fischer: Assume nothing. [inaudible]
Ms. Colohan: Okay.
28
Mr. Mayor: Just be responsive to the questions. Y’all will have an
opportunity to make a statement if you want.
Ms. Colohan: Have you filed a federal form 501(c)3 to declare your
organization as a church?
Mr. Fischer: Yes.
Ms. Colohan: Do you have a copy of that form?
Mr. Fischer: Yes.
Ms. Colohan: May I see that copy, please?
Mr. Saul: If you please, ma’am, I didn’t think we would get to a trial
tonight.
Ms. Colohan: I’m just going according to the code.
Mr. Mayor: Under the rules of the procedure for appeals in these
cases, you are entitled to call witnesses and question those witnesses
directly, Mr. Saul.
Ms. Colohan: Thank you, Mayor. Is the synagogue tax exempt; has it
filed for tax exempt status?
Mr. Fischer: [inaudible]
Ms. Colohan: Is it registered with the Fire Marshal?
Mr. Fischer: [inaudible]
Ms. Colohan: Is it open for public worship?
Mr. Fischer: [inaudible]
Ms. Colohan: What are the hours of operation at the synagogue?
Mr. Fischer: [inaudible]
29
Ms. Colohan: So it’s not open to the public?
Mr. Fischer: [inaudible] summer. In winter it changes [inaudible].
Ms. Colohan: I would like to question in reference to these. Would
you like me to present them and come back to the mike? How would the
Mayor like me to --
Mr. Mayor: Maybe Mr. Wall can help you present things. Need to
speak into the microphone so we can hear you. Rabbi, if you could speak
up. Some of the Commissioners are having trouble hearing you.
Ms. Colohan: What you have in your hand is plat survey that was
done on the property prior to Mr. Hoar applying for his liquor license. And
the closest church, as you can see on that plat survey, is St. John United
Methodist Church, which is .3 miles. Is there any reason that you’re aware
of why the synagogue is not located on that plat survey?
Mr. Fischer: I have not looked at this plat so I cannot answer that
question.
Ms. Colohan: The second piece of evidence that I’m showing is the
exempt property application that you file with the County of Richmond. Has
one of those been filed with the Richmond County?
Mr. Fischer: This has not been filed.
Ms. Colohan: The third piece of paper that I’m showing is what was
pulled off of the website for [inaudible]. Excuse me if I pronounced that
wrong, .org, which I believe is your parent organization, and that lists your
location as 239 Broad Street; is that correct?
Mr. Fischer: That’s what it says on the paper here, yes.
Ms. Colohan: Is that 239 Broad Street still an active location?
Mr. Fischer: It is only a mailing address at this time.
Ms. Colohan: If you notice further down, it states that there is a
school located at that 239 Broad Street. Is there a school on that premise?
30
Mr. Fischer: Not at 239 Broad Street.
Ms. Colohan: But that is listed on that web site; is that not correct?
Mr. Fischer: If this paper is accurate, then yes.
Ms. Colohan: The fourth piece of paper that Mr. Wall is showing you
is the filing with the Secretary of State, which shows that that property is
still rented out or listed with the Secretary of State as a retail establishment;
is that correct?
Mr. Fischer: I don’t know what it says.
Ms. Colohan: Are you on file with the Secretary of State?
Mr. Fischer: Yes, ma’am.
Ms. Colohan: May I see a copy of that? Are you on file with the
Secretary of State at the 850 location?
Mr. Fischer: I don’t understand the question.
Ms. Colohan: Do you have that location listed with the Secretary of
State as a place of worship, within your synagogue?
Mr. Fischer: The Secretary of State does not require you to list a
place of worship.
Ms. Colohan: So you do not have that location on file with the State?
Mr. Fischer: I can’t answer that question. I don’t know.
Mr. Saul: We don’t have to list it with the Secretary of State.
Ms. Colohan: The fifth piece that Mr. Wall is showing you is a
picture. Can you tell me what that describes?
Mr. Fischer: This picture speaks for itself.
31
Ms. Colohan: It’s Kay Cleaners. It speaks very clearly for itself.
Thank you. Number 6 is the tax assessment that was pulled from the Tax
Office from downstairs. If you would flip to the second page of that, and it
shows that location listed currently as a commercial retail establishment.
Would that be your synagogue?
Mr. Fischer: It’s not my expertise to answer about tax assessment, but
if you can find a way to [inaudible].
Ms. Colohan: That has not been done. And the final thing I have,
we’ve already seen the picture of Kay Cleaners. Is that 239 Broad Street?
Mr. Fischer: That looks like the house located at 239 Broad Street.
Ms. Colohan: And is that your prior place of worship?
Mr. Fischer: That’s the place that’s the mailing office. That’s the
mailing address and that’s where I live. That’s [inaudible].
Ms. Colohan: So prior to moving into 850 Broad Street, 239 was used
for the synagogue?
Mr. Fischer: No. Not -- an office and mailing address and sometimes
as a place of assembly.
Ms. Colohan: But you have no mail going to 850 Broad Street?
Mr. Fischer: Very little.
Ms. Colohan: And you don’t have a lease or you won’t share with us
that there is a lease?
Mr. Fischer: [inaudible] question.
Ms. Colohan: That’s all the evidence I have and that’s all the
questions I have at this time. I would like to do a summation.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, go ahead.
32
Ms. Colohan: Because I don’t -- according to what I read, I don’t
believe that they have the right to cross examine. So. If I could have just
one second.
Mr. Mayor: As I understand it, Mr. Wall, since this is an appeal
brought by the applicant, then the burden of proof is on the applicant to
sustain the appeal; is that correct?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Wall: Well, the appellant. The burden is on the appellant to
change it.
Mr. Mayor: To change it. Okay. To change the decision.
Ms. Colohan: Thank you, gentlemen. Last time we were here, the
Commission decided it had the authority to decide what is a church. We
have State and Federal laws for this purpose. There has been no Federal
form 501(c)3 filed that I was aware of before this date. This would classify
the structure as a church. All County and tax records show 850 Broad Street
as a retail commercial establishment. There are no visible signs at 850
Broad Street, no hours of worship. Also, even if step 1 is considered, that it
is a church, which it does not, then does granting a liquor license to Mr.
Hoar further a compelling governmental interest? And I would argue that
yes, it is an established food and beverage district. It is already located
within numerous, already-established businesses that have liquor licenses. It
is directly within the 100-yard violation of the future home of Augusta
Common, which will also sell alcoholic beverages. The opposing party
states that they will grant permission and not oppose Augusta Common’s
opening. Well, I’m afraid that is not the way the law works. It will have a
future impact on realtors of downtown, wholesale distributors, and I actually
have a list of 33 that I could think of off the top of my head, businesses,
vendors, companies, wholesale distributors, newspapers, bands, that this
would affect. If the Mayor would like me to read from my list, I would be
happy to, or I could just submit it.
Mr. Mayor: Just submit the list, please.
33
Ms. Colohan: That’s all we have.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Wall, you want to say something?
Mr. Wall: Yes. I mean as I stated at the last time this came before us,
the issue is whether or not this is a synagogue. And so, with all due respect
to counsel for the appellant, I do think it’s appropriate that the Commission
hear from the synagogue and that the Commission have before it that
evidence as well, and I think it’s appropriate to do so, for them to submit the
same material or any additional material that they had when this came before
you earlier, that this is in fact a synagogue.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will recognize Mr. Saul. Mr. Saul, you also
have the same right to call witnesses and question them if you so desire.
Mr. Saul: Thank you. The counsel here has presented a unique
argument. I’m a member of the synagogue. I [inaudible] attended services
at the synagogue before. The Secretary of State, I submitted last time --
Mr. Mayor: Speak into the mike, please.
Ms. Colohan: I have not had the opportunity to see that.
Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. Mr. Saul has the floor now.
Mr. Saul: I have some more. I’ve already furnished counsel with a --
counsel for the appellant, a copy of this. This is a corporate charter which
has been approved by the Secretary of State, a non-profit, not-for-profit
corporation. On page 3, subparagraph 5, number 4, it says to offer to the
public religious activities including synagogue services and holiday
programs. The Secretary of State issued the certificate on November 30,
1998. In August, August of 2001, a building permit was issued. The Fire
Department was contacted. Utilities were placed in the [inaudible]’s name.
The Yom Kipper services, the Jewish New Year for September 2001 was
held in these premises. During that period of time, there was a sign on the
window. It’s a little, small sign, about as big as a legal pad. Says
[inaudible]. It did not say a synagogue. If we put a sign up there that says
synagogue with all the beer joints and alcohol places on Broad Street, we’d
expect a brick through the window or I expect a bullet through the window.
Now I’ve been in Oxford, Mississippi when the riot took place. I was a first
34
lieutenant in the United States Army carrying a .45. I know what prejudice
is, and I know that the synagogue on Broad Street, with all these whiskey
stores, is a target. So we decided not to put a sign up. There is nothing to
require the synagogue to have a big sign. If I’m going to rent an
establishment, I can walk next door and look in the window. And I can see a
sign. [inaudible]. So I wonder, do I call the power company and find out
whether there is electricity? Do I call the building inspector to see if there is
somebody that has made improvements and who owns the building? Mr.
Dyches owns the building. He’s right here today. He owns the building.
He can give the building to anyone he wants for any price he wants or he can
give it to them for free. It’s a synagogue. Now all of that took place in
August and in September of 2001. I want to show you a little videotape of
Channel 26. This is a real short piece done in March. This was done in
March.
Mr. Mayor: Could you speak into that microphone down there, Mr.
Saul, so we can continue to get you on the record, please?
Mr. Saul: This was furnished to me by Channel 26 yesterday.
(Videotape is shown)
Mr. Saul: All I wanted to show you from that was that Channel 26
knew we were there.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Saul: This is -- excuse me, Mr. Mayor. This is a copy of the
front page of the Metropolitan Spirit of May 2, 2002. The Metropolitan
Spirit somehow or another remarkably was able to find the [inaudible]
Center on Broad Street. And published an article, Making Better Jews. In
the article here, it says [inaudible] of Augusta offers everything from
synagogue services to lessons in traditional Jewish and Kosher cooking. It
says we reach out and serve Jews of all persuasions and all backgrounds, all
kinds of orientation, and we try and take an old-age religion. The religion is
about 4,000 years old. We believe in giving charity. We believe that if
someone comes and is in need, it is the duty of the Jews to give charity.
Someone wants help, we’ll offer help. That’s why the Rabbi is there.
Somehow, remarkably, the Spirit knew that this organization existed on May
2 prior to the application for this alcohol license. Now you need, when you
35
do an application for alcohol license, you need to be thorough. And if
you’re not thorough and you come up with a plat that shows that the closest
church is 300 yards or half a mile. They did a bad job. The purpose of the
statute is to show and to give notice. You have to put a notice in the
window. And so when the notice was put in the window, the synagogue
objected. Now I would like to hand out a listing of the -- listing of the
services that were conducted in the times that they were conducted in
September of this year. Just last month. This is a schedule of services that
took place in the synagogue. You can see that it was a rather extensive
month. There is one day there that is Fast Day. There are two other days
there, worship for the New Year, Jewish New Year. The next item I have is
a -- I happen to have an Augusta telephone book. Just got out. Now this
phone book is the Greater Augusta Area Telephone Book. I hate to tell you,
but the Real Yellow Pages left me out of their book this year, so I appreciate
all the advertisements I’m getting from the Augusta newspaper and the
television so people will know I’m still in practice.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: You want to give them the address?
(Laughter)
th
Mr. Saul: I’m right here on 5 Street with the clock.
(Laughter)
Mr. Saul: I have a clock that’s existed in Augusta since 1912. I gave
that clock to the Augusta Richmond County Museum, and when I retire it
will go into the Museum.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Saul: This little piece of paper here, I just handed to everybody,
is a copy of the page that shows synagogues. It says [inaudible] of Augusta.
722-7659 at 850 Broad Street. So there is a synagogue listed in the
telephone book, if the telephone book means anything. And it means only
the same thing that I’m telling you that I’m telling you I’m a member of the
synagogue. And I have a number of people here to put up their hands that
are also members of the synagogue. We have previously given you, or I
36
have furnished counsel, copies of the tax exempt status of the corporation.
And the Clerk will give you copies of those. You really don’t have to have
that item. The only thing that item does is it helps people who make
contributions to the [inaudible] to take it off their taxes. That’s the only
thing that has to be done. You don’t have to file with the Internal Revenue
anything. Now the next thing I’ve given you is a copy of the State law.
Georgia Code Section 3-3-21. The State law says no person knowingly and
intentionally may sell or offer to sell (a) any distilled spirits within 100 yards
of any church building or within 200 yards of any school building,
educational building, school grounds or college campuses. Now the Board
of Education has bought the Davison’s building. That’s within 100 yards,
and you can take judicial notice of it. It’s surely within 200 yards. It’s only
40 feet away. So even if you disregard the synagogue, if you want to close
your eyes and just close them and say there is no synagogue and let’s just
forget about it, then you’ve got an educational building. Now it does say in
subparagraph B, number 3, that the distance requirements can be changed by
this body. So if you want to make a change, you can. But this body has to
come to that change. And you’ve got to also convince the County Attorney,
if you’re going to try to make a separate district within the City, that you’re
not going to allow a church to have the same rights that they would have
outside the City, I think you’d better read this Code section, because I don’t
think you can do it. I think the only thing you can do is to reduce the
footage, and the let’s see how many churches and let’s see how many
synagogues we can bring down here. Let’s put an end to this application,
let’s keep the south side of Broad Street in the 900 block, it’s actually the
800 block. Let’s keep it for the Board of Education, the synagogue, the
library, and what other retail establishments fit within the Code. And that’s
my presentation.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
37
Mr. Kuhlke:
I feel the same way I did at the last meeting, but I don’t
think any evidence has been presented as far as I’m concerned that dispels
I move that we uphold the Ordinance
the fact that that is a synagogue, and
as it is and deny the appeal.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Further discussion? All in favor of
the motion then please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: We’ll take a five minute recess so we can clear the
Chamber.
Ms. Colohan: Mr. Mayor, I would like to put it on the record that we
object to the opposition.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you.
(Recess)
Mr. Mayor: We’ll proceed next with item number 39.
The Clerk:
39. Z-02-103 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the following
conditions 1) that the school be limited to no more than 10 students and
2) that no additional buildings be added to the property; a petition by
Bill Williams, on behalf of Regina Bryant, requesting a Special
Exception for the purpose of establishing a private school per Section
26-1(b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta Richmond
County affecting property located at 2939 Ulm Road and containing
5.01 acres (Tax Map 151 Parcel 03). DISTRICT 6 (No action vote –
th
Commission September 17 meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty? Where is Mr. Patty? Is the petitioner here?
38
Ms. Bryant: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams is here. Mr. Patty, you want to give
us the background on this, please, and then we’ll hear from the petitioner.
Mr. Patty: This property is on Ulm Road and I actually think you
heard this at the most recent meeting. I really don’t have anything to add.
She has agreed to limit the number of students to 10, 10 or less. No
additional construction on the property. Initially she was talking about
possibly building an educational building, but -- it was approved by the
Planning Commission. I really don’t know what to add. There were
objectors that live in the neighborhood. You heard a lot of testimony at the
last meeting about the nature of the area which I won’t get into.
Mr. Mayor: Ma’am, if you’d like to go ahead, please.
Ms. Bryant: My name is Ms. Bryant. Mr. Mayor, can we take a count
of who is in support of the private school on Ulm Road?
Mr. Mayor: All right. I tell you what, if you’ll go ahead with your
presentation, then we’ll get a count.
Ms. Bryant: Okay. First of all, I would like to make a little speech,
and it’s about Abraham Lincoln. He said that children are people who are
going to carry on what you have started. They are going to sit where you are
sitting, and when you are gone, attend to those things which you think are
important. You may adopt all the policies you please, but how they are
carried out demands on them. They will assume control of your cities, your
states and your nation. They will move in and take over your churches, your
schools, your universities, and your corporations. All your books are going
to be judged, praised and condemned by them. The fate of humanity is in
their hands. And I don’t know if any of you have been to Ulm Road, but just
in case you haven’t, I have brought Ulm Road to you.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, for the record, can I ask the Commission to
observe the location of parcel 152 and the bedroom window which is
adjacent to the driveway going to this property while they look at this map?
