HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 3, 2002 Augusta Richmond County Commis
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, Beard 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 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
1
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 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.
2
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.
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
3
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, 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
4
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 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
5
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 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
6
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. 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
7
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 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.
8
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 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
9
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 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
10
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 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
11
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 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.
12
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 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.
13
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?
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
14
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
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
15
the point of away from your urban center, where 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 immediately
ButI have no problem
have the impression that we’re trying to bully everything.
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 encouraging you to join the Unified Development Authority one way or
another.
16
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 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
17
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?]
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
18
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?
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.
19
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?
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.
20
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.
.
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.
21
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
st
back here, by 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 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
22
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.
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?
23
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 --
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.
24
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
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.
25
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.
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.
26
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.
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.
27
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]
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?
28
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?
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?
29
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.
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.
30
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.
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
31
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.
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
32
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 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
33
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 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
34
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 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?
35
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 the fact that
I move that we uphold the Ordinance as it is and deny
that is a synagogue, and
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
th
vote – Commission September 17 meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty? Where is Mr. Patty? Is the petitioner here?
36
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.
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.
37
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, but I just wanted to add my
thth
Constitutional rights on the record, my 5 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)
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?
38
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.
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?
39
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.
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.
40
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?
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
41
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 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
42
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.
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.
43
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 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
44
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 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.
45
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.
(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?
46
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.
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
th
Commission September 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
47
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 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
48
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?
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
49
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.
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.
50
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, 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
51
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 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.
52
Mr. Mayor: All right. Would you like to pull any items from the consent
agenda, please?
Mr. Shepard: Item 9.
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
53
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 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
54
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 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)
26. Motion to approve amendment General Fund Budget to include
Brownfield Grant revenue and related expenditures. (Approved by Finance
Committee September 23, 2002)
55
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 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)
56
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)
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.
57
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 sorry,
What I think would be more prudent to do, since we
one the week after that.
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
so I think that we should just hold this
come about, when and if we adopt this,
58
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 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,
59
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 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
60
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 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
61
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.
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
62
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 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?
63
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. 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
64
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 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
65
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 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
66
to, if that’s 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
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
67
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 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?
68
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. 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.
69
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.
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:
70
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 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
rd
on target to come in to Augusta and this is the 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
71
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?
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
72
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 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
73
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 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.
74
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 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.
75
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 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 that we
I make the substitute motion to approve
ought to go with what we have, so
items 11, 12 and 24.
76
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.
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
77
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 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
78
from the Department of Corrections will come down 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 what they can do, listen to what we can get done, and then making
79
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.
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,
80
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. 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.
81
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 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
82
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 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.
83
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 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.
84
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 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.
85
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 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
86
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 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 –
87
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, 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,
88
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, 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
89
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?
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 added
No, sir.
and approved funding for engineering services for the Judicial Center in the
amount of $12,500.
Mr. Bridges: So move.
90
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.
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.
91
Mr. Cosnahan: [inaudible] Mr. Boyles, I said – oh, you heard all that?
Okay.
Mr. Mays: The Chair recognizes Commissioner Hankerson then.
Commissioner Hankerson.
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 –
I want to put into a motion
everybody is former employees. So to make it short,
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 –
92
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.
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.
93
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 about like
th
September 30 would be a good cut-off time. You know, to give you the balances
as of then.
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
94
$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?
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
95
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.
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.
96
Mr. Hankerson: But you said they could ask could ask me, ask a
Commissioner.
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 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
97
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.
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.
98
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 make a
Mr. Shepard: Understand we want to discuss that.
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.
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 --
99
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
100