HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-03-2003 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
February 3, 2003
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:05 p.m., Monday,
February 3, 2003, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Colclough, Shepard,
Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County
Commission.
Also Present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena Bonner,
Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was presented by Minister Sarah Jennings.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
The Clerk: ?? honor of ??, Chaplain of the Day.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, the next item.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Our next item on our agenda, is the presentation, the
State of the City Address, Mayor Bob Young.
(A round of applause is given.)
PRESENTATION:
State of the City Address
Mayor Bob Young
Mr. Mayor: I’m looking for my glasses. Thank you very much. I appreciate the
welcome. Let me preface this address today by making a few observations. We all have
an agenda for our community. We have an agenda for our District. Saturday morning as
I was going over this, my personal agenda changed a little bit, and my perspective
changed a little bit, because something happened that we’re all aware of today, a very
tragic action involving our space program. And some things that seemed really important
Friday night did not seem nearly as important Saturday morning. And as I give you a
report on the State of the City this morning, this afternoon I should say, I trust that you
will keep in mind that there much more important things to us individually and as a
community than some of the things that we kind of get hung up on in these Chamber
from time to time. One of the most important thing that is brought home to us I think are
relationships that we build. Seven people went off into space as a team. They all worked
together as a team. And Saturday morning they all perished together as a team. So
perhaps there is a less for all of us to learn about teams, team building, and working
1
together that we can learn the lesson, for those of us involved in the management and
direction of this City. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, other distinguished
guests, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon and thank you for your attention today. It’s
an honor and a privilege for me to bring you this annual report on the affairs of our City.
By every measurement I can report to you that the state of Augusta is good, if not
excellent. When we consider all the many attributes of our City, we have good reason for
much optimism for the future. As Thomas Jefferson said, “I like the dreams of the future
better than the history of the past.” In my inaugural address last month, I talked about
how by developing working relationships we will bridge divisions within our City. I’ve
offered my hand to those of you who want to join me by creating what I call partnerships
for progress. Today I am prepared to report to you on how we are going to forge these
partnerships and how we can use them. Seven years after consolidation of the old City
and the County governments, I am pleased to report to you many important
accomplishments. First, the success of any organization begins with its financial
operation, whether it is business or government. While other governments around the
country are struggling with sky-high increases in their fees and employees are being off,
the news in Augusta is quite the opposite. We completed our work in 2002 with a
balance budget and a fund balance, or a rainy day reserve, of $29 million. Our general
obligation debt is zero. Augusta public utilities continues to enjoy an A+ bond rating
from both Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s. This is further evidence of the financial
soundness of our organization. You may be interested to know just how big a business
Augusta is. Last year, the total of all City accounts was $647 million. In the area of
administration, our Administrator, George Kolb, has done a great job of strengthening the
organization and encouraging a higher standard of operations in every department. The
City Commission is to be commended for hiring professional department heads in our
Finance Director, David Persaud, and our Fire Chief, Al Gillespie. Both of these men are
providing experienced leadership in two critical departments. We are proud of the good
job that is being done by the employees of every department in our City. The caliber of
the employees continues to improve and there is no question that the quality of their work
is also improved. And to these employees, I promise you today that I will work with
these Commissioners and with the Administration to look for ways to reward your
performance with a pay increase this year. Our employees who sacrifice and excel
should not be ignore. Throughout the organization, 2002 was a year of significant
achievement. Augusta Regional Airport was designated as America’s Air Service
Development Zone by the Secretary of Transportation. And next month, Continental
becomes the third airline to serve this regional transportation hub. Our 9-1-1 Center
assumed the responsibility for emergency medical dispatching, and we accomplished
negotiating a new contract with Rural Metro that increases ambulance availability and
our responses. The Board of Elections converted to computerized voting and
successfully led us through two complex elections in November. Our Finance
Department developed a budget that emphasizes program and performance measures.
Our Fire Department began construction of five new fire stations and developed a
strategic plan for future growth. Information Technology gave us an entirely and more
user-friendly web site, making our government accessible 24/7. Public Works and
Engineering completely 92% of the work orders that came in from our citizens, that they
filed, from mowing and pot hole repairs and evictions and vacant lot clean ups, drainage
2
problems, and the list goes on, while at the same time completing those important
drainage and road construction projects that were included in the sales tax program. Our
Transit Department began offering weekly and monthly passes for passengers and
completed a connection in the Best Friend Express in North Augusta. Parks &
Recreation renewed seven important partnerships with non-profit and neighborhood
groups to operate our facilities at a savings of $150,000 to the taxpayers. The Augusta
Common was completed and the new downtown gathering place was opened in a very
festive way by MTV’s Carson Daly. Later this week, the statue of our city’s founder,
James Oglethorpe, will be dedicated in front of an audience that will include about 40
people from England who are coming over for this event. The statue itself is a gift to the
City of Augusta from Augusta Tomorrow, the public-private partnership that has
contributed so much to the vision for our city’s center. We also dedicated Springfield
Village Park, which preserves the legacy of the first free African-Americans who settled
in what was then Springfield Village. Sculptor Richard Hunt’s “Tower of Aspirations” is
their tribute. Augusta Neighborhood Improvement Corporation, a partnership formed in
my first administration, continues to transform our blighted urban center and support
economic development throughout the great City. ANIC, Laney-Walker Development
Corporation, Antioch Ministries, 30901 Development Corporation, and the other
community development corporations have given a remarkable facelift to the Laney-
Walker and Bethlehem Neighborhoods. And our Public Utilities Department completed
the year without any unscheduled water rationing. In other words, when our customers
needed water, they had it. And to make sure this is always the case, we broke ground on
the new south Augusta Surface Water Treatment Plant. Throughout our organization,
City departments large and small, 2002 is a year to look back on with pride. So now
what can we expect in 2003? Well, it’s always good to start off with a look at the
economy. The economists at the Terry College of Business at the University of Georgia
recently shared with our community their outlook for our economy. The report is
important and it does have meaning. It reports another year of a weak economy, but with
a slightly improved employment picture. Overall, it’s not very encouraging. The Dean
of the College, George Benson, predicts the ripple effect from the recession in air travel,
in conventions, in tourism will continue to damage Georgia’s economy for the remainder
of this year. Mr. Benson says he does not believe the State’s labor market will fully
recoup the jobs lost in the recession until sometime in 2004. It will not be until then that
we can truly say the State’s economy has recovered. In spite of that assessment, we are
seeing some signs that Augusta’s economic picture is turning the corner a little earlier
than expected. For example, our License & Inspection Department reports the value of
new construction increased more than 20% last year, to a total of $125.5 million. It’s
clear that property in the City of Augusta is still a good financial investment. Our
employment rate in the City, not the metro but in the City, has fallen from 6.3% to 5.5%
over the past three years. And national publications continue to list Augusta as a city
with one of the lowest costs of living in the country. Augusta continues to be the center
of commerce, transportation, education, health and entertainment for the 1.2 million
people who live within an hour’s drive of the room that we’re standing in today. In my
inaugural address, I described how our City is at a crossroad. One road leads to
prosperity. The other road leads to mediocrity. Mediocrity is not an option for me. So
let’s us embark on a journey along the road to prosperity, and let us do it together. If full
3
economic recovery is our goal for 2004, as the economists expect, then let us use 2003 to
prepare ourselves. And I think we can by focusing this year on the basics. Augusta is a
beautiful city, indeed it’s the Garden City, but it still has room for improvement. Let’s
continue to scrub off the dust and the grime, put up the trash, cut the grass and the weeds
and fix those things that we know are broken. In other words, let’s put the sparkle back
in our City this year, not just the sparkling shine on those things we see. Let’s put that
same sparkle on our attitude and how we feel about this City that we all call home. Our
emphasis should be on how do we improve our City. Our citizens know what needs to be
done, and I challenge each one of them to share their ideas with us. Our Augusta Cares
hotline is an excellent tools to use to reach into government for important fixes. Use
Augusta Cares as your focal point, and you’ll actually get some results. And we should
be results oriented in government, just as Ernie Blackburn is. Ernie is the Chairman of
the Metro Augusta Clean and Beautiful group. Through a letter to my office, Mr.
Blackburn has offered to our City in his words, “a bold, new initiative to clean and
beautify our already-special City.” We should take him up on that offer, and we should
reach out to other groups and organizations that likewise desire to make our City more
attractive and our government more responsive. Our City appreciates a government that
responds to them and so does our business community. And that’s why I believe that we
can and should improve the process for allowing development plans and granting
construction permits to be approved. Too many people in our construction community
have been complaining loudly for too long a time about what appear to be untimely
delays. With building activity picking up at the pace it did in 2002, up more than 20%,
we have to be ready to respond to an ever-increasing volume of work. I support the
efforts of Commissioner Bridges, his sub-committee that’s begun work on the
examination of our procedures, and I hope the Administrator will take their response, to
make it a top priority in 2003. The more responsive our government is to our citizens,
the more confidence our citizens will have in their government. And that’s important,
because as a community we have some crucial decisions to make on our infrastructure, a
performing arts center, a sports arena, a city hall, a main library, and many other projects.
But one project in particular transcends all the others to me, and that’s railroad relocation.
Until we deal with the trains, our downtown will continue to be what it is. We know that
overpasses, thanks to Congressman Barnard during his service in the Congress, we know
those overpasses do some good, but they are not long-term solutions. It’s clear that we
must have the trains out of downtown Augusta. This should have been done generations
ago. 2003 is presenting us an opportunity that we must not let slip by. This month, in a
very short window of opportunity, the Congress is looking for projects to relieve traffic
congestion in metropolitan communities. It’s clear the greatest source of that congestion
in Augusta are the railroads. Our discussions over the past year with Norfolk Southern
and CSX have been more productive. We are exploring together ways to relocate the
Norfolk Southern freight line that runs the length of Sixth Street, and I’d like to
personally thank Norfolk Southern Chairman Dave Good, who was willing to give us his
attentive ear last April. Likewise, we are working with CSX on a plan that would remove
forever the freight trains from R.A. Dent Boulevard along the medical complex. The
railroad relocation projects will not be easy to do. They will require creative and
strategic thinking. They will require interstate partnerships unlike any this City has ever
been engaged in. We must include the railroads, local governments, and state and federal
4
support. We will need a significant financial commitment. But each of us knows that it
will be worth it in the long term. The intruding freight trains, some of which are two
miles long -- and that’s by the railroad’s own admission -- not only choke automobile
traffic, they are strangling progressive business and residential development downtown.
Future generations are counting on us to act responsibly on this issue, and the time to act
is at hand. During today’s meeting, I am asking the Commission to support an
application from this City to the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
for planning and preliminary engineering monies for our rail relocation demonstration
project. Congressmen Charlie Norwood, Max Burns and Gresham Barrett are all on
board and committed to our success. We have a short time line, but we have the talent
and we have the ability. We will respond. This same level of commitment must be
applied to Fort Gordon. 2003 will be the year that we as a community must develop a
strategy to protect our City’s largest employer from attempts to move it somewhere else.
Fort Gordon may once again be ripe for picking in the Pentagon’s base realignment
program. Our nation depends on the soldiers stationed and trained there to be our front
line of defense in the war on terrorism. Even as our country builds an army for a
potential war in Iraq, we have been adequately warned by the defense planners, they
promise the mother of our all base closures will come next year. Georgia hosts 11
military bases. Missions at four of them, including Fort Gordon, could easily be
relocated to other installations in other states. The Army already has studied moving the
Signal Center to a post in Arizona. 17,000 people depend on Fort Gordon for their
paychecks. While Fort Gordon and Eisenhower Army Medical Center are key
institutions in Augusta, they are also important assets to our entire region. The soldiers
and the civilians who work there, shop in our stores, they live in our neighborhoods, they
volunteer with our charities, they attend our churches, they support our schools, and yes,
they pay local taxes. The fight to keep Fort Gordon here will have to be waged by our
local political and business leadership in a bold, new partnership. I know that you want
to join me in forming a regional task force to spend this year assembling those resources
that we will need to show our community’s support for Fort Gordon and for stating that
case to the decision makers in Washington and elsewhere. We cannot be complacent
while other potential host communities are being aggressive. Not only must we protect
Fort Gordon’s assets, we should identify other communities’ assets that could better be
served at Fort Gordon. We must not let Fort Gordon slip though our fingers. 2003
presents other challenges that we as a community must meet. In some ways, we’re
already responding to some of these. This will be the first full year for our Jobs now
program. The strategy committee is committed to meeting each quarter to monitor
progress on this community economic development strategy. We will work aggressively
to put Augustans back to work and to put our citizens into jobs that pay minimum wages
and provide full benefits. To help our working families through the current income tax
season, the Mayor’s Office for Workforce Development under the direction of Kay Allen
has created the earned income tax credit coalition campaign. This outreach initiative is
supported by Augusta business, government and non-profit agencies. A free program
informs taxpayers on their eligibility for the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit,
and other tax incentives that will reduce their taxes, supplement their wages, and increase
their financial stability. To support the program, seven volunteer income tax assistance
sites are open throughout the CSRA until the end of the tax season, offering free tax
5
assistance and tax preparation, financial literacy training, and the opportunity for filers to
open individual development accounts. Just as Gov. Perdue expects the world to beat a
path to Georgia’s door, we want the world to know Augusta is open for business. This
year, we will engage in a concerted effort to attack the 1,000,0000 square feet of vacant
retail space that we have in our city. Our new alliance with the International Council of
Shopping Centers will help us do that. And this year, we must commit to being a partner
with our neighboring communities in a regional economic development effort. We
should expand that partnership, too, to include local governments in South Carolina.