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. Go ahead, ma’am.
39
Ms. Bryant: What you see on the plat are actually property lines, but I
actually am buffered and zoned by a wood line to my left, my right, and the
back. You cannot see my property from either direction. On there it says a
dirt drive, but it’s actually been paved for a year. And I also have pictures of
the property that you’re looking at. And what I’m trying to do is establish a
private school. I’ve been passed by Planning and Zoning already, and if you
just look at the neighborhood, it would be an asset to our neighborhood, not
a detriment. We already have the kids located in a trailer park right across
from me. I don’t need to look for business. It’s already there. But all I’m
trying to do is help my community with their children, when they are
working, before school, and after school. And also, my lawyer, had to leave,
th
but I just wanted to add my Constitutional rights on the record, my 5
th
Amendment, 14 Amendment. And also I have a petition from the
neighbors of Ulm Road and supporters of the surrounding community. And
we, the people of Ulm Road and surrounding community, we are trying to
let our Commission know and our Mayor that this is what we want. It’s
about 87 of us trying to have a private school on Ulm Road to give the
community something for our children. And also what I’m seeking is a
special exception, and I live in an agricultural area. A special exception
doesn’t do anything to the current zoning. It remains agricultural. Only
certain businesses can request a special exception. Not every business can
do that. So I keep hearing that argument that it’s bringing a business in. But
a gas station can’t get a special exception. A club can’t get a special
exception. It’s something that is going to be an asset to the community.
Private schools can do that. So it’s not changing the zoning, it’s going to
remain agricultural. That’s all I have.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Could we have a show of hands, please, of
those who oppose this special exception? Would you please raise your
hands? I believe y’all were here at the last meeting and we’ve got your
testimony on the record.
(4 objectors noted)
Mr. Mayor: Those who support this rezoning, would you raise your
hands, please?
(9 supporters noted)
40
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I appreciate it. I missed the last
meeting so I didn’t get to see a lot of the presentation.
Mr. Mayor: Would you like to hear some additional testimony?
Mr. Bridges: I would. If I’m not mistaken, this is the same -- is this
the same location that you’ve been before us in the past for a day care or
something in that regard?
Ms. Bryant: I was there last year in July for a family day care home
for six children. And it was denied by the Commission. I met Planning and
Zoning again. And like I say, I really, I’m here with no hidden agenda.
Mr. Bridges: I remember you coming to us, and I just wanted to make
sure I had the same property. I’ve driven by your property before. George,
is that agricultural or is that residential? I mean there’s houses all -- that’s a
neighborhood.
Mr. Patty: It’s zoned agricultural and it’s predominantly mobile home
development.
Mr. Bridges: Okay. So we didn’t -- when we changed the residential
zoning at that time for those large areas, we didn’t include that than?
Mr. Patty: No. We just felt that that area is predominantly
manufactured homes and it wouldn’t be consistent with the objectives that
we had for those changes.
Mr. Bridges: What was the recommendation of the staff on this?
Mr. Patty: To approve it.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further, Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: No.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams and then Mr. Cheek and Mr. Beard.
41
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion that we go
ahead and approve the same as Planning to give this lady the 10
children with the stipulation that’s been put in here.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Beard: I second that.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Further discussion? Mr. Cheek and
then Mr. Beard.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, some discussion and a substitute motion to
follow. Again, I will voice my concerns about the establishment of a for-
profit business. We have some objectors here from the Ulm Road area as
well. This particular property has been clear cut. The tree buffer primarily
exists on the existing, surrounding homes. Again, I have not heard anything
but good things about Ms. Bryant, but the thing that concerns me is this
establishes a very dangerous precedent, in my opinion, and particularly for
the homes of south Augusta that can purchased at a much lower price than
homes in other portions of the city, and then converted into for-profit
business use if we allow this type of trend to continue, if we approve this
today. The initial plan and documentation of last year’s Commission
meeting sent, circulated by Ms. Bryant was for 26 children or more, in that
property as a day care. Then it was revised down to six when she knew that
there was some trouble with that particular approval at that time. We denied
it last time because we, as a Commission, said that neighborhoods shall be
neighborhoods, they will not be for-profit business entities. With every bit
of tuition raised, though it will be a for a noble cause, that will also go
towards paying for the property, the utilities and other things, which is
indeed a profit, because real value will be accumulated as a result of these
activities. I ask any one of you gentlemen to think about the neighborhoods
you live in and the fact that there has been neglect by this City in the past on
Ulm Road does not justify us allowing a departure from well-documented
votes in the past to deny for-profit businesses within neighborhoods. Just
ask you to look at your neighborhood and ask is it appropriate to locate a
personal care home, a day care, or a school that is for profit within your
neighborhood, and would you appreciate that, and do you think that would
cause your property values to increase or decrease? And Mr. Mayor, I make
a substitute motion to deny this request.
42
Mr. Mayor: Okay, a motion to deny. Is there a second to that
motion?
Mr. Bridges: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Further discussion? Mr. Beard,
you’re next.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I could understand when Ms. Bryant first
appeared here at the Commission meeting that we would deny that because
of the amount of students that she was asking for. But with this, I see it
within limits of ten students, not a whole lot of students. And I’ve seen
people in their neighborhoods care for five or six students without even
coming before this Commission. With the special exception and with the
outline of the concessions that she’s made here, I see no reason not to
support that, and I think that she will be helping other people in the
neighborhood who possibly cannot take the students out of their
neighborhoods. If she’s going to ask for a private school being established
there for this, I don’t see anything wrong with it, and I plan to vote for this.
Mr. Mayor: Is there further discussion? Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, what was Planning and Zoning’s decision on
that?
Mr. Patty: Approve it.
Mr. Hankerson: And it’s already zoned agricultural?
Mr. Patty: Yes.
Mr. Hankerson: So it’s agriculture -- could they bring more animals?
Could she bring animals and cows and all that in that area?
Mr. Patty: Yes.
Mr. Hankerson: Would the community object to that? Wouldn’t
object to the animals and cows and all things like that coming in? Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
43
Mr. Shepard: George, don’t leave so quick. I’m hoping that you have
better memories than I. It seems like to me we had some issues like this
maybe a year or two ago on Brown Road where we were looking at a
location of some use in the middle of a residential area. Does that have any
bearing on this? Do you remember that case?
Mr. Patty: Well, I don’t remember any particular case, but we have
these all the time. I mean most of the case load that we have involves these
special exception type uses, and they do not involve rezoning. There are
spacing requirements that they can’t saturate an area, got to be 1200 feet
apart, so you know, there are safeguards. I don’t remember a case on Brown
Road.
Mr. Shepard: It seems like to me there was an argument presented to
have spot zoning or not, and this is not spot zoning.
Mr. Patty: This is not zoning. It’s a special exception. To allow one
specific thing. Base zoning doesn’t change. It can --
Mr. Shepard: When the use changes, does the condition expire?
Mr. Patty: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: It’s not a [inaudible] change?
Mr. Patty: It permits the one specific thing which she’s asking for,
which is a family day care home.
Ms. Bryant: Private school.
Mr. Patty: Private school. I’m sorry. Excuse me.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. May I ask Ms. Bryant, what
age are you talking about? Pre-K?
Ms. Bryant: Well, it’s like a nursery. I’m going two to four year olds.
When they get to four, then they have the Pre-K programs. And what I’m
44
doing is that I have listened to the Richmond County teachers. My daughter
goes to Jamestown, and what they’ve asked me is Ms. Bryant, if you can
please focus on manners, if you can please focus on sharing and compassion,
and you know, the simple things in life. Respect. Then their job would be
much easier. And that’s my main focus. And I have a mentor that works
with Richmond County that’s working with me on my private time. I’ve
been doing this five years. I have a gift and I know I do, and I’m trying to
share with my community. That home where you see the limousine in front
of the house, that’s my house, that’s the house I bought for me and my
family, and all I’m doing is sharing my home with other kids in the
neighborhood while their parents work or may be assigned overseas.
Because I do take in children that become my guardian. They become my
own children. And nobody even know I’m over there except my neighbors.
Which I went to them, like Mr. Cheek told me to go to get the consensus
from my neighborhood. Just about everybody on my petition has agreed to
what I’m saying except for this, these few people here. And I’ve met them
already. And I’ve tried to work with them. But, you know, I’ve come off of
26 kids to 10. I’ve come wanting a separate building to no building. You
know, so I don’t know what else to do, you know. I want to help the kids in
my community.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Boyles: Ms. Bryant?
Mr. Mayor: Excuse me, Mr. Boyles. Go ahead. Continue.
Mr. Boyles: I was just trying to find out. Are you going to deal with
youngsters before they get to elementary school?
Ms. Bryant: Yes, sir.
Mr. Boyles: You’re not going to have what should be in the public
schools?
Ms. Bryant: Well, I’m a small business. I’m starting out very small,
and if that’s in the future -- I don’t know what my future holds, but right
now I’m working from two-to-four, and then the four goes to Pre-K. I know
I have gift. It may be go to Richmond County. I don’t know what it is for
the future, but I know I’m going to just keep the ten that I’m limited there.
45
Mr. Boyles: But under this special exception, no matter what your
business does, it’s going to be at ten people; right?
Ms. Bryant: Yes, sir.
Mr. Boyles: Okay.
Ms. Bryant: Yes, sir. Ten people. Once they go to school, I replace
them. My business has always been I don’t have a high turnover, is that
what you say? The parents that meet me, they stay with me till those kids go
to school.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I’ve had the opportunity to meet a couple of her
young people that she keeps in our Jamestown Community, and these young
folks, she’s taught them very good manners. She taught one little boy, one
little girl her ABC’s and whole bunch of stuff, so I think she’s doing a pretty
good job out there.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, we haven’t heard from the objectors.
They’ve been very patient as well.
Mr. Mayor: Well, we heard from them last time. If they have
anything they’d like to add we’ll certainly give them an opportunity to speak
today.
Mr. Cheek: And Mr. Mayor, too --
Mr. Mayor: I’m not trying to leave anybody out, but --
Mr. Cheek: Just to add for the record, too, that for the Commission,
for the record, for the information sake, we have an agricultural block of
zoning that extends from the Ulm Road area all the way to Highway 25,
almost contiguous with nearly 4,000+ homes zoned agricultural in many
46
developed areas. This is a very poor situation this Commissioner has asked
to be addressed on numerous occasions. This is just one of the many
problems that this Board will have to deal with if we don’t get the zoning
changed in these residential areas that are in fact residential neighborhoods
from agricultural to residential. Because by law, she could have the horses,
the cattle, and everything else that she wants to, and there is nothing anyone
could say about that. These are things that have been overlooked. I don’t
care if they’re mobile homes or homes or whatever, if it’s a residential
neighborhood it needs to be zone residential mobile home or residential. To
leave it agricultural just because there’s a lot of mobile homes out there is a
very poor thing to do.
Mr. Mayor: All right. If you’d like to hear from the objectors, is
there a spokesman? Come up and give us your name and address for the
record.
Ms. Nance: My name is Sybil Nance. I live at 2935 Ulm Road,
which is right next door to Ms. Bryant. 152 on the map is my house, which
you know, I own a little half acre. She’s got five big acres. Her house is in
back, but her driveway is right there. Right by my house. Right by my
bedroom. Also, she was talking about a private school for two-to-four year
olds, but then she’s going to keep them before and after school, and do the
people that signed her petition even live on our road? You know. I don’t
understand why she can’t lease a building that’s already zoned commercial
and do what she needs to do there. I don’t know why she wants to bring it
into our neighborhood and force us to deal with cars all day, every day. Last
year y’all approved her to keep six children, plus her two. I counted 15 cars
one morning going in that driveway. Something is wrong there. I called the
License and Inspection Department. Never heard back from them. I don’t
know if they ever went out there or not, but I told them I though she was
operating a business without a license. So I’m opposed to this because I
don’t see her -- I’ve already seen she doesn’t abide by what she says, so ten
children is going to turn into 30 real quick. And I’m just not happy with
this.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you. Yes, ma’am, give us your name
and address for the record, please.
Ms. Collins: I’m Anna Collins and I live at 2933 Ulm Road, and our
property is adjacent to Regina Bryant’s property. I oppose this because she
47
came into the community not in a proper way to begin with. When she
purchased the property, she should have known that she was going to open a
day care and to have gotten her license prior to coming in. I understand she
was in Sand Ridge operating a day care without a license. When she came
in, at first it was going to be a family day care. And then it was going to be
a day care. And now it is going to be a private school. So God only knows
what it will be once y’all give her a license, give her the okay to do it.
Because like Sybil said, more cars, like I told y’all the last time, it has to be
more children then ten because of the cars that go in and out that driveway
every day. If not, three or four cars must go in there per child. I don’t mean
to be ugly, but I do not approve this, I don’t think she is going about it in the
right way, that she should have gotten approval, gone before and gotten all
her license before she came in and bought a piece of property. I don’t know
whether she was told by the realtors that she could, that this would be no
problem. I don’t know what assumptions she had when she came in. But
this is a residential area and we do need -- we have enough school buses on
Ulm Road, as I said before. We have plenty of schools. We have a Head
Start right our on the highway, just a few short miles from where we live.
There are plenty of places there for the children to go. And all I ask you,
Commissioners, we have no other place to go other than to the County
Commissioners, and I ask you please do not allow this to happen. Thank
you.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll move ahead and take a vote on the substitute
motion. The substitute motion is to deny. All in favor of the substitute
motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Kuhlke: I don’t think the substitute motion was to deny, was it?
Mr. Cheek: The substitute motion --
Mr. Mayor: The substitute motion was to deny. Substitute motion
was to deny. We’re voting on the substitute motion now. Please go ahead
and vote with your green light if you want to deny this, with your red light if
you think some other way.
48
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. Williams, Mr. Mays, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Colclough and Mr.
Kuhlke vote No.
Motion fails 4-6.
Mr. Mayor: Now that takes us back to the original motion, which is to
approve with the stipulations as outlined in the caption of the agenda book.
All in favor of the original motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Cheek and Mr. Bridges vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Mayor: So the motion is approved.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Can we skip over to item number 10? We’ve got Officer
Partain here and we need to get him back on the street.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, we’ve got people waiting on the consent
agenda, our consent agenda as well. Is it possible to decide what’s going to
be consent and not?
Mr. Mayor: Let’s do that, then. All right.
Mr. Williams: I’ve got a delegate about 39. Are we going to do 39
and 40? Folk from Highland Park are here.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you’re absolutely right. I promised you
that we’d take item number 40 next. Let’s do that.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you for reminding me, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: All right.
Mr. Mayor: I appreciate that. Mr. Williams’ item. I’m sorry.
49
The Clerk: Item 40.
Mr. Mayor: Item 40.
The Clerk:
40. Z-02-110 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond
County Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions
1) that the development be limited to 19 lots with no road connection to
the remainder of this tract or to adjoining tracts and 2) that the paper
section of Whitney Street be improved by the petitioner to county
standards from where the pavement ends to the subject parcel a petition
by Murray Williams requesting a change of zone from Zone R-3B
(Multiple-family Residential) with restrictions to Zone R-1C (One-
family residential) on the northernmost 5.63 acres of a 16.1 acre tract
fronting on Walden Drive and Whitney Street Extended. (Tax map 57-
3 Parcel 9). DISTRICT 5 (Deferred from the Commission September
th
17 meeting)
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Patty? Let’s hear from Mr. Patty and then
we’ll proceed, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Patty: This came up several months ago for the entire tract, I
believe it was 15 acres, plus or minus, to construct I believe it was 75 units
on the entire tract which extends from the back of the VA Center all the way
down to Walden Drive. The initial concept was to tie the whole thing into
the paper extension of Whitney Street. 75 units of single-family, detached
construction on a relatively small lots. We objected to that. The end result
was that it was approved with a condition that it could not be attached to
Whitney Street, and I think there was a condition on the number of units, 70
or something like that. We went to Court with it. We prevailed. But
because it was an approval, limited approval on our part, the petitioner was
allowed to come back under the Planning Commission bylaws. The new
proposal, the proposal on the table today, is to take the upper-most or
property next, immediately behind the VA, 5.6 acres, construct 19 typical
single-family lots on the property, build detached homes. I won’t speak for
the petitioner, but I think in the $120,000 price range. It would require
zoning because the zoning you passed precluded it connecting to Whitney
Street. Staff and the Planning Commission felt that tying the 70 units in
Whitney Street was, would have created too many problems in the area with
50
the additional traffic. There are existing traffic problems up there, especially
Wrightsboro Road. But 19 units with the development plan that would
preclude ever, ever extending this into the remainder of the property or the
adjoining property we feel is a reasonable request and we recommend you
approve it. Now the issue of storm water retention came up. This was heard
before. It was not a majority vote. The petition filed a plan with my office
that shows the retention actually down around Walden Drive. I believe there
is an existing retention area down there now which he would extend, he
would connect to this first part to be developed, pipe or ditch or whatever,
and he would have to do that development at the same time that he
developed the streets and the infrastructure and the phase that we’re talking
about today, the situation where he could do that as the development phased
down into the property. But the petitioner is here and I’m sure he can
answer any questions about that. I’ve talked, had several conversations with
folks from the Highland Park area and they seem to be all right with it when
they understood what it was.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams, you concur with the limitations that
Mr. Patty outlined today?
Mr. Murray Williams: Yes, sir, I do. As we have explained, we want
to kind of split this development. I think it would be good for the area, from
the aspect we could ease the traffic somewhat. Rather than doing 70 lots
accessing onto Walden Drive, we’re talking about doing 19 accessing by
Whitney Street, then a future development to come out off of Walden Drive,
with the remainder of the lots, which would not connect to the first
development. We have talked with the Neighborhood Association at
Highland Park and explained to them what we want to do. I think they’re in
agreement. We’ve also spoken with the Lyndon Grove Subdivision, in
particular Mr. Chad Benton, who will be most affected by this access into
this property, and he is satisfied with the property, as well as his neighbors.
And as far as addressing the storm water retention area, I’ve had my
engineer design a storm water retention area and we are willing to go ahead
and put this retention in place for the future development, as well as the
proposed development that we are here for today.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors here today? Anybody object to
this? None are noted. Anybody else want to be heard on this? Mr.
Hankerson? Yes, sir?
51
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. I appreciate Mr. Williams coming back
and trying to do something that would work for the community. And
mainly, it’s very important to me for the neighborhood associations. They
met with him. This is what we need, the community working together.
Developers coming in, trying to develop, to make Augusta a better place to
stay and provide housing and doing it in a way that the community and the
developer working together both are satisfied, so I hope that that’s what’s
taking place today versus some of the other [inaudible] we had when this
[inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is a new area that has
been put in District 2, and it says in the book District 5. Which
Commissioner Hankerson used to represent until we drew the new lines. I
had this pulled off the agenda at our last Commission meeting because the
neighborhood had not been -- well, they wasn’t present. And when I talked
with some of them, they had not been informed of what was going to take
place. And their question was not whether they were opposed and against it,
but they were worried and concerned about the drainage and what would
happen and would the County accept whatever responsibilities, is the
question I asked, if this drain or this retention is not adequate to do what it’s
designed to do? Mr. Williams came before us before like he said for the
other project, and we didn’t allow access off of Winter Street because of the
amount of traffic, and I think George Patty proposed that he would on his
own be responsible for widening out or doing whatever road construction
there is to be done on Winter Street. But the residents in that area, and I
need to hear from them, I need to know before I support it that these people
in this area was, you know, not objecting to it. I see some people from
Highland Park here, if there is no objection, I have no problem, Mr. Mayor,
but I did want to be heard and to let the people in that area have a chance to
voice their opinions.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Do they want to speak?
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Please come to the podium and give us your
name and address for the record, please.
52
Mr. Lamb: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners. I’m James
Lamb. I live at 2032 Ohio Avenue. I’m president of the Highland Park
Neighborhood Association. There were several people that were here today
that had to leave, but the consensus of the people in the neighborhood
association that we accept this agreement with this gentleman to build the 19
houses in that area. And that is the consensus of all the people that I’ve
talked to in the neighborhood. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Ms. Burrows: My name is Caroline Burrows. I have lived on Ohio
Avenue all my life, 65 years, and next door to [inaudible] Park since 1961.
We played in this area. As a child, I did, and rode horses in it. But now
there is a time that this does need to become a housing development, rather
than something else later on down the road. What I would like to know, I
need to know, is what can we do to help this fellow get access to Walden
Drive? Because he had to change his plans and make a 19 house area there
just to use, so he could use Whitney Street. We disapproved of it to begin
with because Wrightsboro Road is so congested at special times of the day,
that it’s hard for us to get out, that have lived there all our lives. We need to
get him another access, and all we can see is going to have to be on Walden
Drive.
Mr. Mayor: I would refer that question back to the Planning
Commission. I think you need to talk to Mr. Patty about that.
Ms. Burrows: I did, tried to earlier.
Mr. Mayor: That’s not the issue on the table today.
Ms. Burrows: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: That’s another issue for another day.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, a little clarification to this constituent.
Just a little clarification. Mr. Williams came and he had the access off of
Walden Drive. He chose not to accept that. That’s why we down to 19. He
did not want to come through Walden Drive. He felt it would be more
feasible for him and the houses he was going to construct to come in off of
Winter Street and Wrightsboro Road. So that’s why, he had that already,
53
that was approved the first time. But he chose not to accept that. He did not
want that.
Ms. Burrows: Okay.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Ms. Burrows: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion on this item?
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second? Further discussion? All in favor,
please vote --
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Excuse me, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I’m in favor of the motion, but it’s just one observance
I’ve got in this thing, that -- and I wanted this to be clear to both the
petitioner and to the neighborhoods that he will be new neighbors with in
terms of building. I still think it gets back, Mr. Mayor, to my old theory that
a lot of times you can’t meet too much, because this is one of those
situations where they have been able to work out something in. But one
thing I would hope that the County would give the developer assistance in
that ultimately affects those neighborhoods, is the fact that -- and the
president knows what I’m talking about. I heard Marion and Bobby talking
about Districts 2 and 5. Well, all of it’s in 9, so I’ve had it all the time. And
the point being is that residents in that area, as great as the VA has been in
terms of service to the community, after the construction that was done in
that area, for a long time and until very recently, they suffered through
tremendous problems to a point that just the simple fact of flushing your
toilet in so many of those houses through there, conditions changed. They
were not like they were before. And so while I think we put a burden to ask
the developer to do some things, and we asked this previously because we
needed to know how that water was going to affect in there. I also think it’s
54
a burden of the City that has to be responsible as well, that all of it shouldn’t
be on the developer to a point that when he builds, that what else is there that
pre-existing conditions that may or may not be corrected at this point, need
to be done. Because a lot of those residents for years, before we even
consolidated, were getting waste and other materials. Folk who been living
in a house where their children had moved on, gone to school, [inaudible]
were getting diapers and everything else when they flushed their own toilets
and there wasn’t any kids living in the homes. Those are the types of -- that
is why some of us asked that that be done, and not to put the burden on you,
Mr. Williams, solely as the developer, but the City jointly needs to make
sure that in that area when new things are added on, that those existing folk
who are there, who will be there, who live there and basically will die there,
do not incur a difference in a lifestyle in terms of the infrastructure in those
neighborhoods. So while I’m glad to see where your [inaudible] is on there,
I think it’s also incumbent upon us to make sure that while you’re doing
your part in doing it, that you don’t inherit anything else in there, too, that
you are not necessarily responsible for that may already be in terms of pre-
existing conditions, and I hope your engineer, if you find them in there, they
need to be brought to the City’s attention, because this is something for a
long while that has gone on and it’s been piecemeal corrected and has not
been thoroughly wiped out yet. And I just wanted to put that on the record,
Mr. Mayor, for that particular area.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We’re in the process of voting on the motion.
All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll move on with the consent agenda. What’s your
pleasure with respect to the consent agenda?
Mr. Cheek: Move to approve the consent agenda, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Would you like to pull any items from the
consent agenda, please?
Mr. Shepard: Item 9.
55
Mr. Mayor: Item 9, Mr. Shepard. All right. Any others?
Mr. Williams: 11 and 12, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: 11 and 12 for Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: 15, too, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: And number 15 for Mr. Williams. Any others?
Mr. Williams: 23, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: And 23 for Mr. Williams. Thank you. Any others?
Mr. Williams: And 24, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: 24.
Mr. Williams: I did get 11 and 12, is that right?
Mr. Mayor: Yeah, 11 and 12, 15, 23 and 24.
Mr. Williams: All right, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Any others?
CONSENT AGENDA
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Motion to approve the renewal of an agreement with Mr. Michael
Moody as the Head Tennis Professional at Newman Tennis Center.
(Approved by Public Services Committee September 23, 2002)
2. Motion to approve a request by Vera Stewart for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with
Very Vera located at 3113 Washington Road. There will be Sunday
sales. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee September 23, 2002)
3. Motion to approve a request by Lisa M. Kohler for a Therapeutic
Massage License to be used in connection with Hand Over Stress
56
located at 106 Pleasant Home Road. District 7. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee September 23, 2002)
4. Motion to approve a request by Heather Menger for a
Therapeutic Massage License to be used in connection with Hand Over
Stress located at 106 Pleasant Home Road. District 7. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee September 23, 2002)
5. Motion to approve a request by Melanie Cobb for a Therapeutic
Massage License to be used in connection with Melanie Cobb Massage
Therapist located at 3320 Washington Road, Ste. A. District 7. Super
District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 23,
2002)
6. Motion to approve a request by Sarah Crouser for a Therapeutic
Massage License to be used in connection with Sarah Crouser Massage
Therapist located at 3320 Washington Road. District 7. Super District
10. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 23, 2002)
7. Motion to approve a request by Barbara Lasky for a Therapeutic
Massage License to be used in connection with Essential Touch Massage
Therapy located at 1064 Alexander Drive. District 7. Super District 10.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
8. Motion to approve Subordination Agreement for Jeanette Ella
Hall, 1531 Wilder Street, Augusta, GA 30904. (Approved by
Administrative Services September 23, 2002)
9. Deleted from the consent agenda.
PUBLIC SAFETY:
10. Motion to approve the expenditure of $70,920.00 to purchase
MSA 1000 CBA-RCA (Chemical/Biological Agent-Riot Control Agent)
Gas Mask. (Approved by Public Safety Committee September 23, 2002)
11. Deleted from the consent agenda.
12. Deleted from the consent agenda.
FINANCE COMMITTEE:
13. Motion to approve the acquisition of one (1) Crown Victoria LX
automobile for the Augusta Richmond County Marshal’s Department
from Legacy Ford of McDonough, Georgia for $25,285.00 (lowest bid
offer on Bid 02-166). (Approved by Finance Committee September 23,
2002)
14. Motion to approve the acquisition of seven (7) Crown Victoria
automobiles for the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office – Non-Road
57
Patrol Divisions (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-171-Model P-71; lowest bid
02-166-Model P-74). (Approved by Finance Committee September 23,
2002)
15. Deleted from the consent agenda.
16. Motion to approve the abatement of taxes on parcel purchased by
the City (Map 34-1, parcels320 and 321). (Approved by Finance
Committee September 23, 2002)
17. Motion to approve the expenditure of State Grant for voter
education in the amount of $10,000. (Approved by Finance Committee
September 23, 2002)
18. Motion to approve the acquisition of two (2) F250 Pickup Trucks
for the Augusta Utilities Department – Customer Service Division from
Bobby Jones Ford of Augusta, Georgia for $19,720.95 each (lowest bid
offer on Bid 02-156). (Approved by Finance Committee September 23,
2002)
19. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) F150 Pickup Truck
for the Public Works Department – Facilities Maintenance Division
from Bobby Jones Ford of Augusta, Georgia for $16,693.04 (lowest bid
offer on Bid 02-154). (Approved by Finance Committee September 23,
2002)
20. Motion to approve the acquisition of three (3) Compact Pickup
Trucks for the Augusta Utilities Department –
Administration/Engineering Division from Bobby Jones Ford of
Augusta, Georgia for $17,537.19 each (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-168).
(Approved by Finance Committee September 23, 2002)
21. Motion to approve payment of $4,500.00 from the Commission
Other Account to the Carl Vinson Institute of Government for the
completion of the classification review for Augusta Richmond County.
(Approved by Finance Committee September 23, 2002)
22. Motion to approve the acquisition of three (3) Crown Victoria
automobiles for the Augusta Richmond County Correctional Institute
from Bobby Jones Ford of Augusta, Georgia for $23,450.62 each (lowest
bid offer on Bid 02-171). (Approved by Finance Committee September
23, 2002)
23. Deleted from the consent agenda.
24. Deleted from the consent agenda.
25. Motion to approve funding in the amount of $43,050 from
contingency for an operating lease in the Public Works – Roads &
Walkways Department. (Approved by Finance Committee September
23, 2002)
58
26. Motion to approve amendment General Fund Budget to include
Brownfield Grant revenue and related expenditures. (Approved by
Finance Committee September 23, 2002)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
27. Motion to approve a pass-through grant of $15,000 from the
Department of Natural Resources to the Southeastern Natural Science
Academy. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September
23, 2002)
28. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 86-3,
Parcel 102, which is owned by Vivian Wright, for a right-of-way in
connection with the Bungalow Road Improvement Project, more
particularly described as 2,520.64 square feet, more or less, of right-of-
way and 821.86 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction
easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September
23, 2002)
29. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 129,
Parcel 101, which is owned by Zeb K. Waller, for a right-of-way in
connection with the Morgan Road Improvement Project, more
particularly described as 116.68 square feet, more or less, of right-of-
way and 1,275.41 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction
easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September
23, 2002)
30. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 118,
Parcel 364, which is owned by Byron Hall, for right-of-way on the
Morgan Road Improvement Project. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee September 23, 2002)
31. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 129,
Parcel 232,which is owned by Allen D. Shipes, Sr., for a temporary
construction easement on the Morgan Road Improvement Project.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 23, 2002)
32. Motion to approve the award of contract to Empire
Dismantlement Corporation in the amount of $119,610.00 for
demolition of the Brown Road (Pine Hill) elevated and ground storage
tanks. (Funded by Account Number: 509043410-5425110/80110425-
5425110) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 23,
2002)
33. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 123,
Parcel 7, which is owned by Ralph A. Ireland, III, for a permanent
59
utility easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
September 23, 2002)
34. Motion to abandon a portion of Ellis Street. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee September 23, 2002)
35. Motion to approve the adoption of the updated Industrial Sewer
Use Ordinance that has been reviewed and approved by the
Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia Department of
Natural Resources. (Approved by Commission on September 17 –
second reading)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
36. Motion to approve the minutes of the Special Called Meeting held
September 12, 2002, Regular Meeting held September 17 and the
Special Called Meeting held September 24, 2002 and approve
amendment.
APPOINTMENTS:
37. Motion to approve the reappointment of the following to various
Augusta-Richmond County Boards, Authorities and Commissions
representing District 4:
Ms. Venus D. CainAugusta-Richmond County
Personnel Board
Mr. Willie WrightAugusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission
Mr. Ira DavisAugusta-Richmond County
Tree Commission
PLANNING:
38. ZA-R-153 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve an amendment to
the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County
amending Section 35 to add language to 35-6 to provide an
administrative procedure for implementing reversionary zoning
conditions duly imposed by the Governing body. (Approved by
Commission September 17 – second reading)
60
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve the consent agenda minus
items 9, 11, 12, 15, 23 and 24. All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Bridges votes No on Sunday sales [item 2].
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-8, 10, 13-14, 16-22, 25-38]
Mr. Wall: On the airport grant, we’d like to correct the minutes to
reflect after y’all approved the grant, there was an additional $200,000,
approximately $200,000, and so the correct number – anyhow, we’d like to
amend it to reflect what is in the actual grant agreement which is an
additional approximate $200,000.
Mr. Mayor: The next item we have is number 9, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
9. Motion to approve the implementation of reclassifications for
Executive and Line staff effective October 15, 2002 (the first paycheck
in November 2002). To include the Clerk of Commission’s office for
reclassification: Implement career ladder, basic skills and tuition
reimbursement programs. Approve Reclassification Administrative
Procedures. Eliminate salary grades 30-35 and begin Salary Structure
at Salary Grade 36. (Approved by Administrative Services September
23, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard:
Mr. Mayor, I have voiced this concern in the
Committee, and I first want to, before I voice my concern, I do want to
express my appreciation to the HR Department in particular, and the
Administrator and the Assistant Administrators for putting together a plan.