Economic development cannot be specifically limited by political boundaries. What
benefits one, benefits all. And this year, I want to see Augusta do more of its business
with our minority and female-owned corporate citizens. We already have the tools to do
this, so I encourage the Commission and the Administrator to use them. First, I believe
that we should revisit the dilution of the position of our Equal Employment Opportunity
Director and Director of Minority and Small Business Opportunities. This position is
established in the state law that created the government as a commitment to “encourage
meaningful involvement” of every citizen. Further, this person is to work directly for the
Commission. However, in the 2001 reorganization of the Administrator’s office, the
responsibilities were given as secondary duties to a subordinate of the City
Administrator, who then was authorized to delegate the duties as he deemed necessary.
To me, this is not the intent of the law, and I ask the Commission and the Administration
to revisit this action. Additionally, the same state law that created this government and
the position that I just discussed also directed this Commission to establish a Citizens
Advisory Council for Minority Employment and Small Business Opportunities. One of
the roles of this Council as spelled out in the law is to meet with minorities and small
businesses to make sure that they are part of the City’s procurement process. In the seven
years of consolidation, this board has never been created. I encourage the Commission to
make the appointment of the Citizens Council a priority for this year. The City of
Augusta will also continue to actively explore ways to partner with the Medical College
of Georgia in developing a Cancer Center of Excellent this year. I’ve told President Dan
Rahn that the host city for the state’s medical school needs to be more than just an
observer in this effort. Currently, we are working with local, state and federal authorities
to help MCG expand the size of its campus. Work should also continue aggressively to
develop our bike and hiking trail programs and our Greenspace. These quality of life
components have been successful in every community where they have been introduced.
When we link both sides of the Savannah River, we will have one of the most extensive
network of trails in the country. And finally, we should not turn our back on those, who
through no fault of their own, are without adequate food and shelter. Our generation will
be judged on how well we or how poorly we care for our neighbor. We have an
obligation to strengthen the resources of those who care for the homeless and those who
feed the hungry. Through them, this government has an opportunity to show it is caring
and compassionate. Since last September, the Mayor’s Office of Community Service has
been matching local non-profit and faith-based organizations with grants, resources and
partnering opportunities. Under the direction of Justin Pauley, we have been able to meet
individual needs for help, as well as refer citizens to opportunities to volunteer. And I’m
pleased to report to you today that we are in the process of renewing our grant so this
office can continue its work for the people of Augusta for another full year. All of these
6
challenges which I have laid before you are community opportunities. They require a
response from all of our citizens, regardless of our ethnic background or where in this
city we live. You see, Augusta’s strength is in the collective efforts of all of us to achieve
these goals. Vince Lombardi said the quality of a person’s life is in direct proportion to
their commitment to excellence, regardless of their chosen field and endeavor. The same
thing can be said for the City of Augusta. For my part, I have learned a lot in my first
four years as your fulltime Mayor. I will admit there have been some mistakes made, but
from those mistakes I have learned much. After all, President Lincoln said, “I don’t think
much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.” As the duly-elected
Mayor of this great City, my goal for the next four years is to use my office to help build
consensus, cooperation and conciliation with the Commission, the acknowledged ruling
body of this government. I enjoy a good working relationship with our able
Administrator, George Kolb. Together we, the City’s Administrator and the City’s chief
executive officer, will continue to manage the affairs of this government to run smooth,
efficient, and at a reasonable cost. With the hard work of our City employees, our
government leaders and the citizens who call Augusta home, we have the opportunity
today to take a bold step toward greatness. I have a vision for Augusta. As it says in
Proverbs, “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” Let us all face the future with
optimism, hope, and vision, and working with the best interests of Augusta utmost in our
goals, our partnerships for progress can make the affairs of our community even greater.
I want to thank you for your attention today. May God bless this City. Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, next item. I hope everybody doesn’t take as long as
I did.
(Laughter)
The Clerk: Are we going to do additions and deletions first?
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go ahead and do the delegation first.
The Clerk: Delegations first.
Mr. Mayor: Then we’ll get to the other. The update from Mr. Beard.
The Clerk:
UPDATE:
Re: Georgia Municipal Association’s Mayors’ Day Conference ’03
Board of Directors Meeting
Commissioner Lee Beard
Mr. Beard: Thank you. Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I would just like to
inform you, take a few minutes -- not as long as you, but a few minutes to update you on
7
our board of directors meeting in Atlanta this past, past week. We only have a couple of
things that I would quickly review with you. GMA is coming up -- at the board of
directors meeting we had a proposal to review the GMA policy process, and GMA’s
attendance is low, participation among city officials at meetings, they are declining, and
therefore the staff, along with the board of directors, they are proposing that we eliminate
the six policy committees that we have at this point and appoint a 13-member Legislative
Policy Committee. The First Vice President would chair that committee and the
President would appoint the members. This process would begin in May, with listening
sessions held throughout the state, and this would be similar to our district meeting.
However, this did meet with some opposition from the body, and the GMA staff will look
th
at this and hopefully we will get some direction on that. Secondly, we have the 7
District meeting, which we’re a member of, will meet in April in Thomson. Mayor Bob -
- the Mayor of Thomson --
Mr. Mayor: Bob Knox.
Mr. Beard: Knox, I’m sorry, in Thomson has agreed to schedule that meeting for
thth
us, this is the 7 District meeting. We also are reminded that the 7 District had the
largest turnout in the state that was held here in Augusta on last, a couple of months ago.
And I would like to thank all of you for, those of you who participated in that. And there
are a couple of things with the Legislative highlight. They are sponsoring, GMA is trying
to do for the cities what they call a [inaudible] tax. This is a municipal tax that they want
to add in lieu of -- well, it’s along with the SPLOST tax that they’re talking about, and
this would be for cities only. We are not really interested in that one because we are a
consolidated government and we have something else on the burner for that, but this is
the cities who have had problems with sharing the SPLOST tax with the counties. As
you know, most of the time, there is quite a bit of disagreement when you have to share
the SPLOST tax between the county and the cities. SPLOST tax is a county concern and
they determine what part of that will go to the city, and we’ve had problems in the past
with that. However, it’s not a problem with us because of our consolidation. But that is
one of the things that the GMA is supporting. They are supporting water resources
management. They are supporting quality growth. And they are also supporting
financing maintenance of local roads and streets. The other thing that I would like to
bring to your attention about the three consolidated governments, there is a bill that is
being presented by Rep. Buck from Columbus. It’s being introduced in the House, and
this is to upgrade the LOST tax. We receive 1% of that now, one penny of that now.
And they want to upgrade that up to two pennies. So it’s another sales tax added on.
There will be a referendum if that bill is passed out of the House. A referendum on that.
I’d just like to remind you before we get on board, let’s remember that is a tax. And I
think our position more or less was in the SPLOST situation, was to have maintenance
and operation included in that. And that was the way we were going. However, only the
three counties would be involved in this. Instead of a one cent sales tax on SPLOST, you
would have a two cent sales tax on that. I don’t know how you are going to, our
Commission is going to respond to that. But to me it’s another form of tax, and unless
we can get some kind of rollback on property taxes, I don’t think that we should jump out
there supporting that. And I think we ought to really understand what that bill is
8
incurring before we get out there. And lastly, GMA is sponsoring City Weeks. I’m
encouraging the Mayor and the Commission to become involved in that and participate in
that, and that is April 20-26, and I have some material here that we will circulate to you
later on on most of those things that I’ve talked about. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Beard, for that very comprehensive report. Since
you brought up House Bill 92, Madame Clerk, why don’t we go ahead to item number 63
and have our discussion of that?
The Clerk:
63. Discuss House Bill 92. (Requested by Mayor Young)
Mr. Mayor: Let me make a few brief remarks. I spoke last week with Rep. Buck,
who is the Appropriations Chairman, and also with the Delegation from Columbus
Muskogee. Columbus Muskogee House Delegation all signed off on this bill. It’s their
creature. What it does, it allows a consolidated government to increase the LOST, that’s
the Local Option Sales Tax, from 1% to 2% after a referendum. The LOST is the money
that goes directly dollar-for-dollar back to property tax relief. So what we’re saying is
this is an enabling bill. It does require the City of Augusta to have a referendum, it does
not require the City of Augusta to impose the tax. It’s just an enabling legislation that at
some point, if we want to make the decision to allow the people to make the
determination, whether they want to increase their sales tax one penny and have the effect
of rolling back their property taxes dollar-for-dollar the amount of money raised through
the penny sales tax increase. And the numbers that were run by Mr. Persaud for me last
fall showed it would essentially be a wash and would potentially take the property tax,
the net tax bill of the taxpayer in Augusta for City taxes, it would take it back to nothing.
You wouldn’t pay any property taxes. You’d pay it all through the sales tax. But that’s a
debate for another day. What we’re seeking here is a request that the Commission
endorse the enabling Legislation. I’ve already called Rep. Buck, as I said, and I told him
I support it and I certainly hope that the members of the Commission would add their
endorsement to House Bill 92, and there are two derivatives of it as they work perfect the
Legislation. But I would hope that this body today would add their voice to this
endorsement for the enabling legislation only. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for recognizing me on that. And this is
just to echo the [inaudible] that you were talking about in reference to how their
terminology somewhat differs from what we had sent to our Legislative Delegation and
for allowing them to be able to do it through, particularly since they were talking about
consolidated governments. In speaking to my own Representative, and when he called
me in reference to it, and I know you’ve gotten the same message, as have some members
of the Commission, that it stands a very good chance because of the sponsorship of it, of
getting out of the House, that they would not forget, since if we were going to be
cooperative in this support, that they would not forget since some of the language that we
included in the items sent to our local delegation, two of those involving SPLOST
Legislation. One of those, I know I’ve been working on for the last three years now.
9
Unfortunately it kind of didn’t get off the ground last year, with a lot of other things. But
we sent it back and we divided ours up, and I’m saying this probably more for the benefit
of our general public than for the Commission, because you know how we basically stand
on this particular issue. And it was to give us the flexibility within the existing portion of
the sales tax that was included under SPLOST, and I think the Columbus Bill sponsored
by Rep. Buck deals with the LOST portion, which are two different taxes, one going from
one penny to two pennies. But what I would hope that our Delegation would do, if we
are going to give this level of support, since it would be left up to local bodies to do, is
that we not get forgotten in what our intentions were as a city here. Because Columbus
has some special needs that they need to get relief on, particularly I think it’s about three
mils that they dedicate in property tax to just sponsor their hospital funds and in dealing
with indigent care. One of those reasons that we looked at this was that it was a lot easier
for three counties to agree than it was for 159 counties to agree. But I said to my State
Representative that if it’s going to be a cooperate effort, then in the creative language and
wisdom that the State can at times put together, I would hope that the options that are
there would be just as creative to allow Augusta, whether we dealt with that option or not,
but would be just as creative under the SPLOST side to be able to deal with certain
operational costs, and I think the best example of that is people that have come down
from the Library, where we are able to put in millions of dollars to build a library but
then are not able to put in but a few thousand dollars, and not out of that money even, to
buy books for the library that we are dealing with. So I think in the message that we send
to them, I would hope that if we are going to give that level of support, as one
Commission to another one, that we would send the message as such that when we do,
that we be given in their creative wisdom the same option of providing under what we
have sent in to our Delegation, that they would do the same thing as well. And I agree
with you that those numbers could be looked at very seriously on where they’re doing
and apply very positively to us, but I don’t want to get our bills lost in this maze of what
we are looking at to a point that theirs gets off the ground and that our basically stays
parked in the garage, and that we have a SPLOST program of which the creative measure
of being able to use it for other things doesn’t get off the ground for a second year in a
row. And it’s not to knock. I’ll support what’s there on Rep. Buck’s Bill, but it’s to
make sure that which Augusta Richmond County has sent up for the past two years, that
it finally gets off the ground, whether it’s in combination with the Columbus bill or
whether it gets off the ground separately and does not have opposition.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I just want to maybe make reference to a couple of things,
and that is that, you know, I think that this is something that we all in support, but I don’t
have the clarity that I need at this point, because at one time we talking about they
informed us a referendum would be necessary locally, and there are a couple of other
things. And I was just wondering if we could not review this bill a little more thoroughly
and at our next Commission meeting, and I know time is of the essence at this particular
time, if we could not do that and then all of our Commissioners would be more familiar
with what we are doing, and if we are going to support this, which I think we probably
10
will. But I think the clarity need to be there before we move forward on this, in support
of this.
Mr. Mayor: I wouldn’t have any objection to that. There is a copy of the bill in
your backup material, for those who haven’t seen it yet. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have some of the same concerns that Mr.
Beard has. My understanding of what was proposed was that basically we would have a
sales tax and then we could apply it to the property tax if we so chose. If we didn’t
choose to do that, then we had a sales tax and a property tax. Or if the sales tax didn’t
provide enough revenue to take care of the property tax, then you still have both of them
to make the budget meet. So my concern with it is winding up with two taxes anyway, so
I’m like Mr. Beard, I’d like a little bit of time to make sure from the legal standpoint that
we’re on solid ground, that there is a tie between the sales tax and the reduction of
property tax. I think it’s in concept a very good measure. I think the property tax is an
archaic tax and I think in time, it was imposed at a time when a man’s wealth was judged
by the property he has. That’s no longer true. You can have stocks and bonds and
everything else and be much wealthier than your neighbor who has more land or property
than you do. So I think the property tax is something that really needs to, is a little bit
archaic, as I say, and it needs to be done away with and the sales tax would be a good
way to do that, if it’s handled properly. We don’t want to end up with two taxes. Those
are my comments.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, in light of the comments by Your Honor and my
colleagues, I make a motion that this item retain its position until next time.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: We will carry this to our next meeting. We have the introductions to
do next.