And I want to say that I appreciate the jobs that not only our management
and our executives do, but everybody that works for this City. But in the
financial impact of this statement, and I know it’s been represented that we
have the money this year, but the two alternatives are going to cost in 2003
$1,012,000 if we go with the City’s recommendation, or $2,100,000 if we go
with the Carl Vinson recommendation. We have an advanced budget
calendar this year, Mr. Mayor. We have a series of hearings next week on
the funding or the establishment of the millage rate, two next Monday. I’m
What I think would be more prudent to
sorry, one the week after that.
61
do, since we are just about through the year anyway, is to refer this
action to the second meeting in November because that’s when we’re
going to be in budget.
I feel like rather than vote through a million dollar
budgetary problem, which I see may happen, we should take up this issue at
the same time we take up the 2003 budget. I’m also interested in something
that you proposed, Mr. Mayor, which would be a phase-in of these raises.
Right now, I just think we’ve got the, quite frankly, the cart before the horse
and we ought to make sure that we can implement this with a minimum cost.
We are in an economy that is not a good one. I think anybody that has
invest or hasn’t invested knows that there has been a wealth loss in the
economy this year. There are people trying to make ends meet. Businesses
trying to make ends meet. And we’ve got to make ends meet next week
with a millage increase, which I’m not happy about, but we voted that
through the budget. It seems to me that we are going to have other
budgetary pressures that are going to come about, when and if we adopt this,
so I think that we should just hold this up until that meeting that we
take up the budget and take it up all in one package and that’s in the
form of a motion.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Mays: I second it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Hankerson, you had your hand up.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I didn’t vote for this
reclassification in Committee because I had some concerns. And I think my
concerns were valid. My concerns are at this time that where we look at the
State and national economy, they are cutting back, jobs are being eliminated,
the economy is not looking good right now. Seven months ago, we were
fighting not to cut jobs, back in February, when we were trying to balance
the budget. We cut services seven months ago. Now later, seven months
later, we have $1 million to increase salaries. Second, I’m concerned about
the citizens and businesses of Augusta Richmond County. We will be
meeting next week to explain to the public a millage rate increase. How can
we convince them by voting for a massive pay raise increase today? Also,
I’m concerned about the job vacancies in Public Works. I mentioned that in
Committee meetings, that we have so many positions that are very crucial to
the progress of this City, are in Engineering. Are those salaries being raised
to a level where we can attract engineers and the job vacancies, fill those job
62
vacancies in Public Works that we need so badly. At the present time, there
is about job vacancies that are essentially to Public Works and to the
progress of Augusta Richmond County. We have two other vacancies that
have been vacant for quite a while, HND Director, EO Coordinator. That’s
a position that’s in this job classification. No figures there for them right
now. I think we need to concentrate on funding those positions first. I’m
concerned where we will get the money from, where will the money come
from next year? Yes, we need this job reclassification. It’s good to know
where we are supposed to be and be competitive with other cities. I’d like to
say the Carl Vinson Institute did a great job. Our Human Resources did a
great job in doing this study. We have a wonderful tool here to work with.
But I think we need to come up with a formula to implement the increases
gradually. Fill the job vacancies first. I really, I really disapprove of them
being considered in the budget. I think that we should do the budget first
and see where we are for the year 2003, to know where we are going to get
the money from this year. It’s easy to say we have a million dollars this
year, but what about next year? And I think that when next year comes and
we have a lot of problems in the City now where we cut services, and my
constituents, constituents are crying out every day about how this City look.
The City looks like nobody lives in it anymore. Grass is growing up knee
high in areas and it’s just awful. And all I’m hearing that we don’t have the
staff. And the staff that needs to do this work is the lower level staff. And
we need to make sure that we have those employees to make Augusta be a
beautiful place to live in, and I’d like to see all of those jobs and positions
addressed before we go about increasing or accepting this classification.
This is not a good time to implement any salary modifications at this time.
I’d like to make a substitute motion that we consider this after we do the
budget January, we come back and consider this.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion from Commissioner Hankerson. Is
there a second?
Mr. Boyles: I’ll second his motion.
Mr. Mayor: Who had their hand up? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, it’s refreshing to me to hear Commissioners
come on board with phasing this in on over time. I believe I mentioned that
about six months when this first came out. And it was ignored at the time.
There is a lot of creative things we can do, but the bottom line is our lower
63
end employees right now are just barely at, if they’ve got children they are
below the poverty line and get earned income tax credits because they’re not
making enough money in 40 hours a week to be considered well off. Or at
least making it by, by Federal standards. In fact, they’re considered poor.
These are people that work 40 hour weeks, and quite frankly, the reason we
can’t staff and keep qualified people is because we don’t pay a decent wage
as compared to other cities only minutes from us. The whole objective to
this is to keep and maintain and attract qualified people, and gentlemen, if
you look at the industry across this country, they are not cutting entry level
salaries for key level people. Engineers are still being hired at a premium.
We have the opportunity to give the Administrator the opportunity to go
above mid range or above the 10% to get these people in here without
having to come through the Commission for every vote, which is two to
three weeks’ delay with each action we take. There’s a lot of things we can
do, but this thing has been approved by very a very reputable institution.
Carl Vinson. They in fact wanted to spend more than we did. Our Human
Resources Department and Finance Department looked at the monies
available and were able to tailor the particular adjustments to meet our
budgetary constraints. We can kick this around and talk about it all we want
to, but it’s the same thing we did with the Sheriff’s Department. We didn’t
pay them what they needed to keep and maintain their deputies. And so we
trained them for $25,000 apiece and then they moved to the School Board or
Columbia County or somewhere else. We have lost engineers for more
salary. We have lost administrative personnel for more salary in other
places. Let’s be politicians and just not make a decision on this. Okay?
Let’s just kick it around and let it die. I think that Commissioner Shepard’s
points are very valid, that we need to address this in the context of not only
this year’s budget but future budgets. But the fact of the matter is, we
cannot keep and maintain employees because our benefits aren’t the best. In
fact, they’re some of the worst in the area. Our salaries are some of the
lowest in the area. And we can piecemeal address this if we want to from
now until the cows come home. This is a comprehensive plan. It addresses
the problems. And no, it is not perfect. But we can go back and make
adjustments in the areas that this plan does not address. But to delay this is
to continue in the same mistaken past that we’ve had where we’ve lost our
deputies, we’ve lost our engineers, we’ve lost our administrative personnel
because, quite frankly, we do not pay market standards. You get what you
pay for. We can hire people less qualified that will take any job you give
them because they’ll be willing to accept what we give them, or we can pay
people what they’re worth and they’ll stay with us. We can give them a
64
decent benefits package and they’ll stay with us. This plan has been
reviewed by the Carl Vinson Institute. They endorse what our Human
Resources Department said. To me, that’s an A+. We can second guess it
all day long. Quite frankly, gentleman, I don’t know how many Human
Resources credentials or salary scale credentials we all have among us, but I
don’t think it equals the Carl Vinson Institute. It probably doesn’t come
close to what we have in the Human Resources Department. We’re looking
at salary restructuring right now at the Savannah River Site. We’re going to
lose 300 jobs before the first of the year. But they’re hiring engineers in at
market scale right now. And they’re out looking for key positions. Yes, the
market is in flux right now. But to get the job done, you’ve got to have the
right people on the job, and the only way to get people here is to pay them.
To provide them with benefits and some job security. We can kick them
around again until the cows come home. The only problem this plan has is it
doesn’t have as good a human relations, reaching out to the public and
discussing it as it could have. Yeah, the timing is not great because we’re
going to the public and asking them for a millage increase for public safety.
The public asked for public safety. The growth in government has occurred
in public safety. 90+ percent of the growth in government the last six years
has occurred in public safety. These are the things the citizens asked for,
and I’m not afraid to articulate that to the public in my limited ability, and I
would hope that the rest of the Commission would not be afraid to do the
same thing. We are delivering what the citizens want. We are 30% of the
tax bill. 30% of the tax bill. And we get most of the heat because we don’t
stand up and tell the people this is what we’re giving you for your money. If
you want qualified people on the job, you’ve got to pay them. This
addresses the bottom end and the top end. It can be phased in over time to
meet the budgetary constraints of the future, but the bottom line is it costs
more to do business. It costs more to do business. With Federal, State and
State compliances alone for administrative staff it increases that cost.
Benefits cost more. Social security costs more. It costs more to do
government. You cannot have a government in the year 2002 on a 1958
mentality. You can’t pay people 40 cent minimum wage and expect them to
stay on a job when they’ve got somebody 20 feet away paying $4 an hour.
And that’s exactly what we’re dealing with here. And to kick this around for
political ends and not step up to the plate and deal with it is going to have us
repeating the same cycle we’ve been in ever since I’ve been here. Losing
people because other places pay more.
65
Mr. Mayor: Ma’am, did you want to address the Commission on this?
Would you come up to the podium? Ma’am, just a minute. Would you give
us your name and address for the record, please?
Ms. Threaton: I’m Dora Threaton from Hillsinger Road. I live here
50 years plus. I was thinking that where does the money come from to
[inaudible] government? [inaudible] Okay. If you just keep raising and
raising the salaries, people will start going and going and going away from
here. I saw where [inaudible] raises for heads of the departments and
engineers and all that. So the person that’s paying for this area, anywhere
that you say $25,000 per person to be trained, should be signing an
agreement that they will receive this training for X number of years. And
that they will not leave for three years, whatever.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. Appreciate that. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My twin brother has
expressed himself very well as usual, as making some comments that I agree
with. But where I am different with him is that I guess in this whole proposal
it looks like this proposal, and I think the Carl Vinson Institute did a great
job. But the proposal for this government looks like it’s top heavy in my
mind always. The little people that’s doing the work, the little people that’s
keeping this government afloat, 10% of zero is still zero. I mean the
structure in my mind is not there. Commissioner Shepard always get on to
me, and I say get on to me. He always pulls my leg about these cars. We
spend money after money. I’m looking at here now. We spent over
$100,000 for four cars for the Marshal’s Department. I think they need cars.
But I can’t see buying Crown Victorias for the Marshal to go up and down
the road with. But I went consistently saying that we need to spend our
money a little bit wiser. The lady just stated that the money come from the
taxpayers. The people are paying money into this government. Sure, if we
can pay everybody $100,000 an hour, I mean, hey, we be glad to do it. We
can’t do that. We need to be realistic. We need to look at saving and cutting
money as we do at our own homes. I cannot support this for a lot of reasons.
First of all, Commissioner Shepard said we got to go before the public and
explain to them what we doing. Some of them are misinformed. We got to
explain to them why we talking about the millage increase. But then folks
going to say if you can do a millage increase, then you going to turn around
and give raises of this magnitude? I think this should be phased in over a
period of time. But I think we need to start at the bottom, with the lower
66
workers first, who have not been making any money. The same price for a
loaf of bread for them it costs for the man at the top. But the top is still
getting more and more and more. Another thing, we sit here as
Commissioners with our eyes closed as if we don’t know what’s going on.
You got a very few people in this government that’s keeping this
government afloat. We got folks we’re paying in this government that ain’t
doing nothing. If you want to give some increases, let’s cut some of these
salaries of folks who ain’t doing their work. We sit here week after week,
and I always say, Steve, we got our back up against the wall, cause we done
let everything got here, everybody is waiting on everybody. But nobody’s
getting anything done. If you start to do some things, you going to see this
city grow. When you start to cut some jobs where people are not performing
and I don’t mean the little people, cause we can always cut the little man.
We cut our services in this area. Then we heard a cry from the community
about how bad the services are. And what was needed. And we had to go
back and redo those things. When you look at the top of this government,
and I don’t mean this board here, change, this Commission, there’s nothing
in this proposal for the Commission. I’m not advocating that. But I’m
saying that the top people getting paid in this government are not working.
They got excuses. But I’m tired, I’m tired of paying the kind of money we
paying out for excuses. If you going to do the job, then you ought to get
paid. So yeah, the institution came up with a perfect plan, Mr. Mayor. It
was even more than we wanted to do. But it’s a City that’s holding people
accountable. I heard you say on your commercials then, the advertisements
that you’re doing, let’s hold people accountable. I been preaching that from
Day One. And I can – if you want me to go down the list, Mr. Mayor, I’ve
got it in the back of my head. I can tell you exactly down the list right here
now about those who are not doing the job and we still paying.
Mr. Mayor: Shall I ask him?
Mr. Williams: I guarantee, I can tell you. All I’m saying is, Mr.
Mayor, we need to look at what we’re doing. We need to give these raises,
we need to let the people know if you work for this government, then we
going to pat you on the back and we going to pay you what’s reasonable.
But you got so many at the top that’s not doing anything but just making a
salary. We talking about car allowances and we talk about how people are
driving cars back and forth. Where in the world can you go for this
government that makes $65,000, $70,000 a year, we give you a car to come
to work that make that kind of money with? That don’t make good sense.
67
But no, it ain’t about good sense. It’s about taxpayers’ money. That’s all,
Mr. Mayor. I’m –
Mr. Mayor: All right: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I probably shouldn’t add
anything. Couldn’t add anything that hadn’t already been said. But I’ve
been on both sides and I have the utmost respect for the Carl Vinson
Institute or anything that comes out of Athens, Georgia, even though I’m not
a Bulldog fan, but I do respect what comes out of Athens. I think that the
Carl Vinson Institute has always been very good comparing cities’ salaries
and location to location, be it one city, one county. I sometimes wonder
when we say market if we’re talking about are we comparing our salaries to
the people at Procter & Gamble or the people down at Arcadian or
International Paper or any of those places. If that’s the market that we’re
talking about. And I’ve got a lot of concern about that, George, and I think
I’ve probably addressed that before. But this past Monday, I was reading the
USA Today paper and one line in there caught my attention. It says while
average workers’ salaries are rising just 3.6%, many CEO’s are getting
double digit salary increase. And then I looked over one more, one more
section, and this is what concerns me, because I think in my nine months,
my ten months of being on the Commission, I believe from our retired
employees, and our on-duty, on-line employees right now the biggest
concern that they seem to have, at least has been broadcast to me, has been
the insurance situation. And right here it says that 1.4 million lost their
medical coverage in 2001. And 41.2 million are without insurance,
according to the 2000 census figures. I sometimes wonder if we are
directing our resources, as the lady very politely, very nicely said, who is
paying for this? Have we forgotten the people that we’re supposed to be
representing? Are we supposed to be looking after their interest when we
have got to go back and stand – somebody has to stand before them this
coming Monday and tell them why we’ve reevaluated their property or why
we’re going to increase their taxes. And I think it would be very difficult for
me to sit here and vote for a raise when people have already gotten – I don’t
think anybody – correct me, someone, if I’m wrong, that if the folks in this
government have not already gotten some type of raise within this 2002, I
just have a feeling that we’re adding insult to injury, and I think we need to
back off and maybe as the finance Chairman says or whoever made the
secondary motion, that we need to look at maybe Rev. Hankerson saying
that we ought to look at it within the budget or after the budget is done for
68
2003. And that’s just – and as I said when I opened my remarks, I’ve been
on both sides of the table. I’ve dealt with the University of Georgia and I
have dealt with Carl Vinson and over 32 years as a department head here.
And I think I know how the employees feel and gosh knows, for the last four
days, I have wished – the only time in my life – that I had an unlisted phone
number, because I know how the citizens in west Augusta feel. I thank you
for that time, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I think for both motions calls for dealing
with this at the budget. I mean either after it’s done, Mr. Hankerson, or
while it’s done. I don’t really see much difference in them.