The Clerk:
INTRODUCTIONS:
Ms. Teresa Smith, Director
Public Works Department
??
Mr. Dennis Stroud, Assistant Director - Maintenance Division
??
Mr. Errick Thompson, P.E., Assistant Director – Engineering Division.
11
Ms. Smith: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, City of Augusta, it is with great pleasure
that I introduce to you the two newest additions to the Public Works and Engineering
Department’s management team. Mr. Dennis Stroud is the new Assistant Director of the
Maintenance Division. Mr. Stroud is a native of Thomaston, Georgia, and he joins the
staff of Augusta after a 25-year career with the U.S. Army, where he served as a
construction engineering supervisor, was a director of public works on several Army
installations. He is a graduate of Waylon Baptist University where he earned a Bachelors
Degree and of Breneau University where he earned his Masters Degree. Mr. Errick
Thompson is the new Assistant Director of the Engineering Division. Mr. Thompson is a
native of Rock Hill, South Carolina, and has experience working with several private
engineering firms, as well as both the Florida and Virginia Departments of
Transportation. He graduated with honors from Florida A&M, where he earned a
Bachelors Degree in Civil Engineering, and from Virginia Tech where he earned his
Masters in Civil Engineering. Mr. Thompson is also a registered Professional Engineer.
The Public Works Department is very pleased to have these two gentlemen on board, as
we are confident that they will be great assets to the City and a fine addition to the
management staff of the Public Works Department. We ask that you assist in welcoming
them aboard to the staff of the City of Augusta.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Ms. Smith. Madame Clerk, do we have any additions or
deletions to the agenda today?
The Clerk: We have a request to delete Item 67. Mr. Fishman. He said at
this time the request be removed from the Commission itinerary from February 3 is
necessary, we reserve the right to appear at a future meeting with all parties and
this matter can be presented.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Just for the Commission’s benefit in trying to decide. First of all, it
would take unanimous consent for this to be removed at this point. Mr. Bush from the
Historic Preservation Commission is present. This matter was originally scheduled to be
heard at the second meeting in January. At that time, I spoke with his attorney who
indicated that he was going to be request that it be carried back to the Historic
Preservation Commission for another opportunity to possibly reach an agreement.
However, there was no contact with the Historic Preservation Commission to put in on
the agenda and that was not heard. This is a second time when it has now been scheduled
for appeal to this Commission since it was referred back in December. And I would ask
the Commission to take this into consideration to see whether or not they want to grant
yet another extension for them to appeal. We honored their request at the second meeting
in January, with a representation that they were going to carry it back before the HPC,
th
which they did not do. And they’ve now at the 11 hour made this request when HPC is
represented.
12
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to removing this item from the agenda at the
request of the petitioner?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: We have objection, so it will remain on the agenda, Madame Clerk.
Move along. We’ll get to it hopefully in short order. Any other items to add or delete?
The Clerk: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s move ahead then with the consent agenda.
The Clerk: The consent agenda consists of items 1 through 62. Items 1
through 62. For the benefit of any objectors to the alcohol petitions, would you
please signify your objection by raising your hand once the petition is read?
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Motion to approve a request by Phillip S. Hibbard for an on premise
consumption liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Surrey
Tavern located at 471 Highland Avenue. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee January 28, 2003)
2. Motion to approve a request by George S. Harrison for an on premise
consumption liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Beamie’s at
the River located at 865 Reynolds Street. There will be Sunday sales. District 1.
Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 28, 2003)
The Clerk: Are there any objections to those alcohol petitions?
Mr. Mayor: None are noted.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure with respect to the consent agenda?
Mr. Shepard: I’d move approval of the consent agenda with the addition of
Item 69 which was recorded out of the Railway Traffic Subcommittee meting today
which authorizes the submission of a grant application for a downtown railroad
relocation project to the United States House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee.
Mr. Mayor: Could we also add item 65 to that, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: We could.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Is there a second to that motion?
13
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, we have a motion and a second. Are there any items you
wish to pull for individual consideration?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Item number 50, shouldn’t that remain in committee since that’s
received as information?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, it was. It was placed on the agenda, not to take it out
[inaudible]. It’s going back to committee.
Mr. Bridges: Okay. With that understanding on number 50, I would not pull it
out.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Any other items you want to discuss? Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: 22 and 11.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Any others?
Mr. Williams: I’d like to pull item number 5, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to get some
clarification on number 7, if I can. 5 and 7. And also item number 12.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. So far, we have 5, 7, 11, 12, and 22. Any others?
Mr. Williams: 17, too, Mr. Mayor. I need some clarification on 17.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Any others?
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Motion to approve a request by Phillip S. Hibbard for an on premise
consumption liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Surrey
Tavern located at 471 Highland Avenue. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee January 28, 2003)
2. Motion to approve a request by George S. Harrison for an on premise
consumption liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Beamie’s at
the River located at 865 Reynolds Street. There will be Sunday sales. District 1.
Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 28, 2003)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
14
3. Motion to approve changing salary grade from grade 43 to grade 48 for the
position of Community Training Coordinator in the Fire Department. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee January 28, 2003.)
4. Motion to approve Disability Retirement of Mr. Eddie Green under the 1949
Pension Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
January 28, 2003.)
5. Deleted from consent agenda.
6. Motion to approve the change for the Coordinator – Panel Review position
from a part time to a full time status in the Department of Juvenile Court.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee January 28, 2003.)
7. Deleted from consent agenda.
8. Motion to approve increasing employer provided life insurance benefit to
$50,000 per employee. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee January
28, 2003.)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
9. Motion to approve changing salary grade from grade 43 to grade 48 for the
position of Community Training Coordinator in the Fire Department. (Approved by
Public Safety Committee January 28, 2003)
10. Motion to approve and sign Maintenance Renewal Agreement with SunGard
Bi-Tech, Inc. for the period covering January 1, 2003 – December 31, 2003.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee January 28, 2003)
11. Deleted from the consent agenda.
12. Deleted from the consent agenda.
FINANCE:
13. Motion to deny a request from Ms. Cathy Covert regarding a donation for
the Irish Festival to be held in conjunction with the First Friday celebration in
March. (Approved by Finance Committee January 28, 2003)
14. Motion to approve the establishment of Oversight Responsibilities for the
Finance Committee. (Approved by Finance Committee January 28, 2003)
15. Motion to approve the 36-month lease of Two (2) John Deere Motor Graders
for the Public Works Department – Maintenance Division from Metrac Equipment,
Inc. of Augusta, Georgia for $1,653.40 each per month. (Approved by Finance
Committee January 28, 2003)
16. Motion to approve the purchase of a License Agreement from the American
Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers (ASCAP) in the amount of $1326.00.
(Approved by Finance Committee January 28, 2003)
17. Deleted from the consent agenda.
18. Motion to accept recommendation regarding revenue generated from unpaid
mobile home taxes in the amount of $29,982.25. (Approved by Finance Committee
January 28, 2003)
19. Motion to approve refund to John Patrick Olsen of 2000 and 2001 taxes paid
in error in the amount of $508.80 on parcel #214-120. (Approved by Finance
Committee January 28, 2003)
15
20. Motion to approve refund to W. R. Prescott, Jr. of 2000 and 2001 taxes paid
in error in the amount of $508.79 on parcel #170-124. (Approved by Finance
Committee January 28, 2003)
21. Motion to approve refund to Emmett Johnson of 2000 and 2001 taxes paid in
error in the amount of $551.15 on parcel #141-315. (Approved by Finance
Committee January 28, 2003)
22. Deleted from the consent agenda.
23. Motion to approve refund to Bernard Silverstein of 2000 and 2001 taxes paid
in error in the amount of $2141.20 on parcel #33-4-60-01. (Approved by Finance
Committee January 28, 2003)
24. Motion to approve refund to James V. Giberson of 2001 taxes paid in error
in the amount of $336.72 on parcel #267-67.02. (Approved by Finance Committee
January 28, 2003)
25. Motion to approve refund to Kimja Sushi Express of 2001 taxes paid in error
in the amount of $344.16 on account #2101317. (Approved by Finance Committee
January 28, 2003)
26. Motion to approve refund to Heat & Frost Insulation of 2001 taxes in the
amount of $32.22 on account #2046191. (Approved by Finance Committee January
28, 2003)
27. Motion to deny a refund to Hillcrest Memorial Park of 1998 and 1999 taxes
paid in error in the amount of $2624.67 on account #1080738. (Approved by Finance
Committee January 28, 2003)
28. Motion to deny the refund to Partheener Miller of 1999 taxes and approve
the refund of 2000 and 2001 taxes paid in error in the amount of $511.60 on parcel
#166-30.03. (Approved by Finance Committee January 28, 2003)
29. Motion to approve refund to Leasing One Corporation of 2000 and 2001
taxes paid in error in the amount of $423.00 on account #2072665. (Approved by
Finance Committee January 28, 2003)
30. Motion to approve refund to Dustin P. Doyle of 2001 taxes paid in error in
the amount of $92.54. (Approved by Finance Committee January 28, 2003)
31. Motion to approve refund to Meridian Trust Company as trustee of 2001
taxes in the amount of $4523.76 on parcel #107-832.02. (Approved by Finance
Committee January 28, 2003)
32. Motion to approve refund to GSE Process Solutions Inc. of 2000 and 2001
taxes paid in error in the amount of $1926.03 on account #2047959. (Approved by
Finance Committee January 28, 2003)
33. Motion to approve qualifying fees for 2003 General Municipal Election.
(Approved by Finance Committee January 28, 2003)
34. Motion to approve the change for the Coordinator – Panel Review position
from a part time to a full time status in the Department of Juvenile Court.
(Approved by Finance Committee January 28, 2003)
35. Motion to deny a refund to Lewis K. Parrish of 1999 taxes paid in error and
approve 2000 and 2001 taxes paid in error in the amount of $508.79 on parcel #13-1-
94. (Approved by Finance Committee January 28, 2003)
16
36. Motion to deny waiver of penalties in the amount of $2,648.77 for property
located at 3326 Mike Padgett Highway. (Approved by Finance Committee January
28, 2003)
37. Motion to approve submission of an FFY 2003 HPF grant application to the
Georgia Department of Natural Resources to finance a historical and architectural
analysis of the property at 525 Telfair Street. (Approved by Finance Committee
January 28, 2003)
38. Motion to approve the submission of an FFY 2003 HPF grant application to
the Georgia Department of Natural Resources to finance a historical and
architectural analysis of the outbuilding on the grounds of the Appleby Library at
2260 Walton Way. (Approved by Finance Committee January 28, 2003)
39. Motion to approve Augusta Richmond County hosting the quarterly dinner
meeting of the Central Savannah River Resource Conservation & Development
Council on April 14, 2003 at an approximate cost of $700 funded from the
promotional account. (Approved by Finance Committee January 28, 2003)
40. Motion to approve the 36-month ownership lease for golf course maintenance
equipment for the Augusta Recreation Department – Golf Course Division from
Stovall Turf and Industrial of Norcross, Georgia for a total amount of $1,929.82 per
month (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-220). (Approved by Finance Committee January
28, 2003)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
41. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 119, Parcel 594,
which is owned by Garthlette D. James, Sr. for an easement on the Butler Creek
Interceptor Upgrade, more particularly described as 633 square feet, more or less,
of permanent easement and 1,170 square feet, more or less, of temporary
construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 28,
2003)
42. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 151, Parcel 146,
which is owned by Marcia Lowry, for an easement on the Horsepen Sanitary Sewer
Extension, more particularly described as 181.43 square feet, more or less, of
permanent utility and maintenance easement. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee January 28, 2003)
43. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 131, Parcel 79,
which is owned by Maureen L. Jones, for an easement on the Butler Creek
Interceptor Upgrade, more particularly described as 1,987 square feet, more or less,
of temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee January 28, 2003)
44. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 132, Parcel 302,
which is owned by Deloris Foster Francis and Delores A. Francis, for an easement in
connection with the Butler Creek Interceptor Upgrade Project, more particularly
described as 282.20 square feet, more or less, of permanent utility easement and 822
square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee January 28, 2003)
45. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 119, Parcel 632,
which is owned by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee, for an
17
easement on the Butler Creek Interceptor Upgrade, more particularly described as
1,287 square feet, more or less, of permanent easement and 876 square feet, more or
less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee January 28, 2003)
46. Deleted from the consent agenda
47. Motion to approve bid award for the installation of raw water meters at
various locations to the lowest responsive bidder, Mabus Brothers, in the amount of
$245,015.00. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 28, 2003)
48. Motion to approve bid award of contract to the low bidder, R. D. Brown
Contractors, Inc., in the amount of $416,074.00 for Reliability Upgrade – Pump
Station Evaluation – Project 50260. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
January 28, 2003)
49. Motion to approve bid award for demolition of the clearwell brick wall at the
Highland Avenue Water Treatment Plant to the lowest responsive bidder, Southern
Enterprises Group, Inc., in the amount of $116,600.00 (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee January 28, 2003)
50. Motion to receive as information the sidewalk report on Richmond
Hill/Lumpkin at Hardin Road. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
January 28, 2003)
51. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and
Road Resolutions submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for
Breckenridge Subdivision, Section One-A. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee January 28, 2003)
52. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and
Road Resolutions submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for
Pepperidge Subdivision, Section 16, Phase One. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee January 28, 2003
53. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and
Road Resolutions submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for
Chase Estates Subdivision, Section Two. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee January 28, 2003)
54. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and
Road Resolutions submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for
Barnett Crossing Subdivision, Section Two. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee January 28, 2003)
55. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and
Road Resolutions submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for the
Fairways at Goshen, Phase III. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
January 28, 2003)
56. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and
Road Resolutions submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for
Hollow Keg Subdivision, Section 4, Phase II. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee January 28, 2003)
57. Motion to approve staff maintaining contact with Georgia Department of
Transportation regarding the replacement of the crossing surface of the at-grade
18
railroad crossing on old State Route 56 until crossing is opened. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee January 28, 2003).