The Clerk: Mr. Hankerson’s motion was to discuss it after the budget
in January. [inaudible] included in [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, did you have another comment?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, Mr. Mayor. It’s amazing to me, and I’ve followed
and been a citizen and been an advocate of lower taxes for years, that the
other body in this City that takes 70% of the taxpayers’ money is not nearly
as exposed to the scrutiny when they raised millage at will as we are. And
it’s also, for the record, it’s my understanding that we haven’t had a property
tax increase in Augusta in 14 years, and it’s like any other thing that you put
off that needs to be addressed. The longer you put it off, the hard it is to
deal with it. Yes, we are in tough economic times, and yes, this needs to be
looked at and phased in over time. I’m not advocating jumping into this
thing. I think the study is sound. We can take it from the bottom up. That
seems to be the consensus. Or what I’m hearing as the consensus. But the
bottom line is, the same people that are concerned about us raising additional
funds are the same ones that are griping about the streets not being paved
and the potholes not being filled and the ditches cleaned out. And frankly,
I’m not afraid to say to the public you can’t get things for free. We have got
to put in some funding to restore at least the staffing we have in Public
Works. We’ve got to hire these positions that Rev. Hankerson mentioned
and fill those at some point. It costs more to run government, and that’s less
per capita employees for the same amount of dollars. That’s true in
business or industry. We compete with industry for engineers. We compete
with industry for administrators. And therefore that is the market scale we
69
have to compare ourselves to. You know, again, it amazes me that – I pay
taxes just like everybody else, and it hurts when I have to pay some
additional money, but if I’m seeing gain as a result of that funding I don’t
have a problem. As Rev. Williams has said, we’ve called for accountability
for years now in trying to raise that level of accountability. And I
remember the comments about the carp policies that we tried to implement,
how that was crazy years ago, quoting the – I don’t remember the name of
that paper. But anyway. Mr. Mayor, we have got to deal with some of this
stuff. We can’t put it off. We can’t say that we are going to hire and attract
qualified people and now invest the money in our staff. We can’t tell the
public we are going to take care of your drainage ditches and detention
ponds and patch your holes and fix your water system unless we hire the
people to do it. If we don’t make the corrections, then we do need to
restructure this government in a way to where we start outsourcing
everything we can and let the private sector do it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I just want to – I’ll be very brief. I think we – everybody
has said what they have to say. On the two motions that are on the floor, I
do think that we need to look at this prior to January. And the reason that
I’m saying that is because I think if we’re going to get the engineers that
Rev. Hankerson talked about into this, we need to work at this during the
budget time and get all that worked out. If we are going to phase this stuff
in, we’re talking about next year, I think we need to do that. So I’m hoping
that we would go in working with this prior to January and we’re going to
see it.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I think Commissioner Hankerson’s comments
were very much on target. I do hope everybody can come under the
umbrella of one motion. And I know now as a senior member of this, of this
body, y’all get tired of hearing me say this about budget, but this is why I
just keep saying it. I said it the last year and I’m saying it this year. And we
talk about money and talk about planning. There is no place to talk about it
other than during budget session. And that’s why I seconded the Finance’s
Chairman’s motion in order to get that done. I think at times you do have to
make adjustments, thought. Both at a lower level and at times in other
departments that may be considered on a higher echelon, if that’s to, if that’s
70
to attract or that’s to get people to do the job. But you’ve got to talk about
all of that in the same context. What I have a void with in looking at this is
that while we’ve addressed the – not the salaries but while we address the
rankings that are within the system that we use, and while Carl Vinson has
looked at that, too, it still does not address the policy needs for being able to
carry out some areas. Now this gets us over into another situation, and that
is whether or not we’re going to up front allow the Administrator to be able
to deal with some of these key and critical areas in terms of being able to fill
these positions. Now Andy brought up some on the tail end of what he said,
and I’ve been saying that I’ve brought to this floor the last budget session,
I’m going to throw it again, I’ve brought it in every Engineering Services
Committee session, but we’ve got to – if we’re talking about the deal of
bond issue money, which is $100,000,000 in one phase and we’re talking
about completing those SPLOSTs, if we’re talking about a solid waste
situation and a landfill, which is critical in dealing with an environment and
coming under court order and we have not only one but two positions,
Director and an Assistant, just basically floating, all that has to be talked
about in the same breath, while you’re talking about the raising of those
particular salaries. If not, it’s crazy. And I think until you do that and you
bring them on. The third thing, and I’ll be finished, is that I think you have
to deal with the monies that we’ve talked about so often for training and for
placing our existing workforce in a position to be able to compete. Maybe
we would have less money spent as opposed in term of comparing the raises
as to what it would actually take, whether you work with Augusta Tech,
whether you work with other programs in getting your existing workforce to
a point that when certain vacancies come through, and I realize you may
search the length and breath of America, but it ought to be to a point that
when a person moves in in the lowest area of a department, that person’s
goal, if they are going to stay with government, ought to be that one day that
can run that department. I think that when you never get to the point of
addressing training and what it takes to put in for an educational program,
which I think can cost far less at times that what we deal with with a million
or two million dollars at a time, putting in to where those that want to
improve themselves and then you have somewhere to put them and to have
upward mobility. I don’t think we’re addressing that at all. And that’s why
I think that motion to put that in the budget season and to address all of that
at the same time is a prudent move to do it. Not just because you’ve got to
go out and explain about what you’re going to deal with with millage.
You’re going to have to deal with whatever it is, whether it stays the same,
whether you increase is, or whether you roll it back. That still has to be
71
addressed. But the citizenry should not feel as though they’re walking into,
you know, what my statement has always been about that, is that you can’t
have preplanned, pre-made-up minds and decisions when you have a
hearing. It’s got to have the openness of that side you’re presenting.
Anything other than that, it’s no need to have it, if that’s the attitude that we
take when we go into it. So I think you’ve got to address that and quite
frankly, the clock on getting that run out on the time [inaudible], Mr.
Finance Chairman, that you set for us to get through that, it’s taken
[inaudible], and we’ve got to put that in place to get that done. It may mean
some things that are procedure during budget season, it may mean some that
we deal with in terms of money. But I think it is very wholeheartedly a
process to deal with going on one hand, while doing some things that are
good, if we still don’t know whether we are going to be in place. Like Andy
said on the tail end of his message, Mr. Mayor, whether we are going to
consult Public Works to death, or whether or not we are going to fill
positions and we going to move on with them. Because we keep getting
these little things and I’ve said it – it’s about the ninth time, gentlemen.
Every time I see a contract that comes up, $60,000 here, $70,000 here,
[inaudible] over a department, another $80,000, another $20,000, pretty soon
we could have hired those folk, got them in place, and if the Administrator
needs a different authorization to move them and get them hired, then let’s
do that part of it. But if we are going to talk about privatization in those
terms, then let’s honestly talk about it on the floor of this Commission and
do it, for God’s sakes, because it’s been a hidden type agenda that’s been
floating out there now for over a year. And we are now into another budget
season and we still have not talked about it in committee, we have not talked
about on this Commission floor, and I pray to God we will discuss it during
budget season this year. Because it has to be addressed. That’s one that
we’ve just got to deal with. And that’s not in the rank and file of what those
surveys says that we are going to deal with the salaries, whether we are
going to talk about ours or Carl Vinson’s. And insurance, that’s still a blind
alley. It’s not complete. Tommy and I recently had a recent employee, not
of his on department, to a point that even though I’m glad that those of us,
we finally got [inaudible] in insurance to move, there are still some things
that are in insurance that still are not clear and are not in the way that that
was supposed to be, even with the portability clause. And that’s an
argument and a discussion for another day. But I remind you, it will be back
cause I’m going to bring it back. So I just think you’ve got a lot out there
that’s still unclear with this proposal and I feel much better voting for
something like this if we are clear up the other issues in those departments
72
and in key areas, particularly where people have helped to hold this
government together, that we said we were going to reward and that we were
going to do, and to do them, and quite frankly we’ve not done those things.
And that’s what I want us to talk about.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, is there anything further? We have before us a
substitute motion from Mr. Hankerson, which would direct the Commission
– yes, sir?
Mr. Hankerson: I’d like to withdraw my motion.
Mr. Mayor: Well, you’re not allowed to withdraw a motion. Once
you make a motion and it’s seconded, it belongs to the body. So we have to
take a vote on it, decide on it. Unless –
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: You’ve never said that before, Mr. Wall. Is there
unanimous consent to allow the Commissioner to withdraw his motion?
Any objection? None heard. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wall.
That takes us to the original motion to send this to the Commission as part of
the budget process for this year. Mr. Shepard made the motion. All in favor
of that, please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough has had to leave for another commitment,
and I have to leave for another commitment tonight, too, so that will require
us to conduct an election for a temporary presiding officer at such time that I
leave, and I’d like to go ahead and conduct that election now in case I have
to leave in the middle of something. The Chair is open for nominations for
the presiding officer.
Mr. Bridges: I nominate Willie Mays.
Mr. Speaker: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a motion that we elect Mr. Mays by acclamation?
All in favor say aye. Mr. Mays, I’ll turn the gavel over to you when I leave.
73
One other, I did have one item on the agenda, on the addendum agenda, if
we could just jump over and take that. It shouldn’t take but a moment.
We’ve been working for some time now to rename Steed Street to Swanee
Quintet to recognize their over 50 years in gospel music and they have a big
program this weekend and we wanted to try and honor them at that program
at Bell Auditorium.
Addendum Item 1. Resolution requesting a road name change of Steed
Street to Swanee Quintet Boulevard.
Mr. Mayor: We have petitioned the residents, we have sent letters to
the residents, we have even had interns walking door to door, and we have
met every test that’s required to change the name of Steed Street to Swanee
Quintet Boulevard, so we would ask, number one, to add this item to the
agenda. Maybe we could get a motion to add and approve.
Mr. Beard: I move that we add and approve this.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to that? All in favor, please vote
aye.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just to give the Commission a heads up,
Butler High School will be coming before this body to rename Benson.,
which is adjacent to Butler, sometime soon, as well.
Mr. Mayor: Very good.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: With unanimous consent, we would ask the Commission
to allow us to delete item number 45 off the agenda.
45. Consider recommendation from the Pension/Finance Committee
regarding the selection of a Financial Advisor for Augusta Richmond
County Pension Funds.
74
Mr. Mayor: The Pension and Finance Committees met this afternoon but
do not have a recommendation for the full body, so we would ask that that
be deleted if there is no objection. So now we’ll go back to the order of
business, Madame Clerk, and at some point I’ll turn the proceedings over to
Mr. Mays. I think item number 11 is next.
The Clerk: There’s three related items. Take all those together?
Mr. Williams: Yes, ma’am. 11 and 12 and 24.
The Clerk:
11. Motion to approve a budget amendment and appropriation of
funds from SPLOST Phase III programmed funds and other revenues
to meet the shortfall arising from the revised construction budget for
the Animal Control Shelter. (Approved by Public Safety Committee
September 23, 2002)
12. Motion to approve the contract award for the construction of new
building for Augusta Animal Control to RCN Contracting, the lowest
bidder, in the amount of $2,083,985. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee September 23, 2002)
24. Motion to approve a budget amendment and appropriation of
funds from SPLOST Phase III programmed funds and other revenues
to meet the shortfall arising from the revised construction budget for
the Animal Control Shelter. (Approved by Finance Committee
September 23, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In committee meeting, the
Administrator brought to our attention that the public [inaudible] would not
be able to do this particular work, would not be able to do the heating and air
and ventilation. But in my contacting Mr. Danny Brown, who is the – I
would say overseer, I guess, for these construction crews, to be sent around
the State of Georgia. You know, we’ve been trying to save money, we’re
talking about the budget, we’re talking about doing some things, and after
talking to Mr. Brown, he informed me that he had not been contacted since
June. He said that he did talk to Mr. Russell, he did talk to Ms. Bragdon, but
they wanted a drop dead date as to when it could be in Augusta. He said that
he could not give them a drop dead date, but he told them that he would be
75
in Augusta the last of September or the first part of October. And that’s still
on line. So before we approve this, Mr. Mayor, I wanted to pull both of this
or all three of these really that concern the Animal Shelter. Mr. Brown
insisted, he told me, since he didn’t hear anything, he assumed that we
maybe had decided to go with a firm of some kind or a construction
company. He said that in nine out of ten areas they been in and projects
would come up, they have saved between 25% and 35% of the entire project.
He asked me about the first meeting and I was at that first meeting, that he
explained to us that they did not do the heating and air and ventilation. He
said that they don’t do the metal work. He said but all that could be subbed
out. He said that we are still on target to come in to Augusta and this is the
rd
3 of October. They are finishing up somewhere now. And I wanted to pull
it to send it back to Committee to do whatever is necessary. We talking
about maybe $600,000 that we can save, in fact the stuff that wouldn’t able
to be done, we may be able to do everything we need to do. Now when the
National Guard was down in Sandersville, the news media portrayed it as if
we had not the fortitude to know about that or something, that we wasn’t
smart enough to take advantage of it. Which I disagree 100%. Cause back
in April, when I saw the National Guard working in Atlanta, I brought it
back to this Commission. My good friend Commissioner Kuhlke gave me a
extra [inaudible] for being so, so studious to know what was going on and
bring it here. Well, here again is an incident we can use to save the citizens
of Augusta Richmond County some money. The Mayor and a lot of the
Commissioners, I don’t know who all, but I know the Mayor was with us,
when we went to Atlanta, we talked to the Director of Corrections there who
told us that they would do whatever is necessary to help us in this way, to
get us on the list. We are scheduled, we are still scheduled to have those
crews to come in here. Warden Leverett have the facility to house them.
They got all the equipment and everything else. They say they can’t do the
metal work. They told us that in the beginning and they can’t do the heating
and air and ventilation. But he said that we can sub that out. But to save
this county $600,000 or more? I think it’s well worth, if it had to take
another month or take another two months to do this project, Mr. Mayor.
But I wanted to pull these three and send it back to Committee to get a
th
chance from Mr. Brown, who is scheduled to come in town on the 7 to
meet with this Committee. I see Fred here, so maybe he’s got some other
information that we’re not [inaudible] to, Mr. Mayor, but I’d like to hear
from him if he has some.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Are you making a motion, Mr. Williams?
76
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I’m making a motion.
Mr. Mayor: All right. And that’s –
Mr. Williams: To send this back to Committee.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Mays: I’ll second it to get it on the floor, Mr. Mayor, cause I
want to hear the whole context of what we’re talking about.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Okay. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Well, I wanted to hear – I was intrigued by Mr.
Williams’ suggestion that we could save some money, but I see the
Administrator and the Assistant Administrator here and also Dr. Bragdon
and my appointee, Angela McElroy-Magruder, to the Board and my former
appointee, Brad Owens, who apparently wanted to address this body. So I
would like to have the input of their, of your recommendation, Mr. Assistant
Administrator, as well as any Board members that want to talk. I think
we’re all in agreement that this project is very badly needed, but we’re
always looking for money up here, as Mr. Williams correctly indicates. Can
we save, can we save any amount of money? $600,000 or less by using
some form of alternate labor? Will this put a monkey wrench in the
implementation of this contract? Please, please speak to those issues. I’m
very concerned about that.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I think Mr.
Williams is exactly right. We went forth several months ago to work with
the Department of Corrections in an attempt to utilize their labor, and I think
Mr. Williams needs to be congratulated for bringing this forward and being
instrumental in that. After several conversations with the Department of
Corrections, with Mr. Brown, our architects met with him, and we’ve looked
at this and tried to figure out how best we could do this project and how best
we could potentially save whatever monies necessary. As you know, this
project has a long history. Prior to my arrival, a long time ago prior to my
arrival, funding was there, funding was not sufficient [inaudible] first bids.
We worked very hard to re-do the building, to reevaluate the building itself.
We rebid that building and found that the savings there would not be
77
significant savings. We negotiated with the original contractor who was low
bid in both bids. We’ve been able to go back to the original size of the
building and the original functions of the building, with a small increase of
about $49,000 over the original bid. So what we’ve been able to do is
negotiate with the low bidder to go back to the original building itself, not
the reduced version that was presented on several occasions. We tried to go
back to that. The Department of Corrections has worked with us very
closely and tried to do this. What they have told us gives us some major
heartburn as we continue to go forth with the building. While they are
willing to do whatever they could do, the potential of doing that creates all
kinds of problems for us internally and externally, to work with our
contractor. What they can do and what they can’t do involves a whole lot of
different scheduling issues, a whole lot of different issues in which they
could their workers here and whatever. The fact they can’t do the HV is
very significant in this particular building, because of the air flow problems
that are inherent in a dog shelter. The necessity of doing that, and doing that
right is very important. The fact they can’t do the additional metal part is
always very significant. The fact that their crews work a little bit slower
than the other people, it also presents a great deal of problems as we start
trying to coordinate the activities of our contractor, to coordinate the
purchasing of the supplies and equipment that would be needed, the building
materials. It’s the recommendation of our architect, the external architect
that we hired to do the building – our internal architect, Rick, who has
worked with us on a regular basis as we’ve attempted to do this, to go forth,
and the savings that they estimate, 25% -- you get $600,000 if you look at
25% of the entire cost of the building. When you start looking at what they
could actually do, that gets, that reduces substantially. That $600,000 very
quickly goes down to a whole lot smaller number. That number gets very,
very small when you start looking at the time frames involved, the impact of
trying to schedule our paid contractors who might be sitting around waiting
for a Corrections crew to finish a job. So you’ve got a paid guy waiting for
the Corrections people to come in and finish, you’ve got the Corrections
people who can’t come in and do the site plan and stuff like that. So what
you’ve got then is a logistical nightmare in there, in the estimate of our
external architect and our internal architect. It’s our feeling and our
recommendation that we would be better off to go ahead, fund the building
the way it’s built, and build the original building as recommended in the
legislation that’s in front of you, and do it that way. The savings, according
to both architects that we have, would not rise any place close to the
$600,000 number that we talked about. If they were doing the entire
78
building, that 25%. In addition, the problems of trying to build the building
using their crews, fluctuating that between the paid crews and whatever
would just be a nightmare. The purchasing of equipment, the purchasing of
supplies would be hard to do with. And we’re looking at stretching out a
project that could be done in less than a year, probably taking an extra 18
months to two years basically.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, if I can
just add quickly. We negotiated the original contract with all the items
added back earlier this month. But it was also contingent that we move
quickly in order for them to hold firm the supplier prices, who have agreed
that they will just to get this project going and off the ground. Everything
Mr. Russell has said regarding this project is what I have learned, and our
recommendation would be to proceed with awarding this contract and
getting it built in the most expeditious manner. I think we’ll find some
savings as we go along if we use this route. Also, it’s going to take about 9
to 12 months to build the building just through a contractor, so we really
need that kind of flexibility using one general.
Mr. Mays: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. May Pro Tem Elect for today. I’m
somewhat in disagreement. When we first went after this, we went to
Atlanta and we talked to the Department of Corrections about bringing some
crews. These people are experts. They may be sentenced right now. They
may be incarcerated. But these are not incarcerated men that we are going to
say well, can you try to put up a building? These guys are professional
bricklayers. They are professional painters. They are professional
electricians who happen to be incarcerated. This is another way of saving
some money for this City. Now I heard Fred say the painter may be waiting
on somebody. But this crew is able to do everything but the air and
ventilation and the metal work. Well, we are going to have to contract that
out. But if we can save any money, if it ain’t but a dollar, we need to save
for this community. I don’t understand how we cannot even want to talk to,
and Mr. Brown said that he had not talked to anyone after Mr. Russell, said
that Mr. Russell asked him for a drop dead date as to when they could be
here. Well, working as slow as anybody else, we had to pay incentives
sometimes now to get businesses or contractors to finish early. How in the
world can we sit here and say they going to be slower than somebody else?
If we going to save some money, I can stand to wait. I mean I ain’t got
79
much, but I got a little time. We ought to be able to wait if we can’t do
anything else. But this is a proven crew who have built court houses, who
have built fire stations, and they got metal in them, they got air conditioning
and heating in them. The other cities that been using this facility have went
out and subbed that work out in that community. So how can we say we
going to build an animal shelter that they can’t do, but they can build court
houses and fire stations and God knows what else? That don’t make good
sense to me. My motion still stands, Mr. Mays. That’s all I say. I just
disagree. If we can save any money at all, we need to try to save it.
Mr. Mays: Let me recognize Commissioner Kuhlke first, cause he’s
not going to be with us through the duration of the meeting, and then
Commission Boyles and Commissioner Shepard, in that order.
Mr. Kuhlke: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Williams, I hear
what you’re saying, and I’m all for saving money also. But I can – giving
you the background of having been in the construction business for almost
40 years, to take this approach on this kind of job would be a holy
nightmare. And the logistics of how you work, how you coordinate the
work, how you get it done, if some work is done faulty, who do you fall
back on at that point if something is done, and I really – while I applaud you
for the efforts that you have made to do this, I think that you would make a
terrible mistake not for us to proceed along the lines that are being
recommended to us today. And maybe there are other things that can take
advantage of that. But this would be – this would be something that I fear
would come back to haunt us.
Mr. Williams: If I can respond, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Let me, let me go in this order. I know I’m going to have
to recognize you again, Commissioner Williams. Let me get to
Commissioner Boyles, Commissioner Shepard, and then now you in that
order.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Williams and I talked about
this a little bit at length while we were debating with the Mayor of Valdosta
the other day in Atlanta. But I just want to maybe echo a little bit about it.
After I thought about it, and thought about the two gymnasiums that the
County government constructed using inmate labor, the one at Belle Terrace,
which is now Henry Brigham, and the one out on Old McDuffie Woods, and
80
it was a logistical nightmare because they could not do the heating and air
conditioning, they couldn’t do the overall metal work, they couldn’t do the
shell of the building that we came back and bricked in. As I recall, we had a
terrible time with the floors out there leaking, water getting underneath, and
it got back to what Mr. Kuhlke just said about who is responsible? I mean
we couldn’t sue ourselves, and we had done that. And while I’m all in favor
of a project of saving the money, I think from experience, when we deal
with the inmate labor, it should be all or nothing. They should do the entire
project and not try to coordinate it amongst two or three other, not general
contractors, but subcontractors. And then, too, I think the degree of
construction as I’ve heard mentioned about the environmental standards for
an animal control building, it’s kind of like building a hospital or something,
even though it’s for the animals. But it’s that same principal, I think, and as
I thought more about it – I didn’t get a chance to talk to you about it this
morning – but I think it just should be an all or nothing, and right now we’re
under so much pressure and presence about doing something with our
Animal Control that at this point I think I’m probably going to have to
disagree with you.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mays. One question, Fred, or maybe
George can respond. When the Sheriff built the evidence building, it was I
think by inmate labor. Was that all inmate labor, or do you remember?
Does anybody know?
Mr. Russell: That predated me, sir. I’m sorry.
Mr. Shepard:
I am intrigued by the possibility of saving money, but
after hearing what Commissioner Boyles had to say, I think I’m convinced
I make the substitute motion to
that we ought to go with what we have, so
approve items 11, 12 and 24.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mays: We’ve got a substitute motion to approve those items as
is. The Chair recognizes back to Commissioner Williams and then to
Commissioner Cheek.
81
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, thank you very much. I’ve got
enough sense to know when I’ve been whipped. I been trying to save, I been
trying to save some money for this government. We have done several
projects, and Commissioner Boyles brought two of them to mind and
Commissioner Shepard brought a third one. I don’t see us walking away
from them. I don’t see them being tore down. I mean there may have been
some headaches. But I think we saved some money. We was criticized
highly, as I said before, about the National Guard doing some demolition
work in Sandersville. We didn’t do that. Now we got an opportunity to take
advantage of some skilled people who are not just here. Mr. Brown, who
told me they had a construction engineer, not incarcerated, but have a
construction engineer to be on the job. Somebody who knows what they are
doing. I probably would be remiss if I didn’t tell you that I got a little bit
more sense than to think we just going to put some people out there to try to
put something together and just hope it stays. But now if this Board decides
not to save any money for this County or not to even go back to committee
and at least talk to Mr. Brown, at least find out before we make a decision on
not doing it. Now we done held it up this long, and I guess two weeks will
kill the project, but I’m through, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I have nothing else to
add to it.
Mr. Mays: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem for a day. I just, with all
the debate earlier about us saving money and millage increases and all, it’s
incumbent upon us to try to find any source of cost reduction that we can.
We have to at least ask the question. I think back and I look only as far as
my tenure here on the Commission and the problems we had with Blythe
Community Center, Blythe area Recreation Center, that we had a legitimate,
so-called, full blown contractor doing the job, and I really don’t think there
has been 100% correction of the problems that occurred as a result of that
nightmare. So there is no guarantee irregardless of things that are thrown
out today that we are going to get a project without the problems that we
would have with the inmate labor. In fact, I think if you look at several of
our projects, holding contractors accountable is probably not something that
we’ve been very good at in the past. But how can we go to the public, even
if it causes a delay? We have staff and scheduling and planning is
something we’re paying people to do anyway. How can we go to the public
and say we need a millage increase or we’ve done a good job with your
money? Even if it’s half of the $600,000 that’s been mentioned, that’s still
82
enough to fund several fulltime employees for the course of a year. We’ve
got to, just for the sake of saving a little bit of inconvenience not throw
things aside because it’s going to be hard to schedule and plan. We have got
to ask the question whether it passes the muster of the vote here of the
Commission or not, to try to save money wherever we can because that is
money we can use in other places. We are funding some positions out of our
one cent sales money that are directed related to projects within one cent
sales. We also have some people doing project work that are being funded
out of one cent sales. Commissioner Williams has been consistent in his
efforts to save money at every turn. I’ll have to echo his concerns. We can
– if there is an opportunity to save money, anything over $10, I think we
ought to at least look at it. If it’s going to take a little longer to complete the
project, I think from what I’m hearing, dealing with any contractor you have
planning and scheduling problems, whether it’s rain or material or other, or
just getting someone on the job to do HVAC or whatever. Other cities are
doing it, and again I just wonder why Augusta can’t.
Mr. Mays: Recognize Mr. Beard. The Administrator had his hand up
to respond, and then I recognize Mr. Beard.
Mr. Kolb: A couple of points that I’d like to point out, Mr. Mayor Pro
Tem, members of the Commission. First of all, again we need to get this
contract approved in order to avoid cost increases that we may experience if
the, if we are unable to hold the costs of materials and subcontractors. We
have been in this situation since the beginning of the year, looking for ways
to save money in order to come in under the budget. We have been unable
to do so with the Department of Corrections. Even after you award it, if you
would like for us to have a conversation with the Department of Corrections
to see if we can work through it, to see if we can get appropriate warranties
even, if there is a chance for us to save money, we will do that. But it is
important that we try and get this contract going, to hold these bid prices.
Otherwise, if we continue on the same trail we have been for the last six
months, we are certainly looking at another project cost increase.
Mr. Mays: Commissioner Beard is next and the Commissioner
Williams.
Mr. Beard: I want to apologize. I didn’t get most of Fred’s
presentment, and don’t want him to go back over it, but if I’m hearing
correctly that someone from the Department of Corrections will come down
83
and explain some things to us and we have not got in on that tail end of it,
and we are not willing to wait and listen to them, I think that’s also a
mistake. I wouldn’t go as far because I don’t know that much about the
construction business, and I think what I heard, it’s probably right. But I do
think we owe it to the public and to others to at least to find out if it’s
possible to save any funds on this. And depending on what the motion is,
when we get there, I’ll ask for what that motion is at that time and I’ll vote
accordingly.
Mr. Mays: I can answer that right now. We’ve got two on there. I’m
going to ask the Clerk, though, to read them before we finish up the
discussion. Commissioner Williams will do his – the floor is his on his
wrap-up discussion, and then I’ll recognize the Assistant Administrator.
Mr. Williams: I just wanted to say the Administrator said that we can
go ahead and award the contract. I mean how in the world can you award a
contract, then go back and say well, we going, we going to take it back from
you now? That don’t make good sense. I mean don’t tell me it’s raining
outside when it ain’t raining. If we going do this, let’s do it. If we are not
going do it, I understand. But it don’t make good sense not to at least listen
to Mr. Brown, who is already scheduled to come to our committee meeting
on Monday. But if this body chooses not to do it, then that’s fine. That’s
all, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Chairman, what’s happened over the past several
months is that the people that you’ve hired to work on this project, myself,
Bonnie, the architect that you hired, has been working with Mr. Brown. And
we have worked very, very hard to try to figure out a way to do this within
the cost constraints that are given to us. It’s not like it’s a magic thing that is
going to happen on Monday, that he’s going to come in and say guess what,
we can save you these kinds of dollars. We’ve had those conversations with
Mr. Brown. We’ve looked at what they could do. We’ve looked at what we
thought the person we would hire to do when we bid this back out again.
Those conversations have occurred. It is the recommendation of our
architect, our internal people, and our staff that the problems involved in this
particular case, working with the Department of Corrections, far overweigh
whatever savings the Department of Corrections might be able to provide for
us. And that’s based on trying to work with them as best we can, listen to
84
what they can do, listen to what we can get done, and then making that
recommendation, to get the building started as best we can. And that’s
where we are at at this particular point in time.
Mr. Beard: I call for the question.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, my hand was up before the question was
called.
Mr. Mays: I’m going to recognize you and I’m also going to
recognize our former Board member from that Board [inaudible] and happy
to see him here, got his post card. I’m glad to see him back. I won’t reveal
what he wrote on the post card. That’s between me and him. But I’ll
recognize Commissioner Williams first.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, my question is when have the
staff worked with the Department of Corrections? When have the engineer
worked with the Department of Corrections on any project before? How can
they make that determination? How can you sit back and look and you
talking about this ain’t personal money, this is taxpayers’ money, and we
need to take advantage of every opportunity to sit down and try. I mean I
can see if we’ve done one of these and it had not worked. Our staff, neither
the engineer or anybody on that, that, that group that Fred mentioned, have
worked with the Department of Corrections before and found this not to be
true. We going on assumptions. And I think the taxpayers of this city ought
to have better than assumptions when we are talking about spending good
money.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, we have been working with the
Department of Corrections since –
Mr. Williams: When have you done a project, though, George?
Mr. Kolb: We have been working –
Mr. Mays: Whoa. Both of you. Let me get one of you at a time. Mr.
Administrator, you finish up. I’ll recognize you for the last wrap-up again,
Mr. Williams, to rebut. But we can’t talk together. Now, go ahead, Mr.
Kolb and then you, Mr. Williams.
85
Mr. Kolb: We have been working with the Department of Corrections
ever since you first directed us to do so. We have been trying to sit down
and put a plan together. Our architect has reviewed all of those plans, he has
been in discussion, detailed discussions to determine what the Department of
Corrections can do, and it’s not feasible to make it work. So we have been
working with them.
Mr. Williams: You have been talking to them, Mr. Kolb. You have
not been – my question was when was there a project done that we worked
with this, with any Department of Corrections matter but this particular one
we’re talking about. Have built court houses, fire stations and everything
else you can name. When have we done a project with them that didn’t turn
out feasible for us to make that determination? We have not done that. Not
one day. We hadn’t even, I don’t think we even visited any of their, their
work that they have done. But we sit here, we sit here and say what they
can’t do. This is up to this Board to make that decision. Whatever decision
y’all make is fine, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. And the question been called, let’s
go ahead and vote, cause I got to go.
Mr. Mays: Let me say this, cause I’m still a voting member of the
body that’s here, and I’m going to make this very brief where you won’t get
me for dictating from the Chair. And I’m going to recognize a former Board
member and then we got two motions on the floor. But I think the really, the
discussion has been good. I think the Commissioner should be really
applauded for bringing the whole issue to the table from the beginning, for
involving the Department of Corrections. What I think would have saved
some of the debate that we are having today is that probably if we had had
this particular report done in a committee meeting, in its entirety, of what
has gone on, or on this Commission floor. I want to see the project
completed. I wish we had enough money to do what we want to do from
start to finish, even the parts that we are not doing with the monies that we
have. I would much rather see it done 100% than doing not anything.
That’s why I seconded the motion to get it on the floor because we were
talking about the possibility of a saving. My interest was that it not just in
saving money, was that if the savings would allow us to do the things that
we are taking out, Dr. Bragdon, that you really need to get done, and it’s not
a wish list of things, they really need to be done. But you’re doing without
them because that’s where we are at that point in the project. But what we
basically were told was that this was something that could not be done. Now
what I have a problem with, and I don’t think the department head, Dr.