58. Motion to approve resolution supporting the Georgia Greenspace Program.
(Approved by Engineering Services committee January 28, 2003.)
59. Motion to approve Atlanta Gas Light Company’s plan for identifying and
notifying the descendants of the Rev. Edward “Ned” West and Rev. James Harris
for the purpose of relocating their graves. (Approved by Engineering Services
committee January 28, 2003.)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
60. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held January 21, 2003.
APPOINTMENTS:
61. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Joe Scott to the Augusta-Richmond
County Coliseum Authority due to the resignation of Belle Clark representing
District 2 for a three-year term.
62. Motion to ratify the following Legislative Delegation appointments:
BOARD APPOINTMENT
Sheriff’s Merit Mr. James Riles – reappointment
Sheriff’s Merit Mr. Carey Martin – reappointment
ARC Coliseum Authority Mr. Ellis Albright to fill unexpired term
of Quincy Murphy
ARC Coliseum Authority Ms. Bonnie Ruben replacing Mr. Joe
Scott
ARC Coliseum Authority Wayne Fraizer to fill unexpired term of
Mr. Jack Usry
General Aviation Daniel Field Mr. Terry Pitts – replacing Dr. Wm.
Welsh
Board of Tax Assessors Mr. James W. Scott to fill unexpired
term of Benjamin Bell
65. Consider request for a “Letter of Support” from The Richmond County
Family Solutions Program/Department of Psychiatry and Health Behavior at the
Medical College of Georgia to be direct recipient of grant funds from the
Governor’s Children and Youth Coordinating Council.
RAILWAY TRAFFIC SUBCOMMITTEE:
69. Authorize the submission of a grant application for a downtown railroad
relocation project to the U. S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve the consent agenda, adding to it item
65 and 69, and deleting from it for individual consideration 5, 7, 11, 12, 17 and 22. All in
favor of the consent agenda, please vote aye.
19
Mr. Mays: Let the record note the item on Engineering Services, 59, because of a
conflict, that I abstain on that one. I was trying to find that number 59.
Mr. Bridges: Madame Clerk, could the record show that I voted no on Sunday
sales?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: Likewise, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek out.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 8-1. [Item 59]
Mr. Cheek out.
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Colclough vote No on Sunday sales portion.
Motion carries 9-0. [Item 2]
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 9-0. [Items 1, 3-4, 6, 8-10, 13-16, 18-21, 23-45, 47-58, 60-62, 65-69]
Mr. Mayor: Let’s move ahead with item number 5.
The Clerk:
5. Motion to approve the creation and classification of a Safety Officer for the
Public Works and Engineering Department and subject to approved funding.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee January 28, 2003.)
46. Motion to approve the creation and classification of a Safety Officer for the
Public Works and Engineering Department subject to approved funding for the
position. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 28, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just needed some clarification. We
talked about this in Administrative Service and also in Public Safety. I see the need for a
Public Safety person but are we voting this afternoon on approving the creation of that
position, and what about the funding? I mean what we supposed to do today if this is
approved?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb?
20
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, you are voting to create the
position and set the classification. I believe what we stated in committee was that the
funding for that position is not available, so we would have to come back to the
Commission through some process and receiving funding for it. I think we said we
would try and identify the funding source within the department. If that’s the case, we
will, we can do it within, then we’ll go ahead and fund the position and move forward.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, what discussion we had about the Risk Management
and the in-house situation we have with somebody in Risk Management. Is that anything
related to what we doing now or we just going to go on with another person?
Mr. Kolb: We are preparing a report for the next Administrative Services
Committee meeting relative to the role of Risk Management and the positions that are
within Risk Management. This has nothing to do with the Risk Management
Department. They are the -- the safety officer in the Risk Management Department is
actually city-wide and is more related to finding common hazards or liability that the
organization may face. This particular position is going to focus on active or pro-active
training programs, safety programs within the Public Works Department, much like the
program in the Utilities Department.
Mr. Williams: That’s all I have.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? What’s your desire with respect to item number
5?
Mr. Williams: I so move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor then please vote aye.
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, if I could?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
The Clerk: I’d like to announce that if there are any planning petitioners here for
the Planning Commission meeting, that meeting has been relocated to room 605. If there
is anyone here. Is anyone here for the Planning Commission meeting? The next item is
7.
Mr. Mayor: Item number 7.
The Clerk:
21
7.Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain
unsafe and uninhabitable properties in the Bethlehem Neighborhood: 1762 Martin
Luther King Boulevard, 1604 Twelfth Street, (District 2, Super District 9);
Harrisburg Neighborhood: 1928 Greene Street, (District 1, Super District 9); East
Augusta Neighborhood: 126 Pollard Drive, (District 1, Super District 9); Turpin Hill
Neighborhood: 1705 Meadow Street, (District 2, Super District 9); and waive 2nd
reading. Subject to attorney’s ruling – 1762 Martin Luther King Blvd. (Approved
by Administrative Services Committee January 28, 2003.)
Mr. Wall: 1762 Martin Luther King Boulevard needs to be pulled out. It
needs to go to the HPC.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, we discussed this at length with another piece of
property in that area. Jim, I guess what you are saying is they have not looked at it at all?
Mr. Wall: They have not. An oversight. Thought it had been sent o the HPC, but
it has not.
Mr. Williams: I mean, I mean this is a piece of property that the City owns, that
the City would have to do something about it, Rob is that City owned property?
Mr. Sherman: That’s correct. Back in November, the property owner quit-
claimed it to the Land Bank Authority. It’s a burned structure. When I was doing the
agenda item, I thought I had been told that this had already gone to the Historic Board. I
found out that in fact it has not. We are asking to pull it in order to take it to the Historic
Board. For your information, at the committee meeting I was mentioning that it does
belong to the Land Bank and it is a burned structure.
Mr. Williams: Well, this is in the heart of the District that’s been suffering for a
long time. This is a piece of property that’s probably a three room shotgun, sure enough
shotgun house. It’s almost burned down. It’s been a sore eye for quite a long time. I
understand about the, the HPC may need to be advised, but I don’t think there should be a
ruling from them, Jim, and I say don’t think meaning that as the Commissioner for that
District I’d like to keep this added on to the list to be demolished. This is a place where
there is nothing can be done, nobody’s going build. I mean I don’t see the significance of
saying historic value in this piece of property at that location. There are some, and I’m
going to agree with. We had one a block away from where this located at that we had to
go through the same process with. Wasn’t enough room to even get on the property to
tear it down, I mean it was so small. I’d like to see this piece of property included.
Mr. Wall: Commissioner Williams, the -- we have made it our policy that even
though it is City owned or owned by the Land Bank Authority, that we would carry it
before the HPC, and seek from them a certificate of appropriateness in order to demolish
it. I would urge the Commission to stick with that. We have done it with other
properties. It may mean a two week delay or maybe even -- depending on when the HPC
22
meets, I mean it may be possibly four weeks. But it would still come back to be
demolished or for you to review a decision were the HPC to say do not demolish it. But
it recognition of what they do, I urge the Commission to send this piece of property back.
It will be some minor delay but I don’t think it will, will be any long term delay. It will
be brought back before you in the event that -- regardless.
Mr. Williams: Okay, Jim, I’m going to take the advice of the Attorney. I mean
I’ve got no problem if it going to be two weeks or maybe even three but my point on this
is is this an eyesore that’s been there quite some time. We been working trying to get
something done about it. Now it’s on the list to be demolished and we’re talking about
going to the HPC to see if they going to approve it. I mean I ain’t got no problems
sending them something that something going to be done with it. If the City owned it I’d
like to know what plans are there for it. I mean if this a historic event or historic district
or the building itself is historic, of some historic value, then I’d like to see a plan. The
Mayor in his state address talked about some things in the future. If we keep holding on
to these spots of shotgun houses been burnt that the City still own, we are not going to go
back and rehab it, we’re not going to go back and rebuild in there. So we need to get rid
of that blight in the area that those people are living with and those people have to deal
with all of the time. I will wait two more weeks, but I mean I have it back on the agenda
so we’ll you know, by the time Rob get through with the first one, we be ready for this
one, too. That’s all, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: So we need a motion --
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Waiving the second reading, with the deletion of the Martin Luther
King property; is that correct?
Mr. Wall: Without.
The Clerk: Without.
Mr. Mayor: Taking it out. We have a motion and second on that. Any further
discussion? All in favor then please vote aye.
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Our next item is number 11.
The Clerk:
23
11. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend Title 3, Chapter 4, Section 11 of
the Augusta-Richmond County Code regulating certain events consisting of five or
more persons to be held on sidewalks, streets, public right-of-ways or other public
property within Augusta; to provide for a permit for such events; to provide for the
contents of said application; to provide that the Sheriff shall issue or deny said
permit; to provide considerations for the Sheriff in issuing or denying said permit;
to provide time requirements for applying for said permit; provide for appeal; to
provide for judicial review; to provide for the intent of said ordinance; to provide
for revocation of termination of event or permit; to provide for severability; to
provide an effective date; and for other lawful purposes. (Approved by Public
Safety Committee January 28, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I still have a little problem with this as I have in the past,
coming up with the new ordinance at this particular point in time. And I thought that in
the committee meeting, I thought that Commissioner Boyles came up with a very good
solution to this, and if he wanted to pursue this at this time I think it’s an ideal solution
that he came up with, if he’d remind repeating what he said, I may make that as a motion.
If he didn’t mind, give him an opportunity to repeating what his solution to this problem
was.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles, you wanted to make a motion?
Mr. Boyles: I’ll address that, Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much. Going back to
committee again, I remember I read from the intent of this ordinance, the specific intent
of the Commission in passing this ordinance is to regulate only the time, place and
manner of such events, and not to regulate the specific content or message or speech of
the applicant hereunder. As I said in committee, I’ll make it in the form of a motion that
we have the Mayor, the Sheriff, the Chairman of Public Safety meet with the appropriate
people who say they’re coming to Augusta, the two people who say they’re coming to
Augusta, work out a time, work out a place, work out the logistics so that we can take the
public relations aspect of this problem that’s not specifically the City of Augusta’s, it’s a
problem that exists between the Augusta National and amongst the organizations that
want to come, and we provide a place for them to meet and to conduct whatever they
want to do, as long as it’s in the frameworks of the established group that meets with
them. And I offer that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Beard: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: First of all, Mr. Mayor, I think it’s absurd for us to initiate a meeting
with anybody coming to this community. I think that responsibility falls on their
shoulders to come and meet with us. I think the Attorney has made it very, very clear
that we are trying to do is to protect the citizens of this City in having this amendment
24
enacted, and therefore I make a substitute motion that we adopt the amended ordinance as
proposed by the Attorney.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: I was going to comment that with respect to Mr. Boyles’ motion, and
Tommy, I certainly appreciate your input and your attempt to reach some conciliation in
this matter, but under the existing ordinance, demonstrations in this community have to
be approved by the Sheriff, and I think it would inappropriate for those involved in the
legislative process of writing ordinances to become involved in the administration and
execution of those ordinances, and to me, if the Sheriff is responsible for this, if there are
any meetings that are going to be held, the Sheriff ought to be having those, not the
people on the committee and not the Mayor. We do not play a direct role in the
enforcement of these ordinances or in this case, the execution of this ordinance. Those
are matters left to the administrative branch of this government and not under the purview
of the legislative branch of this government. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I think the ordinance that is drawn
here, I think it’s a good one. At first I had reservations about changing the existing one
because it looked like to me, it appeared to me as if we were weakening the authority of
the government, particularly the Sheriff in that regards to the demonstrations or protests
that may take place. And I think, I think that’s the case with this ordinance, but I think
one thing it does is it saves, it brings our ordinance into compliance with Court orders
that save us from paying two sides of a Court case in regards to a Court case that may
arise out of a particular protest. In other words, should we lose, which we very possibly
could, by a charge from one of the protestors we would pay their attorney fees, and that’s
just double expense. We’re already having to pay one side of it. So I think this
ordinance as it exists, as the Attorney has presented it here, is a good one. I think it’s one
we should support and should pass. And it just simply keeps us from having to pay two
sides of a fight that we very likely could lose under the existing ordinance. I hope this
Commission supports the one before us.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, this is my position on this ordinance. If, if these
folks wants to come and disrupt our City, I think they should have the right to pay their
own attorneys fees. I’m not going to vote to have the citizens of Augusta pay attorneys
fees for somebody coming in and disrupting our City. And that’s my position on it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, and then Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I heard my colleague, Commissioner
Bridges say if we was right, I mean if we were right why would we have to pay for
addition attorney fees? I mean if we got a ordinance in place and we rejected them for
whatever reason. We would not reject them if we was right in what we was doing.
[inaudible] and to me the whole thing seem to be time, the way it looks like we’ve got
25
something to hide. I, I, I, I, I, I’m opposed to it. I just, I just don’t understand it. Jim,
maybe my colleague can explain to me why we would have to pay their attorney if we
was right for whatever reason. If we turn them down.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s see if we can get an answer from Mr. Wall for Mr. Williams
and then we’ll go to Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Wall: Take the scenario where whether it be at Masters or whether it be any
other event for which permits have been sought, many times in the past. They don’t
apply for one. They just show up with, you know, 30, anything greater than five, and
start protesting. And then, as Commissioner Colclough says, put them in jail, they go to
jail, and then we’re sued for a violation of civil rights because our demonstration
ordinance is unconstitutional. Under federal law, they would be entitled to claim
attorneys fees. And in the event that the Court determines that our ordinance is
unconstitutional because we had no right to require them to get a permit, because our
ordinance requiring them to get a permit was unconstitutional, then the Court very likely,
almost assuredly, will award them damages and attorneys fees. Certainly attorneys fees.
And what this ordinance is designed to do is if that same situation occurred again,
someone started protesting without seeking a permit, and an arrest was made and they
challenged our ordinance as being unconstitutional, I believe this ordinance would
withstand that attack. We should prevail, we should not be required to pay any damages,
should not be required to pay any attorneys fees. So that’s what this is designed to do, is
to protect the taxpayers, protect from that potential liability.
Mr. Williams: Okay, Jim, let me ask you one other question, Mr. Mayor, if I
might. Jim, just supposed that this was a, a group of citizens in Augusta Richmond
County, in this area, wherever they be, more than five, greater than five, they got together
to come downtown to the building to stand out in the front courtyard or to walk to Broad
Street, nothing national, but just, just local people. This ordinance would be in the same
effect when it come to any group greater than five, is that right?
Mr. Wall: If it’s on rights-of-way or sidewalks.
Mr. Williams: Okay. So the citizens of Augusta, if we pass this, if this pass
through, then the taxpayers would not have the right to gather more than five to get on a,
a, a, a city right-of-way and come either downtown, whether it be in this building or any
building we got, if they got a disagreement, or a, a, a, a disbelief than what we have, I see
it that we just not only crippling people from out of town, but I think we going cripple
people in town, too. It just don’t seem to be the right thing to do, Jim. I mean, I, I, I
don’t need an answer to that. Mr. Mays got something he want to say.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, Mr. Hankerson, then Mr. Mays.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. For the record, I think it’s simply stated
that the proposed ordinance in drawn, Jim, consistent with favorable Appellate
precedents, and the present ordinance lacks a lot of the protections that the new ordinance
26
has, and also the present ordinance lacks a procedure to review the Sheriff’s decision;
isn’t that correct? I mean --
Mr. Wall: Correct.
Mr. Shepard: It’s a due process problem and I think we are just buying ourselves,
if we do not address this ordinance, we are buying ourselves a fee claim in a suit, and I
think we should pass this ordinance. I don’t see that Mr. Boyles stated a method of
meeting with these folks or any folks that want to come down for whatever purpose that’s
constitutional, is contrary to this new amended ordinance. But I think we are creating a
problem here and our lawyer has been in the forefront of this research because of some
other litigation we have been in, and I think we should respect his professional judgment
and pass the ordinance as proposed.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I am trying to come up with a workable
solution to this problem we have here, and I was just, if I can get one of the, get Mr.
Kuhlke to withdraw his motion -- I know we can’t get more than two motions on the
floor at the same time. If we would refer to -- I was looking at the ordinance, the current
ordinance and the big discussion is about the changes in the ordinance that we have. If
we could, you know, if he would withdraw his motion I’d like to put in the form of a
motion that we only make one change to the original ordinance, and that one change
would be Ordinance 3-4-12, Mr. Wall. And it says there that protests demonstrations
prohibited at Riverwalk and just amend that to say Augusta National. I’d like, if he
would withdraw his motion.
Mr. Mayor: Once a motion is made and seconded, it belongs to the body. You
cannot withdraw a motion. Mr. Wall, do you want to comment on the suggestion from
Mr. Hankerson? Is that something --
Mr. Wall: That still would not deal with the problem. And understand that
whether this, whether there is a demonstration in April during the Masters Tournament or
not, this problem is not going to go away in April with our ordinance. We need to fix our
ordinance because we’ve had demonstrations at other than the Augusta National. In fact,
most of the permits that we have encountered have been permits other than during
Masters Week. And so this is going to have to be addressed at some point, and I would
ask that you address it before we wind up in Court and having the Court say we don’t
have an ordinance governing demonstrations, and then we come back after the fact and
try to fix it.
Mr. Hankerson: And that can’t be done with him withdrawing his motion because
it’s been seconded; is that correct?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
27
Mr. Hankerson: The only way that motion could be made is both motions fails?
Mr. Wall: Right.
Mr. Mayor: If one of them fails, then you can make another substitute.
Mr. Hankerson: And I just only see that as you’re saying we are not curing the
whole problem, but I think that’s a step towards it until we could have more time to look
at it and do some of the other things that you were talking about.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Mays, it’s your turn next.
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, while I will not be redundant, I had a lot of
discussion in the last Commission in reference to this in reference to First Amendment
rights period, and in reference to where I thought this was going in reference to a lot of
being perception, probably as much or more so than the ordinance itself. And it’s more
in line with what Mr. Boyles has said the committee meeting and in reference to his
motion that’s on the floor at this time. I would simply ask the same request that I asked
the Clerk in the last committee meeting, that my reference remarks from the previous
meeting be adopted as a part of the minutes also of this meeting for the official purposes,
therefore they will not have to be repeated. Be on record with those so that will not have
to be done. But I do think that there are two things in here in reference to the original
motion that’s on the floor, that, that need to be referenced, and I, and I agree with you,
Mr. Mayor, and with Mr. Boyles. In talking about the Sheriff’s position and his dealing
with the enforcement, I think you’re absolutely correct. But I do think that Mr. Boyles’
motion make reference, I believe, at least it did in his talks in committee, and I know my
remarks did at the meeting two weeks ago, made reference to the Sheriff having dialog
with the persons in terms of dealing with this particular issue. Let’s be honest with each
other. This is not an issue of where you’ve got three to four people coming down
possibly to [inaudible] as most recently done, I been picketed against, sitting here in the
courthouse. I think my name and yours, Mr. Mayor, a fellow got a permit over his
dissatisfaction and walked in front of the courthouse and did it. I had the opportunity to
speak to him that day, walked past and greeted him with a smile. I had given the
gentleman a ride home a few weeks before then. But, you know, that’s a part of his right
to do that. What I think that’s being asked in the first motion is doing just that. We were
about changing the ordinance and I know Jim says the timing is bad on it and where he
was going with it, but part of this was in the reaction, quite frankly, to what the Sheriff
said in the very beginning. It was the Sheriff, the chief law enforcement officer, the one
who has all of the power, that can do basically under law enforcement what he chooses
to, that made the first reference comments about this whole issue, and to what was going
to be done. Then just maybe just coincidence or timing, along trots the ordinance. Well,
we can’t make the Sheriff do this, and I’ve said that at earlier meetings. The Sheriff is
grown. He can do what he wants to do. But the ordinance basically is more of an asking
ordinance and to understand what people may want in terms of doing it because quite
frankly, even if you put the ordinance -- let’s hypothetically say I was for the ordinance,
which I’m not. But if I was, in the course of talking with potential persons coming, we
28
may find out that the ordinance needs to have other things added. If people are not
having dialog, then we do not know what the course of business is. And I said then that
the more attention we were drawing to it, I thought then we were in a position, quite
frankly, of defeating ourselves. I still feel that way. I hope that Mr. Boyles’ motion will
pass. And I will [inaudible] one part of what I did say [inaudible] motion. I do think
there is a remedy and we were not charged with it, and where, and Jim and I agree on
probably 95% of what we talking about. We have our right to disagree and we’ll eat
lunch about it and talk about something else. But I still think that if the ordinance that
we’ve got was large enough under the heinous type of group that would come to Augusta,
Georgia, as past history, and quite frankly and probably some current beliefs, if it was
good enough for the Ku Klux Klan to march down the main street of Augusta, Georgia,
on a bright Sunday afternoon, and go into federal court and get a District ruling in three
to five minutes and it’s all over and they be marching, it’s certainly good enough, I think
for people who come when they are peaceful and non-violent meetings to come and
protest. And I think then if you are going to go back and if you are going to co-mingle all
of these things about the bookstore and about the marching ordinance and all of that, then
you’ve got the time to do that and you’ve got the time to do it properly and to have it in a
manner as such that we are not necessarily drawing the attention of the whole world to
deal with an ordinance, and I hope my colleagues will vote for Mr. Boyles’ motion.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, thank you. I, in our original discussion two weeks ago, I
think it was, I supported the ordinance and I still do. All I was trying to offer, as I said in
committee, was common sense, what I thought was a common sense solution to a
potential problem that’s going to come here. I can understand the thousands of dollars
that could spend and I can understand getting our ordinance in order, the way they should
be, to meet the federal guidelines, and I appreciate the Attorney who has gone to a lot of
trouble to do that. Maybe the two suggestions that I had, being for the ordinance and
being for the common sense solution, are not germane to each other. As we did say, and
as my vote shows, I supported the ordinance the first time and I would support it again
because I do think it’s necessary and as I read from the intent, it was to do the right thing.
But apparently if we want to go ahead and have a potential situation come to Augusta,
Georgia, after the many things, even in your speech a little earlier, Mr. Mayor, that you
tried to bring harmony to this community, you tried to bridge some gaps, and if we can
do that with worldwide prestige and worldwide news coverage, I just thought that was a
sensible solution. But I still am in favor, as I was two weeks ago, of the ordinance. Mine
was just trying to offer a common sense solution.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We have a substitute motion from Mr. Kuhlke to
approve the ordinance as presented in the agenda book. All in favor of that motion,
substitute motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Cheek out.
Mr. Beard, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Williams, Mr. Mays and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
29
The Mayor votes Yes.
Motion fails 5-5.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, under the law created in this government, the Mayor
is allowed to vote to create or break a tie, and the Mayor will vote yes on this issue.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion. Is there any further
discussion on the original motion? All in favor of the original motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Cheek out.
Mr. Bridges, Mr. Shepard, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion fails 4-4-1.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? If not, we’ll move on with the order of business,
which is item number 12.
The Clerk:
12. Motion to concur with the recommendation of the Sheriff’s Department
relative to the permanent attachment of taxi cabs identification lights and the
amendment of section 6-7-25 of the ordinance to reflect same. (Approved by Public
Safety Committee January 28, 2003)
Mr. Shepard: So move.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Mr. Williams, you asked that one be pulled?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Appreciate it. [inaudible] Public Safety
meeting with the Sheriff and Ms. Hodges, I believe. Ms. Hodge. Who is here today. I
pulled this item, Mr. Mayor. Looking at the Webster dictionary [inaudible] attach, and
what this ordinance reads. Attach is attach, meaning that there is no way of passing down
a permanently attached on [inaudible] when it come to the word attached. So I mean I’d
like to make a substitute motion that we --
Mr. Mayor: There is no motion.
Mr. Williams: Okay, I’m sorry.
The Clerk: There is.
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry, there is. You are correct.
30
Mr. Williams: Thank you. I want to make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor, that
we not concur with the Sheriff recommending for this private owner who have completed
and bought a sufficient light for her cab and who is an independent operator who has a
document proving that the light is able to withstand winds up to 200 miles an hour. Now
I been, I travel pretty fast myself several times, but never reached the speed of 200 miles
an hour, and that light can, can stand that type of wind, I don’t see any just reason why
we cannot grant her the license and the permission that she needs. I was in agreement in
Public Safety because we couldn’t find anything in the dictionary or wasn’t anything to
find in the dictionary to identify, to tell us what attach mean. If you look in the backup,
you see I had the Clerk put a, a, a printout or copy of the dictionary and what attached is
really saying in the dictionary. And I think we be unfair to her, I think if we change the
law to say permanent, permanently attached -- we just got through talking about not
paying somebody else’s attorney, somebody else’s lawyer monies for something we
done. If we change this now, we going to be opening the door that we, that we probably
going to be flooded with. In your stated address, Mr. Mayor, you talk about those bridges
again and, and those gaps that we need to bridge. This is another way. This is a small
business person who have, I have no contact with. I mean I don’t know her from
anybody else. She came, but I think she is right, I think she trying to fulfill the law and
do what was asked of her, and I think that she had to deal with some unnecessary
harassment in some sense, too, since she has not had the support. So my substitute
motion is to grant her the, the right or the authority to be able to use her light that she
have bought that she have documented with a thing that it stand 200 miles per hour wind,
Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, before I ask if there is a second on that, I need to ask
this Attorney this. We cannot grant an exemption to an ordinance for somebody, can we?
Isn’t there another way that this needs to be worded so that it will comply with the terms
of the ordinance?
Mr. Wall: Well --
Mr. Mayor: You know what Mr. Williams is saying, but --
Mr. Wall: I think that what he said was that the -- grant a business license to the
individual based upon the fact that the magnetic is, is attached to the taxi cab, is the gist
of his motion.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Is there a second to the motion? Your motion dies for lack of
a second. That takes us back to the original motion. Discussion? All in favor of the
original motion --
Mr. Mays: What was the motion?
Mr. Williams: The motion --
31
Mr. Mayor: The motion was from Mr. Shepard, which is to concur with the
recommendation of the Sheriff’s Department relative to the permanent attachment of
taxicab ID lights and amending section 6-7-25 of the ordinance to reflect the same.
Mr. Mays: Okay. That’s what I wanted to get a clarification, on the amendment.
The amendment, is that the part that’s contained --
Mr. Mayor: Permanent.
Mr. Mays: The word permanent?