86
Bragdon, ought to be caught in the middle of the deal with any of the blame
in that. But Mr. Administrator, I think where we do have a problem is the
fact that if we got on board somebody coming from an agency to address
something from a committee standpoint, that it just somehow, this is not a
good case of good PR. It’s not a finger-pointing, but it’s just a point that the
overall situation where we asked the State to do things. If there is going to
be a report done, if they are going to send a letter, we need to hear what the
letter says. I thought Administrator Russell’s report was a good report. I
thought it was thorough. But I do think to a point when I hear about saving
$600,000, I assume, when I cast my vote in committee and am going along,
that basically this was just something that was over and done with then
months ago. Now I find we’ve got somebody coming to us to a point of
having something that may be open. I just think to a point while we may not
do this with the State on this project, we need to be very careful, gentlemen,
and ladies, of the government, what we ask for and what we request of
agencies. Because if the State is building some things, they may not be able
to do this one. They may not be able to do this one. But if they are doing
projects, then somehow or another, architects and contractors that they are
working with in other counties, small and large, somebody is coordinating
those projects, somebody is getting them done. And I mentioned this in
committee when we voted, that we took on a low bidder. We saddled Dr.
Bragdon and those with that before you left, Brad. And, and, and the guy, as
soon as he had about two hours of meeting what to do with the project, he
kind of found out that maybe he was in the wrong place at the wrong time
period, that he couldn’t do anything. So now she’s now there stuck with,
with, with, with hopefully this time a good architect that can complete the
project. But I just think that when we go up and we meet with the State and
then we don’t do it, this is a type of report, quite frankly, that once it was
done internally, I’m just sorry, I’m going to say it and say it publicly, this
report, once it was done internally, ought to be made public, then I think you
would have had a non issue of whether you had an agency person coming
from the State next week or not, it would have been known and it would
have basically been over with. And I think those of us who wanted to hear
what he had to say did so based on the fact that it would be a legitimate
savings, and if we could take the legitimate savings and get not only the
project done but get the things that we were cutting out of the project, that I
want to still see done, put in there and get them done at the same time. I just
think that it gets to that deal of when you get nobody talking, it can be the
best feature in the world, but if it’s two to three weeks late, then it’s got folk
87
in different camps to deal with it. Brad, I’m going to recognize you and my
Finance Chairman has got his hand up next.
Mr. Owens: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, y’all know I have been working on
this Animal Control issue for years, ever since Steve appointed me. And I
was very passionate about it when I was on the Board and I’m sad that I
can’t still be there now, and I was happy to hear that y’all found the extra
money to fund this vital and necessary project. And I appreciate Mr.
Williams trying to save any money, cause I’m a taxpayer in this county, just
like everybody in here. But I’m going to tell you, we have put off this
project year after year after year. And this is something that the people
want. Pick up the newspaper. There are still letters in there every other
week or every other day in there about the Animal Control shelter and how
the animals get treated. I know that y’all are tired of hearing it. Hey, you
know how many calls I answered in the middle of the night over Animal
Control issues? A bunch. And I was proud to do it. But I’m telling you,
this possibility that maybe these prisoners can come out here and maybe
help us out and save us a dollar, let me tell you, we’ve been fighting too long
for this. And one thing, you are not talking about digging ditches and laying
bricks. That’s just one small part of it. You’re talking about a complex
facility which has specific needs. It must be built correctly according to
specifications or it’s not going to be right. Now Mr. Tommy said when they
worked with them, the floors leaked, they couldn’t do this, they couldn’t do
that, it was a nightmare. You’ve got a many with 40 years of experience
sitting right here saying it’s not going to work. I don’t think this is
something that you need to debate. It needs to be done. Either you are for
public safety, you’re doing the right thing for the community, or you’re for
delaying it. Now I think if anybody here wants to spend the SPLOST money
on something else, Mr. Cheek, you can’t hire – you know good and well you
can’t use SPLOST funds to hire employees, am I right?
Mr. Cheek: We’re doing it right now.
Mr. Owens: You’re using SPLOST money?
Mr. Cheek: We’re paying project people out of SPLOST money, yes.
Mr. Owens: But I mean you can’t go out and hire a permanent
employee out of SPLOST funds. Am I right? You can’t do that. So that’s a
non issue. The issue here is either you’re for, you’re either for finishing the
88
project, which we started some six years ago, and the public has already
voted on this twice. So don’t tell me the public has no input. They have
voted and approved these funds twice in a row. Commissioners, I would
urge you as a former Board member and a voting member of this
community, to do the right thing, put these monies over there. I mean we’ve
already got a great Director, the only licensed vet running any public facility
in the State of Georgia, and she says she needs it. And I say we give it to
her. You either going to give her the tools to do the job or you’re not. Now
I say do it. I’m advising you, hey, go ahead, put the money over there, it’s
the right thing to do, don’t stall this two more weeks on a maybe from some
Correction board; okay? That’s another government agency. Let’s take the
bid we’ve got. They’ve worked with us beyond what probably any other
construction company would do. Let them build it, and let’s get this issue
behind us. You won’t have to deal with it any more. And that’s all I’ve got
to say.
Mr. Mays: Commissioner Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mays. I’d be remiss if I didn’t thank
Mr. Owens for his recent service in Kuwait. He’s back and we appreciate
his service to our country over there. There are other forms of public
service, and you know, he was my former appointee to this Board. I’d like
to introduce now my present appointee to this Board, who asked to speak,
Angela McElroy-Magruder. Angie? You’ll notice quite a difference in my
appointees.
Mr. Mays: You did a much better job on the second round.
(Laughter)
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mays, I thought somebody might pick up on that.
Ms. McElroy-Magruder: I think a community is defined by how we
treat those who cannot defend themselves. By definition, we are a
substandard community. The facilities are atrocious. I invite any of y’all to
go spend a day there and then call and tell someone you would want to work
there or you would want to wait three years to have a facility that you
wanted to go to work or you wanted to go to to adopt a dog. I am a
taxpayer. This is my money. I do not want convicts in control of $2 million
of the taxpayers’ money. Now it’s been said that they are professionals. I
89
don’t think if they had violated the rules and laws of this community that we
can term them professionals. They are not. They are convicted felons. We
should support the businesses in our community in awarding them projects
before we support the convicts. Time is money. The cost of supplies is
going up. Labor is going up. And if we sit on this, prices go up and it may
not be affordable in the future. There must be some legal accountability. If
a child is injured by something falling from the ceiling, who is responsible?
They go to an attorney, who do we sue? Sue the City? Sue the convicts
who erected the building? You ask an HVAC guy to come in and put in
hearing and air. Is he going – he’s going to charge more, but because he has
to come in, put that HVAC in, [inaudible] anything that was done wrong by
an inmate, and that by its very nature is going to cost more. I ask you to –
Mr. Cheek pointed out you can’t get something for nothing, and that’s what
we’re trying to do. We’re trying to save money by hiring convicted felons to
do work. I don’t want them building my home and I don’t want them
building an animal shelter for my community. Thank you.
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Cheek did have his hand up and then we’re going to
wrap it up.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mays. I’m not going to beat this dead
horse or dog, as it were, any longer, but I do want to make, state for the
record that we have several fulltime employees that are being costed out to
SPLOST funds under the projects in Public Works and Recreation and some
other departments.
Mr. Kolb: Yes, but they are charged to the administration of that
project, not to the general work.
Mr. Cheek: But it is SPLOST money paying for it.
Mr. Kolb: As a part of the project.
Mr. Cheek: Right. As a part of the project, but just to straighten that
out a little bit, because I do my homework. Although I’ve been called many
things and so forth, I do my homework and I know where cost goes. We do
that, too. Project cost also pays for employees. That’s a standard industry
practice. We do have to at least ask the question. I don’t think that the track
90
record in Augusta is that stellar for fulltime contractors doing work that’s
above average. I think we get average work at best because we have not got
a good track record of holding people accountable that do work for us.
That’s, I think that is a proven fact. We do need to get on with this project.
I appreciate the volunteers that work so hard out there and put in all their
time. I could care less what a person does. In fact, if you look at a lot of
construction rolls, you are going to see a lot of people that are somewhat less
than cornerstones of the citizenry who are laying bricks and doing
construction work. They still do good quality work. The biggest thing is
getting this project done on time and on budget. I just need to point out, and
I’ll close with this. If we save 1/6 of the $600,000, $100,000, that is at least
one fulltime employee, a full blown engineer project manager who could
coordinate these efforts. $200,000 is two staff engineers and a secretary. I
mean the money is there to pay for employees to cover this and coordinate
the work. Subcontractors every day have different groups coming in to put
in HVAC and other stuff. I mean that’s also done. It’s no big deal that we
do it here. We can talk about the sky falling, but it’s not. If we can save
money for the people of Augusta, this is one Commissioner that’s going to
do it.
Mr. Mays: We have two – would you restate the motions, Madame
Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, Mr. Mays. The substitute motion by Mr. Shepard
was to approve items 11, 24 and 12.
Mr. Mays: That’s substitute?
The Clerk: That’s substitute. The original motion was to send back to
committee for further study.
Mr. Mays: Let me, let me just ask this question of the Attorney. And
what, what, what I’m trying to do is develop at least some compromise or
protocol. Cause I can go ahead and vote. I just voted in committee to do
this. And I seconded it mainly because I wanted to hear the analysis of the
report in its entirety as to what had gone on. Because I think while we may
not want to have the State involved with its labor force, from convicts doing
certain things. That may be true with some. I say this to my warden, and I
thank him with [inaudible]. I’m one of those that is glad that in the part of
the District that I share with Rev. Williams that if we didn’t have them, we
91
wouldn’t have had swimming pools and some other stuff that the public uses
every day, that our children used this summer, got in on time, if we had not
had them. The park there on Broad Street would not have been built and
done without convicts, so they do a little bit more than clean ditches and
clean up, while they’re doing that. In fact, if I had my way [inaudible], I’d
like to see a lot of them out there on the electronic brakes that’s working,
rather than eating three squares and sitting down every day. But that’s,
that’s a non issue. But Jim, if we go ahead and we approve the contract,
then what dialog do we have with the gentleman from the State when he,
when he comes, because I think there is an element of protocol that ought to
be at least above board in, in this, in where we’re doing. Because I still
think the timing is a factor. I voted for it the other day. I’m prepared to vote
for it today. But I do have a huge problem when we go to Commissioner
Irvin’s office, when we sit down and we do this, and if they can’t do it, then
I ain’t got no problem with that. But I think when, when, if, if, if that was a
no-no, then I just would have felt more comfortable hearing the Deputy
Administrator’s report, which I still say was a darn good one. I just think
with what y’all wrapped up in staff ought to have been discussed, brought in.
There would have been a no-no. Then you wouldn’t have had to contact
with the Commissioner on that end of putting that together and doing it.
And we start talking about $600,000, regardless of who does it, then I think
you, you need to at least listen to that. So now what, what do you tell him.
You, you mentioned the fact, George, of some type of compromise, of going
back and seeing could they work with us on some things in terms of doing
that. And I just want to know once we go ahead and award a contract, do we
still have, Jim, some capacity to work with the State on it? Because I don’t
want to get in a slam-the-door policy on the State with the animal shelter,
Dr. Bragdon, and then we got 50 other issues that we need to go back to
them with this City to a point and they think we playing with them when we
come to them. We don’t need to have that type of PR floating out there with
the State of Georgia. And that’s important.
Mr. Kolb: Commissioner Mays, what I had on my mind, and would
be, of course, with the concurrence of our Attorney, is to see specifically if
we could work with the contractor and subcontract some of that work out, or
at least take it out of the contract and allocate it to the, to the Corrections
Department. I don’t know if that would work.
Mr. Mays: Let me ask you this. Is there anything that talks, that you
did? Because I think if you are saying it wouldn’t work, we need to trust
92
administration to say that it wouldn’t work. I am [inaudible]. If you are
going back to deal with that, then I think that’s what we need to know.
Mr. Kolb: I don’t think it would work. We already tried it. And even
to get the whole project to the Department of Corrections. Dr. Bragdon
probably can tell you much more in detail what we talked about. We did go
through it in committee, but we can tell you what we did talk about.
Mr. Mays: I’m going to recognize you, Mr. Beard. Y’all ain’t going
to do me like Bob. One of y’all going talk. [inaudible] ends at the same
time. Now I’m going to recognize you. You have the floor.
Mr. Beard: Thank you. Maybe this could work. I’m just trying to
find a compromise that you’ve been trying to find for a few minutes. The
compromise to me would be, we can approve this on the basis of what we
hear from Mr. Brown, and this may be getting off, Jim, so you correct me if
I’m out, what we hear from Mr. Brown on Monday. If he’s coming here
Monday and that’s the tail end I got in on, if he’s coming in here on
Monday, can’t we approve this subject to what we hear from the – so that
wouldn’t be held up another two weeks?
Mr. Wall: Well, I’m trying to figure out how to do that. You could
approve it subject to who is making the call. I mean who is going to make
the call about whether or not you’re satisfied with what Mr. Brown says or
not? And I don’t think you can delegate that. So in my –
Mr. Beard: He’s going to appear before a committee, isn’t it?
Mr. Wall: All right. Subject to –
Mr. Beard: That committee.
Mr. Wall: That committee making the decision to –
Mr. Beard: Well, most of –
Mr. Well: See, that’s the problem. I mean you’re basically as a
Commission delegating that decision to some subordinate, either committee
or the Administrator or the Department Director. And I don’t know how
you could do that. My concern is that, and I hope y’all have heard this,
93
cause as I understand it, now I haven’t had any discussions with the
contractor. We may lose a contractor if this is delayed two weeks. I mean if
I’m understanding what they’re telling me, they are saying that the
contractor has agreed to hold the prices until this decision is made today.
Now whether he will or will not pull his prices, I don’t know.
Mr. Beard: But I think if that’s true, then we are going to have to go
on something, for somebody to approve this on Monday, and I think that’s
the only way you are going to get the votes today, is that at least we hear
from Mr. Brown on, or whoever that is, on, on Monday. And I think we are
going to have to delegate that, or possibly a called meeting, or something of
that nature Monday afternoon, to deal with this. Because I don’t think we
could take a chance on losing the contract. And I’m sure we don’t want to
take a chance on losing whatever that figure that was thrown out, whatever it
was, $600,000, whatever that was. But we need to get things in place here
so that we can move on.
Mr. Wall: And let me follow up with that, Mr. Chairman, if I may,
with another question. I see four of you standing up, looking like y’all are
ready to go out the door. And I don’t know that we are going to cover
everything that’s on this agenda. And one of them, I want to talk with you
about in a legal session before you leave. And I’m wondering if – I mean
you can have a called meeting Monday, but – and we can finish up some of
the items that are here on this agenda that it doesn’t look like we are going to
get to.
Mr. Mays: Well, there are two motions on the floor. I think we are
going to go on and get a vote on them either way, and then if that’s not
[inaudible] done, then we can do it at that time. My question will be, Jim, if
we go ahead and approve and knowing that the person for the State is
coming, I’m prepared to go ahead on and vote myself today to do this, but
even, with him coming on Monday, and today being Thursday, do you even
have a contract in place by the time he comes on Monday anyway, that’s
been signed and executed by all the parties, in place? So he comes on
Monday, you really don’t have one. I think if you go ahead on, and you can
correct me if I’m wrong on that, but I don’t think you are going to have one
that’s there in place. The way we vote and the way we do, you ain’t going
to be ready to have one done by the time he gets here. What I think we need
to do in this spirit of what’s been done with the committee, this will get us
off square one, is to go on and vote one way or the other. This may not,
94
neither one of them may not pass. But I think if you vote on it, and then if
you hear what he has to say is different, I think our administrative staff is in
place to make the presentation, basically [inaudible] and I’m pretty much
clear on that. But I just don’t want to put to a point where we shun a State
agency that we go and solicit from, and if y’all have gotten basically no-no’s
out of that group, then I can live with that. But I think if you got somebody
coming, that you still need to treat as a guest.
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question.
Mr. Mays: Now that’s just how I was raised and it’s called manners.
And you need to deal with that. Cause if you went to them that time, it
won’t be the last time you go them.
Mr. Wall: And if I’m understanding you correctly, basically you’re
saying going ahead and approve –
Mr. Mays: Well, it may not. That, that, that’s the decision this group
will make. I just said what I can do, I’m prepared to go on and give it that
vote, knowing that you are going to have a committee meeting on Monday
and the State person is going to be here. And if he says something totally
different, then as I said, not knocking the signatures that go on contracts, but
just the way we work, it won’t be one that will be ready.