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: Okay. Okay. Well, then, my only comment during the discussion is
that if we are changing the ordinance and she has the light that can be removed, cause I
think we -- and I didn’t second it. We got an ordinance motion on here and we got, I
think the substitute motion was dealing specifically with her. I’m trying to figure out
how can we -- if she’s got a situation that exists and we are changing the ordinance with
an amendment to meet what she would need to do, then that’s almost like us changing the
same ordinance to meet what you would do if somebody is coming to protest or
demonstrate. I mean I’m just asking the question because, I mean if they, if, if, if you say
I can have five chickens on my farm, and you create a ordinance that says I can only have
three, then do I have to go and kill my other two? In essence, that’s what you are saying
if you turn around and tell her she can’t have the light structure. Now even though I said
y’all needed to have the word permanent in there, but I also don’t think you can be
punitive and change the law to meet a circumstance which does not exist. So I would
have to vote no on the ordinance cause I think it’s punitive to one person that’s involved.
Mr. Mayor: Let me, if I may, because I sat in on the committee meeting, too, and
it’s my understanding that the Sheriff is charged with the enforcement of the inspection
of taxicabs, and the Sheriff has interpreted the attachment word to mean that it’s got to be
permanently affixed, it’s got to be bolted to the car. And he says the magnetic one does
not comply with his interpretation of how an attachment is going to be considered under
this ordinance. And so that’s how the thing ended up with us. And so again, this is, this
is an ordinance that we delegated to the Sheriff to enforce and this will be interpreted his
way unless the Commission changes the ordinance so that it can be interpreted some
other way or --
Mr. Mays: With all due respect, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Mays: The ordinance is going to pass. I know that. I also knew it was going
to pass from being here long enough to get the sentiment and feeling in the room. But
with all due respect to the Sheriff, the Sheriff sent out to get a dictionary, and two people
had a dictionary, one of them was the Sheriff and one of our staff people. And they never
32
found where Mr. Webster said what I think Mr. Strength was saying. It never was
determined in the dictionary that it meant that it had to be attached in a permanent way.
And so therefore I made the suggestion, because I could not vote, I was not a member of
that committee, I was in that meeting, too. Now I made the suggestion that to clear up
this Sheriff’s problem, that you change the wording of the ordinance and that you change
it to permanently affixed, therefore it would not have to be left to interpretation and it
would help the Sheriff to deal with how he enforced it. But the case in point is the lady
who applied prior to the application and to the changing of the ordinance, and I guess it’s
just one, two persons’ fight for one woman, but the point is we changing it to make it
work because while we are changing it to me, that’s a self admission of fact that the
ordinance did not contain anything of which the Sheriff’s interpretation says it is. Now I
know [inaudible] sarcastic about one word, I’m going to shut up cause the ordinance is
going to pass. But I’m not going to vote for it. I protest it because I just don’t like the
fact that when a person comes in, makes their point, and then we change the law to affect
the person. And then we enforce the law based on what we just changed. Now that’s
what’s happening in her case, and I can’t tell her what to do. I know what I would do if I
had that interpretation, and I had that ruling on it, and one was changed on me, and I had
manufacturers which would guarantee it. You know, I kind of looked at it and wanted to
laugh. I thought about Kojak and every other movie that I seen a cop running through
[inaudible] city at high rates of speed, you could stick a light on the top magnetically and
fly and bob and weave and they don’t fall off yet. But I’m through with it, Mr. Mayor,
but I just wanted to make that on her behalf, I just don’t think you can change laws and
then turn around and enforce them on somebody after the fact in terms of what you’ve
done.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We’ve got a motion on the floor and it’s been seconded.
All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I need some clarification, please.
Mr. Mayor: We’re voting right now.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I need some clarification. I understand we’re
voting, but I need some clarification and I had my hand up the whole time Mr. Mays was
talking on the other end, whether you looked down this way or not, I don’t have no idea,
but I did have my hand up.
Mr. Williams: Well, we are voting and --
Mr. Williams: Well, I’m not voting yet, Mr. Mayor, and I don’t think I’m ready
to move until I get my, my say in this matter. I think this is really important that we got a
citizen, a taxpayer, a small business person who is trying to take care of themselves, who
is trying to provide for their family, and we going to make a rush decision on a vote? We
-- I been down here half the night.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, I recognized you earlier.
33
Mr. Williams: Well [inaudible] wanted to get some clarification and you
wouldn’t --
Mr. Mayor: We’re back on the motion that was seconded and we’re voting on
that motion right now.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I need some clarification. And I had my hand up.
Mr. Mayor: What do you need clarified, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: If you give me an opportunity, I’ll explain it to you.
Mr. Mayor: Ask your question.
Mr. Williams: My question is what are we voting on? Are we voting on the
lady’s issue or are we voting on the ordinance? Now I was in support of the lady because
I’m thinking that she had been denied because of the light.
Mr. Mayor: Then you need to vote no to the motion that’s on the floor.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I don’t need you to tell me how to vote. I just need
clarification.
Mr. Mayor: I’m trying to clarify it and give you an answer.
Mr. Williams: No. Mr. Mayor, I think this a new year and I really want to do
better and --
Mr. Mayor: You asked what you were voting for and what you’re doing is voting
to concur with the recommendation from the Sheriff.
Mr. Williams: Well, Mr. Mayor, I have not --
Mr. Mayor: That’s the motion.
Mr. Williams: I have not finished my, my, my, my question. I have not finished
trying to get you to just listen to me for a minute so I can get my clarification. Whether it
come from you or whether our Attorney. Jim, I’m directing this question to you. If we
vote, if this motion do not pass, is this, is this not going to give this lady the right to sue
this government for making the, the, a, a move like we’re about to make now, cause this
is unconstitutional, this is not right? So I want a legal ruling from you as Attorney.
Mr. Wall: If this does not pass, can she sue Augusta? Is that what you’re --
34
Mr. Williams: Well, you been practicing law for a long time now, Jim. Even you
done forgot, what, how [inaudible].
Mr. Wall: Well, she will --
Mr. Williams: If this does not pass, do she have the right to sue?
Mr. Wall: She always has the right to sue.
Mr. Williams: I understand that.
Mr. Wall: Anybody who does not get a license, and she will not get license until
this is affixed, attached to the, the roof in a, in a fashion that is acceptable to the Sheriff,
and a magnetic strip will not pass it, that means she will not get a business license, and
then if she wants to sue she can, or she can [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: You say acceptable to the Sheriff, is that right? Not to the
ordinance, but to the Sheriff?
Mr. Wall: Well, in his --
Mr. Williams: The ordinance says attached.
Mr. Wall: -- his application of the ordinance, and it says attached, and in my
opinion attached means something other than attached with a magnetic strip, because
again --
Mr. Williams: Is that a legal opinion or that’s your opinion?
Mr. Wall: That’s a legal opinion.
Mr. Williams: Okay, that’s what I want. I don’t need your opinion. None of us
ask for that. I want a legal opinion every time.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we are voting on the motion. All those in favor, please vote
yes.
Mr. Cheek out.
Mr. Beard, Mr. Williams and Mr. Mays vote No.
Motion carries 6-3.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 17.
The Clerk:
35
17. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) F250 Pickup Truck for the
Augusta Utilities Department – Ground Water Division from Bobby Jones Ford of
Augusta, Georgia for $28,288.97 (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-156). (Approved by
Finance Committee January 28, 2003)
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I move we approve the action of the Finance
Committee.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Steve, I told you I wouldn’t fight it in
Finance, that was the wrong place to fight it, but I would bring it up out here, and I think
you respecting that. Max, if somebody can, can just help me out for a minute.
Commissioner Mays made a statement earlier about he can tell from the sentiment of the
board how this vote’s going go. I just need to know, Max, is this the same truck we
talked about almost a year ago, and if it is, what have we been hauling chemicals with up
until this point, and why can’t we continue to use whatever that was?
Mr. Hicks: We have continued to operate the way we had been in the past.
However, that’s not the safest way to operate. But that’s the vehicle we had to operate
with. So we’ve been operating as safely as we could. This is indeed the same type of
vehicle. The one brought to you last year was a Chrysler product. I think it was a Dodge.
And it was going to cost about $1,400 more than this. During the course of the year, the
price dropped. Ford was the low bidder this time. But it is in pickup truck, indeed
[inaudible] fitted with that hydro-lift, Tommy Life, in order to more safely handle the
barrels and tanks and other items that we have to haul from one place to another. If
you’ll notice in the agenda item, there was that comparison, there was that look into other
vehicles as had been requested in the past [inaudible] other vehicles that were on Fleet
Management’s lot to be used, and I think Mr. Crowden could more speak to that. You
know, we will conduct our business as safely as we can with what we have and we’ll
continue to operate. But it sure would be better to have this vehicle that would be more
dedicated and equipped to handle the chemicals.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure?
Mr. Shepard: There’s a motion on the floor, Mr. Mayor.
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: All right. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, please
vote aye.
The Clerk: [inaudible] second?
36
Mr. Shepard: I think it was Mr. Bridges. I made the motion about three minutes
ago, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: Oh, I’m sorry.
Mr. Shepard: That’s all right.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: Next is item 22.
The Clerk:
22. Motion to deny refund to Florence M. Bentley of 1999 taxes and approve a
refund of 2000 and 2001 taxes, which were paid in error in the amount of $596.11 on
parcel #33-2-164. (Approved by Finance Committee January 28, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I had this pulled because I was not in the
Finance Committee meeting and as I read the backup and Mrs. Bentley called and I
talked with her, and I see that the Board of Assessors recommended that this be
approved, and I told Ms. Bentley I would give her the opportunity to explain this to the
entire Commission, since all of us were not a part of the Finance Committee, and I would
appreciate it at this time if we could hear from Mrs. Bentley.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Bentley, would you just for the record state your name and
address, please, and tell us what you’d like to.
Ms. Bentley: Thank you. I am really now Florence Bentley Glover. My address
is 2759 Hazel Street, Augusta 30909. My ownership of my home remained in Bentley up
until a couple of weeks ago when I changed it due to the fact that I was told I may have
problems if anything happened to me. My thing about this is that my homestead
exemption was taken from me in 1995 without my knowledge, and the way I found this
out, I called a couple of times to tell them that now that my house was paid for, that I
wanted my tax bills sent to me, not to the mortgage company, and I was told I had
nothing else to do beside make the telephone call. Also in that process, I asked for an
estimate of taxes so that I could put aside an escrow account in the bank to pay my taxes
and things like the mortgage company had been putting one in escrow. In the meantime,
I never got a tax bill. I kept looking for it and everybody around me had them, so I came
down to the Tax Assessor’s office to try to find out where my tax bill was. I was told it
was out in Dallas, Texas. They had no idea why, and I was asked had I moved or made
any changes or had I protested, I told them no, I had nothing to protest cause I didn’t
37
know what the taxes were. So I was told that the taxes was $500-and-some. [inaudible]
I paid that because I was told that I needed to pay that. I thought it was a little high. I told
them, I said when I talked to the man, and I did not get his name from the Tax
Commissioner’s office, he told me the taxes would be approximately $300 to $350,
because of the fact that that’s what I wanted to do, the escrow account. And they went
back and looked on the computer and found out that my homestead exemption had been
taken from me. I was told also that it could be backed up for three years, and I
understand talking to Mr. Wall, even though I got the wrong tax bill and then they sent
me corrected one after my taxes were paid, I went down to try to find out about that.
They in turn gave me the refund for 2002. In talking to Mr. Wall before this meeting, I
understand that that was part of the three years. But if I had been sent a corrected tax bill
from the beginning, that never would have happened. And I kind of think I’m being
penalized for the 1999, for an error that I did not make. And I had no knowledge of.
And I just feel like even though this ruling may not be overturned, I would like it as a
matter of record that I was the one doing all the legwork and trying to do the right thing
as a citizen to pay my taxes. And probably it’s still not right in the Commissioner’s
office. And if I had not asked to speak to someone, they would not have even done that
because they told me there was nothing they could do about, it was past time for
homestead exemption. Well, granted, sir, I would have been the first one in line to do
that if I had known I had to do that again. But it was taken from my without my
knowledge because up until the year 2000 was the first time, to my knowledge, since I’ve
owned my home that the City of Augusta sent out tax bills to the mortgage company and
to the homeowners. I never received one. It went directly to my mortgage company and
all I got was the end of the year statement. Thank you for allowing me this time, and
even if it’s not overturned, like I say, I would like for it to be a matter of record.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much.
Ms. Bentley: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Sonny, I’ll give you a second to respond, but I don’t see any
reference in the backup in 1999 taxes. That’s what she’s asking about. There is nothing
in the backup on that.
Mr. Reece: What you have in yours is a -- coming from the Finance Committee,
Mr. Mayor, where the ’99 was not approved?
Mr. Mayor: That was in the original?
Mr. Reece: It was in the original one brought up, and then when we brought it to
the Commission, based on the Finance Committee’s decisions, [inaudible] go back more
than three years. ’99 would be the fourth year. The homestead exemption was dropped
by accident back in 1997, not ’95. And for some reason the notice was being sent to the
mortgage company. The taxes been paid. When the homeowner paid the taxes, then she
notified the office that she was not receiving the homestead. I’ll have to take an
exception to the fact that she has not received a tax bill. The Tax Commission sends out
38
a copy of the tax bill every year, even though the mortgage companies are paying it,
saying this is a copy of your tax bill that was paid by your mortgage company. This year,
2002, was the first year that the Tax Commissioner elected to send out the copy of the bill
at the same time that it was sent to the mortgage company, but it says on there if you have
an escrow account your taxes will be paid by, by the mortgage company. In fact,
yesterday afternoon I answered that question for a taxpayer here at the office while I was
down here working.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Beard, you want to comment further?