Mr. Wall: And I agree with you, but I think what you need to put in
place is a called meeting so that you can reconsider if you need to.
Mr. Mays: What we got, well, that, that, that may be anyway, because
the way we dwindling, you may not have enough folk to finish out this
agenda. So you may have to deal with a called meeting anyhow, so I don’t
think we need to get hung up on that. I’m going to go ahead and call for the
question on the substitute motion that’s out there first. Let us vote on it up
or down, and if that doesn’t pass, then we’ll go to the other one, and then
let’s get it out the way, and then y’all can go wherever y’all need to go,
cause it look like I’m going to lose most of you anyway.
Mr. Bridges: What’s the substitute motion, Mr. Chairman?
95
The Clerk: To approve items 11, 12 and 24 as printed in the agenda.
Awarding the contract, to approve the SPLOST III reprogramming of the
funding for the construction of the Animal Control shelter.
Mr. Beard: What was the other motion?
The Clerk: To refer back to committee for further study and
discussion.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question. Call the question, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mays: All in favor of the substitute motion will do so by the
usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Williams and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 7-2.
Mr. Mays: Madame Clerk, you’ve got one that I am going to lose the
Commissioner to my right. I’m going to lose some more to my right. Bad
day to be on the right. But give me – can we go to Bill’s and then go to 44,
are they the same number?
The Clerk: The Clerk: Mr. Kuhlke would like to get
No, sir.
added and approved funding for engineering services for the Judicial
Center in the amount of $12,500.
Mr. Bridges: So move.
Mr. Shepard: Second. Add and approve.
Mr. Mays: Motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? If
not, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the
same.
Mr. Colclough, Mr. Williams and Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 7-0.
96
Mr. Mays: Can we go to 44?
The Clerk:
44. Receive report from the Internal Auditor regarding confirmation
of all Augusta Richmond County bank accounts. (Referred from
September 23 Finance Committee meeting)
Mr. Mays: You are going to do that one, Mr. Cosnahan? Okay. And
not to rush you, you’ve been with us all day. But is it pretty long or is it
short?
Mr. Cosnahan: Give me to minutes.
Mr. Mays: Okay.
Mr. Cosnahan: You have the report that’s in your agenda package,
and in a nutshell, the City, County has about 40 accounts. We confirmed all
of those with the various banks. We received information back that four of
those have signers that are not appropriate. That’s former employees. We
also have legitimate signers, too, so there is no hang-up with any of the
accounts. Out of those, two of those, we got information from the banks that
information had been given to them to break those and they had not followed
through with those. We went over this with the Finance Director and his
assistant controller. All of these are in the process of being updated. So I
would expect within another week or ten days they will all be current and we
will have all current signatures on them.
Mr. Mays: Mr. – before you go any further, and I think speakers are
pretty loud. Technology covers [inaudible] in the other room. But I
[inaudible] just a minute. We had some long natural human resource breaks,
but I need him in place so that we are thoroughly legal, yes, sir.
Mr. Cosnahan: [inaudible] Mr. Boyles, I said – oh, you heard all that?
Okay.
Mr. Mays: The Chair recognizes Commissioner Hankerson then.
Commissioner Hankerson.
97
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I asked for this
report because of the fact that we, we need to know how many accounts that
we have out there. I heard before, in Grand Jury report, that accounts were
illegal and so forth, and out of this I, I, I hear Mr. Cosnahan, our internal
auditor, say we have 40 accounts?
Mr. Cosnahan: Yes.
Mr. Hankerson: It’s not 40 accounts addressed in your report.
Mr. Cosnahan: Yes, sir, if you take them and total them up.
Mr. Hankerson:
Oh, okay. Okay. I apologize. But I talked to, I
talked to him this week, and I want to know also – we didn’t ask for it in the
request of how much money we’re talking about in these accounts out here.
As you notice in the report, 15 of these accounts have – we have 15 illegal –
we have 15 illegal signatures in 12 accounts. That’s the 12 headings that
you have. And I think that we need to look at that and get our information
current. My question as a new Commissioner is when we talk about all
these authorized accounts, who authorized these accounts, how much money
in them, are these bank accounts now necessary to have? I think that we
need to look at them and see whether they are necessary. I find out that in
the report that we even have former employees and even one former elected
official that’s names are still on the signature accounts. So we are all out of
date and I think we need to bring this information up current. This has been
going on and going on and I am kind of puzzled that this has not been
detected sooner, since we had such intensive Grand Jury report, too, on
accounts that seems that all of these would have came up because we do
have a lot of illegal persons on these cards here. Some of them, I think, one
of them – I looked at – everybody is former employees. So to make it short,
I want to put into a motion that our Internal Auditor proceed in getting
the bank balances, I’d like to know the bank balance, and also that the
Administrator determine what accounts are necessary for us to have –
Mr. Mays: Just if I could interrupt you just one second,
Commissioner Hankerson. I’m sorry to do that, but we are down below
quorum in the middle of this and we are going to have to –
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] be right back.
98
Mr. Boyles: This is a problem with elongated meetings that we have.
Mr. Mays: The are going to get worse.
Mr. Hankerson: I’ll restate the motion. Thank you, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Hankerson: The motion was that our Internal Auditor
proceed in getting the bank account balances and that the
Administrator determine what accounts are necessary and start
immediately updating the signature cards with current signatures and if
we could get that report back by our next Commission meeting.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mays: Motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
Does the Administrator have anything that you all may be working on, the
Finance Director, to add to that recommendation [inaudible]?
Mr. Cosnahan: Could I ask Commissioner Hankerson one question?
We talked a little bit about this on the phone. You mentioned [inaudible]
bank balance. There is a difference, of course, between the balance in the
bank and the balance on the books. Outstanding checks, deposits in transit.
You want us to report back to you the balance for the bank accounts shown
on the books of the City? There could be a big difference in the amounts, is
my point.
Mr. Hankerson: Both.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
Mr. Cosnahan: That will take time.
Mr. Hankerson: What is most important for me to know, that how
much are in these accounts, per bank.
Mr. Cosnahan: [inaudible] books of the City. And we’re talking
th
about like September 30 would be a good cut-off time. You know, to give
you the balances as of then.
99
Mr. Hankerson: Okay.
Mr. Mays: Commissioner Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. –
(End of first tape; beginning of second tape)
Mr. Cosnahan: -- reported that we have three unauthorized signers on
it. We have a copy that we sent over to the bank that the Clerk of
Commission signed. Just make it three current employees. They did it on
one but didn’t do it on the other one. The only account that we have
determined in here is an account for the Boxing Club. The Box Club money
is not Augusta Richmond County’s money. It should not be on the books, it
should not be with the Augusta Richmond County ID number.
Mr. Boyles: That was what I had in mind, because I remember back
in my past days when the government assumed the operation of the Boxing
Club, and you remember, Jim, you might remember that that was kind of set
up under the Juvenile Court system, and Mr. Moraetes used this money to
raise funds in the community and they donated to that purpose. And I think
there was some State money. I think Sen. Cheeks got some money to put in
there. And looking above it, at the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam, you
know, that came up while I was Recreation Director. They may be from the
old City, because the old City transferred that over and it may not even be
known what’s there now.
Mr. Speaker: What it is, Commissioner Boyles, that came up as a
result of the flood or the --
Mr. Boyles: Okay.
Mr. Speaker: Or the [inaudible] , and the Corps of Engineers agreed
to pay like a million dollars provided that the City pay half of it. And the
City put $500,000 in the account, of which I think $400,000 has been used
up. And it’s still in a construction account, so it’s still proper.
Mr. Boyles: But the signatures, would that be somebody from Mr.
Persaud’s office or would that be somebody from Recreation?
100
Mr. Speaker: That’s what concerns me. If it’s from the official
Finance Department, I don’t have a lot of problem with it. But I think if it’s
done by the Department Head, the one that we are talking about was of
concern to us, because it was one that the bank reported back they had no
signature card on file. And we know, of course, they had to have some in
order to open it.
Mr. Boyles: They lost the card?
Mr. Speaker: And what has happened, too, just to move along, is that
back in ’99, we went through this. And I know that we sent all the
information to the banks and so forth. But the banks, between here and
Atlanta, or maybe in North Carolina, wherever they are, don’t do what they
are supposed to do. But one of the documents we have, we got Ms. Bonner
to sign it, had two accounts on it, getting the bank to change signatures to
these. One of them got changed and the other one didn’t.
Mr. Boyles: I was thinking, too, that I remember when we went to a
system of all the Recreation areas were dropping a night bag of collected
funds during the day from registration fees and whatever else. And we went
to I think Nations Bank at that time because that was who the County, the
bank the County was doing their business with. So we opened up, I think
about, you had to open an account at every branch for them to handle it, so it
got to be an awful long number of accounts. But Internal Audit and the
Finance Director at that time always were on top of that.
Mr. Speaker: That was done for safety purposes.
Mr. Boyles: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: Now to answer again a question, if the Commission
approves for accounts to be set up, you do not control elected officials, the
judges and so forth, the Tax Commissioner. That’s where a lot of these
accounts are. It’s not in the Finance Department. As you can tell from the
schedule. And one thing that you’ll notice on the report is we didn’t give
out names and ID numbers. Actually we got a social security number back
from the bank on one of the accounts. We didn’t put that in because we
didn’t want a security loss.
101
Mr. Hankerson: The more I hear this, the more serious is gets. When
we have social security numbers. A lot of these accounts, like you said, are
elected officials, but a lot of them are not. And those -- I’m concerned about
all of them. Who authorized the accounts to be opened? We have all of
these accounts? Who authorize account to be opened? Can I get with a
couple of Commissioners and go and open an account in the City’s name?
Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately, you probably could. If you know a
banker, they would probably open it up since you are a Commissioner. The
proper way and the right way is for it to be approved by the Commission.
Mr. Hankerson: So I’m directing this question to our Administrator.
Who authorized -- I know some of them, a lot of them, probably most of
them was here before you came, probably, but who -- our Attorney -- who
authorizes individuals to open up an account? And where the money comes
from that’s placed in these accounts, how the money’s spent?
Mr. Kolb: It depends on if they ask, it depends on if they don’t ask.
Mr. Hankerson: Ask who?
Mr. Kolb: If they ask you as a Commission, if they ask the Finance
Director, if they ask me. If they ask me, it’s going to the Commission. I
think that is the appropriate way. If they don’t ask and just go to the bank to
open an account, you know, how do you know? And if they happen to have
tax ID number, how would you know?
Mr. Hankerson: I’m hearing you say that someone can come to a
Commissioner and just get permission; is that legal?
Mr. Kolb: No, I’m saying -- well, I said --
Mr. Hankerson: You said ask me.
Mr. Kolb: If they ask the Administrator, if they ask me, then I’m
going to advise them to follow the procedure and get the Commission to
approve it.
Mr. Hankerson: But you said they could ask could ask me, ask a
Commissioner.
102
Mr. Wall: I didn’t hear that. Maybe you did. Effectively, the
Commission can [inaudible] perhaps created as a result of a grant that they
[inaudible] or a contract that they [inaudible] or some type of special
funding [inaudible]. Once y’all approve that grant, that is in my opinion a
direction for the administrative staff, mostly the Administrator and Finance
Director, to set up a checking account to handle those State funds or Federal
funds or grant funds, whatever they may be. And so I think that as an
administrative matter, the Administrator, and I would not say the Finance
Director, I would think the Administrator would authorize the creation of an
account [inaudible].
Mr. Kolb: But there is no way, if I may add, there is no way I could
begin to monitor the thousands of potential people that would just go to the
bank and open up an account. I mean I don’t know how we would monitor
that.
Mr. Mays: Well, let me just say this and make a suggestion. It’s not
to be dealt with for today, cause I think everybody needs to be here. I think
we can go ahead with the motion from Mr. Cosnahan to continue, but I do
think that our department [inaudible] but I think we ought to be open minded
and willing enough to listen to Finance if there are some changes that need
to be made on policy, cause one thing I think we need to correct in a public
meeting. Right now is the fact that I know that [inaudible] take in what’s
given to you about these accounts, but I think Jim will bear witness to me on
this. Every bank account that you’ve got out there, not just ones that you’re
talking about, about these little smaller accounts that may be out there in the
City’s name or where employees may use them. I’m talking about mega-
bucks accounts when money is moved from one to another. Those are not
things that come before this Commission to be voted on by us to say where
that money goes. And I just want to correct that a little bit. Maybe that’s
something that we may need to do. But at this point in time, that is not a
rule of this Commission, nor is there a City ordinance which requires that to
be done. So there may be something that the Administrator, you and Mr.
Persaud, may come up with if you see the need to strengthen something to
do that, then we can be receptive to take that in. But there is no law which
states that every bank account out there, maybe that’s why they are like that.
But these, you’ve got some that are extending back now into decades of
accounts that are there, and from the old Commission or from the old City,
now into the consolidated government, there is no ordinance, there is no
103
rule, and we do not know what’s being voted upon when money is moved
from one bank to another nor opened up. So I just wanted to put that out
there, that we need to make that correction. Is there a motion on the floor?
Okay. Did he get a second on that, Ms. Bonner?
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mays: Okay. And I think --
The Clerk: Mr. Kuhlke seconded it.
Mr. Mays: Okay. There being no further discussion on that motion,
all in favor of the motion will do so by, will do so by electronic count, will
do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Williams, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mays: Now can we get -- let’s see, we have two left on consent.
15. Motion to approve the acquisition of four (4) Crown Victoria
automobiles for the Augusta Richmond County Marshal’s Department
from Allen Vigil Ford of Morrow, Georgia for $24,767.00 each. (Lowest
bid offer on Bid 02-171) (Approved by Finance Committee September
23, 2002)
23. Motion to approve the acquisition of one (1) Work Detail Van fro
the Augusta Richmond County Correctional Institute from Bobby Jones
Ford of Augusta, Georgia for $24,351.46. (Lowest bid offer on Bid 02-
155). (Approved by Finance Committee September 23, 2002)
Mr. Shepard: I move we approve the vehicles by consent.
Mr. Bridges: That’s items 15 and 23?
Mr. Mays: Yes, sir.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
104
Mr. Mays: Motion and a second on those items. Being no further
discussion, all in favor will do so by the usual sign. Opposed, likewise.
Mr. Williams, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 7-0.
The Clerk: We have a retreat item. Item 42.
Mr. Bridges: 42?
Mr. Mayor, I’d
Mr. Shepard: Understand we want to discuss that.
make a motion that we adjourn -- not adjourn, but that we recess our
meeting until Monday at 11:30 a.m. and finish the remaining agenda
items, including that item, as well as the legal meeting and all other
items.
Mr. Kuhlke: I second that.
Mr. Mays: Motion and a second. The Chair recognizes Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Shepard, you think that they might be through with
[inaudible] by 11:30, that tax hearing?
Mr. Shepard: Well, the Commissioners will be working then, Mr.
Boyles.
Mr. Mays: Let me make one suggestion. Maybe let’s do this. Let’s
do with the time to get your retreat in on the recess and do it, and then if
legal permits us to do, that we maybe agree in there that if legal is not
through at the time to start the committee meetings, that we adjourn legal
and we start the committee meetings on time at 12:30. Then if it’s
[inaudible] of Mr. Wall to do then, that will be an incumbent way to push
everybody through the committee meetings, and that the folk that need to
hear legal would have to stay to the end of the committee meetings like
those of us who serve on the first one and the last one. But we’ll get the
retreat item out of the way first. It will be there and we will do that. Then
we’ll deal, if Jim’s got something, which is maybe short or long, we can get
that out of the way, too. But if it drifts over into an hour, we just can’t have,
Jim, the public sitting here with lots of stuff, waiting on us to get through
with the committee starting late.
105
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: Well, let me just say this to make sure they got everything
on there. I thought we were through. The retreat, we still --
The Clerk: [inaudible] recess. Reconvene [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: Recess until 11:30 Monday. All the items that have not
been handled will be handled at that time.
Mr. Mays: With legal coming last?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: Legal [inaudible]. That’s the only reason I said that. All
in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, same.
Mr. Williams, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 7-0.
[MEETING RECESSED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
106