Mr. Beard: Yes. I’m just going to make a comment, Mr. Mayor. And this is an
incident here where a taxpayer has done everything that she’s supposed to do and has
complied with everything that she was supposed to comply with, and, and in an economy
which we have today I don’t think we can -- if mistakes are made and they’re not on the
taxpayer’s part, they’re on the administration part of this government, and with the
economy like it is today I don’t think we can, we can really follow that type of rule of
denying, you know, the homeowners the extent of receiving what they should. I know
Jim is going to say about the ordinance or the rule which it says.
Mr. Wall: Law. State law.
Mr. Beard: State law that exists. Well, how do we get around this? How do we
satisfy when they have, when it’s not their fault, and an error has been committed?
Mr. Wall: Mr. Beard, I don’t think you get around it. The law places a statute on
limitations on a lot of issues, and this is in the nature of a limitation saying that the
county government can go back and refund three years of taxes. And so that is what we
have done, the 2002, 2001, and 2000, or at least if this passes that is what will be done.
We apply that consistently. As a matter of fact, if you look at items 27 and 28, same
thing happened. We did not refund the 1999 taxes because of the same principle of law.
And as long as that state statute is there, that will be the limitation period. Some of you
may remember that several years ago there was effort on the part of some to change the
law in the General Assembly and it got nowhere because the ACCG was against it
because they recognized that there is a need to have certainty to the taxes that have been
collected and it’s a limitation period. You know, sometimes that has some fairly harsh
consequences. I regret that this error was made apparently by Augusta insofar as the
preparation of the tax bills, but we’re still faced with a three year limitation period.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges, then Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I certainly sympathize with Ms. Bentley in
trying to chase down an issue like this. I understand you go to one office and they send
you to another one and that type of thing. It’s frustrating. You’re on the phone with
different people. I know how frustrating that can be. I’m dealing with an insurance
company right now over something similar. But this has been our, we’ve been very
consistent in the eight years I’ve been here, in this practice regarding these issues that
39
come before us, that we’ve held to the three year limit. And Jim, it’s not only 27 and 28,
but it’s also 35 and 36, we’re doing the same thing, we’re denying refund for the ’99
taxes but holding to the three year rule in regards to refunding the taxes after that. So Mr.
Mayor, having said that, these issues have been before us before, we’ve been very
consistent in regards to the three year limit, the State law or court order, whichever. And
I just make the motion that we affirm the decision of the Finance Committee.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Mays.
Mr. Shepard: Well, what I was going to you, Mr. Mayor, and Mr. Beard, and Ms.
Glover in particular, it did come before the committee. We did entertain the full number
of years, but due to the three year rule, the motion was amended to only go back and
exclude 1999 by virtue of the three year rule. So that’s why we had to take the action we
took, that’s why I’m seconding the motion of Mr. Bridges today.
Mr. Mayor: Ma’am, I’ll let you speak in just a moment, but we had some
Commissioners who already asked for the floor. We’ll got to Mr. Mays and then Mr.
Hankerson and then we’ll come back to you.
Mr. Mays: The thing I was going to ask, Mr. Mayor, and I have a comment,
quickly, but I wanted to ask the question because I’m not clear on something. When was
the, the money refunded to you, Ms. Bentley? I still call her Ms. Bentley. Ms. Glover,
when was the money first refunded to you on the 2002 issue?
Ms. Bentley: After I went back to the Tax Commissioner’s office, when I got the
second bill. The second bill, and then I went to try to find out what was going on with
that bill, and that’s when they pulled it up and at that time they told me they had no
record where I’d paid the $516. Well, I asked to use the telephone and called the bank,
and my check had gone through the bank, and then that’s when they came up with I had
paid too much. But in the meantime, I was told by the person in the Commissioner’s
office to pay those taxes. Rather than for it to be late, I paid my taxes. I dated the checks
thth
for the 7 of November. My taxes were due without penalty on the 14 of November.
Trying to do the right thing and get them in there on time. But like I say, if it’s not
overturned, I appreciate your efforts and any concerns, you know, can come this way,
because that’s a lot of money for me and it’s since 1995, I’ve lost anywhere from $200 to
$300 every years because of this mistake that I had not made, and the Board of Assessors,
it went before them on 11/11. And they approved the full three years, and I evidently, my
refund was given that same day. I can’t remember the exact day I was in that office with
that second bill.
Mr. Mays: Okay. Mr. Mayor, the reason I was asking Ms. Glover about the
timing of the dates that’s in there and number one, let me say this, I think we have to
abide, yes, by the law, but I’m a little bit like the lady that just left with the light. I don’t
think that the law, the law ought to be used in such a technical way that we avoid doing
40
what’s right based on the time limit and time line. Now if she had an argument in here
about what was denied on homestead exemption, and the year that it was allegedly
dropped and said I want money for five, six, seven years or something of that nature, I
would say, quite frankly, even though I’ve known her a long time, no we can’t deal with
but the three years. What I’ve got a problem with, though, is that I think that that fourth
year, which is the current year, a year that is not in arrears, a year that is current, a year
that delinquent taxes have not gone out on, sheds a different light, and since we are going
to deal with interpretation and terminology of years, they refunded her right in the office.
She didn’t get that issue to come before the Commission. So quite frankly, what we owe
her, in my opinion, and I can’t give the legal opinion, that’s what we pay Mr. Wall for.
But there’s an issue that’s out there I think in terms of years of still being three years.
And I think what the government is doing is we’re playing a game to a point that we can’t
– and it may be true of 35 and 36, I don’t know their circumstances, but if was the same
circumstance I make the same argument and would make the same argument regardless
of where they live or whether it’s one of the four Districts that vote for me or the four I
represent anyhow. But I think that, do that on the current year, to take it and to refund it,
places a wrong burden on the person trying to pay where you are denying the third year,
because this is still the current year, it has not gone into delinquency, and if done properly
there would not have been a refund concerning that year. I still think, and I don’t want to
go against the law, but I’ll go against the interpretation of the law in this case, from the
standpoint that I think that those three years should still apply because I think it’s being
used punitively to deal with the person on a technicality. Now if she were in here and
had not been refunded any money and was in here looking for four years, for instance, I’d
say we could give you your 2002, your 2001, your 2000, and then let’s deny it. But to
have gotten this out of the way, while you in one bureaucracy getting one thing straight,
and you’re in another one getting your other thing straight, I think then you’re putting
that person to a point of where you are technically taking that one year by interpretation
of almost a situation of which came first, the chicken or the egg, so if she had not paid it,
then we in terms could not use it against you. I just think that the ’99 should still be on
there, and, and, and Mr. Reece is doing an excellent job of trying to make corrections,
trying to get these things done. A lot of the stuff in there, Sonny has inherited and is
doing a good job with it. But, you know, I’ve seen the point that out of old City
properties, Mr. Mayor, prior to consolidation, well, after consolidation, a lot of problems
with tax refunds came out of those properties for some strange reason of those that
existed in the old City, and hers was one of those that sat on that line and that old Hill
section which was inside the old City of Augusta and the urban tax district, why some of
those have so many problems with homestead exemption [inaudible] being there and
those in the suburban district did not, I don’t know. That’s a question for another day.
But I think the interpretation is being really used to a point that’s being unfair and being
punitive and I think the ’99 should still be considered. And I don’t think it’s a gratuity,
either, Mr. Wall.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir. I was in the, on the Finance Committee when this was
done and voted according to what the Attorney said was the law. My, my questions on
41
this, I have a couple of questions. When were you aware that you lost your homestead
exemption, Ms. Bentley?
Ms. Bentley: I think I went down in late October to check on my tax bills that I
had not received. I had called a couple of times a spoke to someone in the office and
asked. My daughters received theirs and I did not receive mine. That’s when I went
down to question it. And that’s when I was told it was sent to Dallas, Texas, and asked
did I move and all that. And I’ve never moved and that’s when they found out. And I
don’t remember the exact date. I’ve been around and around with this thing since
October.
Mr. Hankerson: Who’s in Dallas, Texas?
Ms. Bentley: My mortgage company was at the time.
Mr. Hankerson: They sent it to Dallas, Texas?
Ms. Bentley: Yeah, they sent it to the mortgage company. I had never seen a tax
bill. That was one of my main reasons for calling. I paid for my home and I called the
Tax Commissioner’s office, which I was told that that was the place to call, to tell them
to send that tax bill to me, because I wanted to know when my taxes were due. Like I
say, in the meantime I questioned the amount because I wanted to put money aside, not
being hit with all these insurance and things at the same time.
Mr. Hankerson: Right. I understand that. When did you call? You said –
Ms. Bentley: Probably in September. In October I went down to try to find out
where the bill was after everybody else had received theirs. I don’t know exactly what
time it was. That’s when I found out I no longer had homestead exemption.
Mr. Hankerson: When you went down to [inaudible] taxes in arrears?
Ms. Bentley: I didn’t have any taxes in arrears. I went down for my tax bill.
Mr. Hankerson: Looking for your bill? Everything had been paid?
Ms. Bentley: right. I did not have a bill at all.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. The other question I have, I was looking, that it was
recommended that the, that to approve the refund, and Mr. Reece’s office, Mr. Reece, did
you all make this decision to approve it? Who made the decision to approve the refund?
Mr. Reece: The Board of Assessors makes the final recommendation for
approval. My staff recommended we give the refund. The Board approved it.
42
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. Now, and Mr. Wall says that it’s in violation because of
the years. Now my question is that [inaudible] your department, the Board of Assessors,
they’re not aware of the law or how far to go back before they recommend to refund?
You’re telling the lady – one office is telling the lady that she’s going to get a refund, and
then they come to us and the Attorney says that she’s not eligible? It seem like to me
that’s a government fault that we are not, that your office don’t know the law. It
shouldn’t be sent to us to say approve if the law says that it’s in violation to go beyond.
You understand what I’m saying? Beyond that time. So that’s something need to be
corrected or somebody need to be further education on before they send a
recommendation to approve a refund, to make sure that it is legal. And therefore if I was
told by one office that I was going to get a refund and then I meet up with the
Commissioners or meet up with another body or another office and they tell me
something else, I mean that’s inconsistency within the government departments there.
Mr. Wall: We are correcting it. He’s asked me to put that opinion in writing.
Mr. Hankerson: I can’t hear you, Mr. Wall.
Mr. Wall: I’m sorry. We are addressing that. Mr. Reece has asked me to give
him an opinion letter concerning this matter and I’m going to do so.
Mr. Hankerson: Well, I don’t know what kind of motion on the floor – is the
motion on the floor?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: What motion?
The Clerk: To sustain the action of the Finance Committee.
Mr. Hankerson: Well, then, I’d like to make a substitute motion that Ms. Bentley
get a refund for ’99.
Mr. Mays: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, it’s your opinion that the motion is a legal motion, that we
can go back to ’99?
Mr. Wall: No, sir. I mean my opinion is the law limits you to three years, which
in this case is 2000, 2001, and 2002.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, any further discussion?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
43
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Mays: Am I hearing then that the motion is out of order?
Mr. Mayor: Well, that’s the opinion of the Attorney.
Mr. Mays: I’d like to have a vote to challenge the parliamentary ruling of the
Attorney inasmuch as the 2002 ruling was not in question as a part of the request that the
taxpayer made to the Commissioner’s office. What was requested was ’99, 2000, and
2001, and I think under that we have to have a vote in terms of removing a request
[inaudible] that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, I was going to let the motion move forward, but I just
wanted the opinion of the Attorney on the record. That’s all. But I’m going to let the
motion move forward.
Mr. Mays: I got you. I was just asking whether his opinion was taking it off?
Mr. Mayor: No, just his opinion, that’s all. Yes, Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I guess I need a little clarification on this because I think we get to the
point wherein if the State law – now what are we doing here, because if the State law is
saying something which you’ve quoted Him as the three years, and what are we doing
now in voting on this? I mean we don’t want to sit up here and, and vote against the
State law.
Mr. Wall: I agree with you. I mean what you’re potentially doing, and I’m not
saying this is happening. Mr. Mays says that he disagrees that it’s a gratuity, but a
taxpayer could say it’s a gratuity and, and that is the one situation in which each of you
individually are personally liable, and so that’s the reason that I think that this needs to be
taken with a great deal of seriousness when you vote against my opinion and refund
money that I think is a gratuity, because that is the one situation where the taxpayer – and
recognize that most of this money goes to the School Board. And they rely upon us to, to
administer this and to go through that by virtue of the agreement. So the motion is not
out of order. I think it is asking you to commit something in my opinion that is very
possibly an illegal act, that would amount to a gratuity.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Do we have one motion on the floor or a substitute?
The Clerk: Substitute.
Mr. Beard: We have a substitute?
44
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Beard: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion on the substitute motion?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mayor: I think Mr. Reece was trying to get our attention on something.
Mr. Reece: Mr. Mays, I’d like to try to address something a little bit, something
you’d questioned and I think Mr. Hankerson questioned about 2002. This is another
interpretation I’m asking the County Attorney to give me. The year 2002, the homestead
was not there, but that was the third year. Because she had not applied for the homestead,
it had been dropped, put it back on with the Board in November of 2002 when she
contacted us in October. Took it to the Board of Assessors meeting in November of
2002. We reinstated the homestead for 2002. That was year one. All right. Now she
had not applied, it was our error, we put it back on. That was in the current year. And
past rulings from the County Attorney was in the current year the Tax Commissioner can
allocate funds, but in years where the taxes have been closed out, and we’re going back to
prior years, then that takes the Commission’s vote to be able to go back. Now our error
in the ’99, 2000, 2001, because of the three year period. You know, being in taxes
you’ve got these years. I counted the 2002 as being the current year. Three years prior to
that would have been ’99, 2000 and 2001. Then I’ve been told I’m wrong on that. 2002
was the current year, 2002, 2001, 2000. And so therefore I’ve asked – we’ve got rulings
and I needed a written opinion from Mr. Wall and I’ve asked for it, to define the three
year period for me.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Mays: And I guess to follow up on the substitute motion, that was in, I guess
I stand in the same position as Mr. Reece does, the point that it’s not in terms of trying to
– I think Mr. Wall, my good friend, has done a good job of scaring the bejeezus out of the
Commission to a point of everybody now being sued personally and for socks and
clothing and everything else, of trying to help a citizen that’s been victimized to a point,
you know, by governmental bureaucracy. You know, I’ve got a very learned tax
assessors that’s standing here in need of an interpretation of a case of how this runs, and I
think Mr. Wall has got two different things that we are talking about. One is State law
which is dealing with the three years, but the other one is how do you interpret those
three years? Because there are two different issues involved in the case of where the lady
went down and got her current year’s taxes straightened out. And if that was still in the
process before taxes became delinquent, then she was working on something current,
45
those that technically speaking – and I want to ask Mr. Wall at what point do taxes
become back taxes, if we are going to get into the technicality of the year, when do taxes
become back taxes and if she corrected it during the current season, was she correcting a
back tax?
Mr. Wall: She was correcting a back tax from this standpoint: taxes are due and
payable or assessed as of January 1, the tax year begins January 1. She had a tax bill that
did not include a homestead exemption on there. She raised the issue during the period
of time that the bill was out there. The bill was corrected. It was actually paid with an
erroneous amount and then was corrected after it had been paid. But that is still a
correction that counts for the first year of the three year period. And so you have that
year plus two other years that she can seek a refund or seek credit on.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Wall, you know, all due respect, but we got a long lunch about
this one. But I, I, I, I, I guess my, my point still is, and the argument I’m still making, is
the fact that if I asked a question not about the technicality of what she owed and what
you determined in this three years. I simply asked that question as to whether or not, and
normally, I guess 99% of the time, when we are talking about a refund, we’re talking
about something that has already been paid. Usually the tax season period has passed on
it, and we’re talking about a refund. Now that’s just common of how those things come
to us. Well, then, if she was handling one, I’m asking the simple question when do taxes
become delinquent or past due? Was she in the office to handle a past due tax bill?
Mr. Wall: No, sir, taxes became delinquent I think on December 31 this year,
wasn’t it?
Mr. Reece: December 27, 2002.
Mr. Mays: Okay. Well, then if she corrected the problem, and Ms. Bentley, you
don’t have to come back to the mike, but I’m asking, was your problem corrected prior to
December?
Ms. Bentley: Yes. [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: Okay, well, then I’m looking at then if the problem was corrected in
November, then I’m going to take the opinion that my Tax Assessor is giving and his
Board, that we’re not talking about a delinquent tax matter. If you’re refunding, you’re
refunding on the years that should have and would have been delinquent. You were
correct in I think you have two different situations, one which the State law clearly
covers, one that it does not. One, it clearly covers on that which has been paid, and the
refund of it. I think the one that she had was being corrected as an in-process error of
which they did and which they did as a favor to that person, to recognize the fact that
they had made an error, therefore there were three years prior that they could legally go
back and that’s why they made the recommendation. I do not think that is against the
law. I don’t think we ought to be bullied to a point of thinking that we are sitting here
committing a crime when in essence the Tax Assessor’s office did two different things,
46
and it ought to be honestly interpreted as two different things when, and in that year she
was doing it. Now you mean to tell you me you’re going to correct a problem before it
gets to be delinquent, doesn’t get on the tax books, never got to be past due? Therefore
then you’re not correcting something that has been paid [inaudible] past due.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Mays: I can’t go along with that.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, in light of the interpretations being given here, I’d
make the motion we put it on the table and table this issue until after legal.
Mr. Mays: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Motion to table is not debatable.
All in favor of the motion to table, please vote aye.
Mr. Cheek out.
Mr. Bridges votes No.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us over to item number 64.
The Clerk:
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
64. Discuss personnel. (Requested by Commissioner Williams)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I had this item put on the
agenda to talk about personnel, and I wanted to talk about this letter that I’ve got. I think
all the Commissioners got a response from our Administrator. I need to first of all ask
the Attorney a question. Jim, my question to you is, as Commissioners, as when we gave
the letter of reprimand, did we violate the Administrator’s contract in any way?
Mr. Wall: It’s my opinion you did not.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I had a list of stuff. I’m not going to go through my
list, but I, I, I really took exception when I got this letter. I understand the Administrator
had a right to respond in whatever way he thought was necessary. But I did think as
Commissioners I think we was more than fair. I think we been more than lenient, I think
we discussed and talked with him on several different occasions about just different
problems and, and, and more than that, the problem of the ambulance service when we
thorough all that we went through and the letter went to Columbia County and all this
other stuff. So I just want to bring that to the table. I want, I want to bring that issue up
47
to let him know that we have tried to do what we have thought was right and I guess he
tried to do what he was is right. My next issue, Mr. Mayor, concerning the Administrator
is that I been asking for, the agreement says that the Administrator would have, submit
once per calendar year a complete physical examination by a qualified physician selected
by the, the employer, at the cost of the employer. I been asking for this complete
physical. We discussed this in committee. We discussed this in legal. This is the second
year. The contract said that he would have a complete physical yearly. All I’m asking
for, and I don’t have a physician, I don’t know of any, I don’t have a specialist or
anybody in mind that I’d want, but how can we hold other people to the contract and
when we got our top ranking employees who are not being held to the contract? I’d like
to make a motion that we have him to contact – and I’m going to use, I’m going to
deviate from what the contract says, it says that we would select – but have him have a
complete physical by his attorney, and have that –
Mr. Wall: Physician.
Mr. Williams: His physician, I’m sorry, Jim, I got you on my mind. Have him
have a complete physician by his physician and have a copy of that forwarded to us and
we know that we will keep that in the most confidence of confidential information that
would not be shared with anyone. But it is for, for us to have. And I make that in the
form of a motion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion to direct the Administrator to have a
complete physical by his physician. Is there a second to that motion? That motion dies
for lack of a second.
Mr. Shepard: Call for the order of the day.
Mr. Williams: I understand, Mr. Mayor. Clarification. It will be back on every
meeting that we have until we get a second to this.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I would try to get a second before the meeting then.
Mr. Williams: Okay, well, it will be on this agenda every meeting, Mr. Mayor.
This is a contract that the Administrator, Attorney, Jim, that’s why, why I was thinking
about you. But the Administrator, Attorney, and our attorney sat down and drew up and I
think it’s only fair. And if there’s a reason why this is not being fulfilled, then somebody
need to share that with me. I don’t know about anybody else, but somebody need to
share it with me. And if, if I don’t have a second this week, I’ve got a few weeks left.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Williams. The order of the day has been called by
Commissioner Shepard, so we’ll move on to item number 66.
The Clerk:
APPOINTMENTS:
48
66. Consider the following for Augusta-Richmond County appointments to
Richmond County Hospital Authority for a four-year term:
One member-at-large
a. Mr. Levi W. Hill, IV (eligible for reappointment)
b. Mr. William R. Thompson
c. Mr. Paul T. Menk
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure with respect to item 66?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’d nominate Mr. Hill.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hill has been nominated. Seconded. Are there any other
nominations?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, there are two different categories here.
The Clerk: You want to take them –
Mr. Mayor: We can take them together unless there is some reason.
One member of Jewish Faith
d) Mr. Haskell D. Toporek (eligible for reappointment)
e) Mr. Jeffery L. Foreman
f) Mr. Abram J. Serotta
Mr. Shepard: I’ll appoint in that regard the current appointee eligible for
reappointment, Mr. Toporek.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: There is a second to that. Are there any other nominations for the
second seat? All those in favor of the nominations of Mr. Hill and Mr. Toporek, please
vote yes.
Mr. Beard, Mr. Mays and Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 67.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion. Do you need to read it Lena,
or can I make a motion?
The Clerk: Let me just read it so we’ll have it on there:
49
HISTORIC PRESERVATION:
67. Appeal Hearing for Mr. Steven Fishman, 2231 McDowell Street regarding
the HPC denial of his request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the
purpose of roof and window replacements affecting property located at 2231
McDowell Street. (Referred back to the HPC for resolution in Commission
November 6, 2002 meeting. HPC unable to reach an agreement w/petitioner
referred back to HPC by Commission on December 3, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion that the Commission
uphold the recommendation from the HRC [sic].
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: HRC?
Mr. Kuhlke: HPC. I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor: Been moved and seconded. Mr. Bush, you wanted to be heard on
this? Is there anything you’d like to say?
Mr. Bush: No, sir. I approve of that motion.
Mr. Mayor: Any comments? Any discussion? Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m just wondering, what is going to be the
final resolution of this? I mean this has been going on for what, three or four months?
Mr. Bush: I can give you the procedural history if you’d like it.
Mr. Boyles: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: You mean as a result of this what is he going to have to do?
Mr. Boyles: What happens next? I mean –
Mr. Bush: He can petition the Superior Court. I’m George Bush, I’m the newly-
elected chairman. Good afternoon. He can appeal it to Superior Court or else it will
lapse and this decision be the final decision, and at that point I believe legal can possibly
get with us to find some remedial way to get this house back in compliance with the
ordinance or citations could be issued. I think there are several alternatives should your
decision hold up, which it will automatically if he doesn’t appeal. If he does appeal,
obviously it will be up to a court to uphold your decision, should y’all go ahead and
approve the motion.
50
Mr. Boyles: I appreciate that. I was, just like the rest of us, we’ve heard it so
many times that we’re just ready for it to move on, and I didn’t know what the, what
happens next, and that’s what I was interested in.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? We have a motion to affirm the decision of
the Historic Preservation Commission which was a denial. All in favor of that motion,
please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Beard, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Bush: Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you for your patience today, Mr. Bush.
Mr. Bush: You’re welcome. I have one question. I understood that there was an
issue or an item on the agenda regarding a grant to do a historical survey on the Planning
Commission building. I don’t have a copy of the agenda. Is that in front of y’all today?
Mr. Mayor: Is that on the consent agenda?
Mr. Bush: Before I leave?
Mr. Wall: I think it is.
The Clerk: Engineering Services.
Mr. Wall: It’s item number 37, which was approved.
Mr. Bush: It was approved? Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bush, while you’re here, of interest is one item on here that
Commissioner Williams – you will be getting from us a request for a demolition of 1762
Martin Luther King Boulevard. If we could expedite that, Mr. Williams says the building
is burned out, isn’t it? Totally useless.
Mr. Williams: It’s a City piece of property that’s been burnt [inaudible] bad and
just a three room shack right there across from Williams Funeral Home on Laney-
Walker. And they doing some demolition work and we going to send it to the HPC to try
to process that on through.
Mr. Bush: Is this a matter that we need to take up in the Commission, I don’t
think have the authority to approve.
51
Mr. Mayor: No, at your next meeting, if you make sure this gets on and get back
to us.
Mr. Bush: Oh. 1762 Laney-Walker?
Mr. Mayor: Martin Luther King Boulevard.
Mr. Bush: Martin Luther King, okay.
Mr. Mayor: 1762 Martin Luther King Boulevard.
Mr. Bush: Okay. I’ll make sure. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Bush, appreciate that. Item number 68, Madame
Clerk.
The Clerk:
68. Consider the following for Augusta-Richmond County appointments to the
CSRA Economic Opportunity Authority, Inc. for four-year terms beginning
January, 1, 2003 – December 31, 2006:
a) Mr. Marion E. Barnes, Chairperson
b) Mr. Melvin Parkman, Secretary
c) Ms. Imogene P. Ford, Vice Chairperson
d) Mr. Shepherd Archie
e) Ms. Sharon Holmes
Mr. Mayor: We make five appointments, is that correct?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. One third of their membership board.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion to approve this?
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any other nominations? None heard. We have a motion
that’s been seconded. All in favor, please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Beard, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 7-0.
70. OTHER BUSINESS.
Mr. Mayor: Next is our legal meeting. Mr. Wall, do you have some issues?’
52
Mr. Wall:
71. LEGAL MEETING.
• Discuss real estate.
• Discuss pending and potential litigation
Mr. Wall: I guess we need to add to that some legal advice regarding the tax
matter.
Mr. Shepard: I so move as stated by the Attorney.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor then, please vote yes.
Mr. Beard, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 7-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
72. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Mayor: We need a motion to authorize the Mayor to execute the affidavit.
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Beard out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, did you have anything we needed to add and approve?
Mr. Wall: Item number 73:
ATTORNEY:
73. Approve purchase of real estate.
Mr. Wall: I would ask that you approve the purchase of an additional twelve
acres for the new Public Works and Utilities Department Building at the same per
acre price as previously approved for the thirty acres.
53
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Discussion? All in favor, please
vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Beard and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Wall: And then you’ve got one matter that was put on the table, pending
legal session, which y’all need to address.
Mr. Mayor: You can let it die on the table and it comes back again as a no action
item, or you can – we need a motion. First we need a motion to pull it off the table, and
then we can combine that with a motion to pull it off the table and refer it to Finance.
Mr. Colclough: I move that we pull the item regarding the tax matter off the
table and refer it to the Finance Committee.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to take it off the table and refer it to Finance. All
in favor of that motion, please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Beard out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: There being no further business to come before this body, we stand
adjourned.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on February 3, 2003.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
54